11-29-10 Bookmarked Packet.pdf
Table of Contents
Agenda3
Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water
Rights, Duen Yuen Wong and Yanti Hidajat, 20955 Alves Drive.
Draft Resolution7
Quitclaim Deed8
Map13
Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water
Rights, Cheng-Chih Hsu and Yi-Ting Wu, 20136 Peachtree
Lane.
Draft Resolution14
Quitclaim Deed15
Map19
Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water
Rights, Steven K. Yoshimoto and Catherine A. Yoshimoto,
21120 Canyon Oak Way.
Draft Resolution20
Quitclaim Deed21
Map25
Maintenance Agreement, Wen Chung Stewart Wu and Cheng
Yuan Tourisa Wu, 10077 Scenic Boulevard.
Draft Resolution26
Maintenance Agreement27
Map33
Appeal of a Director's Approval for a personal wireless service
facility at 11371 Bubb Road.
Staff Report34
A. PC Resolution No. 661637
B. Director's Minor Mod. DIR-2010-2840
C. Appeal Petition of DIR-2010-2844
D. PC Staff Report dated 11/9/201049
E. Draft PC Minutes from 11/9/201054
F. T-Mobile RF Energy Study60
G. Supplemental Response Letter by Hammett &
Edison65
H. Public Correspondence68
I. Photosimulations (3)75
J. Coverage Maps78
K. Plan Set80
Agreement with the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) to receive grant funds for the installation of trash
capture devices.
Staff Report90
Draft Resolution92
Agreement94
Stevens Creek Corridor Park, Phase II, Progress Update.
1
Staff Report121
Funding Summary125
Scenic Circle Access, Progress Update.
Staff Report126
Site Plan129
2
AGENDA
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
Monday, November 29, 2010
6:00PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION
1.Subject:Conference with legal counsel -anticipated litigation (Government Code
54956.9(b)(1).
Description:Significant exposure to litigation (one case).
Page No:No written materials in packet.
2.Subject:Conference with real property negotiator (Gov't Code 54956.8); Property: 10800
Torre Avenue; Cupertino Negotiator: Terry Greene; Negotiating Parties: City of Cupertino
& potential lessee per RFP Under negotiation: Lease -price and terms of payment (RFP)
Recommended Action:n/a
Page No:No written materials in packet.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS –PRESENTATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter
not on the agenda. Speakers 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.
3
Monday, November 29, 2010Cupertino CityCouncil
3.Subject:Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Duen Yuen
Wong and Yanti Hidajat, 20955 Alves Drive.
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 10-214.
Description:The property owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City
the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property.
Draft Resolution
Quitclaim Deed
Map
Page:7
4.Subject:Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Cheng-Chih Hsu
and Yi-Ting Wu, 20136 Peachtree Lane.
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 10-215.
Description:The property owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City
the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property.
Draft Resolution
Quitclaim Deed
Map
Page:14
5.Subject:Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Steven K.
Yoshimoto and Catherine A. Yoshimoto, 21120 Canyon Oak Way.
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 10-216.
Description:The property owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City
the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property.
Draft Resolution
Quitclaim Deed
Map
Page:20
6.Subject:Maintenance Agreement, Wen Chung Stewart Wu and Cheng Yuan Tourisa Wu,
10077 Scenic Boulevard.
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 10-217.
Description:The property owners of this single family residential development will be
required to maintain all non-standard items within the City’s right of way.
Draft Resolution
Maintenance Agreement
Map
Page:26
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR(above)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.Subject:Appeal of a Director's Approval for a personal wireless service facility at 11371
Bubb Road.
4
Monday, November 29, 2010Cupertino CityCouncil
Recommended Action:Deny appeal (See Attachment A. Planning Commission Resolution
No. 6616)
Description:Application: DIR-2010-28 Appeal
Applicant: Dayna Aguirre (for T-Mobile)
Appellant: Shaul Berger
Location: 11371 Bubb Road, APN 356-23-047
Application Summary: Appeal of a Director's Minor Modification to allow a personal
wireless service facility withthree panel antennas and four associated equipment boxes to be
installed on an existing PG&E pole located in front of 11371 Bubb Road.
