The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-21-16 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA Tuesday, June 21, 2016 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber CITY COUNCIL 6:45 PM AMENDED Amended on 6/16/16 to remove agenda Item No. 18a and to add agenda Item No. 12a. Amended on 6/16/16 to add agenda Item No. 18a. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1.Subject: Commendations to Monta Vista neighborhood residents, recognizing their community spirit and engagement, for providing landscaping services to a disadvantaged homeowner. Recommended Action: Present commendations POSTPONEMENTS 2.Subject: Agenda Item No. 17 Brush abatement for public nuisance and potential fire hazard Recommended Action: Remove the item from the agenda since any parcels on the list have complied 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 Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO 1 June 21, 2016City Council AGENDA 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.Subject: Approve the June 6 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes A - Draft Minutes 4.Subject: Accept the Final Report of the Classification Study, dated May 23, 2016 Recommended Action: 1.A ccept the Report, approve title changes, re-classifications, new classifications and deleted classification effective July 1, 2016. 2.Adopt Resolution 16-064 Amending the Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program and salary schedule. 3.Approve budget adjustments to the FY 2016-17 Final Budget as described in the fiscal impact section of this report. Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Final Classification Report C - Green Lined Amended Unrepresented Employees' Compensation Program D - New Class Descriptions 5.Subject: Appointment of City of Cupertino representative to the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Recommended Action: Accept the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) recommendation to appoint Gary Jones to the VTA BPAC for a two-year term beginning July 1, 2016 Staff Report 6.Subject: Governor’s By Right Housing Proposal Recommended Action: Oppose the Governor’s By-Right Housing proposal and authorize the Mayor to send letters of opposition to state legislative leaders along with our state delegation Staff Report A - Sample Mayor Letter of Opposition B - “By Right” Housing proposal summary 7.Subject: Approve the First Amendment to the lease agreement with Friends of Stevens Creek Trail for the period extending through June 30, 2017 Recommended Action: Authorize City Manager to amend the lease agreement with Friends of Stevens Creek Trail at McClellan Ranch preserve for the period extending through June 30, 2017 Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2 June 21, 2016City Council AGENDA Staff Report A - Draft Agreement First Amendment B - Agreement 8.Subject: Approve the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society for the period extending through June 30, 2017 Recommended Action: Authorize City Manager to amend the lease agreement with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society at McClellan Ranch Preserve for the period extending through June 30, 2017 Staff Report A - Draft Agreement First Amendment B - Agreement 9.Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Lans Garden Restaurant, 19634 Stevens Creek Bouelvard Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Lans Garden Restaurant, 19634 Stevens Creek Boulevard Staff Report A - Application 10.Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Sizzling Gourmet, Inc., 19541 Richwood Drive Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Sizzling Gourmet, Inc., 19541 Richwood Drive Staff Report A - Application 11.Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for WAC Kitchen, LLC (dba The Yard), 10235 S. De Anza Boulevard Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for WAC Kitchen, LLC (dba The Yard), 10235 S. De Anza Boulevard Staff Report A - Application 12.Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for CDUBB Restaurant Ventures, LLC (dba Coconut Fish Cafe), 20010 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for CDUBB Restaurant Ventures, LLC (dba Coconut Fish Cafe), 20010 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO 3 June 21, 2016City Council AGENDA Staff Report A - Application 12a.Subject: Cancel the Special Meeting of July 6, and consider all items related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative, including the Elections Code Section 9212 report and whether to place the Initiative on the ballot, at the July 5, 2016 Meeting. Recommended Action: Cancel the Special Meeting of July 6, and consider all items related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative, including the Elections Code Section 9212 report and whether to place the Initiative on the ballot, at the July 5, 2016 Meeting. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES PUBLIC HEARINGS 13.Subject: Development Permit to allow the demolition of a 342 unit apartment complex (The Hamptons) and the construction of a 942 unit apartment complex in a Planned Residential Zoning District, Environmental Analysis proposing adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Architectural and Site approval for the demolition of a 342 unit apartment complex (The Hamptons) and the construction of a new 942 unit apartment development on the same site with associated site and landscaping improvements, Use Permit to allow a bicycle hub and a separate bar facility within a club house located in a 942 unit apartment development, Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 277 trees in conjunction with the construction of a new apartment development, and Development Agreement for a new 942 apartment unit development in a Planned Residential Zoning District. Application No(s): DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05,TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01; Applicant(s): Carlene Matchniff (The Irvine Company/IAC at Cupertino LLC); Location: 19500 Pruneridge Avenue APN# 316-06-032, 316-06-037 Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO 4 June 21, 2016City Council AGENDA Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council A) Adopt Resolution No. 16-065 approving Development Permit DP-2015-04 and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration EA-2015-03; and B) Adopt Resolution No. 16-066 approving Architectural and Site Approval ASA-2015-13; and C) Adopt Resolution No. 16-067 approving Use Permit U-2015-05; and D) Adopt Resolution No. 16-068 approving Tree Removal Permit TR-2015-21; and E) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 16-2144: "An Ordinance of the Cupertino City Council approving a Development Agreement by and between the City of Cupertino and IAC at Cupertino LLC for the Hamptons project located at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue" Staff Report CC-1 DP-2015-04 Draft Resolution CC-2 ASA-2015-13 Draft Resolution CC-3 U-2015-05 Draft Resolution CC-4 TR-2015-21 Draft Resolution CC-5 ORD DA-2015-01 Draft Ordinance CC-5A Hamptons DA CCSR 21 Draft Agreement CC-6 PC minutes & staff report CC-7 PC resolutions CC_8 ERC CC-9 Parking demand CC-10 Arch review CC-11 Comments CC-12-a MND_Cover CC_12-b TOC CC-12-c_MND Intro CC-12-d MND Checklist CC-12-e MND ProjectDescription CC-12-f GP EIR ConsistencyAnalysis CC-12-g EnvironmentalAnalysis CC-12-h MMRP CC-12-i OrgPersonsConsulted CC-13 Response ISMND comments CC-14 Project plans cover letter CC-14a Project plans link 14.Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of the April 19, 2016 City Council decision to deny appeals of a Planning Commission decision to deny an appeal of a Director’s approval of a Two-Story Permit (R-2015-08) to allow the construction of a new 5,140-square-foot single-family residence and a Minor Residential Page 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO 5 June 21, 2016City Council AGENDA Permit (RM-2015-08) to allow a second story balcony on the new residence. (Application No. R-2015-08 and RM-2015-08; Applicant: WEC & Assoc. (Kingkay Capital, LLC); Petitioner(s): Jan Kucera Jr., and Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller; Location: 21900 Oakview Lane; APN: 326-19-105). Council adopted Resolution No. 16-040, Denying the Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision per Planning Commission Resolution No. 6798 and 6799 (Paul abstaining) Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 16-069 denying the petition, which does not meet the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Section 2.08.09 Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Two-Story and Minor Residential Permits Action Letter C - Planning Commission Staff Report D - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes E - Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6798 and 6799 F - City Council Staff Report G - City Council Meeting Minutes H - City Council Action Letter and Resolution No. 16-040 I - Petition for Reconsideration Miller J - Petition for Reconsideration Kucera K - Plan Set L - Flowchart for Agenda Items ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 15.Subject: Receive the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study, the recommendation from the Joint Cities Working Team and Commission input Recommended Action: Accept the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study; review the Joint Cities Working Team recommendations and Commission input; and provide direction regarding the recommendations and any desired actions Staff Report A - Joint Cities Coord Stevens Creek Trail Feas Study B - Stevens Creek Trail Process Map C - CWG Recommendations to JCWT D - JCWT Recommendations to Councils E - Joint Cupertino PRC-BPC Meeting Minutes 15.12.15 F - Los Altos Resolution No. 2015-39 G - Sunnyvale City Council Minutes, Excerpt, 16.02.09 16.Subject: Adoption of 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan and Mitigated Page 6 CITY OF CUPERTINO 6 June 21, 2016City Council AGENDA Negative Declaration for the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Recommended Action: a.) Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan; and b.) Adopt Resolution No. 16-070 adopting the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan 17.Subject: Brush abatement for public nuisance and potential fire hazard Recommended Action: Remove this item from the agenda since any parcels on the list have complied Staff Report REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 18.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments ADJOURNMENT Page 7 CITY OF CUPERTINO 7 June 21, 2016City 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. 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 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 CITY OF CUPERTINO 8 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1807 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/13/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Commendations to Monta Vista neighborhood residents, recognizing their community spirit and engagement, for providing landscaping services to a disadvantaged homeowner. Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:CommendationstoMontaVistaneighborhoodresidents,recognizingtheircommunity spirit and engagement, for providing landscaping services to a disadvantaged homeowner. Present commendations CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™9 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1806 Name: Status:Type:Postponements Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/13/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Agenda Item No. 17 Brush abatement for public nuisance and potential fire hazard Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject: Agenda Item No. 17 Brush abatement for public nuisance and potential fire hazard Remove the item from the agenda since any parcels on the list have complied CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™10 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1323 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/7/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Approve the June 6 City Council minutes Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Minutes Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject: Approve the June 6 City Council minutes Approve the minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™11 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 6, 2016 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Barry Chang 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 Barry Chang, Vice Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, and Council members Darcy Paul and Gilbert Wong. Absent: Council member Sinks. CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Subject: Presentation of "Leader of the Year" award to Director of Public Works Timm Borden from Chapter President Afshin Oskoui of the Silicon Valley Chapter of the American Public Works Association Recommended Action: Receive presentation Council received the presentation of the award from Chapter President Afshin Oskoui to Director of Public Works Timm Borden. POSTPONEMENTS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ignatius Y. Ding talked about a speaker at a previous Council meeting who is working as a lobbyist for Sand Hill Property, Inc. without a business license. He distributed written comments. Jon Willey talked about upcoming development projects and concerns with transportation and traffic. He distributed written comments. 12 City Council Minutes June 6, 2016 2 CONSENT CALENDAR Wong moved and Paul seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented. Ayes: Chang, Vaidhyanathan, Paul and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Sinks. 2. Subject: Approve the May 17 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes 3. Subject: Approve the May 24 City Council minutes (Teen Commission Interviews) Recommended Action: Approve the minutes 4. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 1, 2016 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-052 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending April 1, 2016 5. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 8, 2016 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-053 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending April 8, 2016 6. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 15, 2016 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-054 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending April 15, 2016 7. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 22, 2016 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-055 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending April 22, 2016 8. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 29, 2016 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-056 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending April 29, 2016 9. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending May 6, 2016 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-057 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending May 6, 2016 10. Subject: Approval of the Third Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-058 accepting the City Manager's Third Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 to: 1. Approve decreased 13 City Council Minutes June 6, 2016 3 budget appropriations of $4,419,615 for the Capital Project and Enterprise Funds. 2. Approve increased budget appropriation of $50,000 in transfers out from the General Fund to the Public Affairs Information Technology budget. 3. Approve increased budget appropriations of $24,000 for Traffic Calming along Rodrigues Ave. and Pacifica Dr. 4. Approve increased budget appropriations of $200,000 in the Compensated Absence fund. 5. Approve increased appropriations of $30,000 in the City Hall Building Maintenance 11. Subject: Adopt a resolution calling a General Municipal Election on November 8, 2016 to fill two City Council seats Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-059 calling a General Municipal Election on November 8, 2016 to fill two City Council seats 12. Subject: Establish friendship cities in China, People's Republic of China (Chongqing, Changzhou, Nanjing, Hefei, Hangzhou, Kunming, Huangshan, Shanghai, Wuhan) and in Taiwan, Republic of China (Hsinchu County, Taipei, Taichung). Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to execute Letters of Intent establishing friendship cities in China, People's Republic of China (Chongqing, Changzhou, Nanjing, Hefei, Hangzhou, Kunming, Huangshan, Shanghai, Wuhan) and in Taiwan, Republic of China (Hsinchu County, Taipei, Taichung). Written communications for this item included three updated letters. 13. Subject: Declare brush to be a public nuisance and potential fire hazard and set hearing for June 21 for objections to proposed removal Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-060 declaring brush to be a public nuisance and potential fire hazard and setting the hearing date for June 21 14. Subject: The City's Case Manager received two donations specifically intended for the benefit of the Case Management program Recommended Action: Staff is requesting that the Council accept the monetary donations that will be used for the Case Management Program's Client Emergency Fund 15. Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for 7 Eleven, Inc., 21490 McClellan Road (Store #2366) Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for 7 Eleven, Inc., 21490 McClellan Road (Store #2366) 14 City Council Minutes June 6, 2016 4 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 16. Subject: Public hearing to consider the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); and a finding of General Plan conformance; and the Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17; and the Adoption of the Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17; and Establishment of the Appropriation Limit, and related actions. Recommended Action: a. Adopt Resolution No. 16-061 establishing a special project budget for the Planning and Community Development - Current Planning and Public Works Traffic Engineering Programs for costs related to Apple Pass Thru Revenues for Fiscal Year 2016-17 b. Adopt Resolution No. 16-062 establishing an Operating Budget and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17 c. Adopt Resolution No. 16-063 establishing an Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Written communications for this item included a grant application from Iranian Federated Women’s Club and a staff PowerPoint presentation. Director of Administrative Services Kristina Alfaro reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation. Mayor Chang opened the public hearing. Park Chamberlain on behalf of Friends of Deer Hollow Farm talked about their request for funding. Mayor Chang closed the public hearing. Wong moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to adopt Resolution No. 16-061 establishing a special project budget for the Planning and Community Development - Current Planning and Public Works Traffic Engineering Programs for costs related to Apple Pass Thru Revenues for Fiscal Year 2016-17. The motion carried with Sinks absent. Wong moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to adopt Resolution No. 16-062 establishing an Operating Budget and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17 with the following amendments: add $750.00 funding for Iranian Federated Women’s Club Persian Winter Solstice and per Chang’s friendly amendment accepted by Wong, 15 City Council Minutes June 6, 2016 5 increase funding for Friends of Deer Hollow Farm to $15,000. The motion carried with Sinks absent. Wong moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to adopt Resolution No. 16-063 establishing an Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2016-17. The motion carried with Sinks absent. ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 17. Subject: Receive the Certification of Sufficiency for the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative petition submitted by proponents Vicky Tsai and Judy Wilson and provide direction Recommended Action: Receive the Certification of Sufficiency for the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative petition submitted by proponents Vicky Tsai and Judy Wilson and provide direction; defer a decision on whether to place the measure on the November 8, 2016 ballot until after the 9212 Report on the Initiative is completed City Clerk Grace Schmidt reviewed the staff report. The following individuals spoke on this topic and their comments included conflict of interest for elected officials regarding development contributions; hiring neutral outside consultants for 9212 report; support for Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative and benefit to schools; concern with housing/jobs balance; traffic and other long-term issues with office component of Vallco project; move ahead and place Initiative on the November 8 ballot; Cupertino residents say no to high density. Ignatius Y. Ding (distributed written comments) Phyllis Dickstein Sara Ku Cindy Zhuang Ray Hing on behalf of Friends & Relatives of Cupertino Residence Jesse He Danessa Techmanski Lisa Warren Kevin McClelland on behalf of Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Donna Austin Liang Chao Xiaowen Wang (distributed written comments) Qin Pan 16 City Council Minutes June 6, 2016 6 Vicky Tsai Darrel Lum on behalf of Concerned Citizens of Cupertino Luke Lang Jon Willey Steve Scharf Rick Kitson on behalf of Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Paul moved and Wong seconded to receive the Certification of Sufficiency for the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative petition submitted by proponents Vicky Tsai and Judy Wilson and provided direction to receive the 9212 report on July 6 at 6:45 p.m. The motion carried with Sinks absent. REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 18. Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. ADJOURNMENT At 8:51 p.m., Mayor Chang adjourned the meeting. _______________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet. Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99 and are available at your convenience at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, and then click Archived Webcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. 17 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1653 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/20/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Accept the Final Report of the Classification Study, dated May 23, 2016 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Final Classification Report C - Green Lined Amended Unrepresented Employees' Compensation Program D - New Class Descriptions Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:Accept the Final Report of the Classification Study, dated May 23, 2016 1.AccepttheReport,approvetitlechanges,re-classifications,newclassificationsand deleted classification effective July 1, 2016. 2.AdoptResolution16-064AmendingtheUnrepresentedEmployees’Compensation Program and salary schedule. 3.ApprovebudgetadjustmentstotheFY2016-17FinalBudgetasdescribedinthefiscal impact section of this report. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™18 S ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3227 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 21, 2016 Subject Accept the Final Report of the Classification Study, dated May 23, 2016. Recommended Action 1. Accept the Report, approve title changes, re-classifications, new classifications and deleted classification effective July 1, 2016. 2. Adopt Resolution 16-____ Amending the Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program and salary schedule. 3. Approve budget adjustments to the FY 2016-17 Final Budget as described in the fiscal impact section of this report. Description In August 2015 the City began work with Koff & Associates for a Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Cupertino. Katie Kaneko from Koff & Associates kicked-off the study and met with City employees that were invited to participate. Subsequent to these meetings, employees completed a Position Description Questionnaire (PDQ’s). The PDQ’s were reviewed by the employee’s supervisor and forwarded to Katie and her staff for further review. Katie then met with the employees and supervisors for a final interview and made a determination regarding employee classifications. Discussion The classification study was conducted to ensure that employees are recognized for the level and scope of work performed, and that class descriptions reflect current programs, responsibilities, and technology. The goals and objectives of the study were to: Obtain detailed information regarding each position through a variety of techniques, including written Position Description Questionnaires (PDQs) and interviews with employees and management; Prepare an updated classification plan, including recommended class descriptions and position allocations that recognizes the scope and level of the various classes and positions, and is perceived equitable by management and employees alike; Provide class descriptions 19 and other documentation that includes information required for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and appropriate qualifications, including knowledge, skills, and other requirements that are job-related and meet other legal guidelines; and provide sufficient documentation to allow the City to maintain the classification system on a regular basis. The following are Koff & Associates recommended changes: Recommendations for Title Changes: Five (5) Classifications: Current Class Title Proposed Class Title Assistant Director of Public Works - Engineering Assistant Director of Public Works Maintenance Worker III (6) Lead Maintenance Worker (6) Media Coordinator (3) Multimedia Communication Specialist (3) Public Works Supervisor (4) Maintenance Supervisor (4) Service Center Superintendent Maintenance Superintendent Recommendations for Reclassifications: Twelve (12) Incumbents: The study resulted in eleven (12) incumbents, allocated to eight (8) classifications, to be reclassified, as noted in the table below. These recommendations are based on the individual positions interviewed. Not every incumbent in the current classification are recommended for a reclassification. Current Class Title and Number of Incumbents reclassified Proposed Class Title Administrative Assistant (1) Management Analyst Administrative Clerk (2) Administrative Assistant Maintenance Worker I/II (1) Environmental Programs Compliance Technician Office Assistant (1) Administrative Assistant 20 Current Class Title and Number of Incumbents reclassified Proposed Class Title Office Assistant (1) Senior Office Assistant Office Assistant (1) Communication Outreach Specialist Recreation Assistant (1) Office Assistant Senior Code Enforcement Officer (1) Environmental Programs Specialist Senior Office Assistant (2) Administrative Assistant Web Specialist (1) Business Systems Analyst/Project Manager Recommendations for New Classifications and a Classification Deletion: The study resulted in several new classifications. There were two classifications which were assigned to the GIS function but classified within broad classifications. Koff & Associates found that the role of GIS systems within public sector organizations is becoming more prominent and that the skill set is unique and warranted creating a distinct classification series. Accordingly, Koff & Associates created a GIS Technician and GIS Program Manager classification. Koff & Associates created the City Engineer and Deputy City Manager classifications to provide flexibility in anticipation of potential organization changes in the City Manager’s Office and the Public Works Department. Neither of these positions are currently filled and are available only if management determines that it would be appropriate given the organizational structure and budget capacity. Recommended salary ranges for these new classifications are included as part of attached Unrepresented groups compensation program. The Environmental Programs Specialist and the Environmental Programs Compliance Technician were created due to two employees re-classifications. New salary ranges for these classifications are currently being negotiated and will be updated when a successor memorandum of understanding is brought before Council for approval. The study resulted in the deletion of the Administrative Clerk classification. The two Administrative Clerks will be re-classified to Administrative Assistant. With the existing classifications of Office Assistant, Senior Office Assistant and Administrative Assistant, there is no longer a need for the Administrative Clerk classification. Lastly, as part of the preparation of this report staff noted that the prior Unrepresented compensation agreement had mistakenly deleted the Public Information Officer 21 classification. This updated agreement has corrected that error and has added back this class. There has been no change to this salary. The City’s classification plan is a fluid plan that will require adjustments from time to time as staff and organizational changes occur, if these changes impact an employees job duties. Fiscal Impact The City will incur a cost of $129,354 as a result of the recommended reclassifications and new classifications. The chart below summarized the costs by position: Current Classification Current Costs Recommended Classification New Costs Increased Costs Administrative Assistant (1) $114,225 Management Analyst $122,871 $8,646 Administrative Clerk (2) $217,152 Administrative Assistant $228,072 $10,920 Maintenance Worker I/II (1) $108,289 Environmental Programs Compliance Technician $121,825 $13,536 Office Assistant (1) $80,526 Administrative Assistant $94,516 $13,990 Office Assistant (1) $88,294 Senior Office Assistant $92,801 $4,507 Office Assistant (1) $81,614 Community Outreach Specialist I $93,811 $12,197 Recreation Assistant (1) $61,151 Office Assistant $74,858 $13,707 Senior Code Enforcement Officer (1) $133,257 Environmental Programs Specialist $145,296 $12,039 Senior Office Assistant (2) $194,072 Administrative Assistant $208,283 $14,211 Web Specialist (1) $138,858 Business Systems Analyst/Project Manager $146,032 $7,174 Total Reclassification Costs $1,217,438 $1,328,365 $110,927 New Classification Costs Engineering Technician (1) $114,389 GIS Technician (1) $114,389 $0 Senior Management Analyst (1) $148,396 GIS Program Manager (1) $166,823 $18,427 City Engineer N/A N/A N/A N/A Deputy City Manager N/A N/A N/A N/A Total New Classification Costs $262,785 $281,212 $18,427 TOTAL INCREASED COSTS RECLASSES AND NEW CLASSES $1,480,223 $1,609,577 $129,354 It is recommended the following budget adjustments be approved to FY2016-17 Final Budget: 22 GL String Budget Adjustment 61035986 18427 10030300 8394 10030304 700 61034310 4196 61035986 700 10030300 10367 61532308 1220 10030304 610 23081802 4214 52081801 7825 10061602 7105 57063621 13707 10062608 4507 10070700 1729 10071701 3458 10071702 1729 10073713 1730 10011175 273 10071701 3276 10011170 546 10071702 1092 10011142 273 10073713 2730 10073715 2730 10080800 7106 23081802 4738 52081801 8798 10030304 717 10030300 2870 61532308 3587 Total Budget Adjustments 129,354 Prepared by: Laura Miyakawa and Maria Jimenez, HR Analyst II Reviewed for submission by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A: Draft Resolution B: Final Classification Report and Appendix C: Green lined Amended Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program D: New Classification Descriptions 23 1 RESOLUTION 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 15-099 REGARDING THE UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program to add a GIS Program Manager, Deputy City Manager, City Engineer and Business Systems Analyst/Project Manager. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the unrepresented Compensation Program be amended which is incorporated in this resolution by this reference and included below. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 21st day of June 2016 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: ________________ _____________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang, Mayor, City of Cupertino 24 2 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 1 PROGRAM PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY It is City of Cupertino policy that those certain persons holding positions hereinafter defined and designated either as management or confidential positions shall be eligible for participation under the Unrepresented Employees Compensation Program as hereby adopted by action of the City Council and as same may be amended or as otherwise modified from time to time. It is the stated purpose of this Compensation Program to give recognition to and to differentiate those eligible employees from represented employees who achieve economic gain and other conditions of employment through negotiation. It is the intent that through this policy and those which are adopted or as may be modified or rescinded from time to time such recognition may be given. Eligibility for inclusion with this Compensation program is limited to persons holding positions as management or confidential employees as defined under section 2.52.290 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. These are as designated by the Appointing Authority and may be modified as circumstances warrant. Although subject to change in accordance with provision of the Personnel Code, the positions in the following classifications have been designated as unrepresented. MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATIONS: Classification Title Accountant I Accountant II Accounting Technician I Accounting Technician II Administrative Assistant Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Manager Assistant Director of Community Development Assistant Director of Public Works Assistant to the City Manager Building Official Business Systems Analyst/Program Manager Capital Improvement Program Manager Chief Technology Officer/Director of Information Services City Clerk City Engineer City Planner 25 3 Community Relations Coordinator Deputy City Clerk Deputy City Manager Director of Administrative Services Director of Community Development Director of Recreation and Community Service Director of Public Works Environmental Programs Manager Executive Assistant to the City Manager Finance Manager GIS Coordinator GIS Program Manager Human Resources Assistant Human Resources Analyst I Human Resources Analyst II Human Resources Technician I Human Resources Technician II Information Technology Assistant Information Technology Manager Human Resources Manager Legal Services Manager Management Analyst Network Specialist Public Information Officer Public Affairs Director Public Works Projects Manager Maintenance SupervisorRecreation Supervisor Economic Development Manager Senior Accountant Senior Civil Engineer Senior Recreation Supervisor Senior Management Analyst Service Center Superintendent Sustainability Manager Web Specialist In the event of any inconsistency between the Compensation Program and any Employment Contracts, the provisions of the Employment Contract and any amendments thereto control. Adopted by Action of the City Council, April 1, 1974 Revised 10/74, 3/78, 6/81, 6/82, 7/85, 7/87, 1/89, 7/90, 4/91, 5/91, 7/92, 6/95, 6/96, 7/99, 6/02, 7/04, 6/05, 04/07, 7/10, 10/12, 12/12, 7/13,11/13,12/13,3/14, 7/14, 11/15, 6/16 26 4 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 2 SALARY SCHEDULE AND OTHER SALARY RATES It is City of Cupertino policy that eligible persons under this Compensation Program shall be compensated for services rendered to and on behalf of the City on the basis of equitably of pay for duties and responsibilities assigned, meritorious service and comparability with similar work in other public and private employment in the same labor market; all of which is contingent upon the City’s ability to pay consistent with its fiscal policies. Effective the first full pay period in July 2013, a 1.5% salary increase will be added to the salary ranges of classifications in this group. Effective the first full pay period in July 2014, a 1.5% salary increase will be added to the salary ranges of classifications in this group. Effective the first full pay period in July 2015, a 1.25% salary increase will be added to the salary ranges of classification in this group. See Attachment A for a list of paygrades. In addition, equity adjustments as identified in the City’s 2013 total compensation survey shall occur over the next three years. Effective the first pay period in July 2013, a .46% equity adjustment will be added to the salary ranges of classifications as noted in Attachment A. Effective the first pay period in July, 2014, a .97% equity adjustment will be added to the salary ranges of classifications as noted in Attachment A. Effective the first pay period in July, 2015, a 1.21% equity adjustment will be added to the salary ranges of classifications as noted in Attachment A. Adopted by Action of the City Council April 1, 1974 Revised 8/78, 7/79, 6/80, 7/92, 6/95, 10/12, 7/13 27 5 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 3 TRAINING AND CONFERENCES I. POLICY A. Management Personnel It is City of Cupertino policy that eligible persons under this Compensation Program shall be reimbursed or receive advances in accordance with the schedules, terms and conditions as set forth herein for attendance at conferences, meetings and training sessions as defined below for each. It is the intent of this policy to encourage the continuing education and awareness of said persons in the technical improvements and innovations in their fields of endeavor as they apply to the City or to implement a City approved strategy for attracting and retaining businesses in the City. One means of implementing this encouragement is through a formal reimbursement and advance schedule for authorized attendance at such conferences, meetings and training sessions. B. Non-Management Personnel When authorized by their supervisor, a non-management person may attend a conference, meeting or training session subject to the stated terms and conditions included herein for each with payment toward or reimbursement of certain expenses incurred as defined below for each. II DEFINITIONS A. Conferences A conference is an annual meeting of a work related organization the membership of which may be held in the name of the City or the individual. B. Local Area The local area is defined to be within Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties and within a 40- mile distance from Cupertino when traveling to Alameda County. C. Meetings A “meeting” shall mean a convention, conference, seminar, workshop, meal, or like assembly having to do with municipal government operations. An employee serving on a panel for interviews of job applicants shall not come under this definition. 28 6 D. Training Session A training session is any type of seminar or workshop the attendance at which is for the purpose of obtaining information of a work related nature to benefit the City’s operations or to enhance the attendee’s capabilities in the discharge of assigned duties and responsibilities. III REIMBURSEMENT AND ADVANCE PAYMENT SCHEDULE A. Intent This schedule is written with the intent that the employee will make every effort to find the lowest possible cost to the City for traveling on City business. For example, if paying for parking at the airport is less expensive that paying for a taxi or airport shuttle, then the employee should drive their car and park at the airport; or if renting a car is lower than taking taxis at the out-of-town location, then a car should be rented; or air reservations should be booked in advance to obtain discounted fares. The following procedures apply whether the expense is being paid through a reimbursement or a direct advance. B. Registration Registration fees for authorized attendance at a meeting or training session will be paid by the City. C. Transportation The City will pay transportation costs on the basis of the lowest cost intent stated in paragraph A. Eligible transportation costs include airfare (with coach fare being the maximum), van or taxi service to and from the attendee’s home and airport, destination or airport parking charges, taxi and shuttle services at the out-of-town location, trains, tolls, or rental cars. Use of a personal automobile for City business shall be reimbursed or advanced at the rate per mile in effect for such use, except in no case shall it exceed air coach fare if the vehicle is being used for getting to the destination. Government or group rates offered by a provider of transportation must be used when available. Reimbursement or advances for use of a personal automobile on City business within a local area will not be made so as to supplement that already being paid to those persons receiving a monthly mileage allowance. D. Lodging Hotel or lodging expenses of the employee resulting from the authorized event or activity defined in this policy will be reimbursed or advanced if the lodging and event occurs outside of the local area. Not covered will be lodging expenses related to person(s) who are accompanying the City member, but who themselves are not on City business. In this 29 7 instance, for example, the difference between single and multiple occupancy rates for a room will not be reimbursed. Where the lodging is in connection with a conference or other organized educational activity, City-paid lodging costs shall not exceed the maximum group rate published by the conference or activity sponsor, providing that lodging at the group rate is available at the time of booking. If the group rate at the conference hotel is not available, then the non- conference lodging policy described in the next paragraph should be followed to find another comparable hotel. Where lodging is necessary for an activity that is not related to a conference or other organized educational activity, reimbursement or advances shall be limited to the actual cost of the room at a group or government rate. In the event that a group or government rate is not available, lodging rates that do not exceed the median price for lodging for that area and time period listed on travel websites like www.hotels.com, www.expedia.com or an equivalent service shall be eligible for reimbursement or advancement. E. Meals 1. With No Conference Payments toward or reimbursement of meals related to authorized activities or events shall be at the Internal Revenue Service per diem rate for meals and incidental expenses for a given location, as stated by IRS publications 463 and 1542 and by the U.S. General Services Administration. The per diem shall be split among meals as reasonably desired and reduced accordingly for less than full travel days. If per diem is claimed, no receipts are necessary. Alternatively, the actual cost of a meal can be claimed, within a standard of reasonableness, but receipts must be kept and submitted for the expense incurred. 2. As Part of a Conference When City personnel are attending a conference or other organized educational activity, they shall be reimbursed or advanced for meals not provided by the activity, on a per diem or actual cost basis. The per diem and actual cost rate shall follow the rules described in the meals with no conference paragraph. F. Other Expenses Payments toward or reimbursement of expenses at such functions shall be limited to the actual costs consistent with the application of reasonable standards. Other reasonable expenses related to business purposes shall be paid consistent with this policy. 30 8 No payments shall be made unless, where available, receipts are kept and submitted for all expenses incurred. When receipts are not available, qualifying expenditures shall be reimbursed upon signing of an affidavit of expenditure. No payment shall be made for any expenses incurred which are of a personal nature or not within a standard of reasonableness for the situation as may be defined by the Finance Department. G. Non-Reimbursable Expenses The City will not reimburse or advance payment toward expenses including, but not limited to: 1. The personal portion of any trip; 2. Political or charitable contributions or events; 3. Family expenses, including those of a partner when accompanying the employee on City-related business, as well as child or pet-related expenses; 4. Entertainment expenses, including theatre, shows, movies, sporting events, golf, spa treatments, etc. 5. Gifts of any kind for any purpose; 6. Service club meals; of those besides economic development staff; 7. Alcoholic beverages; 8. Non-mileage personal automobile expenses including repairs, insurance, gasoline, traffic citations; and 9. Personal losses incurred while on City business. IV ATTENDANCE AUTHORIZATION A. Budgetary Limitations Notwithstanding any attendance authorization contained herein, reimbursement or advances for expenses relative to conferences, meeting or training sessions shall not exceed the budgetary limitations. B. Conference Attendance Attendance at conferences or seminars by employees must be approved by their supervisor. C. Meetings Any employee, management or non-management, may attend a meeting when authorized by their supervisor. 31 9 D. Training Sessions Any employee, management or non-management, may attend a training session when authorized by their supervisor. V. FUNDING A. Appropriation Policy It shall be the policy of the City to appropriate funds subject to availability of resources. B. Training Sessions Payments toward or reimbursement of expenses incurred in attendance at training sessions, will be appropriated annually through the budget process. VI. DIRECT CASH ADVANCE POLICY From time to time, it may be necessary for a City employee to request a direct cash advance to cover anticipated expenses while traveling or doing business on the City’s behalf. Such request for an advance should be submitted to their supervisor no less than seven days prior to the need for the advance with the following information: 1) Purpose of the expenditure; 2) The anticipated amount of the expenditure (for example, hotel rates, meal costs, and transportation expenses); and 3) The dates of the expenditure. An accounting of expenses and return of any unused advance must be reported to the City within 30 calendar days of the employee’s return on the expense report described in Section VII. VII. EXPENSE REPORT REQUIREMENTS All expense reimbursement requests or final accounting of advances received must be approved by their supervisor, on forms determined by the Finance Department, within 30 calendar days of an expense incurred, and accompanied by a business purpose for all expenditures and a receipt for each non- per diem item. Revised 7/83, 7/85, 7/87, 7/88, 7/91, 7/92, 12/07,7/10 32 10 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 4 AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCES AND MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS It is City of Cupertino policy that eligible persons under this Compensation Program shall be compensated fairly for the use of personal automotive vehicles on City business. In many instances the use of personal vehicles is a condition of employment due to the absence of sufficient City owned vehicles for general transportation purposes. It is not intended, however, that such a condition of employment should work an undue hardship. For this reason, the following policies shall apply for mileage reimbursements. Those persons who occasionally are required to use their personal automobiles for City business shall be reimbursed for such use at an appropriate rate established by the City Council. Submission of reimbursement requests must be approved by the Department Head. Employees in the following classifications shall be paid on a monthly basis the following automobile allowance: Classification Allowance Director of Administrative Services 300.00 Director of Community Development 300.00 Assistant City Manager 300.00 Director of Parks and Recreation 300.00 Director of Public Works 300.00 Chief Technology Officer/ 300.00 Director of Information Services City Clerk 250.00 Public Affairs Director 250.00 Senior Civil Engineer 250.00 Recreation Supervisor 200.00 Employees receiving automobile allowance shall be eligible for reimbursement for travel that exceeds two hundred miles round trip. Adopted by Action of the City Council April 1, 1974 Revised 7/74, 5/79, 6/80, 7/81, 8/84, 7/87, 1/89, 7/90, 7/92, 6/96, 8/99, 6/00, 9/01, 1/02, 6/02, 10/07, 7/10, 7/11, 10/12, 12/12, 7/13, 11/15 33 11 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 5 ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS AND PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS It is City of Cupertino policy that eligible persons under this Compensation Program shall be entitled to City sponsored association memberships as well as receiving subscriptions to professional and technical publications. Such sponsorship, however, shall be conditioned upon the several factors as set forth below. Each association for which membership is claimed must be directly related to the field of endeavor of the person to be benefited. Each claim for City sponsored membership shall be submitted by or through the Department Head with their concurrence to the City Manager for approval. Subscriptions to or purchase of professional and technical publications may be provided at City expense when such have been authorized by the Department Head providing the subject matter and material generally contained therein are related to municipal governmental operations. Adopted by Action of the City Council April 1, 1974 Revised 7/92 34 12 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 6 OVERTIME WORKED EXEMPT POSITIONS: Management and non-represented professional employees are ineligible for overtime payments for time worked in excess of what otherwise would be considered as a normal work day or work week for other employees. However, no deduction from leave balances are made when such an employee is absent for less than a regular work day as long as the employee has his/her supervisor’s approval. Nothing in this policy precludes the alternative work schedule, which may include an absence of a full eight hour day, when forty hours have been worked in the same seven day work period. NON-EXEMPT POSITIONS: Confidential employees are eligible for overtime or compensation time, at their discretion, for the time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Nothing in this policy precludes the alternative work schedule, which may include an absence of a full eight hour day, where forty hours have been worked in the same seven day period. Adopted by Action of the City Council April 1, 1974 Revised 6/80, 7/91, 7/92, 6/96, 7/97, 4/07, 7/13 35 13 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 7 HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN - EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide group hospital and medical insurance under which employees in Management and Confidential positions and their dependents may be covered. The purpose of this program is to promote and preserve the health of employees and their families through comprehensive health plans available only through employer sponsorship. Although the premium cost for the insurance provided remains the ultimate responsibility of the employee in these positions, the City shall contribute the amounts listed below towards the premium or pay the full cost of the premium if less than the stated amounts. If the premium amounts for any employee covered by this policy are less than the amounts listed below per month, the difference between the premium amount and the stated amounts will be included in the employee’s gross pay. The City will no longer pay medical insurance cash back (excess of the monthly premium less the cost of the medical coverage) for new employees hired after July 1, 2005. Medical Insurance Coverage Level City Contribution Employee 702.00 Employee + 1 762.00 Employee +2 802.00 Effective 11/1/13 or as soon as administratively possible, the City will establish a Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) to be used towards health related expenses. Upon establishment, the City will deposit an amount equal to $83.00/month from 7/1/13 to plan enactment. Thereafter, employees will receive $83.00 /month in their HRA. Effective with the first full pay period in July 2014, employees will receive an additional $80.00/month in HRA to be used towards health related expenses. During the 13/14 contract year, the City will be reopening negotiations to discuss elimination of the CalPERS 100/90 retirement plan and replacement of said plan. Adopted by Action of the City Council September 16, 1974 Revised 7/75, 7/76, 7/77, 8/78, 7/79, 6/80, 6/81, 7/81, 6/82, 7/83, 7/84, 7/88, 7/89, 7/90, 7/91, 7/92, 6/95, 7/97, 7/99, 6/00, 6/02, 7/04, 6/05, 4/07,12/12, 7/13 36 14 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 8 FIXED HOLIDAYS It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to recognize days of historical and national significance as holidays of the City without loss of pay or benefits. Recognizing the desirable times throughout the year, it is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide days off in lieu of holidays for management and confidential employees at such times as are convenient for each employee and supervisor, when such policy is compatible with the workload and schedule of the City. The City provides the following fixed paid holidays for eligible employees covered by this agreement: 1. New Year’s Day 2. Martin Luther King Day 3. Presidents’ Day 4. Memorial Day 5. Independence day 6. Labor Day 7. Veteran’s Day 8. Thanksgiving Day 9. Day Following Thanksgiving 10. Christmas Eve 11. Christmas Day 12. New Year’s Eve When a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed as the non-work day. When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the previous Friday shall be observed as the non-work day. FLOATING HOLIDAY In addition to the paid holidays, employees occupying these positions shall be provided 20 floating hours per calendar year as non-work time with full pay and benefits. Employees may accumulate floating holiday hours up to two times their annual accrual. Adopted by Action of the City Council July 7, 1975 Revised 6/80, 6/89, 7/92, 7/99, 7/13 37 15 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 9 LIFE AND LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to make available group insurance for Management and Confidential employees that will mitigate the personal and family financial hardships resulting from continuing disability that prevents an employee from performing gainfully in his or her occupation. It is further the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide life insurance benefits in an amount of two and one half times the employee’s annual salary to a maximum of $250,000.00. Employees occupying unrepresented positions may enroll in the disability income program and the life insurance program offered if eligible under the contract provisions of the policy and the personnel rules of the City. The full cost of premiums for these programs shall be paid by the City for such employees. Adopted by Action of the City Council September 16, 1976 Revised 7/76, 6/80, 6/81, 6/82, 6/92 38 16 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 10 DEFERRED COMPENSATION It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide equitable current compensation and reasonable retirement security for management and confidential employees for services performed for the City. The City participates in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and deferred compensation plans have been established. Both the employee and employer may make contributions from current earnings to these plans. The purpose of this policy is to promote means by which compensation may be provided in such manner and form to best meet the requirements of the City and the needs of individual employees, thereby increasing the ability, to attract and retain competent management and confidential employees. The City shall maintain and administer means by which employees in these positions may defer portions of their current earnings for future utilization. Usage of such plans shall be subject to such agreements, rules and procedures as are necessary to properly administer each plan. Employee contributions to such plans may be made in such amounts as felt proper and necessary to the employee. Employer contributions shall be as determined by the City Council. Adopted by Action of the City Council July 7, 1975 Revised 6/80, 7/87, 7/92, 7/99 39 17 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 11 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION A. Employees hired on or before December 29, 2012 Only: For employees hired on or before December 29, 2012, the City has contracted with CalPERS for a 2.7% @55 formula. Effective in the first full pay period in July 2013, the City agrees to pay the employee’s contribution rate to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) not to exceed 4.5% of applicable salary and each employee agrees to pay 3.5% of applicable salary. Effective in the first full pay period in July 2014, the City agrees to pay the employee’s contribution rate to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) not to exceed 3.0% of applicable salary and each employee agrees to pay 5.0% of applicable salary. Effective in the first full pay period in July 2015, the City agrees to pay the employee’s contribution rate to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) not to exceed 1.75% of applicable salary and each employee agrees to pay 6.25% of applicable salary. The City agrees to pay the employer’s contribution rate to the Public Employees Retirement System to the extent required by law and the parties acknowledge that by January 1, 2018 the employees are required to pay 50% of the normal cost rate as determined by CalPERS. B. For Employees hired by the City of Cupertino on December 30, 2012 or December 31, 2012 or a current CalPERS employee who qualifies as a classic member under CalPERS Regulations Only: For Employees hired by the City of Cupertino on December 30, 2012 or December 31, 2012 or a current CalPERS employee who qualifies as a classic member under CalPERS Regulations only the City has contracted with CalPERS for a 2.0% @ 60 retirement formula, three year average compensation. Effective in the first full pay period in July 2013, the City agrees to pay the employee’s contribution rate to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) not to exceed 3.5 % of applicable salary and each employee agrees to pay 3.5% of applicable salary. Effective in the first full pay period in July 2014, the City agrees to pay the employee’s contribution rate to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) not to exceed 2.0 % of applicable salary and each employee agrees to pay 5.0% of applicable salary. 40 18 Effective in the first full pay period in July 2015, the City agrees to pay the employee’s contribution rate to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) not to exceed .75 % of applicable salary and each employee agrees to pay 6.25% of applicable salary. The City agrees to pay the employer’s contribution rate to the Public Employees Retirement System to the extent required by law and the parties acknowledge that by January 1, 2018 the employees are required to pay 50% of the normal cost rate as determined by CalPERS. C. For new employees hired by the City of Cupertino on or after January 1, 2013 and do not qualify as Classic members Only: For new employees hired by the City of Cupertino on or after January 1, 2013 and do not qualify as classic members as defined by CalPERS, CalPERS has by statute implemented a 2% @ 62 formula, three year average and employees in this category shall pay 50% of the normal cost rate as determined by CalPERS. Adopted by Action of the City Council June, 1981 Revised 6/87, 6/89, 7/90, 7/91, 7/92, 6/03, 7/04, 4/07, 7/10, 10/12, 12/12, 7/13 41 19 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 12 DENTAL INSURANCE - EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide dental insurance under which employees in Management and Confidential positions and their dependents may be covered. The purpose of this program is to promote and preserve the health of employees. The premium cost for the insurance provided by the City shall not exceed $78.26 per month per employee. Enrollment in the plan or plans made available pursuant to this policy shall be in accordance with Personnel Rules of the City and the provisions of the contract for such insurance between the City and carrier or carriers. Adopted by Action of City Council July 1, 1983 Revised 7/87, 7/88, 7/89, 7/90, 7/91, 7/92, 6/95, 7/99, 4/07, 10/12 42 20 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 13 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE The department heads shall receive forty (40) hours of administrative leave with pay per year. Unrepresented employees exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act shall receive twenty-four (24) hours of administrative leave with pay per year. Employees may accumulate administrative leave hours up to their annual accrual. Employees shall be eligible to convert administrative leave hours to pay one time each calendar year. Adopted by Action of the City Council July, 1988 Revised 7/92, 7/97, 7/99, 7/10, 12/12 43 21 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 14 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide an Employee Assistance Program for the benefit of Management and Confidential employees and their eligible dependents. The purpose of this program is to provide professional assistance and counseling concerning financial, legal, pre-retirement, and other matters of a personal nature. Adopted by Action of the City Council June 17, 1996 44 22 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 15 VACATION ACCUMULATION The department heads shall earn vacation hours under the same vacation accumulation schedule as all other employees. Credit shall be provided for previous public sector service time on a year-for-year basis as to annual vacation accumulation. Credit shall only be given for completed years of service. Public service credit shall not apply to any other supplemental benefit. Employee(s) affected by this policy will have the responsibility of providing certification as to previous public sector service. Benefited full-time employees accrue vacation in accordance with the following schedule. Benefited employees who work less than a full-time work schedule accrue vacation in accordance with the following schedule on a pro-rated basis. Service Time Hrs of Accrual Per Pay Period Annual Accruals Maximum Accrual 0 - 3 Years 3.08 80 Hours 160 Hours 4 - 9 Years 4.62 120 Hours 240 Hours 10 – 14 Years 5.24 136 Hours 272 Hours 15 – 19 Years 6.16 160 Hours 320 Hours 20 + Years 6.77 176 Hours 352 Hours An employee may accrue no more vacation credit than twice the annual rate being earned. VACATION CREDITS The hiring manager, with the approval of the department head and the City Manager, may offer a vacation bank of up to 120 hours of vacation to a prospective candidate in the Unrepresented group. These hours do not vest for payoff purposes if the employee leaves service. Adopted by Action of the City Council July 7, 1997 Revised 6/99, 7/10, 12/12, 7/13 45 23 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 16 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Housing assistance may be offered to the department heads pursuant to Resolution No. 15-092. Adopted by Action of the City Council July 7, 1997 Revised 7/99, 7/10, 8/12, 10/15 46 24 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 17 VISION INSURANCE – EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide vision insurance under which employees and their dependents may be covered. The purpose of this program is to promote and preserve the health of employees. The premium cost for the insurance provided by the City shall not exceed $14.94 per month per employee. Enrollment in the plan or plans made available pursuant to this policy shall be in accordance with the provisions of the contract between the City and carrier or carriers providing vision insurance coverage, Adopted by Action of the City Council July 1997 Revised 7/99, 6/02, 6/03, 7/10, 10/12 47 25 City of Cupertino Listing of Unrepresented Classifications by Salary Rate or Pay Grades Effective July 1, 2013 (Res. No. 13-061) Amended 11/19/13 (Res. No. 13-099) Amended 12/17/13 (Res. No. 13-108) Amended 3/18/14 (Res. No. 14-130) Amended 11/3/14 (Res. No. 14-209) Amended 11/3/2015 (Res. No. 15-099 ) Amended 6/21/16 (Res. No. 16- ) 48 26 CITY OF CUPERTINO CLASSES AND POSITIONS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013- JUNE 30, 2016 The salaries, wages or rates pay per month for those officers and employees whose positions are exempt under the provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, are set forth below. Only the City Council can modify these rates. Salary Effective July 1, 2013 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant City Manager $14,137 $14,844 $15,857 $16,366 $17,184 Director of Administrative Services $12,075 $12,679 $13,313 $13,979 $14,678 Director of Community Development $11,885 $12,479 $13,103 $13,758 $14,446 Director of Recreation and Community Service $12,595 $13,225 $13,887 $14,581 $15,310 Director of Public Works $12,852 $13,494 $14,169 $14,878 $15,621 Salary Effective July 1, 2014 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant City Manager $14,350 $15,067 $15,820 $16,611 $17,422 Director of Administrative Services $12,256 $12,869 $13,513 $14,188 $14,898 Director of Community Development $12,144 $12,751 $13,389 $14,058 $14,761 Director of Recreation and Community Service $12,784 $13,424 $14,095 $14,800 $15,540 Director of Public Works $13,045 $13,697 $14,382 $15,101 $15,856 Salary Effective July 1, 2015 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant City Manager $14,529 $15,255 $16,018 $16,819 $17,660 Director of Administrative Services $12,409 $13,030 $13,681 $14,366 $15,084 Director of Community Development $12,399 $13,019 $13,670 $14,353 $15,071 Director of Recreation and Community Service $12,944 $13,591 $14,271 $14,985 $15,734 Director of Public Works $13,208 $13,868 $14,561 $15,290 $16,054 49 27 CITY OF CUPERTINO CLASSES AND POSITIONS BY PAY GRADE MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013 – JUNE 30, 2016 Salary Effective July 1, 2013 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant City Attorney $11,265 $11,828 $12,420 $13,041 $13,693 Assistant Director of Public Works $10,274 $10,787 $11,327 $11,893 $12,488 Assistant to the City Manager $7,910 $8,305 $8,721 $9,157 $9,614 Building Official $9,339 $9,806 $10,297 $10,811 $11,352 Capital Improvement Program Manager $9,328 $9,794 $10,284 $10,798 $11,338 City Clerk $8,152 $8,559 $8,987 $9,437 $9,909 City Planner $9,395 $9,865 $10,358 $10,876 $11,420 Deputy City Attorney $8,105 $8,511 $8,936 $9,383 $9,852 Economic Development Mgr $9,383 $9,852 $10,345 $10,862 $11,405 Environmental Programs Manager $7,792 $8,182 $8,591 $9,021 $9,472 Finance Manager $9,428 $9,899 $10,394 $10,914 $11,460 Human Resources Manager $9,328 $9,794 $10,284 $10,798 $11,338 Information Technology Manager $9,074 $9,528 $10,004 $10,504 $11,030 Park Restoration and Improvement Manager $9,328 $9,794 $10,284 $10,798 $11,338 Public Affairs Director $9,074 $9,528 $10,004 $10,504 $11,030 Public Works Project Manager $7,962 $8,360 $8,778 $9,217 $9,678 Public Works Supervisor $7,118 $7,474 $7,847 $8,240 $8,652 Recreation Supervisor $6,955 $7,303 $7,668 $8,052 $8,454 Senior Civil Engineer $9,405 $9,876 $10,370 $10,888 $11,433 Senior Management Analyst $7,304 $7,669 $8,052 $8,455 $8,878 Senior Recreation Supervisor $7,668 $8,052 $8,454 $8,877 $9,321 Sustainability Manager $7,792 $8,182 $8,591 $9,021 $9,472 Salary Effective July 1, 2014 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant City Attorney $11,434 $12,006 $12,606 $13,236 $13,898 Assistant Director of Public Works $10,539 $11,066 $11,620 $12,201 $12,811 Assistant to the City Manager $8,028 $8,430 $8,851 $9,294 $9,759 Building Official $9,479 $9,953 $10,451 $10,974 $11,522 Capital Improvement Program Manager $9,468 $9,941 $10,438 $10,960 $11,508 50 28 City Clerk $8,424 $8,845 $9,287 $9,752 $10,239 City Planner $9,680 $10,164 $10,672 $11,206 $11,766 Deputy City Attorney $8,227 $8,638 $9,070 $9,524 $10,000 Economic Development Mgr $9,630 $10,111 $10,617 $11,147 $11,705 Environmental Programs Manager $7,909 $8,305 $8,720 $9,156 $9,614 Finance Manager $9,802 $10,292 $10,807 $11,347 $11,914 Human Resources Manager $9,802 $10,292 $10,807 $11,347 $11,914 Information Technology Manager $9,311 $9,776 $10,265 $10,778 $11,317 Park Restoration and Improvement Manager $9,468 $9,941 $10,438 $10,960 $11,508 Public Affairs Director $9,311 $9,776 $10,265 $10,778 $11,317 Public Works Project Manager $8,188 $8,598 $9,027 $9,479 $9,953 Public Works Supervisor $7,224 $7,586 $7,965 $8,363 $8,781 Recreation Supervisor $7,060 $7,413 $7,783 $8,172 $8,581 Senior Civil Engineer $9,718 $10,204 $10,715 $11,250 $11,813 Senior Management Analyst $7,659 $8,042 $8,445 $8,867 $9,310 Senior Recreation Supervisor $7,783 $8,172 $8,581 $9,010 $9,461 Sustainability Manager $7,909 $8,305 $8,720 $9,156 $9,614 Salary Effective July 1, 2015 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant City Attorney $11,577 $12,156 $12,763 $13,402 $14,072 Assistant Director of Public Works $10,813 $11,354 $11,921 $12,518 $13,143 Assistant to the City Manager $8,129 $8,535 $8,962 $9,410 $9,881 Building Official $9,598 $10,078 $10,582 $11,111 $11,666 Capital Improvement Program Manager $9,586 $10,066 $10,569 $11,097 $11,652 City Clerk $8,720 $9,156 $9,614 $10,095 $10,600 City Planner $9,985 $10,485 $11,009 $11,559 $12,137 Deputy City Attorney $8,330 $8,746 $9,184 $9,643 $10,125 Economic Development Mgr $9,880 $10,374 $10,892 $11,437 $12,009 Environmental Programs Manager $8,008 $8,408 $8,829 $9,270 $9,734 Finance Manager $10,221 $10,732 $11,269 $11,832 $12,424 Human Resources Manager $10,221 $10,732 $11,269 $11,832 $12,424 Information Technology Manager $9,554 $10,032 $10,534 $11,060 $11,613 Park Restoration and Improvement Manager $9,586 $10,066 $10,569 $11,097 $11,652 Public Affairs Director $9,554 $10,032 $10,534 $11,060 $11,613 Public Works Project Manager $8,426 $8,848 $9,290 $9,755 $10,242 Public Works Supervisor $7,315 $7,680 $8,065 $8,468 $8,891 Recreation Supervisor $7,148 $7,505 $7,881 $8,275 $8,688 Senior Civil Engineer $10,059 $10,562 $11,090 $11,645 $12,227 Senior Management Analyst $8,069 $8,473 $8,896 $9,341 $9,808 51 29 Senior Recreation Supervisor $7,881 $8,275 $8,688 $9,123 $9,579 Sustainability Manager $8,008 $8,408 $8,829 $9,270 $9,734 CITY OF CUPERTINO CLASSES AND POSITIONS BY PAY GRADE CONFIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATIONS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013 – JUNE 30, 2016 Salary Effective July 1, 2013 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Accountant $6,258 $6,571 $6,900 $7,245 $7,607 Accounting Technician $5,780 $6,069 $6,373 $6,691 $7,026 Administrative Assistant $5,195 $5,454 $5,727 $6,014 $6,314 Community Relations Coordinator $5,989 $6,288 $6,603 $6,933 $7,279 Deputy City Clerk $5,365 $5,633 $5,915 $6,211 $6,521 Executive Assistant to the City Manager $5,733 $6,019 $6,320 $6,636 $6,968 GIS Coordinator $6,059 $6,361 $6,680 $7,014 $7,364 Human Resources Analyst $6,320 $6,636 $6,968 $7,316 $7,682 Human Resources Analyst II $6,968 $7,316 $7,682 $8,066 $8,470 Human Resources Assistant $4,894 $5,138 $5,395 $5,665 $5,948 Human Resources Technician $5,780 $6,069 $6,373 $6,691 $7,026 Human Resources Technician II $6,373 $6,691 $7,026 $7,377 $7,746 I.T. Assistant $5,007 $5,257 $5,520 $5,796 $6,086 Legal Services Manager $5,739 $6,026 $6,327 $6,644 $6,976 Management Analyst $6,811 $7,152 $7,509 $7,885 $8,279 Network Specialist $6,612 $6,942 $7,289 $7,654 $8,036 Web Specialist $6,487 $6,811 $7,152 $7,509 $7,885 Salary Effective July 1, 2014 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Accountant I $5,804 $6,094 $6,399 $6,719 $7,055 Accountant II $6,399 $6,719 $7,055 $7,407 $7,778 Accounting Technician I $5,438 $5,710 $5,996 $6,296 $6,610 Accounting Technician II $5,996 $6,296 $6,610 $6,941 $7,288 Administrative Assistant $5,273 $5,536 $5,813 $6,104 $6,409 Community Relations Coordinator $6,078 $6,382 $6,702 $7,037 $7,389 Deputy City Clerk $5,756 $6,044 $6,346 $6,663 $6,996 Executive Assistant to the City Manager $5,937 $6,234 $6,545 $6,873 $7,216 GIS Coordinator $6,308 $6,623 $6,955 $7,302 $7,668 Human Resources Analyst $6,631 $6,963 $7,311 $7,676 $8,060 Human Resources Analyst II $7,311 $7,676 $8,060 $8,463 $8,886 Human Resources Assistant $4,977 $5,226 $5,487 $5,762 $6,050 52 30 Human Resources Technician I $5,438 $5,710 $5,996 $6,296 $6,610 Human Resources Technician II $5,996 $6,296 $6,610 $6,941 $7,288 I.T. Assistant $5,332 $5,599 $5,879 $6,173 $6,482 Legal Services Manager $5,961 $6,259 $6,572 $6,901 $7,246 Management Analyst $7,143 $7,500 $7,875 $8,269 $8,682 Network Specialist $6,821 $7,162 $7,520 $7,896 $8,291 Senior Accountant $7,407 $7,778 $8,167 $8,575 $9,004 Web Specialist $6,584 $6,913 $7,259 $7,622 $8,003 Salary Effective July 1, 2015 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Accountant I $5,930 $6,227 $6,538 $6,865 $7,208 Accountant II $6,538 $6,865 $7,208 $7,569 $7,947 Accounting Technician I $5,506 $5,782 $6,071 $6,374 $6,693 Accounting Technician II $6,071 $6,374 $6,693 $7,028 $7,379 Administrative Assistant $5,339 $5,606 $5,886 $6,180 $6,489 Community Relations Coordinator $6,154 $6,462 $6,785 $7,125 $7,481 Deputy City Clerk $6,222 $6,534 $6,860 $7,203 $7,563 Executive Assistant to the City Manager $6,162 $6,470 $6,794 $7,133 $7,490 GIS Coordinator $6,589 $6,919 $7,265 $7,628 $8,010 Human Resources Analyst $6,989 $7,339 $7,706 $8,091 $8,496 Human Resources Analyst II $7,706 $8,091 $8,496 $8,920 $9,366 Human Resources Assistant $5,049 $5,302 $5,567 $5,845 $6,138 Human Resources Technician I $5,506 $5,782 $6,071 $6,374 $6,693 Human Resources Technician II $6,071 $6,374 $6,693 $7,028 $7,379 I.T. Assistant $5,718 $6,004 $6,304 $6,620 $6,951 Legal Services Manager $6,208 $6,518 $6,844 $7,187 $7,546 Management Analyst $7,525 $7,901 $8,296 $8,711 $9,147 Network Specialist $7,046 $7,399 $7,769 $8,157 $8,565 Senior Accountant $7,569 $7,947 $8,345 $8,762 $9,200 Web Specialist $6,666 $7,000 $7,350 $7,717 $8,103 AMENDED November 13, 2013 Salary Effective November 13, 2013 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant Director of Community Development $9,829 $10,321 $10,837 $11,379 $11,948 Salary Effective July 1, 2014 Assistant Director of Community Development $9,977 $10,475 $10,999 $11,549 $12,127 Salary Effective July 1, 2015 53 31 Assistant Director of Community Development $10,101 $10,606 $11,137 $11,694 $12,278 AMENDED December 17, 2013 Salary Effective December 17, 2013 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Service Center Superintendent $8,861 $9,304 $9,769 $10,258 $10,771 Salary Effective July 1, 2014 Service Center Superintendent $8,994 $9,443 $9,916 $10,411 $10,932 Salary Effective July 1, 2015 Service Center Superintendent $9,106 $9,562 $10,040 $10,542 $11,069 AMENDED November 3, 2015 Salary Effective November 3, 2015 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Chief Technology Officer/Director of Information Services $12,409 $13,063 $13,750 $14,438 $15,159 AMENDED July 1, 2016 Salary Effective July 1, 2016 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Business Systems Analyst/Program Manager $7,047 $7,399 $7,769 $8,157 $8,565 City Engineer $11,873 $12,467 $13,090 $13,745 $14,432 Deputy City Manager $10,757 $11,295 $11,859 $12,452 $13,075 GIS Program Manager $8,198 $8,608 $9,039 $9,490 $9,965 Maintenance Supervisor $7,315 $7,680 $8,065 $8,468 $8,891 Public Information Officer $8,129 $8,535 $8,962 $9,410 $9,881 54 32 55 Submittal date: 05/23/2016 FINAL REPORT OF THE CLASSIFICATION STUDY The City of Cupertino Submitted By: Koff & Associates Catherine Kaneko President 2835 7th Street Berkeley, CA 94710 www.KoffAssociates.com kkaneko@koffassociates.com Tel: 510.658.5633 Fax: 510.652.5633 Attachment B 56 May 23, 2016 Ms. Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 96014-3255 Dear Ms. Alfaro: Koff & Associates is pleased to present the final classification and compensation report for the study of all positions in the City of Cupertino. Volume I documents the classification study process and provides recommendations for the classification plan, allocations of individual positions for all City employees, and class specifications. Volume II, to be sent under separate cover, documents the market compensation survey, findings, and recommendations. This first volume incorporates a summary of the study’s multi-step process, which included results of written Position Description Questionnaires, interviews with employees, and employee review and comments in the form of draft class descriptions, and class allocation recommendations. We would like to thank you, Jacqui Guzman, Laura Miyakawa, and Maria Jimenez for your assistance and cooperation without which this study could not have been brought to its successful completion. We will be glad to answer any questions or clarify any points as you are implementing the findings and recommendations. It was a pleasure working with you and we look forward to future opportunities to provide you with professional assistance. Very truly yours, Katie Kaneko President 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com 57 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 CLASSIFICATION STUDY GOALS ..................................................................................................................... 1 CLASSIFICATION STUDY PROCESS ................................................................................................................. 2 CLASSIFICATION CONCEPTS .......................................................................................................................... 2 CLASSIFICATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 6 MAINTAINING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN ................................................................................................... 9 Appendix I: Recommended Employee Allocation 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com 58 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background In November 2015, the City of Cupertino contracted with Koff & Associates (K&A) to conduct a classification and total compensation study for all of the City’s classifications. All classification and compensation findings, recommendations, and options for implementations are in Volumes I and II of this report. This classification review process was precipitated by: The concern of management and the employee groups that employees should be recognized for the level and scope of work performed and that they are paid on a fair and competitive basis that allows the City to recruit and retain a high-quality staff; To ensure that class descriptions reflect current programs, responsibilities, and technology; The desire to have a compensation plan that can meet the needs of the City; and The desire to ensure that internal relationships of salaries are based upon objective, non- quantitative evaluation factors, resulting in equity across the City. The goal of the classification and compensation study is to assist the City in developing a competitive pay and benefit structure, which is based upon market data to ensure that the plan is fiscally responsible, and that meets the needs of the City with regards to recruitment and retention of qualified staff. CLASSIFICATION STUDY GOALS The goals and objectives of the classification portion of the study were to: Obtain detailed information regarding each position through a variety of techniques, including written Position Description Questionnaires (PDQs) and interviews with employees and management; Prepare an updated classification plan, including recommended class descriptions and position allocations that recognizes the scope and level of the various classes and positions, and is perceived equitable by management and employees alike; Provide class descriptions and other documentation that includes information required for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and appropriate qualifications, 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 1 59 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino including knowledge, skills, and other requirements that are job-related and meet other legal guidelines; and  Provide sufficient documentation to allow the City to maintain the classification system on a regular basis. CLASSIFICATION STUDY PROCESS The classification study procedures were as follows:  An initial meeting was held with City management to clarify study scope, objectives, processes, and deliverables.  Orientation meetings were held to which all employees were invited, to meet consultant staff involved with the project, clarify study objectives and procedures, answer questions, and distribute the PDQs.  After the PDQs were completed by employees and reviewed by supervisors and consultant staff, interviews were conducted with all employees and management.  Following the analysis of the classification information gathered, draft class concepts, specifications, and position allocations were developed for management and employee review.  After resolution of issues, wherever possible, including additional contacts with employees and management to gain details and clarification, appropriate modifications were made to the draft specifications and allocations and this final report was prepared. CLASSIFICATION CONCEPTS The Difference between Positions and Classifications “Position” and “Classification” are two terms that are often used interchangeably, but have very different meanings. As used in this report:  A position is an assigned group of duties and responsibilities performed by one person. A position can be full-time, part-time, regular or temporary, filled or vacant. Often the word “job” is used in place of the word “position.”  A classification or class may contain only one position or may consist of a number of positions. When you have several positions assigned to one class, it means that the same title is appropriate for each position; that the scope, level, duties, and responsibilities of each position assigned to the class are sufficiently similar (but not identical) that the same core knowledge, 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 2 60 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino skills, abilities, and other requirements are appropriate for all positions, and that the same salary range is equitable for all positions in the class. The description of a position often appears as a working desk manual, going into detail regarding work process steps, while a class description emphasizes the general scope and level of responsibilities, plus the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other requirements for successful performance. When positions are classified, the focus is on assigned job duties and the job related requirements for successful performance, not on individual employee capabilities or amount of work performed. Positions are thus evaluated and classified on the basis of such factors as knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform the work, the complexity of the work, the authority delegated to make decisions and take action, the responsibility for the work of others and/or for budget expenditures, contacts with others (both inside and outside of the organization), and the impact of the position on the organization and working conditions. The Relationship of Classification and Compensation Classification and the description of the work and the requirements to perform the work are separate and distinct from determining the worth of that work in the labor market and to the organization. While recommending the appropriate compensation for the work of a class depends upon an understanding of what that work is and what it requires (as noted above), compensation levels are often influenced by two factors:  The external labor market; and  Internal relationships within the organization. Compensation findings and recommendations for the City are covered in Volume II of this report. The Purpose of Having a Classification Plan A position classification plan provides an appropriate basis for making a variety of human resources decisions such as the:  Development of job-related recruitment and selection procedures;  Clear and objective appraisal of employee performance;  Development of training plans and succession planning;  Design of an equitable and competitive salary structure;  Organizational development and the management of change; and  Provision of an equitable basis for discipline and other employee actions. In addition to providing this basis for various human resources management and process decisions, a position classification plan can also effectively support systems of administrative and fiscal control. Grouping of positions into an orderly classification system supports planning, budget analysis and preparation, and various other administrative functions. 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 3 61 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino Within a position classification plan, job classifications can either be broad (containing a number of positions) or narrow (emphasizing individual job characteristics). Broad job classifications are indicated when:  Employees can be hired with a broad spectrum of knowledge, skill, and/or academic preparation and can readily learn the details of the City, the department, and the position on-the-job; or  There is a need for flexibility of the assignment within a department or an organization due to changing programs, technologies, or workload. Individualized job classifications are indicated when:  There is an immediate need to recruit for specialty knowledge and skills;  There is a minimum of time or capability for on-the-job training; or  There is an organizational need to provide for specific job recognition and to highlight the differences between jobs. Most classification plans are a combination of these two sets of factors and we have chosen the middle ground in this study as being most practicable in the City’s changing environment and service delivery expectations, as well as being in line with the City’s strategic plan. This approach resulted in recommendations to retitle classifications to more accurately reflect current responsibilities or use more contemporary titles (e.g. Benefit Specialist to Human Resources Specialist), or to reclassify certain individuals into existing or entirely new classifications that more accurately reflect current responsibilities (e.g.Human Resources Information Systems Specialist to Human Resources Analyst) Detailed allocation recommendations are found in Appendix I of the report. Class Descriptions In developing the new and revised classification descriptions for all positions, the basic concepts outlined in the previous pages were utilized. The recommended class descriptions are included in Appendix II of this report. As mentioned earlier, the class descriptions are based upon the information from the written PDQs completed by each employee, the individual job audit interviews (if required), and from information provided by employees and managers during the review processes. These descriptions provide:  A written summary documenting the work performed and/or proposed by the incumbents of these classifications;  Distinctions among the classes; and  Documentation of requirements and qualifications to assist in the recruitment and selection process. Just as there is a difference between a position and a class, there is also a difference between a position description and a class description. A position description, often known as a “desk manual”, generally lists each duty an employee performs and may also have information about how to perform that duty. A class description normally reflects several positions and is a summary document that does not list each duty performed by every employee. The class description, which is intended to be broader, more 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 4 62 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino general and informational, is intended to indicate the general scope and level of responsibility and requirements of the class, not detail-specific position responsibilities. The sections of each class description are as follows: Title: This should be brief and descriptive of the class and consistent with other titles in the classification plan and the occupational area.  The title of a classification is normally used for organization, classification, and compensation purposes within the City. Often working titles are used within a department to differentiate an individual. All positions have a similar level of scope and responsibility; however, the working titles may give assurance to a member of the public that they are dealing with an appropriate individual. Working titles should be authorized by Human Resources to ensure consistency within the City and across departmental lines. Definition: This provides a capsule description of the job and should give an indication of the type of supervision received, the scope and level of the work and any unusual or unique factors. The phrase “performs related work as required” is not meant to unfairly expand the scope of the work performed, but to acknowledge that jobs change and that not all duties are included in the class specification. Supervision Received and Exercised: This section specifies which class or classes provide supervision to the class being described and the type and level of work direction or supervision provided to this class. The section also specifies what type and level of work direction or supervision the class provides to other classes. This assists the reader in defining where the class “fits” in the organization and alludes to possible career advancement opportunities. Class Characteristics: This can be considered the “editorial” section of the specification, slightly expanding the Definition, clarifying the most important aspects of the class and distinguishing this class from the next higher-level in a class series or from a similar class in a different occupational series. Examples of Typical Job Functions: This section provides a list of the major and typical duties, intended to define the scope and level of the class and to support the Qualifications, including Knowledge and Skills. This list is meant to be illustrative only. It should be emphasized that the description is a summary document, and that duties change depending upon program requirements, technology, and organizational needs. Qualifications: This element of the description has several sections:  A listing of the job-related knowledge and skills required to successfully perform the work. They must be related to the duties and responsibilities of the work and capable of being validated under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Uniform Guidelines on Selection Procedures. Knowledge (intellectual comprehension) and Abilities (acquired 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 5 63 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino proficiency) should be sufficiently detailed to provide the basis for selection of qualified employees.  A listing of educational and experience requirements that outline minimum and alternative ways of gaining the knowledge and abilities required for entrance into the selection process. These elements are used as the basic screening technique for job applicants.  Licenses and/or certifications identify those specifically required in order to perform the work. These certifications are often required by an agency higher than the City (i.e., the State), and can therefore be appropriately included as requirements. Physical Demands: This section identifies the basic physical abilities required for performance of the work. These are not presented in great detail (although they are more specifically covered for documentation purposes in the PDQs) but are designed to indicate the type of pre-employment physical examination (lifting requirements and other unusual characteristics are included, such as “finger dexterity needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard”) and to provide an initial basis for determining reasonable accommodation for ADA purposes. Working Conditions: These can describe certain outside influences and circumstances under which a job is performed; they give employees or job applicants an idea of certain risks involved in the job and what type of protective gear may be necessary to perform the job. Examples are loud noise levels, cold and/or hot temperatures, vibration, confining workspace, chemicals, mechanical and/or electrical hazards, and other job conditions. CLASSIFICATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS All class descriptions were updated in order to ensure that the format is consistent, and that the duties and responsibilities are current and properly reflect the required knowledge, abilities, and skills. Recommendations for Retitling One change in the classification plan, as noted above, was the title change for five (5) classifications. Current Class Title Proposed Class Title Assistant Director of Public Works - Engineering Assistant Director of Public Works Maintenance Worker III (6) Lead Maintenance Worker (6) Media Coordinator (3) Multimedia Communication Specialist (3) Public Works Supervisor (3) Maintenance Supervisor (3) Recreation Coordinator Recreation Coordinator II * Service Center Superintendent Maintenance Superintendent Special Program Coordinator Recreation Coordinator I * * City recommended title change. 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 6 64 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino Title changes are recommended to more clearly reflect the level and scope being performed, to consolidate work into broader categories that could be used City-wide, as well as establish consistency with the labor market and industry standards. Any compensation recommendations (detailed in Volume II) are not dependent upon a new title, but upon the market value as defined by job scope, level and responsibilities, and the qualifications required for successful job performance. All recommended position allocations in Appendix I and class descriptions are included in Appendix II of this report. Recommendations for Reclassification The study resulted in eleven (11) incumbents, allocated to eight (8) classifications, to be reclassified, as noted in the table below. These recommendations are based on the individual positions interviewed. Not every incumbent in the current classification are recommended for a reclassification. Current Class Title and Number of Incumbents reclassified Proposed Class Title Administrative Assistant (1) Management Analyst Administrative Clerk (2) Administrative Assistant Maintenance Worker I/II (1) Environmental Programs Compliance Technician Office Assistant (1) Administrative Assistant Office Assistant (1) Senior Office Assistant Office Assistant (1) Community Outreach Specialist I Recreation Assistant (1) Office Assistant Senior Code Enforcement Officer (1) Environmental Programs Specialist Senior Office Assistant (2) Administrative Assistant Web Specialist (1) Business Systems Analyst/Project Manager Recommendations for New Classifications The study resulted in two new classifications which were assigned to the GIS function but classified within broad classifications. We have found the role of GIS systems within public sector organizations is becoming more prominent and that the skill set is unique and warranted creating a distinct classification series. Accordingly we created a GIS Technician and GIS Program Manager classification. To accommodate changes in organizational structure and responsibilities the City requested the development of a City Engineer, Deputy City Manager, Environmental Program Specialist and Environmental Program Compliance Technician classification descriptions. We also developed a Community Outreach Specialist I classification that captured the role of an Office Assistant that is focused on developing and implementing a social media program as well as an Environmental Program Compliance Technician. 