Staff Report
A. PC Resolution No. 6616
B. Director's Minor Mod. DIR-2010-28
C. Appeal Petition of DIR-2010-28
D. PC Staff Report dated 11/9/2010
E. Draft PC Minutes from 11/9/2010
F. T-Mobile RF Energy Study
G. Supplemental Response Letter by Hammett & Edison
H. Public Correspondence
I. Photosimulations (3)
J. Coverage Maps
K. Plan Set
Page:34
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
8.Subject:Agreement with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to receive
grant funds for the installation of trash capture devices.
Recommended Action:Adopt a resolution 10-218 authorizing the City Manager to execute
the agreement.
Description:This agreement will allow the City to receive grant funds for the installation of
trash capture devices (TCDs) as required by the State Water Resources Control Board.
Staff Report
Draft Resolution
Agreement
Page:90
9.Subject:Stevens Creek Corridor Park, Phase II, Progress Update.
Recommended Action:Review alternatives relative to potential grant funding.
Description:A summary of the impacts of accepting known and expected grants on the
currently approved project scope, schedule and budget.
Staff Report
Funding Summary
Page:121
5
Monday, November 29, 2010Cupertino CityCouncil
10.Subject:Scenic Circle Access, Progress Update.
Recommended Action:Review the final design and authorize bidding in early December
2010 for Scenic Circle Access.
Description:
Staff Report
Site Plan
Page:126
ORDINANCES
STAFF REPORTS
COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation
challenging a final decision of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency must be brought within 90 days
after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.
Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council’s
decision with respect to quasi-judicial actions, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city
clerk within ten days after the council’s decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal
ordinance code §2.08.096.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance,
please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of 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.
6
RESOLUTION NO. 10-214
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINOACCEPTING
QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FORUNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS,
DUEN YUEN WONG AND YANTI HIDAJAT, 20955 ALVES DRIVE, APN 326-30-006
WHEREAS,Duen Yuen Wong and Yanti Hidajat, haveexecuted a “Quitclaim Deed and
Authorization”, which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all rights in and authorizing
the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to extract water from the
underground basin, underlying that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, more
particularly described as follows:
All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa
Clara, State of California, as shown in the attached Exhibit“A”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” so tendered; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” and this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regularmeeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 29thday ofNovember,2010, by the following vote:
VoteMembers of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
_________________________________________________
City ClerkMayor, City of Cupertino
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
RESOLUTION NO. 10-215
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINOACCEPTING
QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FORUNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS,
CHENG-CHIH HSU AND YI-TING WU, 20136 PEACHTREE LANE, APN 316-33-059
WHEREAS,Cheng-Chih Hsu and Yi-Ting Wu,haveexecuted a “Quitclaim Deed and
Authorization”, which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all rights in and authorizing
the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to extract water from the
underground basin, underlying that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, more
particularly described as follows:
All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa
Clara, State of California, as shown in the attached Exhibit“A”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” so tendered; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” and this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regularmeeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 29thday ofNovember,2010, by the following vote:
VoteMembers of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
_________________________________________________
City ClerkMayor, City of Cupertino
14
15
16
17
18
19
RESOLUTION NO. 10-216
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINOACCEPTING
QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FORUNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS,
STEVEN K. YOSHIMOTO AND CATHERINE A. YOSHIMOTO,
21120 CANYON OAK WAY, APN 342-60-003
WHEREAS,Steven K. Yoshimoto and Catherine A. Yoshimoto, haveexecuted a
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization”, which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all
rights in and authorizing the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to
extract water from the underground basin, underlying that certain real property situate in the City
of Cupertino, more particularly described as follows:
All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa
Clara, State of California, as shown in the attached Exhibit“A”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” so tendered; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” and this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regularmeeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 29thday ofNovember,2010, by the following vote:
VoteMembers of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
_________________________________________________
City ClerkMayor, City of Cupertino
20
21
22
23
24
25
RESOLUTION NO. 10-217
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
WEN CHUNG STEWART WUAND CHENG YUAN TOURISA WU,
10077 SCENIC BOULEVARD, APN 357-09-002
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed maintenance
agreement between the City of Cupertino andWen Chung Stewart Wu and Cheng Yuan
Tourisa Wu, 10077 Scenic Boulevard, APN 357-09-002and said agreement having been
approved by the City Attorney;
NOW, THEREFORE, BEIT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are
hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 29th day of November,2010, by the following vote:
VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
_________________________________________________
City ClerkMayor, City of Cupertino
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 29, 2010
Subject
Appeal of a Director's Approval forapersonal wireless service facilityat 11371 Bubb Road.
Recommended Action
Deny appeal(See Attachment A.Planning Commission Resolution No. 6616)
Description
Application: DIR-2010-28 Appeal
Applicant: Dayna Aguirre (for T-Mobile)
Appellant: Shaul Berger
Location: 11371 Bubb Road, APN 356-23-047
Application Summary: Appeal of a Director's Minor Modification to allow a personal wireless
service facility with three panel antennas and four associated equipment boxes to be installed on
an existing PG&E pole located in front of 11371 Bubb Road.
Discussion
Background
On September 7, 2010, the Director of Community Development approved a Director’s Minor
Modification to allow a T-Mobile personal wireless service facility (microcell) to be mounted on
an existing Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) utility pole (Attachment B). The Director’s action
was noticed to a 1,000-foot property owner radius and was appealed by an adjacent neighbor on
September 20, 2010 (Attachment C). Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report for
the detailed discussion on the appeal basis (Attachment D)and the draft meeting minutes for the
Planning Commission hearing deliberations (Attachment E).
Planning Commission
On November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission heard the appeal and recommended that the
Council uphold the Director’s decision with a 4-0-1 vote (Giefer recused –see Attachment D&
E). The Planning Commission discussed the following issues at the hearing:
Height of antenna -The proposed antenna cannot be further raised in height due to the type
of utility pole and Public Utilities Commissionlimitation.
Radio Frequency -The radio frequency emission from the proposed antenna met the federal
safety standards and the City is prohibited from making decisions basedon health effects. To
ensure that the radio frequency emission of the proposed antenna meets federal standards, the
34
Commission added a condition requiring post-construction radio frequency energy exposure
testing before full operation of the facility andafter one (1) year of operation, at specific
locations.Please refer to Condition No. 6for full details.
Aesthetics -No aesthetic concerns were found with the antenna proposal.
Appellant & Public Concerns
The concerns and comments expressed by the neighbors at the Planning Commission hearing are
summarized below (Responses areprovided in italics):
The proposed facility is inappropriate in a residential area.
Response: The Wireless Master Plan specifically recommends this type of facilitydesignin
residential areas.
The long-term exposure of people to radio frequency energycan cause health concerns.
Response: The federal government has established a safe exposure level for radio frequency
energy for the general population that allows for continuous exposure regardless of gender,
ageor infirmity of the individual. The radio frequency energy study determined that
estimated exposures are well below that federal safety standard.
It would be safer if the antennas were higher up on the utility pole.
Response: The applicant stated that the proposed antenna could not be mounted higher on
the power pole due to safety restrictions set forth by the Public Utilities Commissionaround
the power transmission lines.
The project radio frequency engineer did not consider the terrain of the surrounding area
when evaluating the maximum radio frequency emission of the project
Response: -The project radio consultant confirmed that hisequations and calculations of
the radio frequencyenergy exposure of the project were all consistent with adopted FCC
procedures. All data, assumptions and equations are either fully documented in his report or
could be easily obtained online from manufacturer specifications (Attachments F&G).
One resident supported the project and said that the radio frequency energy from a personal
wireless service facility is minuscule compared to the radio and microwave energy people are
exposed to from cellular handsets, microwave ovens and other wireless devices in the home.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director
Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A.Planning Commission Resolution No. 6616
B.Director’s Minor Modification Approval, DIR-2010-28
C.Appeal Petition from Shaul Berger for DIR-2010-28
D.Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 9, 2010
E.Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated November 9, 2010
35
F.T-Mobile West Corp. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF24189D/11371 Bubb Road,
Cupertino, California prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc. dated July 28, 2010.
G.Supplemental Response Letter on Appeal Points prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc.
dated October 26, 2010.
H.Public Correspondence
I.Photosimulations of T-Mobile Proposal (3)
J.Existing and Proposed Coverage Maps
K.Plan Set
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:November29, 2010
Subject
Agreement with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to receive grant funds.
Recommended Action
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.
Description
This agreement with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) will allow the City to
receive grant fundsfor the installation of trash capture devices (TCDs) as required by the State
Water Resources Control Board.
Discussion
The 2009 San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit(Permit),issued by
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, requires 76 agencies in the San Francisco
Bay area to acquire, install, and maintain trash capture devices (TCDs) whichwillcollecttrash
transported by rainwater fromretail/wholesale commercialland-use areas. This requirement
must be met by July 1, 2014.