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 7 65 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino Recommendations for Classification Elimination With the creation of the Administrative Assistant class description there is no longer a need nor enough distinction between classifications to justify the continuance of the Administrative Clerk classification. Therefore we are recommending that this classification be eliminated. Exemption Status One of the major components of the job analysis and classification review is the determination of each classification’s appropriate Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) status, i.e., exempt vs. non-exempt from the FLSA overtime rules and regulations. As we review position description questionnaires and notes from the interviews, we analyze each classification’s essential functions to determine FLSA status. There are three (3) levels for the determination of the appropriate FLSA status that are utilized and on which we base our recommendations. Below are the steps used for the determination of Exempt FLSA status. Salary Basis Test – The incumbents in a classification are paid at least $455 per week ($23,660 per year), not subject to reduction due to variations in quantity/quality of work performed. Note: computer professionals’ salary minimum is defined in hourly terms as $27.63 per hour. Exemption Applicability – The incumbents in a classification perform any of the following types of jobs:  Executive: Employee whose primary duty is to manage the business or a recognized department/entity and who customarily directs the work of two or more employees. This also includes individuals who hire, fire, or make recommendations that carry particular weight regarding employment status. Examples: executive, director, owner, manager, supervisor.  Administrative: Employee whose primary activities are performing office work or non-manual work on matters of significance relating to the management or business operations of the firm or its customers and which require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment. Examples: coordinator, administrator, analyst, accountant.  Professional: Employee who primarily performs work requiring advanced knowledge/education and which includes consistent exercise of discretion and independent judgment. The advanced knowledge must be in a field of science or learning acquired in a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction. Examples: attorney, physician, statistician, architect, biologist, pharmacist, engineer, teacher.  Computer professional: Employee who primarily performs work as a computer systems analyst, programmer, software engineer or similarly skilled work in the computer field performing a) application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications; b) design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specification; or c) design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs based on and related to user or system design specifications; or a combination of the duties described above, the 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 8 66 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino performance of which requires the same level of skills. Examples: system analyst, database analyst, network architect, software engineer, programmer. Job Analysis – A thorough job analysis of the job duties must be performed to determine exempt status. An exempt position must pass both the salary basis and duties tests. The job analysis should include:  Review of the minimum qualifications established for the job;  Review of prior class descriptions, questionnaires, and related documentation;  Confirmation of duty accuracy with management; and  Review and analysis of workflow, organizational relationships, policies, and other available organizational data. Non-exempt classifications work within detailed and well-defined sets of rules and regulations, policies, procedures, and practices that must be followed when making decisions. Although the knowledge base required to perform the work may be significant, the framework within which incumbents work is fairly restrictive and finite. (Please note that FLSA does not allow for the consideration of workload and scheduling when it comes to exemption status). Finally, often times a classification performs both non-exempt and exempt duties, so we analyze time spent on each type of duties. If a classification performs mostly non-exempt duties (i.e. more than 50% of his or her time), then the classification would be considered non-exempt. MAINTAINING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN A classification plan is not a stable, unchanging entity. Positions may grow and change depending upon technology, service delivery requirements, and a number of other factors. As mentioned above, a “snapshot in time” may become outdated quickly in some areas. We are therefore including this final section to this report, which will assist the City in identifying appropriate placement of new and/or realigned positions within the recommended classification structure. By utilizing this process, the City will be able to change and grow the organization while maintaining the classification structure. In considering whether a position should be placed in a higher/lower classification or where a new classification should be placed within the plan, the following factors should be examined. Although they are not quantified, as requests for reclassification occur, each of the following factors should be addressed. These will provide guidance for maintenance of the classification and compensation plans. 1. Type and Level of Knowledge and Skill Required This factor defines the level of job knowledge and skill, including those attained by formal education, technical training, on-the job experience, and required certification or professional registration. The varying levels are as follows: A. The basic or entry-level into any occupational field 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 9 67 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino This entry-level knowledge may be attained by obtaining a high school diploma, completing specific technical course work, or obtaining a four-year or advanced college or university degree. B. The experienced or journey-level in any occupational field This knowledge and skill level recognizes a class that is expected to perform the day-to-day functions of the work independently, but with guidelines (written or oral) and supervisory assistance available. This level of knowledge is sufficient to provide on-the-job instruction to a fellow employee or an assistant when functioning in a lead capacity. Certifications may be required for demonstrating possession of the required knowledge and skills. C. The advanced level in any occupational field This knowledge and skill level is applied in situations where an employee is required to perform or deal with virtually any job situation that may be encountered. Guidelines may be limited and creative problem solving may be involved. Supervisory knowledge and skills are considered in a separate factor and should not influence any assessment of this factor. D. Total mastery of one or more occupational fields This level normally requires an advanced level of college or university education and is normally found in a research, educational, or product development situation. 2. Supervisory/Management Responsibility This factor defines the supervisory and managerial responsibility, including short and long-range planning, budget development and administration, resource allocation, policy and procedure development, and direction of staff. A. No ongoing direction of programs or staff The employee is responsible for the performance of his or her own work and may provide side- by-side instruction to a co-worker. B. Lead direction of staff or program coordination The employee plans, assigns, directs, and reviews the work of staff performing similar work to that performed by the employee on a day-to-day basis. Training in work procedures is normally involved. If staff direction is not involved, the employee must have responsibility for independently coordinating one or more programs or projects on a regular basis. C. Full first-line supervisor The employee performs the supervisory duties listed above, and, in addition, makes effective recommendation and/or carries out selection, performance evaluation, and disciplinary procedures. If staff supervision is not involved, the employee must have programmatic responsibility, including development and implementing goals, objectives, policies and procedures, and budget development and administration. D. First full managerial level The employee is considered mid-management, often supervising through subordinate levels of supervision. In addition to the responsibilities outlined above, responsibilities include allocating 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 10 68 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino staff and budget resources among competing demands and performing significant program and service delivery planning and evaluation. Normally, this level would be titled a program or division manager. E. Department managerial level The employee is the director of a specified department, normally reporting to the Chief Executive Officer (i.e. CAO). F. Chief Executive Officer level The employee has total administrative responsibility for the City. 3. Supervision Received A. Direct Supervision Direct supervision is usually received by entry-level employees and trainees, i.e., employees who are new to the organization and/or position they are filling. Initially under close supervision, incumbents with basic related experience learn to perform the routine tasks and activities of the assigned classification. As experience is gained, assignments become more varied and are performed with greater independence. Positions receiving direct supervision usually perform most of the duties required of the positions at the next higher level (i.e., the journey-level in a class series), but are not expected to function at the same skill level and usually exercise less independent discretion and judgment in matters related to work procedures and methods. Work is usually supervised while in progress and fits an established structure or pattern. Exceptions or changes in procedures are explained in detail as they arise. Since this class is often used as a training class, employees may have only limited or no directly related work experience. B. General Supervision General supervision is usually received by journey-level and experienced employees, i.e., employees who have been in a position for a period of time and have had the opportunity to be trained and learn most, if not all, duties and responsibilities of the assigned classification. Incumbents are cross-trained to perform the full range of technical work in all of the areas of assignment. Positions at this level are distinguished from the next lower level (i.e., the entry- level in a class series) by the performance of the full range of duties as assigned, working independently, and exercising judgment and initiative. Positions at this level receive only occasional instruction or assistance as new or unusual situations arise and are fully aware of the operating procedures and policies of the work unit. C. General Direction General direction is usually received by supervisory or managerial employees, or employees who are highly specialized and/or subject matter experts in a certain field, function, or program. Responsibilities include performing diverse, specialized, and complex work involving significant accountability and decision-making responsibility. The incumbent organizes and oversees day- to-day activities of a work unit, division, function, and/or program and is responsible for providing professional-level support to the next higher classification level (often a Department Head or other executive manager) in a variety of areas. Successful performance of the work 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 11 69 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino requires an extensive professional background as well as skill in coordinating the assigned work with other functional areas, work units, divisions, departments, and/or outside agencies. This class is often distinguished from the next higher classification level in that the latter has overall responsibility for all functions of the assigned department or division and for developing, implementing, and interpreting public policy. D. Administrative Direction Administrative direction is usually received by department heads or other executive management classifications. The class’ work provides for a wide variety of independent decision-making, within legal and general policy and regulatory guidelines. The class itself often exercises general direction and supervision over other management, supervisory, professional, technical, and administrative support staff through subordinate levels of supervision and oversees, directs, and participates in all activities of the assigned department or work section, including short- and long-term planning, development, and administration. This class often provides assistance to the chief executive officer of the organization in a variety of administrative, coordinative, analytical, and liaison capacities. Successful performance of the work requires knowledge of public policy, municipal functions and activities, including the role of the elected governing body, and the ability to develop, oversee, and implement projects and programs in a variety of areas. Responsibilities include coordinating the activities of the assigned department or work section with those of other departments and outside agencies and managing and overseeing the complex and varied functions of the department. The incumbent is accountable for accomplishing departmental planning and operational goals and objectives and for furthering organizational goals and objectives within general policy guidelines. E. Policy Direction Policy direction is received by the organization’s chief executive officer (CAO) who is accountable to the governing body and responsible for enforcement of all codes and regulations, the conduct of all financial activities, and the efficient and economical performance of the organization’s operations. 4. Problem Solving This factor involves analyzing, evaluating, reasoning and creative thinking requirements. In a work environment, not only the breadth and variety of problems are considered, but also guidelines, such as supervision, policies, procedures, laws, regulations, and standards available to the employee. A. Structured problem solving Work situations normally involve making choices among a limited number of alternatives that are clearly defined by policies and procedures. Supervision, either on-site or through a radio or telephone, is readily available. B. Independent, guided problem solving Work situations require making decisions among a variety of alternatives; however, policies, procedures, standards, and regulations guide the majority of the work. Supervision is generally available in unusual situations. 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 12 70 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino C. Application of discriminating choices Work situations require searching for solutions and independently making choices among a wide variety of policies, procedures, laws, regulations, and standards. Interpretation and evaluation of the situation and available guidelines are required. D. Creative, evaluative, or analytical thinking Work situations require the analysis and application of organizational policies and goals, complex laws, and/or general business or ethical considerations. 5. Authority for Making Decisions and Taking Action This factor describes the degree to which employees have the freedom to take action within their job. The variety and frequency of action and decisions, the availability of policies, procedures, laws, and supervisory or managerial guidance, and the consequence or impact of such decisions are considered within this factor. A. Direct, limited work responsibility The employee is responsible for the successful performance of his or her own work with little latitude for discretion or decision-making. Direct supervision is readily available. B. Decision-making within guidelines The employee is responsible for the successful performance of their own work, but able to prioritize and determine methods of work performance within general guidelines. Supervision is available, although the employee is expected to perform independently on a day-to-day basis. Emergency or unusual situations may occur, but are handled within procedures and rules. Impact of decisions is normally limited to the department or function to which assigned. C. Independent action with focus on work achieved The employee receives assignments in terms of long-term objectives, rather than day-to-day or weekly timeframes. Broad policies and procedures are provided, but the employee has latitude for choosing techniques and deploying staff and material resources. Impact of decisions may have significant department or City wide service delivery and/or budgetary impact. D. Decisions made within general policy or elected official guidance The employee is subject only to the policy guidance of elected officials and/or broad regulatory or legal constraints. The ultimate authority for achieving the goals and objectives of the City are with this employee. 6. Interaction with Others This factor includes the nature and purpose of contacts with others, from simple exchanges of factual information to the negotiation of difficult issues. It also considers with whom the contacts are made, from co-workers and the public to elected or appointed public officials. A. Exchange of factual information 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 13 71 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino The employee is expected to use ordinary business courtesy to exchange factual information with co-workers and the public. Strained situations may occasionally occur, but the responsibilities are normally not confrontational. B. Interpretation and explanation of policies and procedures The employee is required to interpret policies and procedures, apply and explain them and influence the public or others to abide by them. Problems may need to be defined and clarified and individuals contacted may be upset or unreasonable. Contacts may also be made with individuals at all levels throughout the City. C. Influencing individuals or groups The employee is required to interpret laws, policies, and procedures to individuals who may be confrontational or to deal with members of professional, business, community, or other groups or regulatory agencies as a representative of the City. D. Negotiation with organizations from a position of authority The employee often deals with public officials, members of boards, councils, commissions, and others to provide policy direction, explain agency missions, and/or negotiate solutions to difficult problems. 7. Working Conditions/Physical Demands This factor includes specific physical, situational, and other factors that influence the employee’s working situation. A. Normal office or similar setting The work is performed in a normal office or similar setting during regular office hours (occasional overtime may be required, but compensated for). Responsibilities include meeting standard deadlines, using office and related equipment, lifting materials weighing up to 25 pounds, and communicating with others in a generally non-stressful manner. B. Varied working conditions with some physical or emotional demands The work is normally performed indoors, but may have some exposure to noise, heat, weather, or other uncomfortable conditions. Stand-by, call back, or regular overtime may be required. The employee may have to meet frequent deadlines, work extended hours, and maintain attention to detail at a computer or other machinery, deal with difficult people, or regularly perform moderate physical activity. C. Difficult working conditions and/or physical demands The work has distinct and regular difficult demands. Shift work (24-7 or rotating) may be required; there may be exposure to hazardous materials or conditions; the employee may be subject to regular emergency callback and extended shifts; and/or the work may require extraordinary physical demands. Based on the above factors, in the maintenance of the classification plan when an employee is assigned an additional duty or responsibility and requests a change in classification, it is reasonable to ask: 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 14 72 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino  What additional knowledge and skills are required to perform the duty?  How does one gain this additional knowledge and skills – through extended training, through a short-term seminar, through on-the-job experience?  Does this duty or responsibility require new or additional supervisory responsibilities?  Is there a greater variety of or are there more complex problems that need to be solved as a result of the new duty?  Does the employee have to make a greater variety of or more difficult decisions as a result of this new duty?  Are the impacts of decisions greater because of this new duty (effects on staff, budget, department or City-wide activities, and/or relations with other agencies)?  Are guidelines, policies, and/or procedures provided to the employee for the performance of this new duty?  Is the employee interacting with City workers, the public, or others differently as a result of this new assignment?  Have the working or physical conditions of the job changed as a result of this new assignment? Application of these factors by asking the appropriate questions will enable the City to maintain the classification and compensation system in a timely and consistent manner. Again, we want to thank the City for its time and cooperation in bringing this study to a successful conclusion. It has been a pleasure working with the City of Cupertino on this critical project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any additional information or clarification regarding this report. Respectfully Submitted, Katie Kaneko President 2835 7th Street, Berkeley, California 94710 | 510.658.5633 | www.KoffAssociates.com Page | 15 73 Final Report – Volume I Classification City of Cupertino Appendix I Recommended Employee Allocations 74 Appendix I City of Cupertino Employee Allocation November 2015 Sheet 1 First Name Last Name Current Title Proposed Title Action Supervisor Title Julia Kinst Administrative Assistant Management Analyst Reclassification Aarti Shrivastava Assistant City Manager Chylene Osborne Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant No Change Chris Mertens Service Center Superintendent Liz Nunez Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant No Change Carol Atwood Director of Recreation & Comm Svcs Bethany Ebben Administrative Clerk Administrative Assistant Reclassification Julia Kinst Administrative Assistant Susan Winslow Administrative Clerk Administrative Assistant Reclassification Julia Kinst Administrative Assistant Roger Lee Assistant Director of Public Works - Engineering Assistant Director of Public Works Title Change Timm Borden Director of Public Works Katie Groeneweg Assistant Planner Assistant Planner No Change Gary Chao Assistant Director of Community Development Gian Paolo Martire Assistant Planner Assistant Planner No Change Gary Chao Assistant Director of Community Development Erick Serrano Assistant Planner Assistant Planner No Change Gary Chao Assistant Director of Community Development Ellen Yau Assistant Planner Limited Term Assistant Planner No Change Gary Chao Assistant Director of Community Development Tiffany Brown Associate Planner Associate Planner No Change Gary Chao Assistant Director of Community Development Albert Salvador Building Official Building Official No Change Aarti Shrivastava Assistant City Manager Gulu Sakhrani Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Officer No Change Carol Atwood Director of Recreation and Community Services Jeffrey Trybus Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Officer No Change Carol Atwood Director of Recreation and Community Services Adam Araza Engineering (GIS) Technician GIS Technician New Class Teri Gerhardt Senior Management Analyst Cheri Donnelly Environmental Programs Manager Environmental Programs Manager No Change Roger Lee Assistant Director of Public Works VACANT Executive Assistant to the CM Executive Assistant to the CM No Change David Brandt City Manager Ronald Bullock Facilitiy Attendant Facility Attendant No Change Thomas Walters Senior Recreation Supervisor Jason Bisely Facility Attendant Facility Attendant No Change Thomas Walters Senior Recreation Supervisor Lisa Taitano Finance Manager Finance Manager No Change Kristina Alfaro Director of Administrative Services Mariyah Serratos Information Technology Manager Information Technology Manager No Change Rick Kitson Public Affairs Director Cheryl Mannix-Smith Legal Services Manager Legal Services Manager No Change Carol Korade City Attorney Manuel Barragan Maintenance Worker I/II Environmental Programs Compliance Technician Reclassification Alex Wykoff Environmental Programs Specialist Ty Bloomquist Maintenance Worker III Lead Maintenance Worker Title Change Chris Orr Facilities Supervisor Shawn Tognetti Maintenance Worker III Lead Maintenance Worker Title Change Brad Alexander Street Supervisor VACANT Maintenance Worker III Lead Maintenance Worker Title Change John Bisely Retired Rudy Lomas Maintenance Worker III Lead Maintenance Worker Title Change Chris Orr Facilities Supervisor James Steed Maintenance Worker III Lead Maintenance Worker Title Change Jonathan Ferrante Public Works Supervisor Jason Fauth Maintenance Worker III Lead Maintenance Worker Title Change Jonathan Ferrante Public Works Supervisor Ryan Roman Management Analyst Management Analyst No Change Timm Borden Director of Public Works Peter Coglianese Media Coordinator Multimedia Communication Specialist Title Change Rick Kitson Public Affairs Director Reinaldo Delgado Media Coordinator Multimedia Communication Specialist Title Change Rick Kitson Public Affairs Director Robert Kim Media Coordinator Multimedia Communication Specialist Title Change Rick Kitson Public Affairs Director Lisa Maletis- Massey Office Assistant Administrative Assistant Reclassification Rick Kitson Director of Public Affairs Kevin Khuu Office Assistant Office Assistant No Change Thomas Walters Senior Recreation Supervisor Lisa Atwood Office Assistant Senior Office Assistant Reclassification Julia Lamy Senior Recreation Supervisor Patricia Garcia Office Assistant Office Assistant No Change Colleen Lettire Office Assistant Community Outreach Specialist I Reclassification Rick Kitson Public Affairs Director 75 Appendix I City of Cupertino Employee Allocation November 2015 Sheet 1 First Name Last Name Current Title Proposed Title Action Supervisor Title Chris Orr PW Supervisor Maintenance Supervisor Title Change Chris Mertens Service Center Superintendent Jonathan Ferrante PW Supervisor Maintenance Supervisor Title Change Chris Mertens Service Center Superintendent Brian Gathers PW Supervisor Maintenance Supervisor Title Change Chrystina Gomez Recreation Assistant Office Assistant Reclassification Colleen Ferris Recreation Coordinator Alex Wykoff Senior Code Enforcement Officer Environmental Programs Specialist Reclassification Cheri Donnelly Environmental Programs Manager Teri Gerhardt Senior Management Analyst GIS Program Manager New Class Rick Kitson / Mariyah Serratos Public Affairs Director / IT Manager Ruben Rodriguez Senior Office Assistant (Interim) Senior Office Assistant No Change Thomas Walters Senior Recreation Supervisor Rebecca Shaffer Senior Office Assistant Administrative Assistant Reclassification Thomas Walters Senior Recreation Supervisor Tiffanie Cardenas Senior Office Assistant Administrative Assistant Reclassification Ryan Roman Management Analyst Piu Gosh Senior Planner Senior Planner No Change Gary Chao Assistant Director of Community Development Chris Mertens Service Center Superintendent Maintenance Superintendent Title Change Roger Lee Assistant Director of Public Works Nidhi Mathur Web Specialist Business Systems Analyst/Project Manager Reclassification Rick Kitson Director of Public Affairs Gary Chao Assistant Director of Community Development Assistant Director of Community Development No Change Aarti Shrivastava Assistant City Manager 76 1 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 1 PROGRAM PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY It is City of Cupertino policy that those certain persons holding positions hereinafter defined and designated either as management or confidential positions shall be eligible for participation under the Unrepresented Employees Compensation Program as hereby adopted by action of the City Council and as same may be amended or as otherwise modified from time to time. It is the stated purpose of this Compensation Program to give recognition to and to differentiate those eligible employees from represented employees who achieve economic gain and other conditions of employment through negotiation. It is the intent that through this policy and those which are adopted or as may be modified or rescinded from time to time such recognition may be given. Eligibility for inclusion with this Compensation program is limited to persons holding positions as management or confidential employees as defined under section 2.52.290 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. These are as designated by the Appointing Authority and may be modified as circumstances warrant. Although subject to change in accordance with provision of the Personnel Code, the positions in the following classifications have been designated as unrepresented. MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATIONS: Classification Title Accountant I Accountant II Accounting Technician I Accounting Technician II Administrative Assistant Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Manager Assistant Director of Community Development Assistant Director of Public Works Assistant to the City Manager Building Official Business Systems Analyst/Program Manager Capital Improvement Program Manager Chief Technology Officer/Director of Information Services City Clerk City Engineer City Planner Attachment C 77 2 Community Relations Coordinator Deputy City Clerk Deputy City Manager Director of Administrative Services Director of Community Development Director of Recreation and Community Service Director of Public Works Environmental Programs Manager Executive Assistant to the City Manager Finance Manager GIS Coordinator GIS Program Manager Human Resources Assistant Human Resources Analyst I Human Resources Analyst II Human Resource s Technician I Human Resources Technician II Information Technology Assistant Information Technology Manager Human Resources Manager Legal Services Manager Management Analyst Network Specialist Public Information Officer Public Affairs Director Public Works Projects Manager Public Works Supervisor Maintenance Supervisor Recreation Supervisor Economic Development Manager Senior Accountant Senior Civil Engineer Senior Recreation Supervisor Senior Management Analyst Service Center Superintendent Sustainability Manager Web Specialist In the event of any inconsistency between the Compensation Program and any Employment Contracts, the provisions of the Employment Contract and any amendments thereto control. Adopted by Action of the City Council, April 1, 1974 Revised 10/74, 3/78, 6/81, 6/82, 7/85, 7/87, 1/89, 7/90, 4/91, 5/91, 7/92, 6/95, 6/96, 7/99, 6/02, 7/04, 6/05, 04/07, 7/10, 10/12, 12/12, 7/13,11/13,12/13,3/14, 7/14, 11/15, 6/16 78 3 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 2 SALARY SCHEDULE AND OTHER SALARY RATES It is City of Cupertino policy that eligible persons under this Compensation Program shall be compensated for services rendered to and on behalf of the City on the basis of equitably of pay for duties and responsibilities assigned, meritorious service and comparability with similar work in other public and private employment in the same labor market; all of which is contingent upon the City’s ability to pay consistent with its fiscal policies. Effective the first full pay period in July 2013, a 1.5% salary increase will be added to the salary ranges of classifications in this group. Effective the first full pay period in July 2014, a 1.5% salary increase will be added to the salary ranges of classifications in this group. Effective the first full pay period in July 2015, a 1.25% salary increase will be added to the salary ranges of classification in this group. See Attachment A for a list of paygrades. In addition, equity adjustments as identified in the City’s 2013 total compensation survey shall occur over the next three years. Effective the first pay period in July 2013, a .46% equity adjustment will be added to the salary ranges of classifications as noted in Attachment A. Effective the first pay period in July, 2014, a .97% equity adjustment will be added to the salary ranges of classifications as noted in Attachment A. Effective the first pay period in July, 2015, a 1.21% equity adjustment will be added to the salary ranges of classifications as noted in Attachment A. Adopted by Action of the City Council April 1, 1974 Revised 8/78, 7/79, 6/80, 7/92, 6/95, 10/12, 7/13 79 4 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 3 TRAINING AND CONFERENCES I. POLICY A. Management Personnel It is City of Cupertino policy that eligible persons under this Compensation Program shall be reimbursed or receive advances in accordance with the schedules, terms and conditions as set forth herein for attendance at conferences, meetings and training sessions as defined below for each. It is the intent of this policy to encourage the continuing education and awareness of said persons in the technical improvements and innovations in their fields of endeavor as they apply to the City or to implement a City approved strategy for attracting and retaining businesses in the City. One means of implementing this encouragement is through a formal reimbursement and advance schedule for authorized attendance at such conferences, meetings and training sessions. B. Non-Management Personnel When authorized by their supervisor, a non-management person may attend a conference, meeting or training session subject to the stated terms and conditions included herein for each with payment toward or reimbursement of certain expenses incurred as defined below for each. II DEFINITIONS A. Conferences A conference is an annual meeting of a work related organization the membership of which may be held in the name of the City or the individual. B. Local Area The local area is defined to be within Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties and within a 40- mile distance from Cupertino when traveling to Alameda County. C. Meetings A “meeting” shall mean a convention, conference, seminar, workshop, meal, or like assembly having to do with municipal government operations. An employee serving on a panel for interviews of job applicants shall not come under this definition. 80 5 D. Training Session A training session is any type of seminar or workshop the attendance at which is for the purpose of obtaining information of a work related nature to benefit the City’s operations or to enhance the attendee’s capabilities in the discharge of assigned duties and responsibilities. III REIMBURSEMENT AND ADVANCE PAYMENT SCHEDULE A. Intent This schedule is written with the intent that the employee will make every effort to find the lowest possible cost to the City for traveling on City business. For example, if paying for parking at the airport is less expensive that paying for a taxi or airport shuttle, then the employee should drive their car and park at the airport; or if renting a car is lower than taking taxis at the out-of-town location, then a car should be rented; or air reservations should be booked in advance to obtain discounted fares. The following procedures apply whether the expense is being paid through a reimbursement or a direct advance. B. Registration Registration fees for authorized attendance at a meeting or training session will be paid by the City. C. Transportation The City will pay transportation costs on the basis of the lowest cost intent stated in paragraph A. Eligible transportation costs include airfare (with coach fare being the maximum), van or taxi service to and from the attendee’s home and airport, destination or airport parking charges, taxi and shuttle services at the out-of-town location, trains, tolls, or rental cars. Use of a personal automobile for City business shall be reimbursed or advanced at the rate per mile in effect for such use, except in no case shall it exceed air coach fare if the vehicle is being used for getting to the destination. Government or group rates offered by a provider of transportation must be used when available. Reimbursement or advances for use of a personal automobile on City business within a local area will not be made so as to supplement that already being paid to those persons receiving a monthly mileage allowance. D. Lodging Hotel or lodging expenses of the employee resulting from the authorized event or activity defined in this policy will be reimbursed or advanced if the lodging and event occurs outside of the local area. Not covered will be lodging expenses related to person(s) who are accompanying the City member, but who themselves are not on City business. In this 81 6 instance, for example, the difference between single and multiple occupancy rates for a room will not be reimbursed. Where the lodging is in connection with a conference or other organized educational activity, City-paid lodging costs shall not exceed the maximum group rate published by the conference or activity sponsor, providing that lodging at the group rate is available at the time of booking. If the group rate at the conference hotel is not available, then the non- conference lodging policy described in the next paragraph should be followed to find another comparable hotel. Where lodging is necessary for an activity that is not related to a conference or other organized educational activity, reimbursement or advances shall be limited to the actual cost of the room at a group or government rate. In the event that a group or government rate is not available, lodging rates that do not exceed the median price for lodging for that area and time period listed on travel websites like www.hotels.com, www.expedia.com or an equivalent service shall be eligible for reimbursement or advancement. E. Meals 1. With No Conference Payments toward or reimbursement of meals related to authorized activities or events shall be at the Internal Revenue Service per diem rate for meals and incidental expenses for a given location, as stated by IRS publications 463 and 1542 and by the U.S. General Services Administration. The per diem shall be split among meals as reasonably desired and reduced accordingly for less than full travel days. If per diem is claimed, no receipts are necessary. Alternatively, the actual cost of a meal can be claimed, within a standard of reasonableness, but receipts must be kept and submitted for the expense incurred. 2. As Part of a Conference When City personnel are attending a conference or other organized educational activity, they shall be reimbursed or advanced for meals not provided by the activity, on a per diem or actual cost basis. The per diem and actual cost rate shall follow the rules described in the meals with no conference paragraph. F. Other Expenses Payments toward or reimbursement of expenses at such functions shall be limited to the actual costs consistent with the application of reasonable standards. Other reasonable expenses related to business purposes shall be paid consistent with this policy. 82 7 No payments shall be made unless, where available, receipts are kept and submitted for all expenses incurred. When receipts are not available, qualifying expenditures shall be reimbursed upon signing of an affidavit of expenditure. No payment shall be made for any expenses incurred which are of a personal nature or not within a standard of reasonableness for the situation as may be defined by the Finance Department. G. Non-Reimbursable Expenses The City will not reimburse or advance payment toward expenses including, but not limited to: 1. The personal portion of any trip; 2. Political or charitable contributions or events; 3. Family expenses, including those of a partner when accompanying the employee on City-related business, as well as child or pet-related expenses; 4. Entertainment expenses, including theatre, shows, movies, sporting events, golf, spa treatments, etc. 5. Gifts of any kind for any purpose; 6. Service club meals; of those besides economic development staff; 7. Alcoholic beverages; 8. Non-mileage personal automobile expenses including repairs, insurance, gasoline, traffic citations; and 9. Personal losses incurred while on City business. IV ATTENDANCE AUTHORIZATION A. Budgetary Limitations Notwithstanding any attendance authorization contained herein, reimbursement or advances for expenses relative to conferences, meeting or training sessions shall not exceed the budgetary limitations. B. Conference Attendance Attendance at conferences or seminars by employees must be approved by their supervisor. C. Meetings Any employee, management or non-management, may attend a meeting when authorized by their supervisor. 83 8 D. Training Sessions Any employee, management or non-management, may attend a training session when authorized by their supervisor. V. FUNDING A. Appropriation Policy It shall be the policy of the City to appropriate funds subject to availability of resources. B. Training Sessions Payments toward or reimbursement of expenses incurred in attendance at training sessions, will be appropriated annually through the budget process. VI. DIRECT CASH ADVANCE POLICY From time to time, it may be necessary for a City employee to request a direct cash advance to cover anticipated expenses while traveling or doing business on the City’s behalf. Such request for an advance should be submitted to their supervisor no less than seven days prior to the need for the advance with the following information: 1) Purpose of the expenditure; 2) The anticipated amount of the expenditure (for example, hotel rates, meal costs, and transportation expenses); and 3) The dates of the expenditure. An accounting of expenses and return of any unused advance must be reported to the City within 30 calendar days of the employee’s return on the expense report described in Section VII. VII. EXPENSE REPORT REQUIREMENTS All expense reimbursement requests or final accounting of advances received must be approved by their supervisor, on forms determined by the Finance Department, within 30 calendar days of an expense incurred, and accompanied by a business purpose for all expenditures and a receipt for each non- per diem item. Revised 7/83, 7/85, 7/87, 7/88, 7/91, 7/92, 12/07,7/10 84 9 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 4 AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCES AND MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS It is City of Cupertino policy that eligible persons under this Compensation Program shall be compensated fairly for the use of personal automotive vehicles on City business. In many instances the use of personal vehicles is a condition of employment due to the absence of sufficient City owned vehicles for general transportation purposes. It is not intended, however, that such a condition of employment should work an undue hardship. For this reason, the following policies shall apply for mileage reimbursements. Those persons who occasionally are required to use their personal automobiles for City business shall be reimbursed for such use at an appropriate rate established by the City Council. Submission of reimbursement requests must be approved by the Department Head. Employees in the following classifications shall be paid on a monthly basis the following automobile allowance: Classification Allowance Director of Administrative Services 300.00 Director of Community Development 300.00 Assistant City Manager 300.00 Director of Parks and Recreation 300.00 Director of Public Works 300.00 Chief Technology Officer/ 300.00 Director of Information Services City Clerk 250.00 Public Affairs Director 250.00 Senior Civil Engineer 250.00 Recreation Supervisor 200.00 Employees receiving automobile allowance shall be eligible for reimbursement for travel that exceeds two hundred miles round trip. Adopted by Action of the City Council April 1, 1974 Revised 7/74, 5/79, 6/80, 7/81, 8/84, 7/87, 1/89, 7/90, 7/92, 6/96, 8/99, 6/00, 9/01, 1/02, 6/02, 10/07, 7/10, 7/11, 10/12, 12/12, 7/13, 11/15 85 10 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 5 ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS AND PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS It is City of Cupertino policy that eligible persons under this Compensation Program shall be entitled to City sponsored association memberships as well as receiving subscriptions to professional and technical publications. Such sponsorship, however, shall be conditioned upon the several factors as set forth below. Each association for which membership is claimed must be directly related to the field of endeavor of the person to be benefited. Each claim for City sponsored membership shall be submitted by or through the Department Head with their concurrence to the City Manager for approval. Subscriptions to or purchase of professional and technical publications may be provided at City expense when such have been authorized by the Department Head providing the subject matter and material generally contained therein are related to municipal governmental operations. Adopted by Action of the City Council April 1, 1974 Revised 7/92 86 11 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 6 OVERTIME WORKED EXEMPT POSITIONS: Management and non-represented professional employees are ineligible for overtime payments for time worked in excess of what otherwise would be considered as a normal work day or work week for other employees. However, no deduction from leave balances are made when such an employee is absent for less than a regular work day as long as the employee has his/her supervisor’s approval. Nothing in this policy precludes the alternative work schedule, which may include an absence of a full eight hour day, when forty hours have been worked in the same seven day work period. NON-EXEMPT POSITIONS: Confidential employees are eligible for overtime or compensation time, at their discretion, for the time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Nothing in this policy precludes the alternative work schedule, which may include an absence of a full eight hour day, where forty hours have been worked in the same seven day period. Adopted by Action of the City Council April 1, 1974 Revised 6/80, 7/91, 7/92, 6/96, 7/97, 4/07, 7/13 87 12 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 7 HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN - EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide group hospital and medical insurance under which employees in Management and Confidential positions and their dependents may be covered. The purpose of this program is to promote and preserve the health of employees and their families through comprehensive health plans available only through employer sponsorship. Although the premium cost for the insurance provided remains the ultimate responsibility of the employee in these positions, the City shall contribute the amounts listed below towards the premium or pay the full cost of the premium if less than the stated amounts. If the premium amounts for any employee covered by this policy are less than the amounts listed below per month, the difference between the premium amount and the stated amounts will be included in the employee’s gross pay. The City will no longer pay medical insurance cash back (excess of the monthly premium less the cost of the medical coverage) for new employees hired after July 1, 2005. Medical Insurance Coverage Level City Contribution Employee 702.00 Employee + 1 762.00 Employee +2 802.00 Effective 11/1/13 or as soon as administratively possible, the City will establish a Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) to be used towards health related expenses. Upon establishment, the City will deposit an amount equal to $83.00/month from 7/1/13 to plan enactment. Thereafter, employees will receive $83.00 /month in their HRA. Effective with the first full pay period in July 2014, employees will receive an additional $80.00/month in HRA to be used towards health related expenses. During the 13/14 contract year, the City will be reopening negotiations to discuss elimination of the CalPERS 100/90 retirement plan and replacement of said plan. Adopted by Action of the City Council September 16, 1974 Revised 7/75, 7/76, 7/77, 8/78, 7/79, 6/80, 6/81, 7/81, 6/82, 7/83, 7/84, 7/88, 7/89, 7/90, 7/91, 7/92, 6/95, 7/97, 7/99, 6/00, 6/02, 7/04, 6/05, 4/07,12/12, 7/13 88 13 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 8 FIXED HOLIDAYS It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to recognize days of historical and national significance as holidays of the City without loss of pay or benefits. Recognizing the desirable times throughout the year, it is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide days off in lieu of holidays for management and confidential employees at such times as are convenient for each employee and supervisor, when such policy is compatible with the workload and schedule of the City. The City provides the following fixed paid holidays for eligible employees covered by this agreement: 1. New Year’s Day 2. Martin Luther King Day 3. Presidents’ Day 4. Memorial Day 5. Independence day 6. Labor Day 7. Veteran’s Day 8. Thanksgiving Day 9. Day Following Thanksgiving 10. Christmas Eve 11. Christmas Day 12. New Year’s Eve When a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed as the non-work day. When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the previous Friday shall be observed as the non-work day. FLOATING HOLIDAY In addition to the paid holidays, employees occupying these positions shall be provided 20 floating hours per calendar year as non-work time with full pay and benefits. Employees may accumulate floating holiday hours up to two times their annual accrual. Adopted by Action of the City Council July 7, 1975 Revised 6/80, 6/89, 7/92, 7/99, 7/13 89 14 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 9 LIFE AND LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to make available group insurance for Management and Confidential employees that will mitigate the personal and family financial hardships resulting from continuing disability that prevents an employee from performing gainfully in his or her occupation. It is further the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide life insurance benefits in an amount of two and one half times the employee’s annual salary to a maximum of $250,000.00. Employees occupying unrepresented positions may enroll in the disability income program and the life insurance program offered if eligible under the contract provisions of the policy and the personnel rules of the City. The full cost of premiums for these programs shall be paid by the City for such employees. Adopted by Action of the City Council September 16, 1976 Revised 7/76, 6/80, 6/81, 6/82, 6/92 90 15 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 10 DEFERRED COMPENSATION It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide equitable current compensation and reasonable retirement security for management and confidential employees for services performed for the City. The City participates in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and deferred compensation plans have been established. Both the employee and employer may make contributions from current earnings to these plans. The purpose of this policy is to promote means by which compensation may be provided in such manner and form to best meet the requirements of the City and the needs of individual employees, thereby increasing the ability, to attract and retain competent management and confidential employees. The City shall maintain and administer means by which employees in these positions may defer portions of their current earnings for future utilization. Usage of such plans shall be subject to such agreements, rules and procedures as are necessary to properly administer each plan. Employee contributions to such plans may be made in such amounts as felt proper and necessary to the employee. Employer contributions shall be as determined by the City Council. Adopted by Action of the City Council July 7, 1975 Revised 6/80, 7/87, 7/92, 7/99 91 16 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 11 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION A. Employees hired on or before December 29, 2012 Only: For employees hired on or before December 29, 2012, the City has contracted with CalPERS for a 2.7% @55 formula. Effective in the first full pay period in July 2013, the City agrees to pay the employee’s contribution rate to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) not to exceed 4.5% of applicable salary and each employee agrees to pay 3.5% of applicable salary. Effective in the first full pay period in July 2014, the City agrees to pay the employee’s contribution rate to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) not to exceed 3.0% of applicable salary and each employee agrees to pay 5.0% of applicable salary. Effective in the first full pay period in July 2015, the City agrees to pay the employee’s contribution rate to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) not to exceed 1.75% of applicable salary and each employee agrees to pay 6.25% of applicable salary. The City agrees to pay the employer’s contribution rate to the Public Employees Retirement System to the extent required by law and the parties acknowledge that by January 1, 2018 the employees are required to pay 50% of the normal cost rate as determined by CalPERS. B. For Employees hired by the City of Cupertino on December 30, 2012 or December 31, 2012 or a current CalPERS employee who qualifies as a classic member under CalPERS Regulations Only: For Employees hired by the City of Cupertino on December 30, 2012 or December 31, 2012 or a current CalPERS employee who qualifies as a classic member under CalPERS Regulations only the City has contracted with CalPERS for a 2.0% @ 60 retirement formula, three year average compensation. Effective in the first full pay period in July 2013, the City agrees to pay the employee’s contribution rate to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) not to exceed 3.5 % of applicable salary and each employee agrees to pay 3.5% of applicable salary. Effective in the first full pay period in July 2014, the City agrees to pay the employee’s contribution rate to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) not to exceed 2.0 % of applicable salary and each employee agrees to pay 5.0% of applicable salary. 