Under thisPermit,Cupertino is required to treat30% of the drainage from its 213 acres of
commercial property,totaling 64 acresto be treated with TCDs.Through the proposed
“Agreement for Local Agency Participation in Grant-Funded Bay Area-wide Trash Capture
Demonstration Project” between ABAG and the City of Cupertino, the Cityhas access to an
initial allocation of $43,123to use forthe purchase and installation ofTCDs.
Pursuant to the agreement, the City will make its selection from alist of ABAG-approved TCDs
that meet the Permit requirements. UponCupertino’s submittal to ABAG of a completed Notice
of Acceptance executed by Cupertino and the vendorforTCDswhich must be located at sites
that are owned by the City and are accessible to governmentofficials as described in the
agreement, ABAG will pay the vendor(s) of the TCDs up to theCity’sallotted amount.
The City of Cupertino is responsible for negotiating and ordering TCDs in a manner that entitles
it, alone or in conjunction with others,to discounted prices.The City is required by its Permit, as
well as by this agreement, to provide for operation and maintenanceof each TCD throughout the
useful life of the TCD. Grantfunds may not be sufficient to cover the purchase and installation
ofall of the TCDs that are required for the City of Cupertino to meet the State Permit
90
requirements. However, the funding will help with costs for compliance and this expenditure is
not optional.
This grant fundingagreement must be executed by January 1, 2011.If any of the agencies that
were invited to participate in the Project do not execute their agreement with ABAGby January
1, 2011, thosefunds will be returned to the funding pool to be divided among the participating
entities.
AnyTCDsthat will be installed with grant funds must bepurchased andinstalled byNovember
1, 2012. ABAG will not approve any Notices of Acceptance submitted for any TCD installed
after November 1, 2012.
The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement.
Sustainability Impact
Installation of TCDs will satisfy the Permit requirements andwill significantly reduce the
amount of trashand litterentering the City’s local creeks and waterways.
Fiscal Impact
The ABAG grant will fund the purchase and installation of TCDs up to November 2012. After
installation, staff will plan to fund ongoing maintenance within existing budgets in
environmental management fund 230. Additional TCDs required to meet the July 2014
installation deadline will be considered in future fund 230 budgets. If TCD maintenance or
acquisition costs exceed available environmental management funds, the General Fund may need
to subsidize. Staff will advise appropriately of ongoing costs within upcoming budget reviews.
_____________________________________
Prepared by:Cheri Donnelly
Reviewed by:Glenn Goepfert, Assistant Director, Public Works
Approved for Submission by:David Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:Draft Resolution
Agreement
91
RESOLUTION NO. 10-218
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTSTO RECEIVE GRANT FUNDING FOR
THE PURCHASEAND INSTALLATIONOF TRASH CAPTURE DEVICESNECESSARY
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE “SAN FRANCISCOBAY
MUNICIPAL REGIONAL STORMWATER PERMIT”
WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the California State
Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) have entered into a Project Finance
Agreement (PFA) in the amount of $5,000,000 (five million dollars) for Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Project No. C-06-6441-110, the Bay Area-wide Trash Capture Demonstration
Project (Project);and
WHEREAS, funding is provided by the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (ARRA); and
WHEREAS, the Project is comprised of: acquisition of trash capture devices (TCDs),
installation of TCDs in existing storm drainage infrastructure, maintenance of installed TCDs and
monitoring of installed TCDs;and
WHEREAS, Cupertino is one of many local government entities that are eligible to
participate in the Project by facilitating installation of the TCDs in its existing storm drainage
infrastructure and by maintainingand monitoring installed TCDs;and
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council the “Agreement for Local
Agency Participation Grant-Funded Bay Area-wide Trash Capture Demonstration Project”
between the ABAGand the City of Cupertino; and
WHEREAS, the ABAG agreement provides the City of Cupertino withaccess to $43,123
(forty-three thousand, one hundred and twenty-threedollars) in PFA funds to acquire and install
TCDs;and
WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit,
issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,requires the City of Cupertinoto
acquire, install and agree to maintainapproved trash capture devices (TCDs) in the City’s existing
storm drainage infrastructure to filterrainwater runoff from64 acres of the City’sretail/wholesale
commercial land-use areaby July 1, 2014; and
WHEREAS, upon the City of Cupertino’s acceptance of an ABAG approved project site
and TCDs, ABAG will pay the vendor(s)of the TCDsup to Cupertino’s allotted amount to meet
the City’s minimum trash capture requirements; and
WHEREAS, said agreement requires the installation of allgrant-fundedTCD devices by
November1, 2012 and the City of Cupertino agrees to provide operation and maintenance of each
TCD acquired under this agreement throughout the useful life of the TCD; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of theABAG agreementhave been reviewed and approved by
the Director of Public Worksand the City Attorney;
92
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby authorizes theCity Manager, or his designee,to execute the “Agreement for Local Agency
Participation in Grant-Funded Bay Area-wide Trash Capture Demonstration Project”on behalf of
the City of Cupertino.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City
th
of Cupertino this29
day of November 2010,by the following vote:
VoteMembers of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
____________________________________________________
City ClerkMayor, City of Cupertino
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:November 29, 2010
Subject
Stevens Creek Corridor Park, Phase II, ProgressUpdate.