92 17 Effective in the first full pay period in July 2015, the City agrees to pay the employee’s contribution rate to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) not to exceed .75 % of applicable salary and each employee agrees to pay 6.25% of applicable salary. The City agrees to pay the employer’s contribution rate to the Public Employees Retirement System to the extent required by law and the parties acknowledge that by January 1, 2018 the employees are required to pay 50% of the normal cost rate as determined by CalPERS. C. For new employees hired by the City of Cupertino on or after January 1, 2013 and do not qualify as Classic members Only: For new employees hired by the City of Cupertino on or after January 1, 2013 and do not qualify as classic members as defined by CalPERS, CalPERS has by statute implemented a 2% @ 62 formula, three year average and employees in this category shall pay 50% of the normal cost rate as determined by CalPERS. Adopted by Action of the City Council June, 1981 Revised 6/87, 6/89, 7/90, 7/91, 7/92, 6/03, 7/04, 4/07, 7/10, 10/12, 12/12, 7/13 93 18 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 12 DENTAL INSURANCE - EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide dental insurance under which employees in Management and Confidential positions and their dependents may be covered. The purpose of this program is to promote and preserve the health of employees. The premium cost for the insurance provided by the City shall not exceed $78.26 per month per employee. Enrollment in the plan or plans made available pursuant to this policy shall be in accordance with Personnel Rules of the City and the provisions of the contract for such insurance between the City and carrier or carriers. Adopted by Action of City Council July 1, 1983 Revised 7/87, 7/88, 7/89, 7/90, 7/91, 7/92, 6/95, 7/99, 4/07, 10/12 94 19 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 13 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE The department heads shall receive forty (40) hours of administrative leave with pay per year. Unrepresented employees exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act shall receive twenty-four (24) hours of administrative leave with pay per year. Employees may accumulate administrative leave hours up to their annual accrual. Employees shall be eligible to convert administrative leave hours to pay one time each calendar year. Adopted by Action of the City Council July, 1988 Revised 7/92, 7/97, 7/99, 7/10, 12/12 95 20 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 14 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide an Employee Assistance Program for the benefit of Management and Confidential employees and their eligible dependents. The purpose of this program is to provide professional assistance and counseling concerning financial, legal, pre-retirement, and other matters of a personal nature. Adopted by Action of the City Council June 17, 1996 96 21 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 15 VACATION ACCUMULATION The department heads shall earn vacation hours under the same vacation accumulation schedule as all other employees. Credit shall be provided for previous public sector service time on a year-for-year basis as to annual vacation accumulation. Credit shall only be given for completed years of service. Public service credit shall not apply to any other supplemental benefit. Employee(s) affected by this policy will have the responsibility of providing certification as to previous public sector service. Benefited full-time employees accrue vacation in accordance with the following schedule. Benefited employees who work less than a full-time work schedule accrue vacation in accordance with the following schedule on a pro-rated basis. Service Time Hrs of Accrual Per Pay Period Annual Accruals Maximum Accrual 0 - 3 Years 3.08 80 Hours 160 Hours 4 - 9 Years 4.62 120 Hours 240 Hours 10 – 14 Years 5.24 136 Hours 272 Hours 15 – 19 Years 6.16 160 Hours 320 Hours 20 + Years 6.77 176 Hours 352 Hours An employee may accrue no more vacation credit than twice the annual rate being earned. VACATION CREDITS The hiring manager, with the approval of the department head and the City Manager, may offer a vacation bank of up to 120 hours of vacation to a prospective candidate in the Unrepresented group. These hours do not vest for payoff purposes if the employee leaves service. Adopted by Action of the City Council July 7, 1997 Revised 6/99, 7/10, 12/12, 7/13 97 22 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 16 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Housing assistance may be offered to the department heads pursuant to Resolution No. 15-092. Adopted by Action of the City Council July 7, 1997 Revised 7/99, 7/10, 8/12, 10/15 98 23 City of Cupertino UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM Policy No. 17 VISION INSURANCE – EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide vision insurance under which employees and their dependents may be covered. The purpose of this program is to promote and preserve the health of employees. The premium cost for the insurance provided by the City shall not exceed $14.94 per month per employee. Enrollment in the plan or plans made available pursuant to this policy shall be in accordance with the provisions of the contract between the City and carrier or carriers providing vision insurance coverage, Adopted by Action of the City Council July 1997 Revised 7/99, 6/02, 6/03, 7/10, 10/12 99 24 City of Cupertino Listing of Unrepresented Classifications by Salary Rate or Pay Grades Effective July 1, 2013 (Res. No. 13-061) Amended 11/19/13 (Res. No. 13-099) Amended 12/17/13 (Res. No. 13-108) Amended 3/18/14 (Res. No. 14-130) Amended 11/3/14 (Res. No. 14-209) Amended 11/3/2015 (Res. No. 15-099 ) Amended 6/21/16 (Res. No. 16- ) 100 25 CITY OF CUPERTINO CLASSES AND POSITIONS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013- JUNE 30, 2016 The salaries, wages or rates pay per month for those officers and employees whose positions are exempt under the provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, are set forth below. Only the City Council can modify these rates. Salary Effective July 1, 2013 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant City Manager $14,137 $14,844 $15,857 $16,366 $17,184 Director of Administrative Services $12,075 $12,679 $13,313 $13,979 $14,678 Director of Community Development $11,885 $12,479 $13,103 $13,758 $14,446 Director of Recreation and Community Service $12,595 $13,225 $13,887 $14,581 $15,310 Director of Public Works $12,852 $13,494 $14,169 $14,878 $15,621 Salary Effective July 1, 2014 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant City Manager $14,350 $15,067 $15,820 $16,611 $17,422 Director of Administrative Services $12,256 $12,869 $13,513 $14,188 $14,898 Director of Community Development $12,144 $12,751 $13,389 $14,058 $14,761 Director of Recreation and Community Service $12,784 $13,424 $14,095 $14,800 $15,540 Director of Public Works $13,045 $13,697 $14,382 $15,101 $15,856 Salary Effective July 1, 2015 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant City Manager $14,529 $15,255 $16,018 $16,819 $17,660 Director of Administrative Services $12,409 $13,030 $13,681 $14,366 $15,084 Director of Community Development $12,399 $13,019 $13,670 $14,353 $15,071 Director of Recreation and Community Service $12,944 $13,591 $14,271 $14,985 $15,734 Director of Public Works $13,208 $13,868 $14,561 $15,290 $16,054 101 26 CITY OF CUPERTINO CLASSES AND POSITIONS BY PAY GRADE MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013 – JUNE 30, 2016 Salary Effective July 1, 2013 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant City Attorney $11,265 $11,828 $12,420 $13,041 $13,693 Assistant Director of Public Works $10,274 $10,787 $11,327 $11,893 $12,488 Assistant to the City Manager $7,910 $8,305 $8,721 $9,157 $9,614 Building Official $9,339 $9,806 $10,297 $10,811 $11,352 Capital Improvement Program Manager $9,328 $9,794 $10,284 $10,798 $11,338 City Clerk $8,152 $8,559 $8,987 $9,437 $9,909 City Planner $9,395 $9,865 $10,358 $10,876 $11,420 Deputy City Attorney $8,105 $8,511 $8,936 $9,383 $9,852 Economic Development Mgr $9,383 $9,852 $10,345 $10,862 $11,405 Environmental Programs Manager $7,792 $8,182 $8,591 $9,021 $9,472 Finance Manager $9,428 $9,899 $10,394 $10,914 $11,460 Human Resources Manager $9,328 $9,794 $10,284 $10,798 $11,338 Information Technology Manager $9,074 $9,528 $10,004 $10,504 $11,030 Park Restoration and Improvement Manager $9,328 $9,794 $10,284 $10,798 $11,338 Public Affairs Director $9,074 $9,528 $10,004 $10,504 $11,030 Public Works Project Manager $7,962 $8,360 $8,778 $9,217 $9,678 Public Works Supervisor $7,118 $7,474 $7,847 $8,240 $8,652 Recreation Supervisor $6,955 $7,303 $7,668 $8,052 $8,454 Senior Civil Engineer $9,405 $9,876 $10,370 $10,888 $11,433 Senior Management Analyst $7,304 $7,669 $8,052 $8,455 $8,878 Senior Recreation Supervisor $7,668 $8,052 $8,454 $8,877 $9,321 Sustainability Manager $7,792 $8,182 $8,591 $9,021 $9,472 Salary Effective July 1, 2014 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant City Attorney $11,434 $12,006 $12,606 $13,236 $13,898 Assistant Director of Public Works $10,539 $11,066 $11,620 $12,201 $12,811 Assistant to the City Manager $8,028 $8,430 $8,851 $9,294 $9,759 Building Official $9,479 $9,953 $10,451 $10,974 $11,522 Capital Improvement Program Manager $9,468 $9,941 $10,438 $10,960 $11,508 102 27 City Clerk $8,424 $8,845 $9,287 $9,752 $10,239 City Planner $9,680 $10,164 $10,672 $11,206 $11,766 Deputy City Attorney $8,227 $8,638 $9,070 $9,524 $10,000 Economic Development Mgr $9,630 $10,111 $10,617 $11,147 $11,705 Environmental Programs Manager $7,909 $8,305 $8,720 $9,156 $9,614 Finance Manager $9,802 $10,292 $10,807 $11,347 $11,914 Human Resources Manager $9,802 $10,292 $10,807 $11,347 $11,914 Information Technology Manager $9,311 $9,776 $10,265 $10,778 $11,317 Park Restoration and Improvement Manager $9,468 $9,941 $10,438 $10,960 $11,508 Public Affairs Director $9,311 $9,776 $10,265 $10,778 $11,317 Public Works Project Manager $8,188 $8,598 $9,027 $9,479 $9,953 Public Works Supervisor $7,224 $7,586 $7,965 $8,363 $8,781 Recreation Supervisor $7,060 $7,413 $7,783 $8,172 $8,581 Senior Civil Engineer $9,718 $10,204 $10,715 $11,250 $11,813 Senior Management Analyst $7,659 $8,042 $8,445 $8,867 $9,310 Senior Recreation Supervisor $7,783 $8,172 $8,581 $9,010 $9,461 Sustainability Manager $7,909 $8,305 $8,720 $9,156 $9,614 Salary Effective July 1, 2015 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant City Attorney $11,577 $12,156 $12,763 $13,402 $14,072 Assistant Director of Public Works $10,813 $11,354 $11,921 $12,518 $13,143 Assistant to the City Manager $8,129 $8,535 $8,962 $9,410 $9,881 Building Official $9,598 $10,078 $10,582 $11,111 $11,666 Capital Improvement Program Manager $9,586 $10,066 $10,569 $11,097 $11,652 City Clerk $8,720 $9,156 $9,614 $10,095 $10,600 City Planner $9,985 $10,485 $11,009 $11,559 $12,137 Deputy City Attorney $8,330 $8,746 $9,184 $9,643 $10,125 Economic Development Mgr $9,880 $10,374 $10,892 $11,437 $12,009 Environmental Programs Manager $8,008 $8,408 $8,829 $9,270 $9,734 Finance Manager $10,221 $10,732 $11,269 $11,832 $12,424 Human Resources Manager $10,221 $10,732 $11,269 $11,832 $12,424 Information Technology Manager $9,554 $10,032 $10,534 $11,060 $11,613 Park Restoration and Improvement Manager $9,586 $10,066 $10,569 $11,097 $11,652 Public Affairs Director $9,554 $10,032 $10,534 $11,060 $11,613 Public Works Project Manager $8,426 $8,848 $9,290 $9,755 $10,242 Public Works Supervisor $7,315 $7,680 $8,065 $8,468 $8,891 Recreation Supervisor $7,148 $7,505 $7,881 $8,275 $8,688 Senior Civil Engineer $10,059 $10,562 $11,090 $11,645 $12,227 Senior Management Analyst $8,069 $8,473 $8,896 $9,341 $9,808 103 28 Senior Recreation Supervisor $7,881 $8,275 $8,688 $9,123 $9,579 Sustainability Manager $8,008 $8,408 $8,829 $9,270 $9,734 CITY OF CUPERTINO CLASSES AND POSITIONS BY PAY GRADE CONFIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATIONS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013 – JUNE 30, 2016 Salary Effective July 1, 2013 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Accountant $6,258 $6,571 $6,900 $7,245 $7,607 Accounting Technician $5,780 $6,069 $6,373 $6,691 $7,026 Administrative Assistant $5,195 $5,454 $5,727 $6,014 $6,314 Community Relations Coordinator $5,989 $6,288 $6,603 $6,933 $7,279 Deputy City Clerk $5,365 $5,633 $5,915 $6,211 $6,521 Executive Assistant to the City Manager $5,733 $6,019 $6,320 $6,636 $6,968 GIS Coordinator $6,059 $6,361 $6,680 $7,014 $7,364 Human Resources Analyst $6,320 $6,636 $6,968 $7,316 $7,682 Human Resources Analyst II $6,968 $7,316 $7,682 $8,066 $8,470 Human Resources Assistant $4,894 $5,138 $5,395 $5,665 $5,948 Human Resources Technician $5,780 $6,069 $6,373 $6,691 $7,026 Human Resources Technician II $6,373 $6,691 $7,026 $7,377 $7,746 I.T. Assistant $5,007 $5,257 $5,520 $5,796 $6,086 Legal Services Manager $5,739 $6,026 $6,327 $6,644 $6,976 Management Analyst $6,811 $7,152 $7,509 $7,885 $8,279 Network Specialist $6,612 $6,942 $7,289 $7,654 $8,036 Web Specialist $6,487 $6,811 $7,152 $7,509 $7,885 Salary Effective July 1, 2014 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Accountant I $5,804 $6,094 $6,399 $6,719 $7,055 Accountant II $6,399 $6,719 $7,055 $7,407 $7,778 Accounting Technician I $5,438 $5,710 $5,996 $6,296 $6,610 Accounting Technician II $5,996 $6,296 $6,610 $6,941 $7,288 Administrative Assistant $5,273 $5,536 $5,813 $6,104 $6,409 Community Relations Coordinator $6,078 $6,382 $6,702 $7,037 $7,389 Deputy City Clerk $5,756 $6,044 $6,346 $6,663 $6,996 Executive Assistant to the City Manager $5,937 $6,234 $6,545 $6,873 $7,216 GIS Coordinator $6,308 $6,623 $6,955 $7,302 $7,668 Human Resources Analyst $6,631 $6,963 $7,311 $7,676 $8,060 Human Resources Analyst II $7,311 $7,676 $8,060 $8,463 $8,886 Human Resources Assistant $4,977 $5,226 $5,487 $5,762 $6,050 104 29 Human Resources Technician I $5,438 $5,710 $5,996 $6,296 $6,610 Human Resources Technician II $5,996 $6,296 $6,610 $6,941 $7,288 I.T. Assistant $5,332 $5,599 $5,879 $6,173 $6,482 Legal Services Manager $5,961 $6,259 $6,572 $6,901 $7,246 Management Analyst $7,143 $7,500 $7,875 $8,269 $8,682 Network Specialist $6,821 $7,162 $7,520 $7,896 $8,291 Senior Accountant $7,407 $7,778 $8,167 $8,575 $9,004 Web Specialist $6,584 $6,913 $7,259 $7,622 $8,003 Salary Effective July 1, 2015 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Accountant I $5,930 $6,227 $6,538 $6,865 $7,208 Accountant II $6,538 $6,865 $7,208 $7,569 $7,947 Accounting Technician I $5,506 $5,782 $6,071 $6,374 $6,693 Accounting Technician II $6,071 $6,374 $6,693 $7,028 $7,379 Administrative Assistant $5,339 $5,606 $5,886 $6,180 $6,489 Community Relations Coordinator $6,154 $6,462 $6,785 $7,125 $7,481 Deputy City Clerk $6,222 $6,534 $6,860 $7,203 $7,563 Executive Assistant to the City Manager $6,162 $6,470 $6,794 $7,133 $7,490 GIS Coordinator $6,589 $6,919 $7,265 $7,628 $8,010 Human Resources Analyst $6,989 $7,339 $7,706 $8,091 $8,496 Human Resources Analyst II $7,706 $8,091 $8,496 $8,920 $9,366 Human Resources Assistant $5,049 $5,302 $5,567 $5,845 $6,138 Human Resources Technician I $5,506 $5,782 $6,071 $6,374 $6,693 Human Resources Technician II $6,071 $6,374 $6,693 $7,028 $7,379 I.T. Assistant $5,718 $6,004 $6,304 $6,620 $6,951 Legal Services Manager $6,208 $6,518 $6,844 $7,187 $7,546 Management Analyst $7,525 $7,901 $8,296 $8,711 $9,147 Network Specialist $7,046 $7,399 $7,769 $8,157 $8,565 Senior Accountant $7,569 $7,947 $8,345 $8,762 $9,200 Web Specialist $6,666 $7,000 $7,350 $7,717 $8,103 AMENDED November 13, 2013 Salary Effective November 13, 2013 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Assistant Director of Community Development $9,829 $10,321 $10,837 $11,379 $11,948 Salary Effective July 1, 2014 Assistant Director of Community Development $9,977 $10,475 $10,999 $11,549 $12,127 Salary Effective July 1, 2015 105 30 Assistant Director of Community Development $10,101 $10,606 $11,137 $11,694 $12,278 AMENDED December 17, 2013 Salary Effective December 17, 2013 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Service Center Superintendent $8,861 $9,304 $9,769 $10,258 $10,771 Salary Effective July 1, 2014 Service Center Superintendent $8,994 $9,443 $9,916 $10,411 $10,932 Salary Effective July 1, 2015 Service Center Superintendent $9,106 $9,562 $10,040 $10,542 $11,069 AMENDED November 3, 2015 Salary Effective November 3, 2015 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Chief Technology Officer/Director of Information Services $12,409 $13,063 $13,750 $14,438 $15,159 AMENDED July 1, 2016 Salary Effective July 1, 2016 Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Business Systems Analyst/Program Manager $7,047 $7,399 $7,769 $8,157 $8,565 City Engineer $11,873 $12,467 $13,090 $13,745 $14,432 Deputy City Manager $10,757 $11,295 $11,859 $12,452 $13,075 GIS Program Manager $8,198 $8,608 $9,039 $9,490 $9,965 Maintenance Supervisor $7,315 $7,680 $8,065 $8,468 $8,891 Public Information Officer $8,129 $8,535 $8,962 $9,410 $9,881 106 JUNE 2016 FLSA: EXEMPT BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST/ PROJECT MANAGER DEFINITION Under general supervision, performs systems maintenance, operational duties, and/or modification of application systems; serves as a liaison between system users and information technology staff, vendors, and service providers; provides technical and analytical support and training to system users; performs system administration functions to ensure security and effective operation; develops and maintains a variety of automated files, records, and databases; prepares and distributes new procedures, training materials, and a variety of scheduled and adhoc reports; plans, coordinates, and manages information technology services projects through entire project life cycle, including conception and initiation, definition and planning, launch and execution, monitoring and controlling, and close-out; and performs related work as required. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives general supervision from assigned manager. May exercise technical and functional direction over and provides training to lower-level staff on a day-to-day or project basis. CLASS CHARACTERISTICS This is a fully competent class responsible for the conceptual and operational aspects of adapting information systems to business needs and communicating those needs to information system professionals, which requires that incumbents possess broad and detailed knowledge of department policies, programs, and practices as well as oversight of citywide and interdepartmental information technology services projects. Incumbents are required to conduct business requirements, needs, and other detailed review and analysis of various information technology strategies necessary to automate operational processes and to resolve organizational issues. Incumbents perform work within a broad framework of general policy requiring creativity and resourcefulness to accomplish goals and objectives, applies concepts, plans, and strategies which may deviate from established methods and practices, and regularly leads projects of critical importance and substantial consequence of success or failure to the City. This classification is distinguished from the information services management classifications in that the latter assume full management responsibility of assigned information technology services programs and functions. EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL JOB FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only) Management reserves the right to add, modify, change, or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the functions of the job. Participates in a variety of system user and work groups to identify user needs and operational, programmatic, and/or regulatory changes affecting application requirements and other related issues. Participates in the modification of existing systems and/or the implementation of new systems by developing, writing, and disseminating procedures that utilize new or changed system applications and by evaluating system modifications in response to operational, program, and/or regulatory changes. Receives requests for assistance related to the use of department and/or program systems and software applications; determines severity of problem and resolves or refers to appropriate personnel Attachment D 107 Business Systems Analyst/Project Manager Page 2 of 4 or vendor for resolution.  Coordinates and directs the work of software vendors to identify and resolve programming and other operational problems; coordinates the scheduling of corrective patches and upgrades between vendors and staff; interacts with vendors, external agencies, auditors, or other staff to obtain requested data or special reports.  Provides or arranges for the training of staff on the information systems used by the department and/or program; requests adhoc reports.  Develops and executes system test plans to ensure application performance conforms to specifications; modifies technologies to correct errors and optimize system performance and cost- effectiveness.  Performs software application research, development, conversion, installation, and maintenance projects through entire project life cycle, including conception and initiation, definition and planning, launch and execution, monitoring and controlling, and close-out.  Plans, organizes, and defines project requirements, methods, and end objectives in consultation with end users; performs risk assessments; develops concept documents, impact analyses, stakeholder analyses, and draft process documentation; coordinates project activities with team members, other information technology services staff, user representatives, and outside vendors.  Develops project budgets, service level agreements, and schedules; monitors project progress and ensures project goals and agreement requirements are met.  Participates in the development of project management toolkits and methodologies used by information technology services staff.  Facilitates and conducts business process redesign or technical design sessions and/or focus groups for design and implementation of new processes or systems.  Develops consultant requests for proposals and qualifications for professional services; evaluates proposals and recommends project award; develops and reviews contract terms and amendments; ensures contractor compliance with City and department standards and specifications and time and budget estimates.  Stays abreast of new trends and innovations in technology related to information technology operations; researches, recommends, and evaluates vendor solutions and technologies; implements improvements; works with staff to maintain, revise, or improve operations and systems.  Writes and maintains user and technical operating instructions and documentation; prepares training materials and conducts formal and informal training programs on the use and operation of the applications and advises on best practices.  Provides continuous training and mentoring to lower-level staff in areas of responsibility.  Performs other duties as assigned. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of:  Principles and practices of project management, identifying technology needs and issues, researching and evaluating technology, applications, and the most effective courses of action, and implementing solutions.  Project budget development and contract administration principles and techniques.  Advanced principles and practices of information technology applications, systems, and infrastructure analysis, design, and management.  Principles of relational database management and systems integration analysis and programming.  Principles and practices of programmatic analysis and report preparation.  Principles and practices of vendor relationship management.  The organization, operation, and functions of the department as necessary to assume assigned responsibilities and to determine appropriate point of escalation. 108 Business Systems Analyst/Project Manager Page 3 of 4  Applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulatory codes, ordinances, and procedures relevant to assigned area of responsibility.  Recent and on-going developments, current literature, and sources of information related to the operations of the assigned programs.  Modern office practices, methods, and computer equipment and applications related to the work.  English usage, spelling, vocabulary, grammar, and punctuation.  Techniques for providing a high level of customer service by effectively dealing with vendors and City staff. Ability to:  Plan and manage applications development, enhancement, and maintenance projects.  Perform analyses of informational requirements and needs; identify, evaluate, and solve systems problems; design and implement new or revised systems and procedures; provide technical advice and consultation, and ensure efficient computer system utilization.  Lead design sessions and process improvement sessions to identify business and user needs and discuss application capabilities and design modifications needed for improvement.  Communicate with department personnel to identify and translate information needs into system requirements.  Communicate business information system needs to system vendors for the design, development, and/or enhancement of system applications.  Conduct research projects on a wide variety of software and systems issues, evaluate alternatives, make sound recommendations, and prepare effective technical staff reports.  Interpret, apply, explain, and ensure compliance with federal, state, and local policies, procedures, laws, rules, and regulations.  Prepare clear and concise program documentation, user procedures, reports of work performed, and other written materials.  Operate modern office equipment including computer equipment and specialized software applications programs.  Organize and prioritize a variety of projects and multiple tasks in an effective and timely manner; organize own work, set priorities, and meet critical time deadlines.  Use English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone, and in writing.  Use tact, initiative, prudence, and independent judgment within general policy, procedural, and legal guidelines.  Establish, maintain, and foster positive and effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. Education and Experience: Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be: Equivalent to graduation from an accredited four-year college or university with major coursework in management information systems, computer science, or a related field and four (4) years of progressively responsible experience in in the planning, implementation, oversight, and/or utilization of automated information systems and applications used to support departmental activities and information technology project management. Licenses and Certifications:  None. 109 Business Systems Analyst/Project Manager Page 4 of 4 PHYSICAL DEMANDS Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person and over the telephone. Standing in and walking between work areas is frequently required. Finger dexterity is needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. Positions in this classification frequently bend, stoop, kneel, and reach to perform assigned duties, as well as push and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. Employees must possess the ability to lift, carry, push, and pull materials and objects up to 25 pounds with the use of proper equipment. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Employees work in an office environment with moderate levels, controlled temperature conditions, and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employees may interact with upset staff when providing applications system support. 110 JUNE 2016 FLSA: EXEMPT CITY ENGINEER DEFINITION Under administrative direction, plans, organizes, manages, and provides administrative direction and oversight for the Development Services Division within the Public Works Department, including permitting and land development services, Floodplain Administration, storm drain master planning and project planning, and construction inspection; assists in coordinating assigned activities with other City departments, divisions, outside agencies, and the public; fosters cooperative working relationships among City departments, divisions, and with intergovernmental and regulatory agencies and various public and private groups; provides highly responsible and complex professional assistance to the Public Works Director in areas of expertise; and performs related work as required. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives administrative direction from the Public Works Director. Exercises general direction and supervision over supervisory, professional, technical, and administrative support staff. CLASS CHARACTERISTICS This is a management level classification in the Public Works Department. The incumbent oversees, directs, and participates in the engineering functions of the Public Works Department, including providing professional-level support to the Public Works Director in a variety of areas. Successful performance of the work requires an extensive professional background as well as skill in coordinating departmental work with that of other City departments and public agencies. Responsibilities include performing and directing many of the department’s day-to-day permitting and administrative functions. This class is distinguished from the Public Works Director in that the latter has overall management responsibility for all public works programs, functions, and activities, and for developing, implementing, and interpreting public policy. EXAMPLES OF ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only) Management reserves the right to add, modify, change, or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job.  Assumes management responsibility for all engineering functions and activities, including permitting and land development services, and construction inspection.  Manages and participates in the development and implementation of goals, objectives, policies, and priorities for the assigned division; recommends, within departmental policy, appropriate service and staffing levels; recommends and administers policies and procedures.  Manages the development and administration of the annual budget for the Development Services Division; directs the forecast of additional funds needed for staffing, equipment, materials, and supplies; directs the monitoring of and approves expenditures; directs and implements adjustments.  Serves as the City’s Floodplain Manager and coordinates all policies and programs regarding FEMA’s Federal Floodplain Regulations.  Selects, trains, motivates, and evaluates assigned personnel; provides or coordinates staff training; works with employees on performance issues; responds to staff questions and concerns; makes discipline recommendations to the Director. 111 City Engineer Page 2 of 4  Continuously monitors and evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery methods and procedures; assesses and monitors work load, administrative and support systems, and internal reporting relationships; identifies opportunities for improvement and reviews with the Director; directs the implementation of improvements.  Oversees the development of consultant requests for proposal for professional and/or construction services and the advertising and bid processes; evaluates proposals and recommends project award; negotiates and administers contracts after award; ensures contractor compliance with City standards and specifications and time and budget estimates; analyzes and resolves complex problems that may arise; recommends and approves field changes as required.  Conducts CIP planning activities for storm drainage projects; provides oversight and input into the conceptual design of engineering projects; investigates and resolves problems with scope of work or cost issues of major storm drain facility upgrade and replacement projects.  Analyzes civil engineering plan design, specifications, and consultant and staff comments in accordance with design requirements and municipal and intergovernmental standards and regulations; recommends approval or additional engineering conditions and changes.  Reviews and approves tract and parcel maps, lot line adjustments, and legal reviews; controversial encroachment permits; and other engineering and design documents.  Meets and confers with contractors, engineers, developers, architects, a variety of outside agencies, and the general public in acquiring information and coordinating engineering matters; provides information regarding City development requirements.  Serves as a liaison for the department to other City departments, divisions, elected officials, outside agencies, and the public; attends meetings in various locations; provides staff support to commissions, committees, and task forces; participates in community events and workshops that provide public information regarding departmental programs, projects, and services; explains and interprets departmental programs, policies, and activities.  Conducts a variety of departmental organizational and operational studies and investigations; recommends modifications to programs, policies, and procedures as appropriate.  Prepares, reviews, and presents staff reports, various management and information updates, and reports on special projects to the City Council, as well as various boards, commissions, and committees, as assigned by the Public Works Director.  Attends and participates in professional group meetings; stays abreast of new trends and innovations in the field of engineering and other types of public works services as they relate to the area of assignment.  Maintains and directs the maintenance of working and official departmental files.  Monitors changes in laws, regulations, and technology that may affect City or departmental operations; implements policy and procedural changes as required.  Responds to difficult and sensitive public inquiries and complaints and assists with resolutions and alternative recommendations.  Performs other duties as assigned. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of:  Administrative principles and practices, including goal setting, program development, implementation, and evaluation, and supervision of staff.  Public agency budgetary, contract administration, administrative practices, and general principles of risk management related to the functions of the assigned area.  Organizational and management practices as applied to the analysis and evaluation of projects, programs, policies, procedures, and operational needs; principles and practices of municipal government administration. 112 City Engineer Page 3 of 4  Principles and practices of civil engineering as applied to the planning, design, cost estimating, construction, installation, and inspection of a wide variety of municipal facilities.  Civil and transportation engineering principles, concepts, standards, and practices associated with public works programs and private development projects.  Principles and practices of environmental impact assessment and related regulatory processes.  Methods, materials and techniques used in the construction of public works projects.  Applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulatory codes, ordinances, and procedures relevant to assigned area of responsibility including FEMA Federal Floodplain Regulations.  Principles and practices of employee supervision, including work planning, assignment, review and evaluation, and the training of staff in work procedures.  Methods and techniques for the development of presentations, contract negotiations and management, business correspondence, and information distribution; research and reporting methods, techniques, and procedures.  Record keeping principles and procedures.  Modern office practices, methods, and computer equipment and applications related to the work.  English usage, grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and punctuation.  Techniques for effectively representing the City in contacts with governmental agencies, community groups, and various business, professional, educational, regulatory, and legislative organizations.  Techniques for providing a high level of customer service by effectively dealing with the public, vendors, contractors, and City staff. Ability to:  Recommend and implement goals, objectives, and practices for providing effective and efficient engineering services.  Plan, organize, and direct Development Services review and permitting programs.  Conduct complex civil engineering research projects, evaluate alternatives, make sound recommendations, and prepare effective technical reports.  Analyze and interpret engineering plans and specifications in accordance with design requirements and applicable standards and regulations.  Prepare and administer large and complex budgets; allocate limited resources in a cost effective manner.  Administer and recommend necessary adjustments to Public Works and Park In Lieu Fee programs including the In Lieu Fee reporting.  Interpret, apply, explain, and ensure compliance with Federal, State, and local policies, procedures, laws, and regulations, technical written material, and City engineering policies and procedures.  Plan, organize, direct, and coordinate the work of supervisory, professional, and technical personnel.  Select, train, motivate, and evaluate the work of staff and train staff in work procedures.  Research, analyze, and evaluate new service delivery methods, procedures, and techniques.  Effectively administer special projects with contractual agreements and ensure compliance with stipulations; effectively administer a variety of engineering programs and administrative activities.  Conduct effective negotiations and effectively represent the City and the department in meetings with governmental agencies, contractors, vendors, and various businesses, professional, regulatory, and legislative organizations.  Prepare clear and concise reports, correspondence, policies, procedures, and other written materials.  Establish and maintain a variety of filing, record-keeping, and tracking systems.  Organize and prioritize a variety of projects and multiple tasks in an effective and timely manner; organize own work, set priorities, and meet critical time deadlines.  Operate modern office equipment including computer equipment and specialized software applications programs.  Use English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone, and in writing. 113 City Engineer Page 4 of 4  Use tact, initiative, prudence, and independent judgment within general policy, procedural, and legal guidelines.  Establish, maintain, and foster positive and effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. Education and Experience: Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be: Equivalent to graduation from an accredited four-year college or university with major coursework in civil engineering, or a related field, and six (6) years of experience in civil engineering and capital improvement program administration, including two (2) years management and/or supervisory experience. Licenses and Certifications:  Possession of, or ability to obtain, a valid California Driver’s License by time of appointment.  Possess and maintain a valid certificate or registration as a Professional Engineer in the State of California. PHYSICAL DEMANDS Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer, to inspect City development sites, to operate a motor vehicle, and to visit various City and meeting sites; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person, before groups, and over the telephone. This is primarily a sedentary office classification although standing and walking between work areas may be required. Finger dexterity is needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. Positions in this classification occasionally bend, stoop, kneel, reach, push, and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Employees work in an office environment with moderate noise levels, controlled temperature conditions, and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employees may interact with upset staff and/or public and private representatives in interpreting and enforcing departmental policies and procedures. 114 DECEMBER 2015 FLSA: NON-EXEMPT COMMUNITY OUTREACH SPECIALIST I DEFINITION. Under direct supervision, performs a variety of duties related to the development, preparation, and implementation of strategic internal and external communications, public information, and community relations activities; prepares informational materials for dissemination through a variety of communications media, public meetings, and events; develops media relations outreach programs for all of the City’s primary functional areas; works with neighborhood communities, businesses, and civic leaders to assure their understanding of City policies and operations; and performs other related work as required. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives direct supervision from the Public Affairs Director. May provide technical and functional direction to staff. CLASS CHARACTERISTICS This is the entry-level class in the Community Outreach Specialist series. Performs a wide variety of activities in support of the City’s social media relations and promotional efforts, including writing and editing material for publication and event conceptualization and development. Successful performance of the work requires skill in coordinating work with that of other departments and governing bodies within the City. Initially under close supervision, incumbents learn to develop, prepare, and implement internal and external communications and public information. As experience is gained, assignments become more varied and are performed with greater independence. EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL JOB FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only) Management reserves the right to add, modify, change, or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job.  