Recommended Action
Review alternatives relative to potential grant funding.
Description
A summary of the impacts of accepting known and expected grants on the currently approved
project scope, schedule and budget.
Discussion
The Phase I portion of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park was completed on July 4, 2009with a
dedication celebration attended by Council members and many Cupertino residents. Shortly
after that dedication, Council encouraged staff to begin preliminary efforts to proceed with Phase
II.
In Novemberof 2008, with Council’s approval, staff researched and applied for grant money that
could be used to design and construct the remainder of the trail to Stevens Creek Blvd. The
grants that were available at that time were for creek restoration as well as trail construction.
One specific grant, CaliforniaRiverParkways,was applied for with an anticipatedresponse of
July 2009. It was not until September of 2010 however, thatthe City was notified of an awardof
a $1.2Mgrant bythe agency.
The $1.2M grant administrator recently contacted staff requesting a project schedule, scope and
budget to enable them to issue an agreement. Staff learnedfrom the administratorthat the grant
has a project completion requirement of September, 2013. This completion deadline is thought
to be fairly inflexible since the grant funding program expires in May of 2014.
With a completion date of September 2013, as a condition of receiving the $1.2Mgrant funding,
staff felt it was important to inform Councilin a timely mannerof the other project conditions
that need to be agreed to, if the grant is to be accepted and used effectively.The agreement to
accept the grant could be signed as late as June of 2011; however, the City needs to begin design
no later than January 2011 to ensure completion by the deadline. Staff believes that Council can
consider funding this project during the mid-year budget deliberations in January, but
authorization to proceed will be essentialat that time to maintain the design and construction
schedule.
121
Beforediscussing the merits of the new grant that the City has been awarded, a summary of the
project in its current state is provided to assist in evaluating the degree to which this new grant
and other potential grants can be of assistance.
Review of Current Phase II Project Descriptionand Status
In June of 2009, Council approved a Phase II CIP project with a budget of $1.4M and authorized
the expenditure of up to $200,000 to initiate the design effort. An RFPprocess was used to
select the Landscape Architecture firm of Steve Sutherland & Associates, (SSA) of Santa Cruz.
They were directed to begin preliminary design of the following project elements:
Multi-use trail from Blackberry Farm to Stevens Creek Blvd, crossing the creek into the
Stocklmeir property, over a new bridge, opposite Hole No. 8 at the Golf Course.
Upgrades to the Blue Pheasant parking lot
Cross walk at Stevens Creek Blvd at the Phar Lap intersection
In January of 2010, a progress report was made to Council. During the discussion, Council
became more familiar with the details of the parking lot deficiencies and instructed staff to study
the safety issues associated with bus drop off locations while proceeding with trail and bridge
design. Staff planned to continue with the parking lot design effort and return to Council with
design alternatives for review during the fall of 2010.
During budget deliberations in June of 2010, Council was informed that there was some
possibility that $1.1M of project fundsfor this project, and $1.4M total, expected from Park
Dedication fees from the Rose Bowl project, might not be available for some time due to the
downward trend of the economy.
In hopes that the park dedication fees would still come through, Council approved the entire
$1.4M project budget and authorized staff to proceed as a part of the FY 10.11 CIP.
Unfortunately, the developer informed staff in August that it would be no less than two years
before the park dedication fees could be paid to the City. With knowledge of this funding loss,
staff stopped all design work and instructed the design team to package the completed work in
such a way as to make it useful and easy to access in the future.