Perform a variety of public outreach and community relations activities, events, and public awareness programs for the dissemination of information regarding City operations, policies, and procedures.  Creates, researches, edits, and contributes content and materials including posts, tweets, pitch letters, backgrounders, customer communications, fact sheets, brochures, feature articles, press releases, and other materials.  Participates in planning, developing, and implementing a variety of social media campaigns and community outreach/education activities and projects in support of the City's products, programs, and services; maintains social media accounts with fresh daily content.  Maintains steady and positive presence in the media through releases, contact, and responsiveness to inquiries/requests.  Manages social public relations activities to reach target audiences with engaging messaging coordinating with other online brand content. 115 Community Outreach Specialist I Page 2 of 4  Assists with content requests from internal departments, including creating and routing content and scheduling posts; establishes clear and consistent communications various City staff regarding constituent sentiment and trends in comments.  Monitors social media management standards, policies and rules of engagement; monitors and reports on inappropriate content across all channels.  Gathers and compiles information and images through research; analyzes social data/metrics and insights, analyzes information to effectively incorporate into work products; align work products with City’s communication priorities.  Develop and maintain contacts with various community groups, organizations, business leaders, media, and government agencies; foster and promote positive relations with the general public, community groups, employees, businesses, schools, and other local government.  Performs general administrative and clerical work as required, including but not limited to scheduling and attending meetings, preparing reports and correspondence, drafting and recording minutes, entering and retrieving computer information, copying and filing documents and processing invoices purchase orders and expenses.  Learns and applies emerging technologies and, as necessary, to perform duties in an efficient, organized, and timely manner.  Assist the emergency operations team by supporting development and implementation of communications plans primarily utilizing social media.  Participates in strategic planning for the City and assists in setting goals for the division to support the strategic plan; assists in the development of policies, procedures, and protocols to implement City goals and objectives.  Performs other duties as assigned. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of:  Basic principles, techniques, and methods of public information, outreach, and community relations.  Basic methods and techniques of graphic design and production.  Standard and accepted methods and practices related to the preparation, publication, and distribution of press releases, media, and marketing materials.  Standard and accepted principles and practices of journalism and effective media relations.  Standard and accepted customer relations, communications, service, and information presentation methods, and procedures.  Research, analysis, implementation, and evaluation of programs, projects, and materials.  Standard and accepted principles, techniques, and methods of preparing and disseminating public information and relations materials via the social technology universe including Facebook, Twitter, Periscope, YouTube, Google+, blogs, wikis, discussion forums, and mobile web.  Standards and practices of social media outlets, platforms, tools, capabilities, and search engine optimization.  Monitoring and measurement platforms including Facebook Insights, Twitter Analytics, YouTube Insights, and Google Analytics.  Applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulatory codes, ordinances, and procedures relevant to assigned area of responsibility.  Standard and accepted English composition, spelling, grammar, vocabulary, and punctuation for both written and oral communication.  Modern office practices, methods, and computer equipment.  Record keeping principles and procedures.  Computer applications related to the work. 116 Community Outreach Specialist I Page 3 of 4  Principles and techniques for providing a high level of customer service by effectively dealing with the public, vendors, contractors, and City staff. Ability to:  Perform a variety of public outreach and community relations activities for the City.  Learn current issues and projects impacting City operations.  Learn applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulatory codes, ordinances, and procedures relevant to assigned area of responsibility.  Learn to apply special graphic production techniques in the distribution of informational materials.  Learn to monitor and make recommendations for modifications to existing communication procedures.  Learn to interpret, apply, and explain City policies, operations, and procedures.  Respond to requests and inquiries from the general public.  Develop and maintain contacts with the news media, various community groups, schools, businesses and government agencies.  Coordinate campaigns across multiple social platforms.  Provide insight to influence content management and integration.  Prepare clear and effective narrative, informational, and educational reports, correspondence, and other written material independently or from brief instructions.  Effectively explain policies and objectives to technical and non-technical audiences, including but not exclusive of the process for making and influencing action.  Develop effective customer outreach strategies and campaigns; work effectively with diverse groups of different ages and various socio-economic backgrounds.  Analyze situations and identify pertinent problems/issues; research and collect relevant information; evaluate realistic options; and recommend/implement appropriate course of action.  Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.  Organize own work, set priorities, and meet critical time deadlines.  Use English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone, and in writing.  Establish, maintain, and foster positive and effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. Education and Experience: Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be: Equivalent to a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in communications, journalism, public relations, education, or a related field and one (1) year of experience in public relations outreach activities. Licenses and Certifications: PHYSICAL DEMANDS Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer; to operate a motor vehicle and to visit various City and meeting sites; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person, and over the telephone. This is primarily a sedentary office classification although standing and walking between work areas may be required. Finger dexterity is needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard, typewriter keyboard, or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. 117 Community Outreach Specialist I Page 4 of 4 Positions in this classification occasionally bend, stoop, kneel, reach, push, and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Employees work in an office environment with moderate noise levels, controlled temperature conditions, and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. 118 JUNE 2016 FLSA: EXEMPT DEPUTY CITY MANAGER DEFINITION Under general direction, plans, organizes, and implements public information, environmental sustainability, and economic development programs for the City; ensures that assigned programs meet all applicable laws, regulations, and City policies; provides professional assistance to the City Manager, City Council, and other management and City staff in areas of expertise; fosters cooperative working relationships with City departments, public, private, intergovernmental, and regulatory agencies, and the public; and performs other duties as assigned. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives general direction from the City Manager. Exercises direct and general supervision over professional, technical and administrative support staff and contractors. CLASS CHARACTERISTICS This is a single-position management classification responsible for planning, organizing, reviewing, and evaluating the assigned programs. Responsibilities include developing and implementing policies and procedures for assigned programs, including budget administration and reporting, contract administration, and program evaluation. Incumbents provide a professional-level resource for organizational, managerial, and operational analyses and studies. Performance of the work requires the use of considerable independence, initiative, and discretion within established policies. EXAMPLES OF ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only) Management reserves the right to add, modify, change, or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations where appropriate so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job.  Participates in the development and implementation of goals, objectives, policies, and priorities for assigned programs; recommends and administers policies and procedures.  Participates in the development and administration of the assigned program budget; forecasts additional funds needed; directs the monitoring of and approves expenditures; recommends adjustments as necessary.  Selects, trains, motivates, and evaluates assigned staff; provides or coordinates staff training; works with employees on performance issues; implements discipline and termination procedures; directs and coordinates the work plan for assigned staff; assigns work activities, projects, and programs; monitors work flow; reviews and evaluates work products, methods, and procedures.  Continuously monitors and evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery methods and procedures; assesses and monitors the distribution of work, support systems, and internal reporting relationships; identifies opportunities for improvement; directs the implementation of change.  Participates in the formulation, strategic development, implementation, and evaluation of the City’s communications, marketing, and community relations programs, projects, and activities by selecting, preparing, responding, and distributing publicity releases through all available media; arranges information news releases; performs other related duties in the distribution of information.  Plans and oversees development of marketing materials, publications, and other outreach materials, including newsletters, general interest materials, banners, website content, and brochures. 119 Deputy City Manager Page 2 of 4  Participates in the development and management of the City’s image, including review of materials developed by other departments for public distribution and marketing programs, projects, and issues of importance to the City.  Manages environmental programs and projects in support of City environmental initiatives.  Identifies and obtains project financing for energy improvements and sustainability objectives; manages related grants and revenue contracts.  Coordinates community and special events and workshops, including developing presentations and handouts and coordinating work with other agencies on joint projects.  Confers with and informs members of the business community (i.e., developers, nonprofits, outside agency officials, and local housing advocates) and the general public regarding City economic development projects, programs, policies, procedures, and standards, including establishing and maintaining effective working relationships.  Provides staff support to the City Council as needed; prepares correspondence, speeches, proclamations, resolutions, ordinances, and special presentations.  Reviews and provides guidance on the look and content of the City’s website.  Receives inquiries and provides information to the public regarding a wide variety of topics and successfully communicates with the public, other agencies, and a variety of news media.  Coordinates and integrates program services and activities with other agencies and City departments.  Prepares and oversees the development of consultant requests for proposals for professional services and the advertising and bid processes; evaluates proposals and recommends project award; coordinates with legal counsel to determine City needs and requirements for contractual services; negotiates contracts and agreements and administers same after award.  Represents the division to other City departments, elected officials, and outside agencies; explains and interprets departmental programs, policies, and activities; negotiates and resolves significant and controversial issues.  Monitors changes in laws, regulations, and technology that may affect City or departmental operations; implements policy and procedural changes as required.  Researches, compiles, and analyzes information; prepares specialized reports and correspondence related to projects and programs, including monthly reports, staff reports, financial spreadsheets, legal notices, oral presentations, annual reports, implementation plans, news releases, and other correspondence; makes recommendations on related issues.  Participates in and makes presentations at City Council meetings and to a variety of boards and commissions.  Attends and participates in professional group meetings and committees; stays abreast of new trends and innovations in the field of public relations programs; researches emerging products and enhancements and their applicability to City needs.  Serves as public information officer during Emergency Operations Center activations; works with City’s emergency response manager on community relations efforts, including ensuring availability of public information materials, conducting workshops, meeting with other agencies, and planning public communication strategies during response efforts; maintains and updates the City’s Crisis Communication Plan.  Performs other duties as assigned. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of:  Administrative principles and practices, including goal setting, program development, implementation, and evaluation, and supervision of staff.  Principles and practices of budget development, administration, and accountability.  Principles and practices of employee supervision, including work planning, assignment, review and evaluation, and the training of staff in work procedures. 120 Deputy City Manager Page 3 of 4  Organizational and management practices as applied to the analysis and evaluation of projects, programs, policies, procedures, and operational needs; principles and practices of municipal government administration.  Practices of researching program issues, evaluating alternatives, making sound recommendations, and preparing and presenting effective staff reports.  Principles, practices, and techniques used in the conduct of an effective public affairs program, including public relations, marketing and advertising, strategic communications, and community relations.  Principles, practices, and procedures related to media relations, reporting, and news writing.  Recent and on-going developments, current literature, and sources of information related to public relations.  Applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulatory codes, ordinances, and procedures relevant to assigned area of responsibility.  Principles, practices, and techniques of economic development in a public agency setting.  Applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulatory codes, ordinances, and procedures relevant to assigned area of responsibility, including California Redevelopment law.  Technical, legal, financial, and public relations problems associated with the management of economic development, environmental sustainability, and public information programs.  Methods and techniques for the development of presentations, contract negotiations, business correspondence, and information distribution; research and reporting methods, techniques, and procedures.  Principles and practices of contract administration and evaluation.  Research and reporting methods, techniques, and procedures.  Principles and procedures of record keeping, technical report writing, and preparation of correspondence and presentations.  Modern office practices, methods, computer equipment, and computer applications.  English usage, spelling, vocabulary, grammar, and punctuation.  Techniques for effectively representing the City in contacts with governmental agencies, community groups, various business, professional, educational, and regulatory organizations, and with news media, and the public.  Techniques for providing a high level of customer service by effectively dealing with the public, vendors, contractors, and City staff. Ability to:  Develop and implement goals, objectives, policies, procedures, work standards, and internal controls for the department and assigned program areas.  Plan, organize, schedule, assign, review, and evaluate the work of staff and contractors.  Provide administrative and professional leadership and direction for the department and the City.  Prepare and administer large and complex budgets; allocate limited resources in a cost effective manner.  Develop, plan, coordinate, and implement a variety of public information, economic development, and environmental sustainability programs and activities suited to the needs of the community and City.  Conduct effective negotiations and effectively represent the City and the department in meetings with governmental agencies, contractors, vendors, and various businesses, professional, regulatory, and legislative organizations.  Prepare clear and concise reports, correspondence, policies, procedures, and other written materials.  Conduct complex research projects, evaluate alternatives, make sound recommendations, and prepare effective technical staff reports.  Research, analyze, and evaluate new service delivery methods, procedures, and techniques. 121 Deputy City Manager Page 4 of 4  Interpret, apply, explain, and ensure compliance with Federal, State, and local policies, procedures, laws, and regulations.  Respond to inquiries, complaints, and requests for information in a fair, tactful, and timely manner.  Organize and prioritize a variety of projects and multiple tasks in an effective and timely manner; organize own work, set priorities, and meet critical time deadlines.  Operate modern office equipment including computer equipment and specialized software applications programs.  Use English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone, and in writing.  Use tact, initiative, prudence, and independent judgment within general policy, procedural, and legal guidelines.  Establish, maintain, and foster positive and effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. Education and Experience: Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be: Equivalent to graduation from an accredited four-year college or university with major coursework in communications, marketing, business or public administration, or a related field and five (5) years of responsible experience in municipal program administration, communications, public relations, marketing, economic development or a related field. Licenses and Certifications:  Possession of, or ability to obtain, a valid California Driver’s License by time of appointment. PHYSICAL DEMANDS Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer; to operate a motor vehicle and to visit various City and meeting sites; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person, before groups, and over the telephone. This is primarily a sedentary office classification although standing and walking between work areas may be required. Finger dexterity is needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard, typewriter keyboard, or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. Positions in this classification occasionally bend, stoop, kneel, reach, push, and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Employees work in an office environment with moderate noise levels, controlled temperature conditions, and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employees may interact with upset staff and/or public and private representatives in interpreting and enforcing policies and procedures. 122 DECEMBER 2015 FLSA: EXEMPT ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE TECHNICIAN DEFINITION. Under general supervision, this position is responsible for administering and managing the City’s stormwater Industrial/Commercial Discharger (IND) and Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) inspection/enforcement programs including solid waste and recycling program compliance; performs inspection, enforcement, and educational functions pertaining to compliance with the California State Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), Cupertino Municipal Code, ordinances, and city policies in areas of stormwater, integrated solid waste, household hazardous waste and related environmental projects as assigned. Provides responsible, specialized and complex professional staff assistance to the Environmental Programs Specialist. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives general supervision from the Environmental Programs Specialist or management personnel. Exercises no direct supervision of staff. CLASS CHARACTERISTICS This position is responsible for planning, organizing and implementing assigned City environmental programs and projects through the facilitation of various activities with other departments, divisions, outside agencies, private business and property owners and the general public. This class works with a high degree of customer service and solution orientation and performs field inspections and enforcement in the commercial and residential communities for stormwater and integrated solid waste related programs. EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL JOB FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only) Management reserves the right to add, modify, change, or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job.  Work closely with homeowners, property owners, tenants, businesses, and community groups to enhance and preserve environmental quality and standards through public relations, community building, education, and enforcement activities.  Receive and document complaints regarding potential violations, conduct field surveys, document inspections, actions, and administrative remedies.  Investigate complaints and prepare notices, letters, and administrative citations to property owners and occupants in both commercial and residential settings to gain compliance with codes and miscellaneous requirements.  Effectively interpret ordinances, policies and procedures, and enforcement concepts.  Prepare complex written reports and operate and maintain a software database for case management and statistical reporting.  Coordinate and manage enforcement actions with other departments and jurisdictions.  Prepare case information and present evidence at appeal hearings and other legal proceedings. 123 Environmental Compliance Technician Page 2 of 4  Conduct scheduled annual inspections at businesses in accordance with provisions of the MRP.  Respond to and implement complete mitigation of spill and/or illicit discharge incidents creating potential or actual stormwater system discharges.  Conduct outreach and enforcement of water conservation laws and policies.  Conduct outreach, education, and clean-up events in support of division goals and objectives. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of:  City environmental programs related to stormwater pollution prevention, solid waste and recycling.  Federal, state and local laws pertaining to assigned programs.  Administrative analysis, statistical and research methods.  Principles and practices of business and public management.  The organization and function of municipal government.  Current trends and developments in stormwater and integrated solid waste management programs.  Effective public and community relations techniques.  Office methods, procedures, software, and equipment.  Database and records management practices and procedures.  English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Ability to:  Plan, organize and implement program activities.  Interpret and apply existing federal, state and local laws and regulations.  Work effectively with the public, contractors and other agency staff.  Review and interpret development plans.  Speak and write clearly and concisely.  Prepare reports and budgets.  Gather and analyze data for the purpose of preparing accurate and concise written and statistical reports;  Maintain computerized and manual data systems.  Make effective public presentations.  Process information and data in a relevant manner to reach reasonable conclusions and make practical decisions.  Apply analytical skills and understand impact and consequences of decisions and actions;  Operate a computer and/or mobile device and utilize word processing, business software, and mapping applications.  Communicate effectively both verbally and in writing.  Work independently and as a team member.  Follow written and verbal instructions.  Set priorities and meet deadlines by effectively handling multiple priorities and organizing workload under deadline pressure.  Observe safety principles and operate a vehicle and equipment is a safe manner. Education and Experience: 124 Environmental Compliance Technician Page 3 of 4 Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be Equivalent to completion of two (2) years of college or possession of an Associate’s degree with major coursework in environmental studies, public administration, business administration, or a related field and three (3) years of increasingly responsible office and/or field experience that involves extensive public contact or experience in integrated waste and recycling programs or other environmental compliance programs. Experience as a stormwater pollution prevention inspector in the San Francisco Bay region working under the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit is highly desirable. Licenses and Certifications:  Possession of an appropriate, valid California driver’s license.  Advanced certification from the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (CACEO) and/or PC 832 certification is highly desirable. PHYSICAL DEMANDS Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer; to operate a motor vehicle and to visit various City and meeting sites; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person, before groups, and over the telephone. This is primarily an outdoor field inspector classification although finger dexterity is needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard, typewriter keyboard, or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. Positions in this classification occasionally bend, stoop, kneel, reach, push, and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. Employees must possess the ability to lift, carry, push, bend and pull materials and objects up to 50 pounds. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Employees work in an office environment with moderate noise level, and controlled temperature conditions. Field work may include inspecting creeks and other natural environments that may or may not have water flow, carry trash; conducting waste characterizations of collected trash and recyclables, inspection of waste bins and trash enclosures, operating hand trash collection devices, conducting spill clean-ups, and limited direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employees may interact with upset staff and/or public and private representatives in interpreting and enforcing departmental policies and procedures. WORKING CONDITIONS May be required to be on-call and to work various shifts on emergencies on evenings, weekends, and holidays. May perform duties for periods longer than the designated work shift including evenings, nights and weekends as needed for field incidents and special events. May be required to attend meetings or trainings outside the city limits. 125 DECEMBER 2015 FLSA: NON-EXEMPT ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS SPECIALIST DEFINITION Under general direction, performs specialized professional and technical support related to all programs and activities of the Environmental Programs Division including stormwater pollution prevention, solid waste and recycling programs, household hazardous waste and related activities; conducts field investigations and audits of residential and commercial facilities to determine compliance with applicable Federal and State laws, codes, ordinances, specifications, and departmental regulations; fosters cooperative working relationships with various public and private agencies, organizations, and groups; conducts public outreach events and activities; provides specialized and professional assistance to the Environmental Programs Manager. Acts for the Environmental Programs Manager in the manager’s absence. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives general direction from the Environmental Programs Manager. Exercises general supervision over the Environmental Program Compliance Technician. May exercise technical and functional direction over volunteers or short assignments of other staff. CLASS CHARACTERISTICS This is a single-position classification that performs specialized professional and technical support to all programs and activities of the Environmental Programs Division. This position is responsible for planning, organizing and implementing assigned City environmental programs and projects through collaboration with other departments, divisions, outside agencies, private business and property owners and the general public. This class is distinguished from the Environmental Programs Manager in that the latter has overall management responsibility for environmental programs, functions, and activities and for developing, implementing, and interpreting public policy. EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL JOB FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only) Management reserves the right to add, modify, change, or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job.  Develops and coordinates environmental program activities related to stormwater pollution prevention, solid waste and recycling programs including a proactive field inspection program and a city-wide household hazardous waste program to ensure compliance with Federal, State, and local laws, codes, and regulations.  Reviews application plans and specifications for a variety of development construction projects; performs walk-through with applicants; recommends design change options to ensure compliance with environmental regulations.  Participates on and makes presentations to a variety of committees; attends and participates in professional group meetings. 126 Environmental Programs Specialist Page 2 of 4  Develops and writes Federal, State, and local mandatory environmental reports including the Industrial/Commercial Discharger (IND) Inspection and Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) sections of the annual report for submittal to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board; analyzes and ensures accuracy of data.  Coordinates assigned recycling and solid waste programs for the City; collects data on the needs of the City and develops plans of action; educates and works with City departments to improve compliance with the municipal regional stormwater permit (MRP), franchise solid waste agreement; and related municipal codes.  Represents the City in meetings with representatives of government agencies, professional, business, community organizations, and the public.  May serve as technical resource for the County’s Household Hazardous Waste Committee.  Investigates and responds to problems and complaints in a professional manner; identifies and reports findings and takes necessary corrective action.  Prepares public information materials such as notices, brochures, flyers, newsletters, and other materials; provides educational trainings to City staff, property and business owners, tenants and the general public.  Participates in the selection of, trains, motivates, and evaluates assigned personnel; works with employees to correct deficiencies; recommends discipline to management.  Maintains accurate databases, records, and files related to programs within the Environmental Programs Division and compliance actions which may include warnings, notices of violation, and citations.  Administers assigned contracts with private vendors to provide City services.  Conducts special research assignments, analyzing data, and preparing conclusions and recommendations for consideration by management or special committees.  Performs other duties as assigned. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of:  Principles, practices, terminology, and methods of environmental compliance programs, including stormwater and surface water quality, water quality, water conservation, solid waste including recycling and household hazardous waste.  Program development, management, and evaluation techniques.  Basic engineering methods, technology and terminology.  Designs, plans, and specifications used in public works and building.  Applicable Federal, State, and local laws, codes, and regulations related to environmental compliance.  Principles and practices of employee supervision, including work planning, assignment, review and evaluation, and the training of staff in work procedures.  Basic budgetary and contract administration policies and procedures.  Principles and practices of safety management and application.  Technical report writing practices and procedures.  Record keeping principles and procedures.  Modern office practices, methods, and computer equipment.  Computer software related to work.  English usage, spelling, vocabulary, grammar, and punctuation.  Techniques for dealing effectively with the public, vendors, contractors, and City staff, in person and over the telephone.  Techniques for providing a high level of customer service to public and City staff, in person and over the telephone. 127 Environmental Programs Specialist Page 3 of 4 Ability to:  Develop, organize, supervise, coordinate, review, evaluate, and personally participate in programs and projects related to environmental compliance programs.  Analyze, interpret, apply, and ensure compliance with Federal, State and local policies, procedures, laws, and regulations.  Prepare and administer the assigned program’s budget and contracts, including the requisition and/or purchase of materials, supplies, equipment, and services.  Monitor legislative and technological changes and recommend operational changes as appropriate.  Prepare clear and concise reports, correspondence, policies, procedures, informational materials, ordinances, and other written materials.  Utilize computer and related word processing, database, and spreadsheet software and applications.  Make sound, independent decisions within established policy and procedural guidelines.  Organize and prioritize a variety of projects and multiple tasks in an effective and timely manner; organize own work, set priorities, and meet critical time deadlines.  Operate modern office equipment including computer equipment and specialized software applications programs.  Comprehend and use English effectively including producing all forms of communication in a clear, concise, and understandable manner to intended audiences.  Use tact, initiative, prudence, and independent judgment within general policy, procedural, and legal guidelines.  Establish, maintain, and foster positive and effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. Education and Experience: Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be: Equivalent to graduation from an accredited four-year college or university with major coursework in environmental studies, public administration, engineering, planning or a related field, and three (3) years of increasingly responsible experience in environmental program development, coordination, and/or implementation. Licenses and Certifications:  Possession of an appropriate, valid California driver’s license is required.  Advanced certification from the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (CACEO) and/or PC 832 certification is highly desirable. PHYSICAL DEMANDS Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer; to operate a motor vehicle and to visit various City and meeting sites; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person, before groups, and over the telephone. This is primarily an outdoor field inspector classification although finger dexterity is needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard, typewriter keyboard, or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. Positions in this classification occasionally bend, stoop, kneel, reach, push, and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. Employees must possess the ability to lift, carry, push, bend and pull materials and objects up to 50 pounds. 128 Environmental Programs Specialist Page 4 of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Employees work in an office environment with moderate noise levels and controlled temperature conditions. Field work may include inspecting creeks and other natural environments that may or may not have water flow, carry trash; conducting waste characterizations of collected trash and recyclables, inspection of waste bins and trash enclosures, operating hand trash collection devices, conducting spill clean-ups, and limited direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employees may interact with upset staff and/or public and private representatives in interpreting and enforcing departmental policies and procedures. WORKING CONDITIONS May be required to be on-call and to work various shifts on emergencies on evenings, weekends, and holidays. 129 DECEMBER 2015 FLSA: EXEMPT GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM PROGRAM MANAGER DEFINITION Under general direction, plans, analyzes, coordinates, and administers the City-wide Geographic Information Systems (GIS) program; evaluates and personally participates in the functions necessary to implement and sustain the creation, maintenance, and use of GIS databases and applications; meets with City personnel to discuss GIS product requests, such as maps and reports, analysis requests, and develops methods to generate requested products; maintains hardware, software licenses, and supplies; performs complex GIS database and graphical user interface research, design, analysis, and programming; and performs related work as required. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives general direction from the Chief Technology Officer. Exercises general supervision over assigned staff. CLASS CHARACTERISTICS This is a single-position, professional classification responsible for overseeing and administering the City’s Enterprise GIS and related equipment. Incumbents are expected to possess the ability to adapt specific program procedures and activities to meet the needs of the City, other agencies, and technological advances. Successful performance of the work requires skill in proactively evaluating program goals and objectives to define and integrate the requirements of various internal and external clients. The work requires the frequent use of tact and judgment, knowledge of City-wide operations, and the ability to conduct independent projects and programs. This class is distinguished from GIS Technician in that the GIS Manager has overall management responsibility for GIS projects and programs, functions, and activities. EXAMPLES OF ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only) Management reserves the right to add, modify, change, or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job.  Plans, manages, and oversees the daily functions, operations, and activities of the Geographic Information Systems Department in the Information Technology Divison, including the design, administration, and maintenance of citywide GIS applications, database infrastructure, and web based and mobile applications; establishes support processes to ensure availability of application and database services.  Develops and implementations goals, objectives, policies, and priorities for the assigned function; determines within departmental policy, appropriate service and staffing levels; recommends, administers, and documents policies and procedures.  Develops and administers the GIS program budgets.  Develops and standardizes procedures and methods to improve and continuously monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of assigned programs, service delivery methods, and procedures; assesses 130 GIS Program Manager Page 2 of 4 and monitors workload, administrative and support systems, and internal reporting relationships; identifies opportunities for improvement and recommends to the IT Manager.  Selects, trains, motivates, and evaluates assigned personnel; provides or coordinates staff training; works with employees on performance issues; implements discipline and termination procedures; leads and conducts internal affairs investigations.  Consults with other City departments regarding GIS needs and requirements, including identifying, designing, and developing GIS applications, strategies, and procedures for integrating the GIS program with existing City databases.  Serves as a technical resource to all City departments, including providing assistance and training in the proper use of GIS data and systems, and recommending, troubleshooting, and providing support for GIS software, databases, and other related applications.  Designs GIS application processes and work flow strategies for the management, access, and retrieval of data, defines data rules and relationships, and develops methods for quality control of databases.  Performs GIS applications research, development, conversion, installation, and maintenance projects, including conception and initiation, definition and planning, launch and execution, monitoring and controlling, and close-out; defines project requirements, methods, and end objectives in consultation with end users; estimates and tracks project budget; coordinates project activities with team members, other information technology services staff, user representatives, and outside vendors.  Writes and maintains user and technical operating instructions and documentation; prepares training materials and conducts formal and informal training programs on the use and operation of the applications and advises on best practices.  Stays abreast of new trends and innovations in technology related to GIS operations; researches, recommends, and evaluates vendor solutions and technologies; implements improvements; works with staff to maintain, revise, or improve operations and systems.  Creates and maintains a variety of maps and tabular data from a variety of sources; explains technical information to non-technical system users, including assisting them in accessing and interpreting GIS information.  Develops and implements quality assurance/quality control procedures including geospatial data management policies and guidelines, standards and metadata documentation.  Directs City research activities to identify, acquire, and integrate data from other agencies and organizations into the City’s data library; maintains and updates the City’s information catalogue; creates and maintains government-compliant metadata; and develops procedures to share appropriate data.  Represents the City in inter-agency coordination activities related to GIS.  Attends meetings, conferences, workshops, and training sessions and reviews publications and audio- visual materials to become and remain current on principles, practices, and new developments pertinent to GIS and the City.  Performs other duties as assigned. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of:  Administrative principles and practices, including goal setting, project management, and the development, analysis, and evaluation of programs, policies, and operational needs of the assigned functional area.  Principles and practices of budget development and administration.  Principles and practices of employee supervision including work planning, assignment, review and evaluation, and the training of staff in work procedures. 131 GIS Program Manager Page 3 of 4  Principles and practices for developing and coordinating a broad-based GIS program with applications for City departments, public agencies, private clients, and the general public.  Principles and techniques of cartography and publication-quality map production using ArcGIS and other software.  Database design and integration between Microsoft SQL and ArcGIS.  Theories and techniques of GIS applications to cadastral mapping.  Familiarity with natural resource management issues and the principles and practices of open space and/or park planning.  Technology, hardware, software, and current applications related to GIS systems, including database management, mapping and report generation, and desktop publishing systems.  Principles and practices of identifying technology needs and issues, researching and evaluating technology, applications and the most effective courses of action and implementing solutions.  Applicable Federal, State, and local laws, codes and regulations.  Modern office practices, methods, and computer equipment and applications related to the work.  Record keeping principles and procedures.  English usage, grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and punctuation.  Techniques for providing a high level of customer service by effectively dealing with the public, vendors, contractors, and City staff. Ability to:  Recommend and implement goals, objectives, and practices for providing effective and efficient services.  Plan, organize, assign, review, and evaluate the work of staff; train staff in work procedures.  Evaluate and develop improvements in operations, procedures, policies, or methods.  Research, analyze, and evaluate new service delivery methods, procedures, and techniques.  Coordinate a broad-based GIS program that includes effective database development, management and accessibility.  Assess user needs and recommend appropriate hardware, software, and systems to meet these needs.  Perform complex modeling, mapping, database maintenance, and other GIS professional-level tasks.  Develop documentation and informational materials and train users in GIS applications.  Interpret, apply and explain technical materials to non-technical users.  Interpret, apply and explain complex Federal, State, and local laws, codes, regulations, departmental policies and procedures.  Understand the organization and operation of City departments and of outside agencies as necessary to assume assigned responsibilities.  Prepare clear and effective reports, correspondence, policies, procedures, and other written material.  Make accurate arithmetic, financial, and statistical computations.  Establish and maintain a variety of filing, record-keeping, and tracking systems.  Organize and prioritize a variety of projects and multiple tasks in an effective and timely manner; organize own work, set priorities, and meet critical time deadlines.  Operate modern office equipment including computer equipment and specialized software applications programs.  Use English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone, and in writing.  Use tact, initiative, prudence, and independent judgment within general policy, procedural, and legal guidelines.  Establish, maintain, and foster positive and effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. Education and Experience: 132 GIS Program Manager Page 4 of 4 Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be: Equivalent to graduation from an accredited four-year college or university with major coursework in cartography, geographic information science, geography, information systems, computer science, or related field and four (4) years of progressively responsible experience in GIS analysis, design, and development. Licenses and Certifications:  None. PHYSICAL DEMANDS Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer, to operate a motor vehicle, and to visit various City and meeting sites; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person, before groups, and over the telephone. This is primarily a sedentary office and but occasionally standing in and walking between work areas and development sites is required. Finger dexterity is needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. Positions in this classification occasionally bend, stoop, kneel, reach, push and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. Employees must possess the ability to lift, carry, push and pull materials and objects weighing up to 25 pounds. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Employees work in an office environment with moderate noise levels, controlled temperature conditions, and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. 133 DECEMBER 2015 FLSA: GIS TECHNICIAN DEFINITION Under general supervision, performs technical work in support of the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) administration, including meeting with department personnel to discuss GIS product requests, such as maps and reports, analyzing requests, generating requested products, and maintaining data and GIS databases; and performs related work as required. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives general supervision form the GIS Program Manager. Exercises no direct supervision over staff. CLASS CHARACTERISTICS This is a single-position classification responsible for supporting the City’s GIS function and related equipment. Incumbents are expected to possess the ability to perform the full range of technical duties related to GIS, in addition to performing a variety of record keeping, research, and technical support activities. The work requires the frequent use of tact and judgment, knowledge of City-wide operations, and the ability to conduct independent projects. This class is distinguished from GIS Program Manager in that the latter has overall management responsibility for all planning projects and programs, functions, and activities of the GIS program and for developing, implementing, and interpreting divisional goals for this function. EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL JOB FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only) Management reserves the right to add, modify, change, or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job.  Provides GIS support for City departments and programs including the development of maps, charts, displays, presentations, graphics, brochures, and drawings.  Develops and maintains a variety of maps from multiple sources; explains technical information to non-technical end users, including assisting them in accessing and interpreting GIS information; trains end users on the use and functionality of the GIS system.  Compiles and enters data into GIS databases, including scanning, data conversion, and digitizing maps.  Performs City research activities to identify, acquire, and integrate data from other agencies and organizations into the City’s data library; maintains and updates the City’s information catalogue.  Develops documentation and quality control procedures, standards, and metadata; reviews new and existing data for accuracy, quality, and completeness.  Acts as point of contact for the day-to-day operations of the GIS program; troubleshoots system problems; responds to and resolves inquiries and complaints and escalates problems or issues as needed.  Exports data and maps to vendors and consultant as needed. 134 GIS Technician Page 2 of 3  Prepares a variety of written correspondence, reports, procedures, and other materials.  Maintains accurate records and files related to the GIS function.  Attends and participates in professional group meetings; stays abreast of new trends and innovations in the field of GIS administration.  Performs related duties as assigned. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of:  Technology, hardware and software, and current applications related to GIS systems, including database management, mapping and report generation, and desktop publishing systems.  Applicable Federal, State, and local laws, codes, and requirements and related reports.  Researching and reporting methods, techniques, and procedures.  Methods and techniques of effective technical report preparation and presentation.  Record keeping principles and procedures.  Modern office practices, methods, and computer equipment and applications related to the work, including the ArcGIS software.  English usage, grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and punctuation.  Techniques for providing a high level of customer service by effectively dealing with the public, vendors, contractors, and City staff. Ability to:  Develop and administer a broad-based GIS program that includes effective database development and management for a variety of City departments and public and private clients.  Prepare a variety of plans, specifications, maps, graphic materials, and technical reports.  Modify topographic maps, plans, and illustrative graphics using GIS software.  Conduct routine research projects, evaluate alternatives, and make sound recommendations.  Interpret, apply and explain technical materials to non-technical users.  Establish and maintain a variety of filing, record keeping, and tracking systems.  Make sound decisions within established policy and procedural guidelines.  Organize own work, set priorities, and meet critical time deadlines.  Operate modern office equipment including computer equipment and specialized software applications programs.  Use English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone, and in writing.  Use tact, initiative, prudence, and independent judgment within general policy, procedural, and legal guidelines.  Establish, maintain, and foster positive and effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. 135 GIS Technician Page 3 of 3 Education and Experience: Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be Equivalent to an Associate’s degree from an accredited college or university with major coursework in cartography, geographic information science, geography, information systems, computer science, or related field and two (2) years of experience creating maps and performing spatial analysis using GIS software and/or database management technical support. Licenses and Certifications: Possession of, or ability to obtain an appropriate, valid California driver license. PHYSICAL DEMANDS Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer; to operate a motor vehicle and to visit various City sites; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person and over the telephone. Standing in and walking between work areas is frequently required. Finger dexterity is needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. Positions in this classification frequently bend, stoop, kneel, and reach to perform assigned duties, as well as push and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. Employees must possess the ability to lift, carry, push, and pull materials and objects up to 25 pounds with the use of proper equipment. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Employees work in an office environment with moderate levels, controlled temperature conditions, and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. 136 DECEMBER 2015 FLSA: EXEMPT MULTIMEDIA COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST DEFINITION Under general supervision, performs a variety of duties related to the development, preparation, and implementation of strategic internal and external communications, public information, and customer and community relations activities; performs technical and creative development work in the production of video, audio, media, and broadcast productions for instruction, communications, and public information; prepares informational materials for dissemination through a variety of communications media, public meetings, and events; works with neighborhood communities, businesses, and civic leaders to assure their understanding of City policies and operations; and performs other related work as required. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives direct supervision from the Chief Technology Officer. May provide technical and functional direction to staff. CLASS CHARACTERISTICS This is a specialized journey-level classification performing the full range of video, audio, media, and broadcast production specialist assignments. Incumbents at this level are capable of performing technical production support duties, including video, audio, media, and broadcast productions, developing and recording scripts, shooting videos, and editing productions and are required to be fully trained in all procedures related to the assigned area(s) of responsibility, working with a high degree of independent judgment, tact, and initiative. EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL JOB FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only) Management reserves the right to add, modify, change, or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job.  Performs a variety of public outreach and community relations activities, events, and public awareness programs for the dissemination of information regarding City operations, policies, and procedures.  Provides technical support for city meetings, special projects, staff presentations, and other production-related events.  Researches, advises and purchases production equipment, office supplies, remote unit equipment, computer hardware and software.  Coordinates administrative operations which includes: placing orders for equipment, services and supplies; issuing payments for goods and services; scheduling appointments; coordinating the department schedule; monitoring and updating divisional budget; preparing reports, forms, evaluations and requests; maintaining related files and records; and providing information of government access operations to other agencies.  Assists in the design, installation, maintenance, and repair of audio, video, presentation, and broadcasting equipment and systems, including troubleshooting electronic systems, fabrication, construction, and soldering. 137 Multimedia Communications Specialist Page 2 of 4  Creates and maintains layouts and custom scripting for various applications including the department’s tape library, equipment, and administrative databases.  Maintains a working inventory of equipment, components, and parts; updates and maintains databases, logs, and records of equipment circulation, statistics, and requests; provides for and maintains measures to ensure equipment security.  Assists the emergency operations team by supporting development and implementation of communications plans.  Monitors and oversees the work of part-time employees, contractors, interns, and volunteers.  Stays abreast of new trends and innovations in the production operations and services; researches emerging products and enhancements and their applicability to the City’s needs; makes recommendations considering budget, installation, training, and operational perspectives; learns and applies emerging technologies.  Maintains the city’s communications library, including recordings of all public meetings and other productions.  Perform related duties as required. When performing production activities:  Produces and directs programming for the government access channel including: city meeting broadcasts, special events, informational videos, documentaries, public service announcements, and other projects.  Oversees and performs video production for the city including telecast of city council and commission meetings and other city meetings and events.  Produces, creates and provides production related phases related to special projects including preproduction such as evaluating the type and placement of cameras, audio, and lighting units.  Plans and performs video, audio, media, and broadcast post-production tasks, including reviewing recordings, making editorial decisions, creating graphics and closed captioning for video and television productions, making audio adjustments such as adding music and sound effects, and final editing; utilizes computer graphics and special and audio effects for post-production in accordance with the overall production concepts; compresses video projects for output; mixes audio products into files; makes productions available in a variety of formats; coordinates internal and external duplication services as required.  Coordinates and maintains the broadcast schedule of programming for the government access channel including: acquiring programming from outside agencies, maintaining broadcast licensing agreements, and promoting the channel’s schedule to the public.  Maintains the city’s webcasting service which includes developing content for online streaming video and the technical maintenance/configuration of the webcasting servers and related components.  Ensures compliance with applicable FCC standards and guidelines.  Works with the cable company to ensure proper maintenance of the government access channel and its subsystems throughout the Cupertino cable network.  Works in collaboration with staff to produce a variety of informational and instructional video, audio, media, and broadcast products, including gathering data and conducting interviews, developing ideas, creating content, and scripts, determining shoot locations and production schedule, shooting videos, recording voice over, and editing.  Conducts field-based video production and operates video and audio equipment; transports and sets up lighting and audio equipment as required; provides troubleshooting and maintenance of field production equipment.  Oversee and participate in taking photographs, slides, and films for news media or City use; coordinate the production of various publications, slide shows, films, exhibits, and similar materials.  Responds to requests from the public for event coverage, programs for air, and production services. 138 Multimedia Communications Specialist Page 3 of 4 When performing audio/visual support:  Schedules and administers audio/visual services such as equipment reservation, delivery and pick-up, and technical support.  Provides technical support in the proper use of video and audio equipment and systems.  Designs and engineers the installation of audio/visual and computer equipment along with their integrated systems including: performing hardware, peripheral and software configurations for audio/visual devices, servers and workstations.  Operates, maintains, tests, troubleshoots and repairs audiovisual equipment; periodically inspects, cleans and tests audiovisual equipment and performs routine preventative maintenance and minor mechanical repairs to equipment; refers issues and arranges for equipment repairs with service technicians, vendors, or the Information Technology Department. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of:  Principles, techniques, and methods of public information, outreach, and community relations.  Production techniques and procedures for video, audio, media, and broadcast production and post- production, including editing, copywriting, development of production schedules, voice acting, master control operation, audio/video processing, and the use of open and closed captioning information in compliance with Federal ADA standards and City policy.  Principles and techniques of television and video production, engineering, equipment and digital video and audio systems and their various formats.  Software applications such as computer animation/DVE production software, non-linear editing systems, digital imaging and multimedia software, computer assisted drawing (CAD) applications and database software.  Computer programming languages as used in conjunction with Web-based, applications (e.g. HTML and PHP), databases, and video systems. Audio/visual and computer equipment and specialized computer workstations.  General video engineering principles as they relate to system design and maintenance, signal flow, the interoperability of audio and video components, and computer hardware and software systems.  Lighting design principles, optical and acoustical fundamentals, and other aesthetic elements as they relate to television broadcasting and production.  Copyright laws, rules, and regulations.  Principles and practices of data collection and script and creative content development, editing, and recording.  Applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, codes, and guidelines related to the program area to which assigned, including copyright laws and Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations.  Principles and procedures of record keeping and report preparation.  Proper storage and care of equipment and tools.  Standard office practices and procedures, including the use of standard office equipment and computer applications related to the work.  English usage, spelling, vocabulary, grammar, and punctuation.  Techniques for providing a high level of customer service by effectively dealing with the public, vendors, students, and faculty and other staff, including individuals of various ages, various socio- economic and ethnic groups. 139 Multimedia Communications Specialist Page 4 of 4 Ability to:  Perform a variety of public outreach and community relations activities for the City.  Operate and maintain audio and video production equipment and computer programs, including editing and duplicating systems, cameras, production lighting, closed captioning, and recording systems.  Review situations accurately and determine appropriate course of action using judgment according to established policies and procedures.  Learn current issues and projects impacting City operations.  Learn applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulatory codes, ordinances, and procedures relevant to assigned area of responsibility.  Learn to interpret, apply, and explain City and departmental policies, operations, and procedures.  Respond to requests and inquiries from the general public.  Develop and maintain contacts with the news media, various community groups, schools, and government Specialists.  Organize own work, set priorities, and meet critical time deadlines.  Use English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone, and in writing.  Establish, maintain, and foster positive and effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. Education and Experience: Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be Equivalent to a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in communications, videography, television production, or a related field and two (2) years of experience in media production work. Licenses and Certifications:  May require a valid California class C driver’s license and a satisfactory driving record. PHYSICAL DEMANDS Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer; to operate a motor vehicle and to visit various City and meeting sites; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person, and over the telephone. This work has aspects of a sedentary office classification and will frequently sit at video and editing computer stations for long periods of time. Standing and walking between work areas is also required. Finger dexterity is needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard and to operate standard office equipment. Positions in this classification frequently bend, squat, climb, kneel, and twist while performing technical set-up and installation work; perform simple and power grasping, pushing, pulling, and fine manipulation. Employees must possess the ability to lift, carry, push, and pull materials and objects, typically weighing up to 50 pounds, and occasionally heavier weights with the use of proper equipment. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 140 Multimedia Communications Specialist Page 5 of 4 Employees work in an office environment with moderate noise levels, controlled temperature conditions, and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employee frequently work at indoor and outdoor events throughout the City. 141 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1656 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/21/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Appointment of City of Cupertino representative to the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:AppointmentofCityofCupertinorepresentativetotheSantaClaraCountyValley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) AccepttheBicyclePedestrianCommission(BPC)recommendationtoappointGaryJonesto the VTA BPAC for a two-year term beginning July 1, 2016 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™142 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: June 21, 2016 Subject Appointment of City of Cupertino representative to the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). Recommended Action Accept the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) recommendation to appoint Gary Jones to the VTA BPAC for a two-year term beginning July 1, 2016. Discussion VTA has requested that the City of Cupertino appoint a representative to VTA’s BPAC for the upcoming two-year term that begins July 1, 2016. Jim Wiant, Cupertino’s representative since July 1, 2010, resigned from the VTA BPAC in mid-April due to personal reasons, leaving Cupertino’s position vacant. Due to the timing of the resignation combined with the meeting schedule of the VTA Board of Directors, the soonest Mr. Jones can receive required Board ratification is August 4, 2016. He would then be eligible to serve as Cupertino’s representative at the August 10, 2016 VTA BPAC meeting. The BPAC is a 17-member committee that advises VTA’s Board of Directors on planning and funding issues for bicycle and pedestrian projects in the county. Members must live and/or work in Santa Clara County during their term and cannot be staff of either VTA or the member agency they represent. Cupertino has one membership position on the committee. The City of Cupertino’s Bicycle Pedestrian Commission has recommended that Gary Jones be appointed to the VTA’s BPAC for a two-year term beginning July 1, 2016. Sustainability Impact None Fiscal Impact None 143 _____________________________________ Prepared by: David Stillman, Senior Civil Engineer Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: None 144 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1811 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/15/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Governor’s By Right Housing Proposal Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Sample Mayor Letter of Opposition B - “By Right” Housing proposal summary Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject: Governor’s By Right Housing Proposal OpposetheGovernor’sBy-RightHousingproposalandauthorizetheMayortosendlettersof opposition to state legislative leaders along with our state delegation CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™145 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org TELEPHONE: (408) 777-7603 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 21, 2016 Subject Governor’s By Right Housing Proposal Recommended Action Oppose the Governor’s By-Right Housing proposal and authorize the Mayor to send letters of opposition to state legislative leaders along with our state delegation. Description In an effort to encourage housing production, Governor Jerry Brown has proposed to streamline the approval of certain multifamily housing projects that include a portion of deed-restricted affordable units. The Governor has reached an agreement with Democratic leaders that would allocate $400 million in one-time funding towards affordable housing in exchange for approval of the Governor’s By-Right Housing proposal. The By Right Housing proposal would allow by right approval for multi-family housing projects that set aside at least 20% of the units for low income residents. Developments near transit stops could be built by right if they set aside 10% or more. Although the projects would need to be consistent with our land-use laws, they would not need to go through a public review process or CEQA process, thereby removing a local government’s discretionary authority to reject such projects and shortening the approval process. The League of California Cities has expressed concern over the elimination of public hearings and the exclusion of elected city council members from critical local land use decisions. While state law places limits on a city’s ability to deny certain housing projects, the proposal goes further by making it infeasible to conduct a public hearing within the 30 day review period and by removing local discretion over land use entitlements, other than nominal design review. Both the League and environmental groups expressed concern over the elimination of CEQA review. The CEQA exemption assumes that the environmental analysis conducted for a city’s general plan is sufficient for every project site. Absent adequate environmental review, many of these projects may ignore risk factors that would have been identified through local review and addressed through mitigation measures. 146 2 For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council oppose the Governor’s By-Right Housing proposal and authorize the Mayor to send letters in opposition to the inclusion of this language in the final 2016-17 Budget Trailer Bill. Sustainability Impact Opposing the Governor’s By-Right Housing proposal will preserve important local environmental review requirements intact for all housing development projects. Fiscal Impact There is no fiscal impact as a result of opposing the Governor’s By-Right Housing proposal. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Jaqui Guzmán, Assistant to the City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A. Sample Letter of Opposition B. “By Right” Housing proposal summary 147 CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3192 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 bchang@cupertino.org June 15, 2016 The Honorable Phil Ting Chair, Assembly Budget Committee State Capitol Building, Room 6026 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Mark Leno Chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee State Capitol, Room 5019 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Governor’s Proposal for By Right Approval for Affordable Housing Notice of Opposition Dear Honorable Chairs Ting and Leno: The City of Cupertino opposes the Governor’s proposal to pre-empt local discretionary land use approvals of specified housing developments by having all such approvals be considered “ministerial” actions. The result of this proposal would be to eliminate opportunities for public input and project-level environmental review, and restrict design review. The City acknowledges that California is facing a housing affordability crisis; however, this is not the solution. Eliminating opportunities for public review of these major development projects goes against the principles of local democracy. A public hearing allows community stakeholders to inform decision-makers of their concerns and guarantees property rights will not be impacted without due process. Public review allows for design improvements to ensure a new structure matches a community’s character. While it may be frustrating for some developers to address neighborhood concerns about traffic, parking and other development impacts, those directly affected have a right to be heard. Eliminating these outlets will increase public distrust in government. The Governor’s proposal also undermines state environmental policies and laws. While the Coastal Act, California Environmental Quality Act and other laws can be burdensome, most would acknowledge that these requirements have also made positive contributions to Californian’s quality of life. For these reasons, the City respectfully states our opposition to this measure. Please feel free to contact me at (408) 777-3192 or bchang@cupertino.org should you have any questions. Sincerely, 148 Mayor Barry Chang City of Cupertino 149 June 1, 2016 1 “By Right” Housing Approvals Proposed Trailer Bill 1 June 1, 2016 The Department of Finance released an updated version of the Governor’s “by right” housing proposal. http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/trailer_bill_language/local_government/documents/707StreamliningAffordableHousingApprovalswithTechnicalModifications.pdf While some minor issues have been clarified, other new issues of concern have been added. Basic Framework: The Governor’s proposal for streamlining affordable housing approvals requires cities and counties to approve: • A certain type of housing project with modest levels of affordable units • As a permitted “use by right” • With no public input; • With limited ministerial review; and • No CEQA compliance Major Changes: • HCD has been given broad and unprecedented authority authorized to determine where “affordable housing” should not be located. This provision authorizes (but does not require) HCD to adopt regulations pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act that would determine what areas are “inappropriate for affordable housing development” according to “objective criteria,” including areas severely lacking in access to public transit, accessibility to employment or educational opportunities, and residentially supportive retail and service amenities. Unless and until HCD adopts regulations, this section of the proposal doesn’t prohibit housing on any particular site. Housing qualifies as a “permitted use” in an HCD-identified area if the project incorporates “approved remediation measures.” CEQA does not apply to the adoption of the regulations. • States legislative intent that the provisions “advance,” laws prohibiting discrimination, implementing state planning priorities, attaining the state housing goal, fair housing choice, AB 32 climate change, and compliance with “non-discretionary” local inclusionary zoning ordinances. • Instead of requiring developments to comply with “objective general plan and zoning standards,” as in the prior draft, this version seems to narrow the language by defining “objective planning standards” to be land use and building intensity designation applicable to the site under the general plan and zoning code, land use and density and other objective zoning standards, and any setback or objective design review standards.” • Adds a definition of “approved remediation measures” but only applies it to developments on prime farmland, flood plains, wetlands, hazardous waste sites, 1 Based on most recent Department of Finance draft. 150 June 1, 2016 2 earthquake faults, and areas identified by HCD as inappropriate for affordable housing. • Responding to concerns expressed with the prior draft, developers are required to replace any existing affordable housing on a site at equal or greater levels and must pay relocation assistance to those displaced. • Clarifies the Subdivision Map Act must be complied with. • Deletes language from prior version that implied zoning amendments and conditional use permits could be made by staffers as ministerial decisions. What types of housing projects are included? Newly constructed structure containing two or more dwelling units in a project that is entirely residential or part of a mixed-use development that comply with the criteria summarized in the next question. The proposal does not apply to the construction of a second unit or the conversion of an existing structure to condominiums. [NOTE: The proposal is not clear. A cross reference to another definition in the law, raises concerns that the law could also apply to a single-family housing development, mixed use or transitional or supportive housing.] What restrictions are placed on the location of these housing projects? 1. Urban site: Located on a site that is either immediately adjacent to parcels that are developed with urban uses or for which at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. The revised version adds “or is bounded by a natural body of water,” which presumably is intended to pick up sites bordering the ocean, lakes and rivers. 2. Prohibited sites: A Project cannot be located on the following sites unless the development incorporates “approved remediation measures:” (A) Prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance; (B) Wetlands; (C) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone; (D) Hazardous Waste site; (E) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone; (F) Flood plain; (G) Floodway; (H) Within an area “determined to be inappropriate for affordable housing development” by the Department of Housing and Community Development based upon “objective criteria” such as lacking in access to public transit, accessibility to employment or educational opportunities, and residentially supportive retail and service amenities. 3. Replacing existing affordable housing: Unless development replaces units at a level of affordability equal to or greater than the level of a previous affordability restriction, the development may not be on any property that is (A) a parcel on which rental dwelling units are, or have been within past 5 years, subject to a recorded covenant that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income; (B) subject to any other form of rent or price control; or (C) occupied by lower or very low income households. What is a permitted “use by right?” 151 June 1, 2016 3 This means that a city may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of CEQA. [NOTE: This means that approval of a housing project covered by the proposal is not subject to any environmental evaluation under CEQA.] What is the approval process for a housing project that qualifies for permitted “use by right” review? Within 30 days of receiving an application, the public official must either approve the development or explain why it is inconsistent with objective planning standards. If the public official fails to respond within 30 days or fails to provide an explanation, project is deemed to be consistent with general plan and zoning standards. What else is included in the proposal? • Declaration that the proposal applies to charter cities • Declaration that it overrides anything to the contrary in the existing law. • CEQA does not apply to a local government’s award of financial assistance to any development that qualifies as a permitted use by right under the proposal. What criteria must a housing project comply with to qualify for permitted “use by right” review? A housing project must comply each of the following requirements: • Objective planning standards: Consistent with the following objective planning standards: land use and building intensity designation applicable to the site under the general plan and zoning, or other objective zoning standards, and any setback or objective design review standards in effect at the time the application is submitted • Affordability (TPA): For developments within a transit priority area 2, subject to a restriction lasting 30 years requiring at least 10% of the units be affordable to lower income households or at least 5% of the units to be affordable to very low income households. • Affordability (non-TPA): For developments outside a transit priority area, subject to a restriction lasting 30 years requiring at least 20% of the units to be affordable to households whose income is 80% or less of area median gross income. • Approved remediation measures: A project is not entitled to use by right if it is located on certain sites (e.g. prime farmland, hazardous waste site, etc.) unless the developer complies with “approved remediation measures.” These are measures included in a certified environmental impact report to mitigate the impact of 2 A transit priority area is an area within ½ mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned provided the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in the Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the same definition as is found in PRC 21099.. 152 June 1, 2016 4 residential development in the location proposed by the project; or uniformly applied development policies or standards that have been adopted to mitigate the impact of residential development in that location. Comments and Concerns Unprecedented role for HCD in local land use planning The proposal authorizes HCD to inject itself directly into local land use authority by adopt regulations that determine areas that are inappropriate for affordable housing development because they lack access to public transit, accessibility to employment or educational opportunities, and residentially supportive retail and service amenities. The term “affordable housing development” is not defined in this measure potentially empowering HCD with even broader authority. A development proposed in an area identified as “inappropriate” will not qualify for “permitted use by right” unless the development incorporates “approved remediation measures.” No public review The hallmark of local government land use decisions has been the public hearing. A public hearing (1) allows interested members of the community to inform the decision-makers of their support or opposition to the project; and (2) guarantees that property rights will not be impacted without the “due process of law.” Excluding the elected decision makers The proposal excludes the elected city council and board of supervisors from land use decisions. These public officials are elected to represent their constituents and to be available and responsive. The proposal asks appointed staff, who are not directly accountable to local voters, to make the policy decisions: this is the arena reserved for elected officials. Local governments are already required to approve housing but with public hearings and CEQA review • Housing Accountability Act (20% lower income; 100% moderate income or middle income; emergency shelter) (Gov. 65589.5) Must approve a housing project that is consistent with general plan and zoning ordinance unless (1) specific adverse impact on public health or safety; (2) housing is not needed; (3) denial required to comply with state or federal law; (4) project is on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation. • “No net loss” (Gov. 65863) May not reduce the residential density for any parcel unless remaining sites identified in housing element are adequate to accommodate RHNA 153 June 1, 2016 5 • Density bonus (Gov. 65915) Must award density bonus and other concessions and incentives when development includes 10% lower income, 5% very low income, senior citizen, or 10% for moderate income in common interest development • Least cost zoning (Gov. 65913.1) Must zone sufficient land for residential use with appropriate standards to meet housing needs for all income categories identified in housing element. When land is zoned, then Housing Accountability Act requires approval. • Second units (Gov. 65852.2) Must approve second unit with ministerial review. City may not adopt ordinance that totally precludes second units in residential zones unless specific adverse impacts on public health, safety, and welfare. • Ministerial approval of multifamily housing (Gov. 65589.4) Must approve as a permitted use multifamily housing structure located on an infill site that is consistent with general plan and zoning ordinance in which at least 10% of the units are affordable to very low income households; or at least 20% available to lower incomes; or 50% affordable to moderate income households. No project specific CEQA review The proposal requires ministerial review of a housing project if it is consistent with “objective general plan and zoning standards.” CEQA review that is required for both the general plan and zoning ordinance does not extend to the project level. CEQA review that is required for both the general plan and zoning ordinance may have occurred many years before the development application is submitted. Cities and counties will not be able to determine whether site-specific conditions or changed circumstances and new information require environmental mitigation. If for some reason a previous environmental document was helpful in evaluating the project, the bill does not allow a city to impose conditions to require compliance with previously-adopted mitigation measures. What are “objective zoning standards”? To be a “permitted use by right,” a development must comply with the location requirements, the affordability requirements, and must be consistent with the following objective planning standards: land use and building intensity, land use and density or other objective zoning standards, and any setback or objective design review standards. Although the second draft of the proposal includes building intensity and density as examples of “objective zoning standards,” it does not otherwise shed light on the meaning of “objective zoning standards.” With the repeated use of the term “objective,” litigation is likely to occur over its purported meaning. Affordable housing will not remain affordable 154 June 1, 2016 6 A housing development must be “required by law to record” a land-use restriction based on (1) a condition of award of funds or financing from a public agency; (2) as a condition of the award of tax credits; (3) as might be required by contract entered into with a public agency. In other words, if a developer does not receive funding for the affordable housing, the housing will not remain affordable. Breadth of the proposal The proposal states that it applies “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the law.” It is not possible to accurately evaluate the impact of this statement because of its breadth. 155 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1785 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/8/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Approve the First Amendment to the lease agreement with Friends of Stevens Creek Trail for the period extending through June 30, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Agreement First Amendment B - Agreement Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:ApprovetheFirstAmendmenttotheleaseagreementwithFriendsofStevensCreek Trail for the period extending through June 30, 2017 AuthorizeCityManagertoamendtheleaseagreementwithFriendsofStevensCreekTrailat McClellan Ranch preserve for the period extending through June 30, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™156 RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER 10 10185 N. STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5733 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 21, 2016 Subject Approve the First Amendment of the lease agreement with Friends of the Stevens Creek Trail for the period extending through June 30, 2017. Recommended Action Authorize the City Manager to amend the lease agreement with Friends of the Stevens Creek Trail at McClellan Ranch Preserve for the period extending through June 30, 2017. Description The City currently has an agreement with the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail to lease office space at the McClellan Ranch Preserve ranch house. Discussion The City of Cupertino has maintained relationship with the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail for several years. The Friends of Stevens Creek Trail work with the Recreation and Community Services Department as well as the other community partners located at McClellan Ranch Preserve to enhance the outdoor education for park users. Friends of Stevens Creek Trail (FOSCT) has educated the public about the trail and wildlife corridor benefits, including getting people closer to nature in their own neighborhood, exercise, safer routes to schools, reducing car trips and pollution, and connecting people, neighborhoods, and parks. FOSCT maintains an ongoing partnership with the City Naturalist and Acterra. Fiscal Impact There will be a 3% increase in revenue. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Christine Hanel, Acting Director of Recreation and Community Services Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Amended Draft First Amendment B - Agreement 157 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AND CARETAKER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND FRIENDS OF STEVENS CREEK TRAIL This First Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Friends of Stevens Creek Trail for reference dated July 1, 2015, is by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, a California nonprofit corporation (hereinafter “LESSEE”) whose address is 22221 McClellan Road, (hereinafter "Property"), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On July 1, 2015, the City and friends of Stevens Creek Trail entered into a Lease Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement"). B. City and Lessee desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as follows: 1. Pursuant to Paragraph 3(b) of the Agreement, the City and the Lessee hereby exercise the option to extend the term of the Lease through June 30, 2017. 2. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed. Lessee CITY OF CUPERTINO Friends of Stevens Creek Trail A Municipal Corporation By _____________________ Executive Director City Manager ATTEST: ________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney 158 159 LEASE AND CARETAKER AGREEMENT BETWEEN, THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND FRIENDS OF STEVENS CREEK TRAIL FOR THE McCLELLANRANCH HOUSE This Lease and Caretaker Agreement ("AGREEMENT"), is entered into this 1st day of July, 2015, by and between the City of Cupertino ("CITY") and the Friends of the Stevens Creek Trail,a California nonprofit corporation("LESSEE"). RECITALS A. City is the owner of certain real property commonlyknown as the "McClellan Ranch House" located 22221 McClellan Road, McClellan Ranch Park, City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara,State of California (the"Property"). B. Lessee is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that offers educational and informational programs tothecommunity that promote the StevensCreek Trail. B. Cityand Lessee desire to enterinto an agreement to lease a portion of the Property that includes approximately 109 square feet of space withinthe ranch house (81 square feet office and 28 square feet storage), together with the non-exclusive use of hallways, restrooms, and outside parking facilities (the "Premises"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and conditions contained in thisAgreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the partieshereby agree as follows 1.PURPOSE OF LEASE. LESSEE and CITY are entering into this Lease and Caretaker Agreement with two goals: enhancing the quality of environmental programs for City's community, and providing a natural area for the conduct of some of LESSEE's ongoingactivities. As such, both the CITY and LESSEE, agree to work together throughout theterm of this AGREEMENT to develop a program of activities mutually beneficial to CITY and LESSEE. 2.DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEASED. City leases to Lessee and Lessee leases from City a portion of the property located at 22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, California, (the "Property"), consisting of 109 square feet within the ranch house togetherwith the non-exclusive use of hallways, restrooms, and outside parking facilities(the"Premises"). 3. LEASE TERM. a. Initial Term. The term of this Lease shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing on July 1, 2015 ("Commencement Date")and ending June 30, 2016. 1 160 b. Option to Renew. Upon mutualagreement of City and Lessee, theinitial term of this Lease may be extended for up to one year, on the same terms, covenants, and conditions of this Lease, except for the Rent, which shall increase by three percent (3%) during the period of the extended term. To exercise the Option to renew, Lessee must give written notice (the "Option Notice") of its interest in extending the term to the City at least two (2) monthsbut not more than three (3) months before theexpiration of the initial term, and Lessee must not be in default under this lease, either on the date of theOption Notice or at the time the extension period commences. City shall review theOption Notice and approve or deny the request prior to expiration of the Initial Term. If the City denies the request this Lease shall expire at the end of the initial term. Lessee shall have no other rights to extend the term beyond the Extension Period. 