Only $50,000 of the original budget has been spent to date and the design work is still relevant
and usable. The project is on hold until the necessary funding is made available.
122
Alternatives Analysis
There are several funding alternatives available to the City for Phase II of the Stevens Creek
Corridor Park project. Four are described below for consideration. While other alternatives
might exist and combinations of these alternatives might also be possible, these four are
considered to be clear, concise, uncomplicated, and representative of the range of possibilities.
Alternative 1–No Action
Maintain the status quo. In this alternative, the City would continue to keep the original scope
on hold until park dedication fees or other money became available, sometime in the future. This
alternative has a minor risk that some of the design may become obsolete over time and require
upgrading to new code requirements. It also has the minor risk that a future Council may not
complete the project even if funding is available. Finally, material and labor costs could rise
over time causing the current budget to need upward adjustment.
Alternative 2–Fund a Reduced Scope –Trail
Budget:$750,000
Shortfall:$600,000
In this alternative the scope of work could be reduced to designing and building only the trail
sectiononthe Stocklmeir (west) side of the creek, leaving the bridge and parking lot
improvements for a later time or a Phase II B.
Alternative 3–Fund the Current Scope –Trail, Bridge, Parking Lot
Budget:$1.4M
Shortfall:$1.15M
In this alternative, Council would fund the park dedication fee short fall of $1.1M from savings
of other projects and other sources such asthe CIP reserve and restore the budget to $1.4M. The
project would proceed as currently scoped.
Alternative 4A–Fund the Expanded Scope–Trail, Bridge, Parking Lot, & Creek Restoration–
Golf Course
Budget:$3.5M
Shortfall:$0.8M
In this alternative, Council would accept grant funds from as many sources as possible with the
understanding that a portion of those grants must be spent on creek restoration. This alternative
will also require Council to restore the creek in its current channel andimpact the golf courseby
widening the creek along the east bank.The risk of this alternative includes the possibility that,
while accepting one grant early enough in the process to ensure timely completion, the other
grants do not materialize and the City would have to expend additional city fundsto complete the
project. The exposure of additional city funds to complete the work are estimated to be an
additional $0.4M, for a potential city total of $1.2M.
If the City decided to end the project due to lack of additional funds, the sunk costs at that point
are estimated to be less than $200,000.
123
Alternative 4A willrequire a CEQA update, possiblyin the form of an Addendum.
Alternative 4B –Fund the Expanded Scope –Trail, Bridge, Parking Lot, & Creek Restoration
and Relocation–Stocklmeir Orchard
Budget:$6.0M
Shortfall:$3.3M
In this alternative, Council would accept grant funds from as many sources as possible with the
understanding that a portion of those grants must be spent on creek restoration. This alternative
will require Council to relocate the channel throughthe Stocklmeir orchard, as depicted in the
adopted CEQA. The risk of this alternative also includes the possibility that, while accepting
one grant early enough in the process to ensure timely completion, the other grants do not
materialize and the City would have to expend additional city funds to complete the project. The
exposure of additional city funds to complete the work are estimated to be an additional $0.4M,
for a potential city total of $3.7M.
If the City decided to end the project due to lack of additional funds, the sunk costs at that point
are estimated to be less than $200,000.
Alternative 4B is fully covered by the current CEQA document and no changes would be
needed.
Sustainability Impact
Implementation of the trail and creek restoration will support the City’s sustainability goals.
Fiscal Impact
See Attachment A for Funding Summaryfor Alternatives 2 through 4B.
_____________________________________
Prepared by:Terry W. Greene, City Architect
Reviewed by:Mark Linder, Directorof Parks and Recreation
Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:Attachment A –Funding Summary
124
Attachment A
Stevens Creek Corridor Park –Phase II
November 29, 2010
Funding Summary
SourceFundingStatusConditions for Use
SCVWD Grant100,000Havemust build entire trail
Park Dedication Fees150,000Remainingcan use for creek or trail
Ca River Parkways Grant1,200,000Awardedcan use 50/50 creek & trail
SCVWD/FAHCECost Share800,000Likely, Junecreek restoration only
SCVWD –Safe Creeks Grant200,000Maybe, Junemaybe 75/25 creek & trail
State EEMP Grant250,000Maybe, Marchcanuse 20/80 creek & trail
TotalPotential Funding$2,700,000
BudgetFundingShortfall
Alt 1NANANA
Alt 2750,000150,000600,000
Alt 31,400,000250,0001,150,000
Alt 4A3,500,0002,700,000800,000
Alt 4B6,000,0002,700,0003,300,000
Staff believes the shortfall of Alternative 2 or Alternative 4A could be partially or completely
filled by reallocating available project balances of the existing CIP.