4.RENT. In consideration for the lease of the Premises, Lessee shall pay City as follows: a. Rent. Lessee shall may monthly rent to the City, without deduction or setoff, based upon the rate of one dollar ($1.00) persquare foot per month, for a total of one hundred and nine dollars ($109.00) per month. Rent shall be payable in on orbefore the first (1st) day of each calendar month without notice or demand of any kind by City. In addition to providing services in Exhibit B. All payments shall be submitted to City of Cupertino, Attn: Director of Finance, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014. b. Late Charges. In the event that any installment of rentor any other sum due by Lessee is not received by City within ten (10) days after the due date, rent is deemed late and delinquent and a late charge equal to $20.00 plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum of the overdue amount shall be assessed as additional rent. LESSEE further agrees to pay $20.00 for each dishonored bank check. 5.HOLDING OVER. If Lessee remains in possession of the Property with City's consent after the expiration of the term of this lease, such possession by City shall be construed to be a tenancy from month to month, terminable upon thirty(30) days written notice given at any time by either party. The same terms and conditions contained in this Lease shall apply to any month-to-month tenancy, provided that the monthly base rent shall be one and one-half timesthe monthly rent payable immediately preceding the termination date of this Lease. 6.SECURITY DEPOSIT. A security deposit of$100.00, not applicable toward the last month's rent payment, has been paid by the LESSEE. 7.UTILITIES. CITY shall be responsible for thepayment of all utility bills applicable to the PREMISES, including water, electrical services, garbage and janitorial services for said PREMISES. LESSEE shall be responsible for its own telephone, internet and similar service and shall provide for its own office equipment and furnishings. Lease Agreement Friends of Stevens Creek Trail gmb 7-3-13 2 161 8.TAXES. LESSEE shall be responsible for payment of anyand all possessory interestproperty taxes. 9.LESSEE'S USE OF THE PROPERTY. a. Allowed and Required Uses. Lessee shall continuously use and occupy the Premises as office space for running educational and informational programs to the community that promote the goal of promoting the Stevens Creek Trail as set forth in Exhibit B. Lessee shall not use the property for any other purpose without the written consent of City, whichconsent may be withheld in City's sole and absolute discretion. Lessee, at Lessee's sole cost and expense, shall comply with all applicable municipal, state and federal statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations in effect during the term of this Lease regulating the use by Lessee of the Premises. The Lessee's use of the premises is subject to the following restrictions and requirements: 1. Hours of Operation. LESSEE shall maintain an office facility during normal hours of operation. LESSEE shall determine its own hours of operation provided that said hours are between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 2. Securit . LESSEE shall be responsible for securing the facility and setting of the burglar alarm at the end of each day. 3. Common Areas. LESSEE may utilize the hallways and restrooms of the ranch house and the adjacent parking facilities without additionalrent, provided, however, that if LESSEE wishes to utilize other areas of McClellan Park for which CITY normally charges a user fee, LESSEE shall be responsible for payment of said fee. Common areas include conference room, hallways, kitchen and restrooms. CITY shall be entitled to utilize all common areas for program activities upon giving LESSEE one (1) days advance written notice. 4. Parking. CITY retains the right to designate exclusive parking for LESSEE, or any other user or Lessee of the PREMISES, in the event that City, in its sole discretion, determines that the parking lot is over-utilized. It is estimated that LESSEE's need for parking shall not exceed 12 spaces. Lessee understands and agrees that Lessee's use of the parking area includes the rightto use that area jointly with the City, and acknowledges that Lessee does not have exclusive use of the area. City shall not be liable in any manner for any inconvenience, disturbance, or other damage arising out of the shared use of the parking lot for parking or any other City use.. 5. Animals. No animals shall reside in or on the PREMISES without prior written consent of the CITY. 6. Compliance with Law. LESSEE shall comply with all CupertinoMunicipal Ordinances and all State and Federal Statutes now in force or which may hereafter be in force pertaining to the use of the PREMISES. Lease Agreement Friends of Stevens Creek Trail gmb 7-3-13 3 162 b.Caretaker, Responsibilities. Lessee shall completethe following caretaker responsibilities: 1. Ensure that Lessee's employees who regularly operate at the PREMISES obtaintrainingfrom the CITY's Naturalist and become familiar with the McClellan Park Rules and Title 13 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, attached and incorporated as Exhibit A,which governs the use of City's parks and buildings. 2. Report to CITY's code enforcement any violations of the above referenced regulations found by LESSEE. 3. Notify the'CITY's Parks and Recreation office prior to any absence from the PREMISES for any extended period of time beyond two weeks. 4. Promptly report incidents, such as park misuse and vandalism, and any emergencies, such as burglaries,to the McClellan Ranch Caretaker, or if the Caretaker is unavailable,to the County Sheriff. In the eventthe Sheriff's office is involved, report the incident to the Director of Recreation and 'Community Services. (CITY shall furnish LESSEE with a list of contact numbers prior to occupancy of the Premises.) c. Prohibited Uses. Lessee shall not use nor permit the use of the Property in any manner that will tend to create wasteor nuisance or disturb other Lessees and members of the public. No use shall be made or permitted to be made of said Property, nor acts done, which will increase the existing rate of insuranceupon thebuilding in which the Property may be locatedonce said rate is established or cause a cancellation of any insurance policy covering said building or any part thereof, nor shall Lessee sell or permitto be kept, used or sold in or about the Property, any article which may be prohibited by a standard form offire insurancepolicies. Lessee shall, at his sole cost, comply with any and all requirements, pertaining to the use of the Property, of any ,insurance organization or company necessary for the maintenance of reasonable fire and public liability insurance,covering said building and appurtenances. J 10. MAINTENANCE,ALTERATIONS AND FIXTURES. a. Alterations by Lessee. Lessee shall not paint, paper, or makeany other alterations of the Property, or any part thereof,without the prior written consent of City. Any additions to,or alterations of, the Property, except movable furniture and equipment, shall become at once a part of the realty and belong to City. Any such alterations shall be in conformance with the requirements of all municipal, state and federal authorities. All fixtures that Lessee attaches to the Property shall become at once a part of the realty and belong to Cityon expiration or sooner termination of this Lease. b. Alterations by City. City has the right, in its sole-discretion to modify, reconfigure and renovate the Property at any time. The CITY shall provide signage as it deems appropriate designating the Premises and organizations utilizing the Property. c. Repairs. Except for damage caused byany negligent or intentional act or omission of Lessee, Lessee's agents, employees, or invitees in which event Lessee shall repairthe damage, City, at City's expense, shall keep in good order, condition and repairthe foundations, exterior Lease Agreement Friends of Stevens Creek Trail gmb 7-3-13 4 163 walls and the exterior roofof the Property, including all plumbing and electrical equipment locatedbetween the exterior and interior walls of the Property. City shall not, however, be obligated to maintain the interior walls, ceilings, windows, doors or plate glass. Cityshall have no obligation to make repairs under this Section until a reasonable time after receipt of written notice from Lessee of the need for such repairs. Lessee expresslywaives the benefits of any statute now or hereafter in effect which would otherwiseafford Lessee the right to make repairs at City's expense or to terminate this Lease because of City's failure to keep the Property in good order,condition and repair. d. Lessee's Maintenance Obligations. Otherthan those obligations of the City described in this section, Lessee, at Lessee's expense, shallkeep in,good order, condition and repairthe Property and every part thereof including, without limiting thegenerality of theforegoing, all plumbing, electrical and lighting facilities, and equipment within the Property, interior walls, ceilings, windows, doors, and glass, located withinthe Property. LESSEE shall be responsible for damages caused by the negligence of itsemployees,invitees or guests. e. Failure to perform Lessee's Obligations. If Lessee fails to perform Lessee's obligations under this Section or under any other section of this Lease, City mayat City's option enter upon the Premises after ten (10) days' prior written notice to Lessee (except in case of emergency, in which case no notice shall be required), perform such obligations on Lessee's behalf and putthe Property in good. order, condition and repair, and the cost thereof together with interest thereon at the maximum rate then allowable by law shall be due and payable as additionalrent to City together with Lessee's next rental installment. 11. CONDITION OF PROPERTY:SURRENDER. a. Lessee accepts the Property and the leased fixtures and equipment as being in good and sanitary order, condition and repair, and agrees to surrender the Property in as good condition as received, except for normal wear and tear, clean and free of debris. Lessee further agrees to remove all of Lessee's property that is not a fixtureof or permanent attachmentto the Property,or that is owned and was installed by Lessee during theterm of this Lease. Lessee shall repair any damage to the Premisesoccasioned by theinstallation or removal of its furnishings and equipment. b. If upon expiration or termination of this Lease, Lessee fails to remove any personal property belonging to Lessee fromthe premises, such property shall at City's option at any time after thirty (30) days fromthe date of expiration or termination be deemed to have been transferred to City,and Cityshall have the right to remove and dispose of such property without liabilityto Lessee. 12. ABANDONMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY. Lessee shall not vacate or abandon the Premises at any time duringthe term of this Lease; and if Lessee shall abandon, vacate or surrender the Premises or be dispossessed by process of law,or otherwise, any personal property belonging to Lessee and left on the Premises shall be deemed to be abandoned, at the option of City. Lease Agreement Friends of Stevens Creek Trail gmb 7-3-13 5 164 13. ENTRY AND INSPECTION. The City and its authorized representatives shall have the right to enter the Property at all reasonable times with reasonable notice for any of thefollowing purposes: (1)to inspect the Property and determine whether the Property is in good condition and whether Lessee is complying with its obligations under this, Lease; (2) to do any acts that may be necessary to protect City's interest in the Property; or (3) to perform any of City's duties underthis lease, including making any necessary or agreed on repairs or alterations. Such actsby Citymay include the erection and maintenance of scaffolding,canopy,fences and similar props as may be required, or for the purpose of posting notices of non-liability for alterations, additions or repairs. City shall be permitted to doany of the above without any rebate of rent and without any liability to Lessee for any loss of occupation orquiet enjoyment of the Premises thereby occasioned. Further, the City retains the right to enter upon and show the Property to persons considering purchase, rentalor lease of the Property and to display the usual notices and signs, For Sale," "For Lease," or"For Let," upon the Property for sixty(60)days prior to the expiration of the Lease term. Such signs shall be allowed without diminution of rent or hindrance by Lessee. Cityshall not be liable in any manner for any inconvenience, disturbance, loss of business, nuisance, or other damage resulting from the acts or omissions of City or its authorized representatives. 14. INSURANCE. a. Lessee shall, at its own expense, maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Lease, and during any hold-over, the following insurance in amountsnot less than the amounts specified,and issued by an insurance company admitted in California and having a Best Guide Rating of A-Class VII or better: 1.Comprehensive public liability, including provisions for personal injury and Property damage coverages, in an amount not less than One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars for any one person injured or killed, not less than Two Million($2,000,000) Dollars for any one accident or occurrence, and not less than Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000) Dollars Property damage for each accident or occurrence. The City, its officers and employees shall be named as additional insured in all of Lessees' insurancepolicies meeting the abovestated requirements. 2.Statutory workerscompensation insurance and employer's liability insurance for all of Lessee's employees; and 3.Statutory fire insurance on the Property. b. Lessee shall furnish to the City Certificates of insurance evidencing the insurance coverages set forth above, the name and policy number of each carrier and policy, and that the insurance is in force and will not be cancelled or modified without thirty(30)days written notice to the City. If Lessee does not maintain the above-required insurance, the City may, at its option, pay for the necessary insurance, and therepayment thereof shall be added to any subsequent installment of rent, andshall be collectible as additional rent in the same manner, and with the same remedies as if it had been originally reserved. Based on the fact that the City retains sole occupancyand control of that certain portion of the Property designated as office Lease Agreement Friends of Stevens Creek Trail gmb 7-3-13 6 165 space, appropriate exclusionary endorsements may be provided to remove said designated area from the insurance maintained by Lessee. 15. INDEMNIFICATION. Lessee hereby expresslywaives all claims against the City for damages to goods, furniture and equipment in, upon or aboutthe Premises, and for injuries to Lessee's employees, guests, orinvitees, or to any property in, upon orabout the Premises, from any cause arising at any time during the Lease term. Lessee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers harmless, from and against (1) anyand all claims of liability, loss or expenses in connection.with anyclaim, demand or action assertedagainst the City, for any damage to property or injury or death to any.person occurring in or about the Premises, or related to the use of the Property by Lessee.or Lessee's guests or invitees; (2) any and all claims of liability, loss or expenses in connection with any claim,demand.or action asserted against the City, arising out of Lessee's failure to perform any provision of this lease or Lessee's failureto keep the Premises in good condition and repair , or any act or omission by Lessee, its agents, contractors, invitees;'or employees; and (3) all damages, liability,fines, penalties, loss, expenses orinjury andany other consequences arising from Lessee's use and occupation of theProperty, including, but not limited to, any claim, liability, loss, or damage arising by reason of death or injury of any person,the damage to ordestruction of any property of any person,and any work performed on the,Property or materialsfurnished to the Property at the instance or request of Lessee or its agents or employees, unless such damage is the proximate result of negligence or unlawfulconduct of CITY its agents or employees. 16. PROPERTY UNINHABITABLE; REMEDY. If the Property is wholly or partially destroyed by fire, earthquake or any other cause whatsoever, renting the Property totally orpartially inaccessible or unusable, or if theProperty is injured by any cause which necessitates an expenditure of more than forty (40%) percent of its fair market value to repair and restore it, or if more than forty percent (40%) of the floor area, measured in square feet, is destroyed, the City may, at its option, elect to terminate this Lease by giving notice to Lessee within sixty(60) days fromthe date of the destruction orinjury. If the Citydoes not terminatethe Lease, Lessee's rent shall be abated, from the date of destruction untilrestoration is completed, in an amount proportionate to the extent to which destruction interferes with Lessee's use of the premises. In no event shall City be under an obligation or duty to restore the Property.. If the City elects to restore the Property, it shall proceed with reasonable diligence, but shall not be liable for any delay, other than an abatement of rent during the time that the Property remains uninhabitable. The words restore" and "restoration", shall not include or apply to any fixture, equipment or additions of any kind, or any Property whatever placed in or upon the Property by Lessee or anyone acting on their behalf. In making restorations,the City may use similar and/or changed workmanship and/or architecture. Immediately upon completion of repairs, the full amount of rent hereunder reserved shall be due and payable. For the purposes of this Lease,the Property shall be deemed "uninhabitable" if it cannot be used as an office facility or if any public agency deems it unsafe orunhealthy for human habitation or use as an office facility. Lease Agreement Friends of Stevens Creek Trail gmb 7-3-13 7 166 If the Citydoes not elect to terminatethe Lease, and does not commence restoration of the Property-within one hundred twenty (120) days fromthe date of destructionor injury, Lessee may,at its option,terminate this Lease upon written notice to the City. t 17. EMINENT DOMAIN. a. Total Condemnation. In the event of a total condemnation of the Propertyduring the Lease term,this Lease shall terminate as of the dateactual physical possession of the Property is taken by the condemnor. All compensation and damages awarded for such total condemnation shall belong to, and be the sole Property of the City, and Lessee shall have no claim thereto, and hereby irrevocably assign and transfer to the City any right to compensation or damages they may become entitled,'providedhowever, the Lessee shallbe entitled to receiveany award that may be made for the taking of or damage to Lessee's trade fixtures and any improvements made by Lessee to the Propertywhich Lessee would have had, but for the condemnation, the right to remove upon expiration or termination of this Lease. b. Rent Due on Total Condemnation. On termination of this Lease by a total condemnation of the Property, all rent and other charges payable by Lessee to or on behalf of the City pursuant to this Lease shall be paid up to the date on which actual physical possession of the Property is taken by the condemnor, and the parties hereto shall thereafter be released from all further liability under this Lease. c. Partial Condemnation. In the event of a.partial condemnation of the Property during the Lease term,this Lease shall terminate as to the portion of the Property so taken on the date when actual physical possession of said portion is taken by the condemnor; and the parties hereto shall eachhave the option to terminate this Lease by giving written notice to the other, within thirty (30) days after actual physical possession of said portion is taken by the condemnor. If neither party terminates.this Lease as herein provided, then this Lease shall continue in full.force and effect as to the remainder of the Property not condemned; provided, however, that the rent payable by Lessee for the balance of the Lease term shall be abated in the ratio that the square footage of enclosed floor space of the Property bears to the total floor space of the Property upon'such condemnation. Upon partialcondemnation, all compensation anddamages awarded for such condemnation shall belong to and be the sole Property of the City; and Lessee shall haveno claim thereto and hereby irrevocably assign and transfer any right they may have had to share in the award to the City; provided, however, that Lessee shall be entitled to receive any, award made for the taking of, or damage to, Lessees' trade fixtures and any improvements made by Lessee to the Property which Lessee would have had, but for the condemnation,the right to remove upon expiration or termination of this Lease. d. Rent on Partial Condemnation. Upon termination ofthis Lease in part, as herein provided, all rent and other charges payable by Lessee to or on behalf of the City pursuant to this Lease, shall be paid up to the date on which actualphysical possession is taken by the condemnor of that part of the Property being condemned; and Lessee shall thereafter be liable only forthat portion of rent required for the balance of the Lease term as hereinprovided. 18. DEFAULT. a. The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a default by Lessee: Lease Agreement Friends of Stevens Creek Trail gmb 7-3-13 g 167 1. Failure to pay rent when due, ifthe failure continues for ten (10) days after the due date. 2. Abandonment and vacation of the premises (failure to occupy and operate the premises fortwenty (20) consecutive days unless excused by the City shall be deemed an abandonment and vacation). 3. The making by Lessee of any generalassignment or general arrangement for the benefit of creditors; the filing by or against Lessee of a petition to have Lessee adjudged bankruptor a of a petition for reorganization or arrangementunder any law relating to bankruptcy (unless, in the case of a petition filed against Lessee the same is dismissed within sixty (60) days); the apportionment of a trustee or receiver to take possession of substantially all of Lessee's assets, where possession is not restored to Lessee within forty-five (45) days; orthe attachment,execution, or other judicial seizure of substantially all of Lessee's assets, where such seizure is not discharged within thirty 30) days. 4. Failure to perform any other provision of this Lease if the failure to perform is not cured withinfifteen (15) days orthe time stated in City's notice to Lessee. If the default cannot reasonably be cured within the period specified in the notice, Lessee shall not be'in default of this Lease if Lessee commences to cure the default within the period and diligently and in good faith continues to cure the default. b. Notices given under this section shall specify the alleged default and the applicable Lease provisions, and shall demand that Lessee perform the provision of this lease or pay the rent or other payment that is in arrears, as the case may be, within the applicable period of time, or quit the premises. No such notice shall be deemed a forfeiture ora termination of this leaseunless City so elects in the notice. 19. CITY'S REMEDIES IN THEEVENT OF DEFAULT. City shall have the following remedies if Lessee commits a default. These remedies are not exclusive;they are cumulative in addition to any remedies now or later allowed by law. a. Lessee's Right to Possession Not Terminated. City can continue this leasein full force and effect, and the lease will continue in effect as long as Citydoes not terminate Lessee's right to possession, and Lessee shall have the right to collect rent when due. During the period Lessee is in default, City can enterthe Property and relet it, or any part of it,tothird parties for Lessee's account. Reletting can be for a period shorteror longer than the remaining term of this Lease. Lessee shall pay to City therent due under this lease on the dates the rent is due, less the rent City receives from any reletting. No act by City allowed by this paragraph shall terminate the Lease unless City notifies Lessee that City elects to terminate the Lease. After Lessee's default and for so long as City does not terminate Lessee's right to possession of the Property, Lessee shall have the right to assign or'sublet its interest in this Lease if Lessee obtains City's consent, but Lessee shall not be released from liability. Lease Agreement Friends of Stevens Creek Trail gmb 7-3-13 9 168 If City elects to reletthe Property as provided in this section, rent that City receives shall be applied to the payment of: First, any indebtedness from Lessee to City other than rent due from Lessee; second, all costs, includingmaintenance costs, incurred by City in reletting; third, rent due and. unpaid under this lease. After deducting the payments referred to in this paragraph, any sum remaining from the rent City receives for reletting shall be held by City and applied in payment of future rent as rent becomesdue underthis lease. In no event shall Lessee be entitledto any excess rent received by City. If, on the date the.rent is due under this lease, the rent received from the reletting is less thanthe rent due on that date, Lessee shall pay to City, in addition to the remaining rent due, all costs, including for maintenance, City incurred in reletting that remain after applying therent received from the reletting as provided in this paragraph. b. Termination of Lessee's right to possession. City can terminate Lessee's right to possession of the Property at any time. No act by City other than giving notice to Lessee shall terminate this lease. Acts of maintenance, efforts to relet the Property, or the appointment of a receiver on City's initiative to protect City's interest under this Lease shall not constitute a termination of Lessee's right to possession. On termination, City has theright to recover the following from Lessee: 1. the worth, at the time of award, of the unpaid rent that had been earnedat the time of termination of this lease; 2.the worth, at the time of award,of the amount by which the unpaid rent that would have been earned after the date of termination of this Lease until the time of award exceeds the amount of loss of rent that Lessee proves could have reasonably been avoided.- 3. voided; 3. the worth, at the time of award, of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of the loss of rent that Lessee proves could have reasonably been avoided;and 4. any other amount, and court costs necessary to compensate City for all detriment proximately caused by Lessee's default. c. Appointment of Receiver. If Lessee is in default of this Lease City shall have the right to have a receiver appointed to collect rent and conduct Lessee's business. Neither the filing of a petition for appointment of a receiver nor the appointmentitself shall constitute and election byCity to terminate this Lease, nor shall such petition or appointment as initiated byCity be construed as default of this lease by Lessee. d. City's Right to Cure. City, at any time after Lessee commits a default, can cure the default at Lessee's cost. IfCity at any time, by reason of Lessee's default, pays anysum or does any act that requires payment of any sum, the sum paid by Cityshall be due immediately from Lessee at thetime the sum is paid, and if paid at a later date shall bear interest at the maximum rate an individual is permitted by law to charge from the date the sum is paid byCity until Lessee reimburses City. The sum,togetherwith all interest on it, shall be the additional rent Lease Agreement Friends of Stevens Creek Trail gmb 7-3-13 10 169 20. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee shall not,without City's prior written consent, whichconsent may be withheld in City's sole and absolute discretion,sublet the Premises or any part thereof or assign this Lease. 21. RETURN OF KEYS. Upon termination of this AGREEMENT, the keys to the PREMISES, including all duplicated sets, are to be hand delivered'to CITY's Parks and Recreation Director or an authorized representative. 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. Lessee shall notdiscriminate against any person or employee because of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, sex, national origin, disability, sexual preference, housingstatus, marital status, familial status, or other protected classifications. If Lessee is found to be in violation of the State of California Fair Employment and Housing Act or any similar provision of state or federal law in the conduct of Lessee's activities under this Lease, it shall be found in default under this Lease and such default shall constitute a material breach of the Lease, entitling the City to all availableremedies in this Lease or by law. 23. BINDING EFFECT. The provisions of-this Lease shall,subject to Section 20 on assignment,apply to and bind the heirs,successors,executors,administrators and assigns of all the patties hereto. 24. NOTICES. All noticesmust be in writing and shall be delivered byhand, by nationally recognized overnight express delivery service or by U.S. registered or certified mail, to the addresses set forth below: LESSEE: Friends of the StevensCreek Trail Attention: Executive Director 22221McClellan Road Cupertino,CA 95014 CITY: City of Cupertino Attn: Director of Recreation and Community Services 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,CA 95014 25. GENERAL PROVISIONS. a. Entire Agreement. This document comprises the entire and integrated agreement of the partiesconcerning the lease of theProperty andsupersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. Any amendments to this document shall be effective only if in writing andsigned by the City andLessee. Lease Agreement Friends of Stevens Creek Trail gmb 7-3-13 11 170 b. Attorneys' Fees. If legal action is commenced to enforce or to declare theeffect of any provision of this Lease, the prevailing party shall be awarded attorneys' fees and costs incurred bysuch party in the action. Service mailed to the address of Lessees set forth herein shall be adequate service for such litigation. If City is involuntarily made a party defendantto any litigation concerning this Lease or the Premises byreason of any act or omission of Lessee, then, Lessee shall hold harmless City from all liabilities by reason thereof, including reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs incurred by City in such litigation. City shall be entitled to recover all collection costs including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by it as a result of Lessee's default as herein provided. c. Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Lease is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the rest of this Lease shall remain in fullforce and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated. d.Time.Time is of the essence of this Lease. e. Waiver. No delay orfailure to exercise any right or remedy of City on any default by Lessee shall impair such a right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. Additionally, the subsequent receipt and acceptance of rent by the City shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Lessee of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, other thanthe failure of Lessee to pay the particular rent so accepted, regardless of the City's knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such.rent. Any waiver by City of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerningthe same or any other provision of this Lease. f. Remedies Cumulative. The remedies provided herein shall be cumulative, therefore, the exercise of any one remedy shall not be to the exclusion of any other remedy. g. Binding on Heirs;Joint and Several Liability.All of the terms,covenants and conditions of this Lease shall apply to and bind the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto; and the parties-hereto shall be jointly and severally liable hereunder. h. Governinglaw.The laws of the state of California shall govern this Lease. In the event any legal action is commenced regarding this Lease,venue shall be in Santa Clara County. L Recordation. Neither Lessee nor City shall record this Lease. Lease Agreement Friends of Stevens Creek Trail gmb 7-3-13 12 171 j. Authority.The individuals signing this Lease on behalf of the Partieshave the authority to sign on behalf of their respective entities. In Witness Whereof,the Parties have executed this AGREEMENT. LESSEE CITY Friends of Stevens Creek Trail C ty Z7ertino 45 4 Executive Director City Manager ATTEST: i City Clerk APPVED AS TO FORM: City A orney Attachments Exhibit A CupertinoMunicipal Code Title 13 Exhibit B Explanation of Services Lease Agreement Friends of Stevens Creek Trail gmb 7-3-13 13 172 6+24613 , docu ad(1)hfrn Cupertino, CA Municipal Code CHAPTER 13.04: PARKS Section 13.04.010 Purpose. 13.04.020 Definitions. 13.04.030 Compliance required. 13.04.040 Park and/or building permitRequired. 13.04.050 Park and/or building permitApplication. 13.04.060 Park and/or binding permit—Contents. 13.04.070 Park and/or building pemvt--Granting or denial. 13.04.080 Park and/or building permit—Appeal. 13.04.090 Park and/or building permitFees and deposit. 13.04.100 Park and/or building perrtfitLiabi ity. 13.04.110 Park and/or building perm t—Revocation. 13.04.120 Use ofpark property. 13.04.130 Behavior ofpersons in parks. 13.04.140 Sanitation requirements. 13.04.150 Vehicle requirements. 13.04.160 Swimming restrictions. 13.04.170 Picnic area use restrictions. l 3.04.180 Advertising and sale restrictions. 13.04.190 Closing hours—Prohibitions. 13.04.191 Towing of vehicles remaining after closing hours. 13.04.200 Closing sections ofparks. file-JIIC:#Jsers/C,RrA)omioaWd=mwl(l).htm 1/12 173 8124113' docirr ent(1).h1m 13.04.201 Nature and/or rural preserve. 13.04.202 Regulations and guidelines. 13.04.210 Lost articles. 13.04.220 Administrativeauthority. 13.04.230 Enforcement authority. 13.04.240 ViolatiDn—Penalty. 13.04.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to regulatethe use of the parks and recreation buMi igs of the City in order that all persons may enjoy and make use of such parks and buildings and to protect the rights ofthose in the surrounding areas. Ord. 531, § 1, 1972) 13.04.020 Definitions. The following words and phrases,whenever used in this chapter,shall be construed as defined inthis section: A. `Buildings"includes those buildings,or any portion thereof;under the supervision of the parks and recreationdepartment made available to exclusive use permittees. B. "City"mesas the City of Cupertino. C. "City Managed"meansthe City Manager of the City of Cupertino. D. `l'ark"means a park, reservation,playground,swarming pool,recreation center or any other area in the City,owned or used by the City or county and devoted to active or passive recreations. E "PermW'meansa permit for exclusive use ofparks or bugs as provided for and defined in this chapter. F. `persons"includepersons, associations,partnerships,firms and corporations,or any company organization ofany kind. G. "Sound amplifying equipment"means any machine or device for the amplificationofthie human voice, naffs. , or any other sound. "Sound amplifying equipment"does not includestandardautomobile radioswhen used and heard only by the occupants of the vehicle in which the automobile radio is installed. "Sound amplifying equipmerit,"as used in this sections,does not include yarning devices on authorizedemergency vehicles or hones or other warning devices of any vehicleused only for traffic safetypurposes. H. "Vehicle"means anywheeled conveyance,whether motor-powered, animal-drawn, or self-propelled. The term includes anytrailer in bow of any size,kind or description. Exception is made for baby carriages, filenlC NsexslGar d0am.edosds/doctprecd(1)1m 2112 174 GrM13• domnent(1)l*n wheelchairs,and vehicles in the service ofthe City parks. I. 'Nature and/or rural preserve"mans a park sodesignated by the City Counci ptasuant to Section 13.04.201. Ord. 710, (part), 1975;Ord. 531, § 2, 1972) 13.04.030 Compliance Required. No personshall enter,be,or remain in any park or building of the City unless he complies with all ofthe regulations set forth in this chapter applicable to such park or building. Ord. 531, § 3, 1972) 13.04.040 Park and/or Building Permit-Required. The City's parks and/or bufldhW shall be madeavailable for the exclusive use of persons and groups subject to the issuance ofa permit by the City Manager. No exchisive use ofany park and/or buil fts for pre- advertisedassembles or groupsmay bemade without the issuance of a permit therefor. All applications fvr exclusiveuse must be signed or cosigned by an adult,which add shallagree tobe responsible for said exchusive use. No exclusive use permit will begranted iC prior to the time the applicationwas filed,the City has scheduled a City-sponsored event at the same time andplace as the activity proposed in the application, if the requested time and place has been pre-empted by a previously issued perms or if cause for denial is found to exist. Ord. 531, §4, 1972) 13.04.050 Park and/or Building Permit-Application. Any person applying for a permit hereunder shalt file an application for such permit with the City Managernot less than fourteen days nor more than sixty days prior to the proposed use ofsaid park and/or building. The City Manager,where good cause is shown therefor, shat have the authority to consider any application hereunder which is filed less thanfourteen days before the date such proposedactivity is to be conducted. Ord. 531, § 5, 1972) 13.04.060 Park and/or Building Permit-Contents. The application shall contain the following: A. Name ofthe applicant, the sponsoring organization,and the name ofthe person in charge ofthe proposed activity, B. The addresses andtelephonenumbers of thosenamed in subsection A. above; C. The park and/or bufldh g,or room beingapplied for, D. The startingtime ofthe proposed activity, fi eJrlClUserslGeryDowQda ds/docisr ant(By Mm 3112 175 602013 dD=n9rd(1)J*n E. The finishing time of the proposed activity, F. The number ofpersons expected; G. Additional City facilities requested,such as personnel,tables, chaos, etc.; H. The nature of the proposedactivity or activitiesincluding equipment and vehicles tobe brought into the park, natureand duration ofthe use of any amplified sound,whether speech or music; I. The form of application shall be provided or prescribed by the parks and recreation department. Ord. 531, § 6, 1972) 13.04.070 Park And/or Building Permit—Granting or Denial. A. The City Manager shall grantor deny such application on or before four days after the fling ofthe application unless the time for such granting or denial ofthe permit has been waived by the applicantin writing. The decision granting or decrying said application shall be marled to the applicant. B. The City Manager,in grantingthe application,may imposereasonable requirementsand conditions concerning the use ofthe park or building by the applicant. C. The City Manager shall grant the application when the application contains ininrmation showingthat the number of persons expected at the activity complies with the occupancy bad ofthe btul+dmg and upon granting such permit may impose reasonable requirementsand conditionsconcerning the use of saidbuckling with respect to time and duration ofuse and number ofpersons allowed in thebuckling. D. The City Manager may grant the application for a building other than that applied for with the consent of the applicant in the event that a permit has alreadybeen issued for said building or that the buckling does not meet the occupancy bad requirements.In theevent that more than one application is received for one park or buckling for use at the same time,the City Manager shall first act upon the application firstreceived. E. The City Manager shall deny theapplication if he finds: I. That the proposed activity or use will unreasonably interfere, or detract from the promotion of the public health, welfare, safetyand recreation; 2. That the proposed activity or use is anticipated to incite violence,crime or disorderly conduct; 3. That the proposed activity or use will entail unusual, extraordinary,or burdensome expense or police operation by the City, 4. That the City has scheduled an activity at the same time and place as the activity proposed by the applicant; 5. That the applicant reveals that the City has no park which will accommodate the activity by the applicant; fi9gJ/lClUserslCsr/DoMr loadsldoa rt atd(1)htrn 4112 176 6124113' dor mwt(1)hM 6. That the applicant refuses to agree in writing to comply with any and all conditions in the permit; 7. That the applicant fads to Sea timelyapplication,unless waived io writing by the City Manager. F. All denials for applications for permits shall specify thegrounds therefor. Ord. 531, § 7, 1972) 13.04.080 Park and/or Building Permit-Appeal. Theapplicant shall havethe right toappeal the denial ofa permit by the Cly Manager to the CityCouncil A notice of appeal shall befiled with the City Clerk within fivedays of the City Manager's mailing thenotice of denial of the application for a permit. The City Council shall act upon the appeal at its next meting following receipt of notice of appeal and its decision shall be final Ord. 531, § 8, 1972) 13.04.090 Park and/or Building Permit-Fees and Deposit. Upon the granting of a permitunder this chapter, any fees or depositsrequired for the use of City personnel, budding, equipment,and facilities shall be contained in said permit and said fees or deposits shall be paid by the applicant within ben days of the receipt of said permit.. If said fees or deposits are not paid within said ten days, then, in that event,the permit therefor issued shall be nulland void: A. Burling fees and chargeshave been established and are regulated by the type of organbatron or individual usage proposed by the application andsuch fees are subject to change as required by personnel or City costs; B. Budding deposit fees are refs mdable uponto incite violence, crime or disorderly conduct;approval of the City Manager,providing no darn age arises from the applicant's usage. Ord. 531, § 9, 1972) 13.04.100 Park and/or BuildingPermit-Liability. Persons to whom an exclusive use permit has been granted mustagree inwriting to hold the City harmless and indemnify the City from any and all liability for injury to persons or property occurring as a result ofthe activity sponsored by the permittee and said person shall be liable to the Cityfor any and all darrrage to parks, faces,and buRdfiV owned by the City,which results from the activity of permittee or is caused by any participant in said activity. Ord. 531 § 10,1972) 13.04.110 Park and/or building permit-Revocation. The City Manager shall have the authority to refuse a permit upon a finding that any use or activity is in violation of the provisions of this chapter,or any other ordinance of the City,or of any rale promulgated 51e#cXsersh3wWowcd mmvw t(1).htm 5112 177 6W3' d=ffm t(1).htm hereunder,or upongood cause shown Ord 531, § 11, 1972) 13.04.120 Use of Park Property. No personin a park shall do any ofthe Mowing: A. Wilfully mark,deface,disfigure, injure, tamper with or displace or remove any buildings,bridges, tables, benches, fireplaces, raft paving or paving material,water lines or otherpublic utilities or parts or appurtenances whatsoever, either real or personal; B. Litter,soil or defile restrooms. No person over the age ofsix years shall use restroorm and washrooms designed for the opposite sex; C. Dig or remove any soil,rock,stones, trees, shrubs or plants,down timber or other woodor materials, or make anyexcavation by tool,equipment,blasting or other means or agency. It is unhwfW to gather firewood or to collectwithin the park any type ofplant material for the purpose ofbwlding a campfire; D. Construct or erect anybuilding or structure ofwhatever kind,whether permanent or temporary in character, or run or string any public service utility into,upon or across such lands,except on special written permit issued under this chapter, E. Go upon any lawn or grass plot,where prohibited by the parks and recreationdepartment,and where such prohibition is indicated by proper and legible signs; F. Damage,cut, carve, transplant or remove any tree or plant,or injure the baric, or pick the flowers or seeds of arty tree or plant. Nor shall any personattachany rope,wire,or other contrivance to any tree or plant. No person shall dig in,or otherwise disturb any grass area,or inany way injure or impair the natural beauty or usefib s of any areas; G. Clint any tree or walk,stand or sit upon any monurnents,vases, fountains,raft fences, or upon any other property not designated or customarily used for such purposes; H. Hunt;rre6l,harm,frighten, ki%trap, chase,tease, shoot or throw missiles at any animal,reptile, or bird;nor shall anyperson remove or have in his possession the young ofany wild animal,or the eggs or nest or young of airy reptile or bird. Exception to fire foregoing is made in that snakes known to be deadly poisonous, such as rattlesnakes,or other deadly reptiles may be killed on sight; I. Use any system for arnplfiykrg sounds,whether for speech or music or otherwise, unless an exchrsive use perk is fist secured. Ord. 531,§ 12, 1972) 13.04.130 Behavior of Persons in Parks. No personin a park shall do any of the followi g fiW11CAJSWJGWSMM OaWdoc rMM(1).Mm 6112 178 SW3 do snm t(1)Mn A. Bring to a park any alcoholic beverages, and no person may drink alcoholic beverages at any time in a park,except plcknickers,who may bring to a park, and drink,beer or wine with their picnic meal, so long as theyconduct themselves inan orderly rrvumr, B. Enter or remainin a park while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any dna C. Have brought,or have in his possession, or set off;or otherwise cause to explode or discharge or bum, anyfirecrackers,torpedoes,rockets, or other fireworks or explosives of in1lammable material, or discharge them or throw theminto any such area from bM or anyhighway adjacent thereto. This prohibition includes any substance, compound,mixture or article that,in co4unctlon with any other substance or compound would be dangerous from any of the foregoing standpoints; D. No person having the control or care of arty dog, shall suffer or permit such dog to enter or remain in a park or sport field,unless posted for such use, and then only if it is led by a leash of suitable strength not more than six feet in length, unless it is permitted to be off-leash by the City as part of a City-authorizedevent or program;andthe owner and the attendant shaIl be responsible for any damage caused, in anyevent,by such do& even if on leash; R Lead,ride, drive,keep or let Bose any animal,reptile or fowl of any kind,without a permit todo so from the Director of parks and recreation; F. Make or kindle a fire for any purpose, except at places provided for such purpose,unless prior special permission be obtainedtherefor from the Director, G. Enter an area posted as"Closed to the Public,"and no person shall use,or abet theuse og anyarea in violation ofposted notices; H. Play or bet at or againstartygame which is played,conducted, dealt,or carried on for money, chips, she% credit or any other representative ofvalue,or maintain or exhibit anygambling table or other instrument of gambling or Wming,or play any game prohibited by any other ordinance ofthe City; I. Sleep, or protractedly lounge, on the.seats,benches,or other areas, or engage in loud,boisterous, threatening,abusive, insulting or indecent language,or engage in any disorderly conduct or behavior tending to a breach of the public peace; J. Use,carry, or possess firearms of anydescription,or air rifles,spring guns,bow and arrows, stings or any other formas of weapons potentially dangerous to wild life or to human safety. Shooting into park areas from beyond park boundaries is prohibited; K. Solicit alms or contributions for any purpose,whetherpublic or private,without prior permission from the City Council; L. Use or allow the use ofpowered model airplanes except in areas sodesignated by the department of parks and recreation; M. Play or practice golf or use golf clubs in any area of the park not designated for such use; N. Indulge in riotous,boisterous,threatening or indecent conduct Ale::/MAJSWaAC NVDmioads/doctimd(1).Mm 7112 179 Bf24l13 ' doaefft(1).hbe O. No person shall skate or rollerblade in a manner that causes damage to park amenities or threatens the safety or weft being ofpark patrons. Skating or rollerblading is prohibited on raised surfaces where signed. P. Feeding Waterfowl Prohibited.No person shall feed or in any manner intentionally providefoodto any waterfowl(geese,ducks, or coots)in any City park. Ord. 13-2105, § 2,2013;Ord. 12-2101, § 1 (part),2013; Ord. 1945,2004;Ord. 1886, (part),2001;Ord. 531, § 13, 1972) 13.04.140 Sanitation Requirements. No person in a park shah do any of the following. A. Throw, discharge or otherwise place or cause to be placedin the waters of any fountain,pond, lake, staeam,bay or other body ofwater in or adjacent to any park or any tributary,stream storm sewer or dram mowing into such waters,any substance,matter or thing, liquid or solid,which willor may result in the pollution of such waters; B. Dump,deposit or leave any bottles,broken glass,ashes,paper,boxes, cans,refuse or trash on the grounds thereof Such items shall be placed in the proper receptacles where these are provided; and,where such receptacles are not provided,all such rubbish or waste shall be carried away from the park by the person responsible for its presence, and properly disposed of elsewhere. Ord. 531, § 14, 1972) 13.04.150 Vehicle Requirements. No person in the park shall doany ofthe fallowing; A. Fart to comply with all applicable provisions of the Vehicle Code of the state in regard to equipment and operation ofvehicles, together with suchregulations as are contained in this chapter and any other ordinances of the City regulating trate; B. Fart to obey alltrafficofficers and park empbyees who are hereafter authorized and instructed todirect traffic inthe parks in accordance with the provisions of this.chapter and such supplementary regulations as may be issued by the Director, C. Fail to observecarefully all trate signs indicating speed, direction, caution, stopping or parking and all other signs posted for proper control and to safeguard lifeand property, D. Ride or drive a vehicle at a rate of speed exceeding Been miles an hour, except upon such roads asthe City may designate by posted signs for speedier travel E. Drive anyvehicle on any area exceptpaved roads or parking areas,or such other areas as may be specifically designated as temporary parking areas by the department ofparks and recreation; F. Park a vehicle in other than an established or designated parking area, andsuch use shall be in accordance with the posteddirections there,and with the instructions ofany attendant who may bepresent; thewJiICAJSWBCNWW a toa*Jdocwwt(1)Jdm 8112 180 6124113' d=ffmrt(1).Mm G. Ride a motorcycle,motor bike,or shr&r vehicle in any park,exceptwhere used to transport invalid persons; H. Ride a bicycleon other than a paved road or path. Notwithstanding the foregoing no personmayride a bicycle on a pavedroad or pathwhere such activity is prohbited by posted signage. A bicyclistmaywheel or push a bicycle by hand over any grassy area,wooded train,or over any other area in which bicycle riding is otherwise prohibited; I. Ride a bicycle other than on the rim side ofthe road paving as close as conditions permit,and bicycles shall be kept in single file when two or more are operating as a group. Bicyclists shall at all times operatetheir machine with reasonable regard to the safety of others, signal all turns,pass to the left of any vehicle they are overtaking and pass to the right of any vehicles they maybe meetig L Ride anyother person on a bicycle, except where the bicycle is built for operation by more than one person; K. Leave a bicycle in a place other than a bicycle rack where a bicycle rack is provided andthere is space available; L. Leave a bicycle lying on the ground or paving or set against trees,or in any place or position where other persons may tripover or be injured by it. Ord. 2014, 2008;Ord. 531, § 15, 1972) 13.04.160 Swinrning Restrictions. No person in a park shall swim bathe,wade in or pollute the water ofany fountain, pond, lake or strean4 except that wading and swimming shall be pemn3itted in pools specifically provided for these purposes, andso posted. Ord. 531, § 16, 1972) 13.04.170 Picnic Area Use Restrictions. No person in a park shall do any 6fthe following: A. Picnic or lunch in a place other than one designated for thatpurpose. Attendants shall have the authority to regulate the activities insuch areas,when necessary to prevent congestion and to securethe maxiam use of the park facilities for the comfort and convenience of all. Visitors shall comply with any directionsgiven to achieve this end. Individual fireplaces or tables and benchesshall be used on thebasis of`first comm, first served' B. Use any portion of the picnic areas,or any of the park buildings or strictures for the purpose of holding picnics,to the exclusion of other persons,and no person shall use sucharea and facilities for an unreasonable length of time if they are crowded; C. Leave a picnic area before a fire started or later used by him is completely exturguished. file:Ir/C:NsumiGsWoMoad&tbmrneM(9).Mm 9112 181 62413. d=rnud(1).ft Ord. 531, § 17,1972) 13.04.150 Advertising and Sale Restrictions. A. No person in a park shall,without prior permission from the City Council,do any ofthe following. 