125
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 29, 2010
Subject
Scenic Circle Access, Progress Update.
Recommended Action
Review the finaldesign and authorize bidding in early December2010 for Scenic Circle Access.
Discussion
On February 16, 2010 the City Council reviewed alignment alternatives for providing access
from Scenic Circle to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. The City Council
supported proceeding with the project and providing a pathway to an existing bridge over
Stevens Creek.
On April 6, the City Council conducted a hearing on a petition for reconsideration of its February
16, 2010 decision. At the conclusion of the hearing,the Counciladopted a resolution denying
the petition, therebyaffirming the original decisionto proceed with the project.
On October 5, the City Council reviewed and discussed the results of two neighborhood
meetings held in May and June. Staff, assisted by consultants, listed the concerns of the
residents and their ideas for addressing issues that could arise with implementation of the project.
In brief, residents requested the following:
Locate the path entry midway between and opposite two residents’rear yards
Provide tiered actions to address parking issues as they arise
Lock the gate every day at park closing time
Locate animal resistant trash receptacle out of sight of the homes
Remove the trash regularly
The City Council voted unanimously to include the neighbors’ requests in the project,and the
current bid documents include solutions to those concerns.
The bid documents have also been refined to incorporate required elements and actions identified
in the environmental clearance (“CEQA”) documents.Some of the requirements include:
Conduct pre-construction wildlife surveys
Install protective creek bank construction fencing
126
Plant two new native replacement trees
Hydrological review of conceptual and final design
The bid documents include a pathway made of stabilized crushed granite (DG), similar to what
exists in the Blackberry Farm group picnic area. The path connects Scenic Circle to the bridge
with a gentle slope that meets ADA requirements. A low retaining wall protects a large but non-
native Chinese elm considered importantdue to its size.(See Attachment A -Site Plan)
The bid documents include minor changes to the bridge to meet code requirements. A wooden
ramp on the west end of the bridge and a wooden ramp and stair on the east end of the bridge are
required to replace the existing non-ADA compliant wooden maintenance stairs.
Some existing small plants, in the way of construction, will be transplanted within the site. A
number of new plants will also be planted to help establish additional understory. Two larger
native trees will be planted as well to offset the necessary removal of several small oaks.
The bid documents specify materials appropriate for the creek corridorand the ranch-style
setting. The wood and DG are “natural” and in keeping with the nearby features at Blackberry
Farm. The path is fully accessible and meets applicable requirements. The materials are also
suitable for the floodplain location and compatible with wildlife.
Several aspects of the project, including the current design and the environmental review, were
not contemplated in the original budget of $235,000. As the project has progressed, some of
those costs havebecome more realistic. It now seems likelythat the overall project cost will
exceed the budget, but we won’t know to what extent until the bids are opened.
Both the Scenic Circle Access and the Blackberry Farm Upgrade bids are scheduled to be
opened in the afternoon of January 18,2011. Later that evening, Council has scheduled a full
CIP review.
Environmental clearance documents for the project were issued for public reviewand comment
on November 5, 2010. The public comment period closes on December 6, 2010. The
environmental clearance documents and responses topublic comments will be presented to
Council in January.
The Council has requested completion of project construction prior to the start of next year’s
school season. In order to do that, construction will have to occur during wildlife breeding
seasonand the winter storm season. Of course, both seasons bring the risks of delay and
additional cost. To avoid these risks, construction would have to be deferred to summer, but
unfortunately, summer work would prevent completion before the start of the school yearand
probably not be complete until late fall.
127
Sustainability Impact
The Scenic Circle Access project supports the City’s sustainability goals. The new path will
encourage and improve pedestrian and bicycle access from residential areas west of Stevens
Creek to areas east of the creek including Stevens Creek Trail, Blackberry Farm, and the nearby
schools.
Fiscal Impact
If the City Council authorizes bidding, the amount of additional funding necessary to complete
the project will be confirmed after bids are opened and construction costs and contingencies are
fullyknown.
_____________________________________
Prepared by:Terry W. Greene, City Architect
Reviewed by: Mark Linder, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:Attachment A –Site Plan
128
129