1. Expose or offer for sale any article or thing,nor shall he station or place any stand,cart or vehicle for the transportation,sale or display of any such article or thing 2. Announce,advertise or call the public attention in any way to any article or service for sale or hire; 3. Paste,glue,tack or otherwise post any sign,placard,advertisement or inscription. B. In addition,in order to insure the public safety,health andgeneral welfare,no person shallexpose or offer for sale any article or thing,nor shafthe station or place any stand,cart or vehicle FDr the sale or display of any article or thing,on a public street,within five hundred feet in a straight line from the nearest boundary of any Pte• Ord. 1886, (part),2001;Ord. 531, § 18, 1972) 13.04.190 ClosingHours—Prohibitions. No person in a park shaft do any ofthe fol!owing A. Remain,stay or loiter in any public park,between the hours often p.m and six a.m. of the following day,or as may otherwise be designated by mute order or resohrtion of the CityCouncil The openingand closing hours for each individual park shall be posted therein by the department of parks and recreation for publicinformation; B. Set up tents or other temporary shelter for the purpose of overnight camping nor shall anyperson park or leavein a park, after closing hours,any vehicle or movable structure to be used,or that could be used, for such purposes,such as a horse tracer,camp trainer,pickup camper,or the Ike; C. Park or leave in a park, after closing hours, any vehicle. Signs shall bepostedat all park entrances to notify park visitors ofthe efibcts ofparagmph C ofthla section. Ord. 754, § 1, 1976;Ord. 670, § 1, 1974;Ord. 531, § 19, 1972) 13.04.191 Towing of Vehicles Retraining after Closing Hours. Any vehicle or movable structure left in a park after closing hours may be towed away to a public garage at the owner's expense. Signs shall be posted at an park eines tonotify park visitors ofthe effects ofthis section Ord. 752, § 1, 1976) 13.04.200 Closing Sections of Parks. fi eJ/C Nsers/Gary/DoWadoaament(1)htrn 10/12 182 6124h3. dommat(1)AM Any section or part of a park may bedeclared closed to the public by the Director of parks and recreationat any time, and for anyinterval of time, either temporarily or at regular and stated intervals(daily or otherwise), and either entirely or merely to certain uses, as the Director may reasonably find necessary. Ord. 531, § 20, 1972) 13.04.201 Nature and/or Rural Preserve. A. Any park characterized by such unique natural features that it is deemed a valuableand irreplaceable resource rimy be designated by the City Council either by ordinance or resolution as a nature and/or rural preserve, in which event it shall be used and treatedin a manner consistent therewith B. Uses shall be united to those which will maintain and protect the ecology of the area,conserve the natural features and scenic values, expand comamnity awareness and understanding of natural history and the environrnent,and provide enjoyment ofthe resources present consistent with their preservation. C. McClellan Ranch Park is designated a nature and rural preserve. Orsi. 710, (part), 1975) 13.04.202 Regulations and Guidelines. The City Council shall by resolution adopt regulations controlling the use and guidelines pertaining to the development of any part designated as a nature and/or nual preserve. Any suchregulations adopted by the City Council shall,where inconsistent therewith,take precedence over any general regulations contained in Chapter 13.04. Ord. 710, (part), 1975) 13.04.210 LostArticles. The finding oflost articles inparks shall be reported to the department ofparks and recreation or the park department personnel on duty. Ord. 531, § 21, 1972) 13.04.220 Administrative Authority. There is conferred upon the City Manager those powers and dutiesnecessary for the administration of this chapter.In addition,there is also conferred upon the City Manager the authority and power to designate such City offers and empbyees as may be required tocarry out the intent and purpose ofthis chapter. Ord. 531, §22, 1972) 13.04.230 Enforcement Authority. The parks foreman, all park attendants and/or all peace officers authorized or directed by the City shall be fo 1 lCAJs sAGar/aawtiloadsldocur mst(1)AM 11112 183 document(1).htm responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of the chapter and of any rule promulgated hereunder. Ord. 531, § 23, 1972) 13.04.240 Violation—Penalty. Any person who violates the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in Chapter 1.12. Ord. 1179, § 2 (part), 1982; Ord. 531, § 25, 1972) Disclaimer: This Code of Ordinances and/orany other documents thatappear on this site may not reflect the most current legislation adopted by the Municipality.American Legal Publishing Corporation providesthese documents for informational purposes only.These d000n1entS should not be relied upon as the definitiveauthority for locallegislation.Additionally,the formattingand pagination of the posted documents varies from the formatting and pagination of the official copy.The official printed copy of a Code of Ordinances should be consulted prior to any action being taken. For further information regarding the official versionof any of this Code of Ordinances or other documentsposted on this sire,please contact the Municipality directly or contact American Legal Publishing toll-free at 800-445-5588. 2013American Legal Publishing Corporation tee hs upportBarriegal.com 1.800.445.5588. file:///C!Users/Gar}Mom,loadsldocurtmnt(1).htm 12112 184 Exhibit B—Explanation of Services Ever since its founding in 1993,the Friends of StevensCreek Trail (FOSCT) has educated the public about the trail and wildlifecorridor benefits, including getting people closer to nature in their own neighborhood,exercise,safer routes to schools,reducing car trips and pollution,and connecting people, neighborhoods,:and parks. Unfortunately it is easier to oppose newprojects than to support them,and that has been the case for Stevens Creek Trail. From its very beginnings in Mountain View and Cupertino, people have questioned the need for an urban trail and the benefits of providing a safe and attractive car-free route for pedestrians and bicyclists.We gather support for the'trail andhelp spread the word about its many benefits,andhelpat the many public hearings needed to develop and finalize each new trail segment. There are alwaysconcerns and outright fears raised by residents living near each new proposed trail segment about traffic,safety,crime, property values,and other issues. We bring to the table the real-world experience of completed and now much loved trail segments-loved evenby former trail opponents who now seeits very positiveinfluence on their neighborhood. Besides working steadily for the creation and extension of the trail,we: provide educational booths at Cupertino,Sunnyvale, Mountain View,and Los Altosfestivals and Earth Day events; sponsor and operate educational activities at the annual Microsoft Green Kids Conference; provide free trail/bicycle maps and bicycle bells; organize annual trail and creekcleanups; financially support other organizations such as.Acterra that do environmental work at McClellan Ranch; have a student seat on our Board of Directors for a localhigh school studentto learn by doing; network with nonprofits, businesses,developers, and government agencies who need more information about the trail; developCreekipedia (an interactive online resource for information about the creek); maintain-a public website with trail information andlinks to other similar trails and organizations;and put on the annual Trailblazer Race:5K&10K runs, kids races,and a creek walking tourwith an educational guide. We hold our public meetings at the McClellan Ranch house, usually the fourth Thursday each month from 7 to 9 P.M. 185 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1786 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/8/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Approve the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society for the period extending through June 30, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Agreement First Amendment B - Agreement Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:ApprovetheFirstAmendmenttotheLeaseAgreementwithSantaClaraValley Audubon Society for the period extending through June 30, 2017 AuthorizeCityManagertoamendtheleaseagreementwithSantaClaraValleyAudubon Society at McClellan Ranch Preserve for the period extending through June 30, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™186 RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER 10 10185 N. STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5733 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 21, 2016 Subject Approve the First Amendment of the lease agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society for the period extending through June 30, 2017. Recommended Action Authorize the City Manager to amend the lease agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society at McClellan Ranch Preserve for the period extending through June 30, 2017. Description The City currently has an agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to lease office space at the McClellan Ranch Preserve ranch house. Discussion The City of Cupertino has maintained a relationship with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society for several years. The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society works with the Recreation and Community Services Department as well as the other community partners located at McClellan Ranch Preserve to enhance the outdoor education for park users. The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society provides the following community benefits: Wildlife Education Day (free community festival), nest box monitoring, maintains a nature store for park visitors, birding walks for scouts and youth/family groups; and works with school groups from CUSD, just to name a few. The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society maintains an ongoing partnership with the City Naturalist and Acterra. Fiscal Impact There will be a 3% increase in revenue. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Christine Hanel, Acting Director of Recreation and Community Services Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A- Amended Draft First Amendment B - Agreement 187 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AND CARETAKER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND SANTA CLARA VALLEY AUDUBON SOCIETY This First Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society for reference dated June 24,2015, is by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, A California corporation (hereinafter “LESSEE”) whose address is 22221 McClellan Road, (hereinafter "Property"), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On June 24, 2015, the City and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society entered into a Lease Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement"). B. City and Lessee desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as follows: 1. Pursuant to Paragraph 3(b) of the Agreement, the City and the Lessee hereby exercise the option to extend the term of the Lease through June 30, 2017. 2. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed. Lessee CITY OF CUPERTINO Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society A Municipal Corporation By _____________________ Executive Director City Manager ATTEST: ________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney 188 189 LEASE AND CARETAKER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY AUDUBON SOCIETY FOR THE McCLELLAN RANCH HOUSE This Lease and Caretaker Agreement ("AGREEMENT"), is entered into this 24th day of June 2015, by and between the City of Cupertino ("CITY") and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society,a California corporation ("LESSEE"). RECITALS A. City is theowner of certain real property commonly known as the "McClellan Ranch House" located22221McClellan Road, McClellan Ranch Park, City of Cupertino,County of Santa Clara,State of California (the"Property"). B. Lessee is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that offers educational and informational programs to the community that promote the goal of preserving, enjoying, restoring and fostering public awareness of native birdsand their ecosystems. B. City and Lessee desire to enter into an agreement to lease a portion of the Property that includes two offices within the ranch house totaling of 738 square feet, together with the non-exclusive use of hallways, restrooms,and outside parking facilities(the"Premises"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and conditions contained in thisAgreement and for other good and valuable consideration,the parties hereby agree as follows 1.PURPOSE OF LEASE. LESSEE and CITY are entering into this Lease and Caretaker Agreement with two goals: enhancing the quality of environmental programs for City's community,and providing a natural area for the conduct of some of LESSEE's ongoingactivities. As such, both the CITY and LESSEE, agree towork togetherthroughout theterm of this AGREEMENT to develop a program of activities mutually beneficial to CITY and LESSEE. 2.DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEASED. City leases to Lessee and Lessee leases from City a portion.of the property locatedat 22221 McClellan Road,Cupertino,California,(the"Property"),consisting of 588 square feet within the ranchhouse,which includes the.308 square foot front office,the 180 square foot middle office,the 100 square foot office adjacent to the kitchen within,and 150 square foot storage in the basement together with the non-exclusive use of hallways, restrooms,and outside parking facilities(the"Premises"). 3. LEASE TERM. a. Initial Term.The term of this Lease shall be for a period of one (1).year commencing on July 1,2015 ("Commencement Date")and ending June30,2016. 1 190 b. Option to Renew. Upon mutual agreement-of City and Lessee,the initial term of this Lease may be extended for up to one year,on the same terms, covenants, and conditions of this Lease, except for the Rent,which shall increase by three percent(3%) during the period of the extended term.To exercise the Optionto renew, Lessee must give written notice (the"Option Notice")of its interest in extending the termto the City at least two (2) monthsbut not more than three (3) months before theexpiration of the initial term, and Lessee must not be in default under this lease, either on the date of theOption Notice or at the time the extension period commences. Cityshall review the Option Notice and approve or deny the request prior to expiration of the Initial Term. If the City denies the request this Lease shall expireat the end of the initial term. Lessee shall have no other rights to extend the term beyond the Extension Period. 4.RENT. In consideration for the lease of the Premises, Lessee shall pay City as follows: a. Rent. Lessee shall pay monthly rent to the City, without deduction or setoff, based upon the rate of one dollar($1.00) persquare foot per month, for a total of seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars ($738.00). Rent shall be payable in on or before the first (1st) day of each calendar month without notice or demand of any kindby City. In addition to providing services in Exhibit B. All payments shall be submitted to City of Cupertino, Attn: Director of Finance, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014. b. LateCharges. In the event that any installment of rent or any other sum due by Lessee is not received by City within ten (10) days after the due date, rent is deemed late and delinquent and a late charge equal to $20.00 plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum of the overdue amount shall be assessed as additional rent. LESSEE further agrees to pay $20.00 for each dishonored bank check. 5.HOLDING OVER. If Lessee remains in possession of theProperty with City's consent after the expiration of the term of this lease, such possession by City shall be construed to be a tenancy from month to month, terminable upon thirty (30) days written notice given at any time by either party.The same terms and conditions contained in this Lease shall apply to any month-to-month tenancy, provided that the•monthly base rent shall be one and one-half times the monthly rent payable immediately preceding the termination date of this Lease. 6.SECURITY DEPOSIT. J A security deposit of$205.00, not applicable toward the last month's rent payment, has been paidby the LESSEE. 7.UTILITIES. CITY shall be responsible for the payment of all utility bills applicable to the PREMISES, including water, electrical services, garbage and janitorial services for said PREMISES. LESSEE Lease 0113 AGT Audubon Lease(3)gmb revision 6-24-13 2 191 shall be responsible for its own telephone, internet and similar service and shall provide for its ownoffice equipment and furnishings. 8.TAXES. LESSEE shall be responsible for payment of-anyand all possessory interestproperty taxes. 9.LESSEE'S USE OF THE PROPERTY. a. Allowed and Required Uses. Lessee shall continuously use and occupy the Premises as office space for running educational and ,informational programs to the community that promote the goal of preserving, enjoying, restoring and fostering public awareness of native birds and their ecosystems as set forth in Exhibit B. Lessee shall not use the property for any other purpose without the written consent of City, which consent may be withheld in City's sole and absolute discretion. Lessee, at Lessee's sole cost and expense, shall comply with all applicable municipal, state and federal statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations in effect during the term of this Lease regulating the use by Lessee of the Premises. The Lessee's use of the premises is subject to the following restrictions and requirements: 1. Hours of Operation. LESSEE shall maintain an office facility duringnormal hours of operation. LESSEE shall determine its own hours of operation provided that said hours are between 8:00 a.m. and10:00 p.m. 2. Security. LESSEE shall be responsible for securing the facility and setting of the burglar alarm at the end of each day. 3. Common Areas. LESSEE may utilize the hallways and restrooms of the ranch house and the adjacent parking facilities without additional rent, provided, however, that if LESSEE wishes to utilize other areas of McClellan Park for which CITY normally charges a user fee, LESSEE shall be responsible for payment of said fee. Common areas include conference room, hallways, kitchen and restrooms. CITY shall Ie entitled to utilize all common areas for program activities upongiving LESSEE one (1) days advance written notice. 4. Parking. CITY retains theright to designate exclusive parking for LESSEE, or any other user or Lessee of the PREMISES, in the event that City, in its sole discretion, determines that the parking lot is over-utilized. It is estimated that LESSEE's need for parking shall not exceed 12 spaces. Lessee understands and agrees that Lessee's use of the parking area includes the right to use that Area jointly with the City, and acknowledges that Lessee does not have exclusive use of the Area. City shall not be liable in any manner for any inconvenience, disturbance, or other damagearising out of the shared use of the parking lot for parking or any other City use. 5. Animals. No animals shall reside in or on the PREMISES without prior written consent of the CITY. Lease 0113 AGT Audubon Lease(3)gmb revision 6-24-13 3 192 b.Caretaker Responsibilities. Lessee shall complete the following caretaker responsibilities: 1. Ensure that Lessee's employees who regularly operate at the PREMISES obtain trainingfrom the CITY's Naturalist and become familiar with the McClellan Park Rules and Title 13 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, attached and incorporated as Exhibit A,which governs the use of City's parks and buildings. 2. Report to CITY's code enforcement any violations of the above referenced regulations found by LESSEE. 3. Notify the CITY's Recreation and Community Services office prior to any absence from the PREMISES for any extendedperiod of time beyond two weeks. 4. Promptly report incidents, such as park misuse and vandalism, and any emergencies, such as burglaries, to the McClellan Ranch Staff, or if theStaff is unavailable,to the County Sheriff. In the event the Sheriff's office is involved, report the incident to the Director of Recreation and Community Services. (CITY shall furnish LESSEE with a list of contact numbers prior to occupancy of the Premises.) c. Prohibited Uses. Lessee shall not use nor permit the use of the Property in any manner that will tend to createwaste or nuisance or disturb other Lessees and members of the public. No use shall be made orpermitted to be made of said Property, nor acts done,which will increase the existing rate of insuranceupon the building in which the Property may be located once said rate is established or cause a cancellation of any insurance policy covering said building or any part thereof, nor shall Lessee sell or permit to be kept, used or sold in orabout the Property, any articlewhich may be prohibited by a standard form of fire insurance policies. Lessee shall, at his sole cost, comply with any and all requirements, pertaining to the use of the Property, of any insurance organization or company necessary for the maintenance of reasonable fire and public liability insurance,covering said building and appurtenances. 10. MAINTENANCE,ALTERATIONS AND FIXTURES. a. Alterations by Lessee. Lessee shall notpaint, paper, or make any other alterations of the Property, or any part thereof,without the prior written consent of City.Any additions to,or alterations of, the Property, exceptmovable furniture and equipment, shall become at once a part of the realty and belong to City. Any such alterations shall be in conformance with the requirements of all municipal, state and federal authorities. All fixtures that Lessee attaches to the Property shall become at once a part of the realty and belong to City on expirationor sooner termination of this Lease. b. Alterations by City. City has the right, in its sole discretion to modify, reconfigure and renovate the Property at any time. The CITY shall provide signage as it deems appropriate designating the Premises and organizations utilizingthe Property. c. Repairs. Except for damage caused by any negligent or intentional act or omission of Lessee, Lessee's agents, employees, or invitees in which event Lessee shall repair the Lease 0113 AGT Audubon Lease(3)gmb revision 6-24-13 4 193 damage, City, at City's expense, shall keep in good order, Condition and repair the foundations, exterior walls and the exteriorroof of the Property, including all plumbing and electrical equipment located between theexterior and interior walls of the Property. Cityshall not, however, be obligated to maintain the interior walls,ceilings,windows, doors or plate glass. City shall haveno obligation to make repairs under this Section until a reasonable time after receipt ofwritten notice from Lessee of the need for such repairs. Lessee expresslywaives the benefits of any statute now or hereafter in effect which would otherwise afford Lessee theright to makerepairs at City's expense or to terminate this Lease because of City's failure to keep the Property in good order,condition and repair. d. Lessee's Maintenance Obligations. Other than those obligations of the City described in this section, Lessee, at Lessee's expense, shall keep in good order, condition and repairthe Property and every part thereof including, without limiting the generality of theforegoing, all plumbing, electrical and lighting facilities, and equipment within the Property, interior walls, ceilings, windows, doors,and glass, located within the Property. LESSEE shall be responsible for damages caused by the negligence of its employees, invitees or guests. e. Failure to perform Lessee's Obligations. If Lessee fails to perform Lessee's obligations under this Section or under any other section of this Lease, City may at City's option enter upon the Premises afterten (10) days' prior written notice to Lessee (except in case of emergency, in which case no notice shall be required), perform such obligations on Lessee's behalf and put the Property in good order, condition and repair, and the cost thereof together with interest thereon at the maximumrate then allowable by law shall be due and payable as additional rent to City together with Lessee's nextrental installment. 11. CONDITION OF PROPERTY;SURRENDER. a. Lessee accepts the Property and the leased fixtures and equipment as being in good and sanitary order, condition and repair, and agrees to surrenderthe Property in as good condition as received, except for normal wear and tear, clean and free of debris. Lessee further agrees to remove all of Lessee's property that is not a fixture of orpermanent attachment to the Property,or that is owned and was installed by Lessee during theterm of this Lease. Lessee shall repair any damage to the Premises occasioned by theinstallation or removal of its furnishings and equipment. b. If upon expiration or terminationof this Lease, Lessee fails to removeany personal property belonging to Lessee from the premises, such property shall at City's option atany time after thirty (30) days fromthe date of expirationor termination be deemed to have been transferred to City,and City shall have the right to remove anddispose of such property without liability to Lessee. 12. ABANDONMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY. Lessee shall not vacate or abandon the Premises at any time during the term of this Lease; and if Lessee shall abandon, vacate orsurrenderthe Premises or be dispossessed by process of law,orotherwise, any personal property belonging to Lessee and left on the Premises shall be deemed to be abandoned,at the option of City. Lease 0113 AGT Audubon Lease(3)gmb revision 6-24-13 5 194 13. ENTRY AND INSPECTION. The City and its authorized representatives shall have the right to enter the Property at all reasonable times with reasonable notice for any of the following purposes: (1)to inspect the Property and determine whetherthe Property is in good condition and whether Lessee is complying with its obligations under this Lease; (2) to doany acts that may be necessary to protect City's interest in the Property; or (3) to perform any of City's dutiesunder this lease, including making any necessary or agreed on repairs or alterations. Such acts by City may include the erection and maintenance of scaffolding, canopy, fences and similar props as may be required, or for the purpose of posting notices of non-liability for alterations, additions or repairs.City shall be permitted to doany of the above without any rebate of rent and without any liability to Lessee for any loss of occupation or quietenjoyment of the Premises thereby occasioned. Further, the City retains the right to enter upon and show the Property to persons considering purchase, rental or lease of the Property and to display the usual notices and signs, For Sale," "For Lease," or"For Let," upon the Property for sixty(60)days prior to the expiration of the Lease term. Such signs shall be allowed without diminution of rent or hindrance by Lessee. City shall not be liable in any manner for any inconvenience, disturbance, loss of business, nuisance, or other damage resulting from the acts or omissions of City or its authorized representatives. 14. INSURANCE. a. Lessee shall, at its own expense, maintain in fullforce and effect duringthe term of this Lease, and during anyhold-over, the following insurance in amounts not less than the amounts specified,and issued by an insurance company admitted in California andhaving a Best Guide Rating of A-Class VII or better: 1.Comprehensive public liability, including provisions for personal injury and Property damage coverages, in an amount not less than One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars for any one person injured or killed, not less than Two Million ($2,000,000) Dollars for any one accident or occurrence, and not less than Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000) Dollars Property damage for each accident or occurrence. The City, its officers and employees shall be named as additional insured in all of Lessees' insurance policies meeting the above stated requirements. 2.Statutory workerscompensation insurance and employer's liability insurance for all of Lessee's employees;and 3.Statutory fire insurance on the Property. b. Lessee shall furnish to the City Certificates of Insurance evidencing the insurance coverages set forth above,the name and policy number of each carrier and policy, and that the insurance is in force and will not be cancelled ormodified without thirty(30) days written notice to the City. If Lessee does not maintain the above-required insurance,the City may,at its option, pay for the necessary insurance, and the repayment thereof shall be added to any subsequent installment of rent, and shall be collectible,as additionalrent in the same manner, and with the same remedies as if it had been originally reserved. Based on the fact that the City retains sole occupancy and control ofthat certain portion of the Property designated as a gift shop, Lease 0113 AGT Audubon Lease(3)gmb revision 6-24-13 6 195 appropriate exclusionary endorsements may be provided to remove said designated area from the,insurance maintained by Lessee. 15. INDEMNIFICATION. Lessee hereby expressly waives all claims against the City for damages to goods, furniture and equipment in, uponor about the Premises, and for injuries to Lessee's employees, guests, or invitees,or to any property in, upon or about the Premises,from any cause arising at any time during the Lease term. Lessee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers harmless, from and against (1) anyand all claims of liability, loss or expenses in connection with any claim, demand or action asserted against the City, for any damage to property or injury or death to any person occurring in orabout the Premises, or related to the use of the Property by Lessee or Lessee's guests or invitees; (2) any and all claims of liability, foss or expenses in connection with anyclaim, demand or action assertedagainst the City, arising out of Lessee's failure to perform any provision of this lease or Lessee's failure to keep the Premises in good condition and repair , or any act or omission by Lessee, its agents, contractors, invitees, or employees; and (3) all damages, liability, fines, penalties, loss, expenses or injury and any other consequences arising from Lessee's use and occupation of the Property, including, but not limited to, any claim, liability, loss, or damage arising byreason of death or injury of any person,the damage to or destruction of any property of any person, and any work performed on the Property or materials furnished to the Property at the instance or request of Lessee or its agents or employees, unlesssuch damage is the proximate result of negligence or unlawful conduct of CITY its agents or employees. 16. PROPERTY UNINHABITABLE; REMEDY. If the Property is wholly orpartially destroyed by fire, earthquake or any other cause whatsoever, renting the Property totally or partially inaccessible or unusable, or if the Property is injured by any cause which necessitates an expenditure of more than forty (40%) percent of its fair market value to repair and restore it, or if more than forty percent (40%) of the floor area, measured in square feet, is destroyed, the City may, at its option, elect to terminate this Lease by giving notice to Lessee within sixty(60) days fromthe date of the destruction or injury. If the Citydoes notterminatethe Lease, Lessee's rent shall be abated, from the date of destruction until restoration is completed, in an amount proportionate to the extent to which destruction interferes with Lessee's use of the premises. In no event shall City be under an obligation or duty to restore the Property. If the City elects to restore the Property, it shall proceed with reasonable diligence, but shall not be liable for any delay, other than an abatement of rent during thetime that the Property remains uninhabitable. The words restore" and "restoration", shall not include or apply to any fixture, equipment or additions of any kind, or any Property whatever placed in or upon the Property by Lessee or anyoneacting on their behalf. In making restorations, the City may use similar and/or changed workmanship and/or architecture. Immediately upon completion of repairs, the full amount of rent hereunder reserved shall be due and payable. For the purposes of this Lease,the Property shall be deemed "uninhabitable" ifit cannot be used as an office facility or if any public agency deems it unsafe or unhealthy for human habitation or use as an office facility. Lease0113 AGT Audubon Lease(3)gmb revision 6-24-13 196 If the City does not elect to terminate the Lease, anddoes not commence restoration of the Property within one hundred twenty (120) days fromthe date of destructionor injury, Lessee may,at its option,terminate this Lease upon written notice to the City. 17. EMINENT DOMAIN. a. Total Condemnation. In the event of a total condemnation of the Propertyduring the Lease term,this Lease shall terminate as of the date actual physical possession ofthe Property is taken by the condemnor. All compensation and damages awarded for such total condemnation shall belong to, and be the sole Property of the City,and Lessee shall have no claim thereto, and hereby irrevocably assign and transfer to the Cityany right to compensation or damages they maybecome entitled, provided however, the Lessee shall be entitled to receive any award that may be made for the taking of or damage to Lessee's trade fixtures and any improvements made by Lessee to the Property which Lessee would have had, but for the condemnation, the right to remove upon expiration or termination of this Lease. b. Rent Due on Total Condemnation. On termination of this Lease by a total condemnation of the Property, all rent and other charges payable by Lessee to or on behalf of the City pursuant to this Lease shall be paid up to the date on which actual physical possession of the Property is taken by the condemnor, and the parties hereto shall thereafter be released from all further liability under this Lease. c. Partial Condemnation. In the event of a partial condemnation of the Property during the Lease term,this Lease shall terminate as to the portion of the Property so taken on the date when actual physical possession of said portion is taken by the condemnor; and the parties hereto shall eachhave theoption to terminate this Lease by giving written notice to the other, within thirty (30) days after actual physical possession of said portion is taken by the condemnor: Ifneither party terminates this Lease as herein provided, then this Lease shall continue in full force and effect as to the remainder of the Property not condemned; provided, however, that the rent payable by Lessee for the balance of the Lease term shallbe abated in the ratio that the square footage of enclosed floor space of the Property bears to the total floor space of the Property upon such condemnation. Upon partial condemnation, all compensation and damages awarded for such condemnation shall belong to and be the sole Property of the City; and Lessee shall have no claim thereto and hereby irrevocably assign and transfer any right they may have had to share in the award to the City; provided, however, that Lessee shall be entitled to receive any, award made for the taking of, or damage to, Lessee$'trade fixtures and any improvements made by Lessee to the Property which Lessee would have had, but for the condemnation,the rightto remove upon expiration or termination of this Lease. d. Rent on Partial Condemnation. Upon termination of this Lease in part, as herein provided, all rent and other charges payable by Lessee to or on behalf of the City pursuant to this Lease, shall be paid up to the date on which actual physical possession is taken by the condemnor of that part of the Property being condemned; and Lessee shall thereafter be liable only for that portion of rentrequired for the balance of the Lease term as herein provided. 18. '.DEFAULT. Lease0113 AGT Audubon Lease(3)gmb revision 6-24-13 g 197 a. The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a default by Lessee: 1. Failure to pay rent when due, if the failure continues for ten (10) days after the due date. 2. Abandonment and vacation of the premises (failure to occupy and operate the premises for twenty (20) consecutive daysunless excused by the City shallbe deemed an abandonment and vacation). 3. The making by Lessee of any generalassignment or general arrangement for the benefit of creditors; the filing by or against Lessee of a petition to have Lessee adjudged bankrupt or a of a petition for reorganization or arrangementunder anylaw relating to bankruptcy (unless, in the case of a petition filed against Lessee the same is dismissed within sixty (60) days); the apportionment of a trustee or receiver to take possession of substantially all of Lessee's assets, where possession is not restored to Lessee within forty-five (45)days; or the attachment,execution, or other judicial seizure of substantially all of Lessee's assets, where such seizure is not discharged within thirty 30)days. 4. Failure to perform any other provision of this Lease if the failure to perform is not cured within fifteen (15) days orthe time stated in City's notice to Lessee. If the default cannot reasonably be cured within the period specified in the notice, Lessee shall not be in default of this Lease if Lessee commences to cure the default within the period and diligently and in good faith continues to cure the default. b. Notices given under this section shall specify the alleged default and the applicable Lease provisions, and shall demand that Lessee perform the provision of this lease or pay the rentor other payment that is in arrears, as the case may be, within the applicable period of time, or quit the premises. No such notice shall be deemed a forfeiture or a termination of this leaseunless City so elects in the notice. 19. CITY'S REMEDIES IN THEEVENT OF DEFAULT. City shall have thefollowing remedies if Lessee commits a default. These remediesare not exclusive;they are cumulative in addition to any remedies nowor later allowed bylaw. a. Lessee's Right to Possession NotTerminated. City can continuethis leasein fullforce and effect, and the lease will continue in effect as long as City does not terminate Lessee's right to possession,and Lessee shallhave the right to collect rent when due. During the period Lessee is in default,City can enterthe Property and relet it,or any part of it,to third parties for Lessee's account. Reletting can be for a period shorter or longer than the remaining term of this Lease. Lessee shall pay to City the rent due underthis lease on the dates the rent is due, less the rent Cityreceives from any reletting. No act by City allowed by this paragraph shall terminate the Lease unless City notifies Lessee that City elects to terminate the Lease. After Lessee's default and for so long as City does notterminate Lessee's right to possession of the.Property, Lessee shall have the right to assign or sublet its interest in this Lease if Lessee obtains City's consent, but Lessee shall not be released from liability. Lease 0113 AGT Audubon Lease(3)gmb revision 6-24-13 9 198 IfCity elects to relet the Property as provided in this section, rent that City receivesshall be applied to thepayment of: First, any indebtedness from Lessee to City other than rent due from Lessee; second, all costs, including maintenance costs, incurred by City in reletting; third, rent due and unpaid under this lease. After deducting the payments referred to in this paragraph, any sum remaining from the rent Cityreceives for reletting shall be held byCity and applied in payment of futurerent as rent becomes due under this lease. In no event shall Lessee be entitledto any excess rent received by City. If, on the date the rent is due under this lease, the rent received from the reletting is less than the rent due on that date, Lessee shall pay to City, in addition to the remaining rent due, all costs, including for maintenance, City incurred in reletting that remain after applying the rent received fromthe reletting as provided in this paragraph. b. Termination of Lessee's right to possession. City can terminate Lessee's right to possession of theProperty atany time. No act by City other than giving notice to Lessee shall terminate this lease.Acts of maintenance, efforts to relet the Property, or the appointment of a receiveron City's initiative to protect City's interest under this Lease shall not constitute a termination of Lessee's right to possession. On termination, City has the right to recover the following from Lessee: 1. the worth, at the time of award, of the unpaid rent that had beenearned at the time oftermination of this lease; 2.the worth,at thetime of award,of the amount by which the unpaid rent that would havebeen earned afterthe date of termination of this Lease until the time of award exceeds the amount of loss of rent that Lessee proves could have reasonably been avoided; 3. the worth, at thetime of award, of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the termafter thetime of award exceeds the amount of the loss of rent that Lessee proves could have reasonably been avoided;and 4. any other amount, and court costs necessary to compensate City for all detriment proximately caused by Lessee's default. c. Appointment of Receiver. If Lessee is in default of this Lease Cityshall have the right to have a receiver appointed to collect rent and conduct Lessee's business. Neither thefiling of a petition for appointment of a receivernor theappointment itself shall constitute and election by City to terminate this Lease, nor shall such petitionor appointment as initiated by City be construed as default of this lease by Lessee. d. City's Right to Cure. City, at any time after Lessee commits a default, can cure the default at Lessee's cost. If City at any time, byreason of Lessee's default, pays any sum or does any act that requires payment of any sum, the sum paid by City shall be due immediately from Lessee at thetimethe sum is paid,and if paid at a later date shall bear interest at the maximum rate an individual is permitted by law to charge fromthe date the sum is paid by City until Lessee reimburses City.The sum,together with all interest on it,shall be theadditional rent Lease 0113 AGT Audubon Lease(3)gmb revision 6-24-13 10 199 20. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee shall not, without City's prior written consent,which consent may be withheld in City's sole and absolute discretion,sublet the Premises or any part thereof or assign this Lease. 21. RETURN OF KEYS. Upon termination of this AGREEMENT, the keys to the PREMISES, including all duplicated sets, are to be hand delivered to CITY's Director of Recreation and Community Services or an authorizedrepresentative. 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. Lessee shall not discriminate against any person or employee because of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, sex, nationalorigin, disability, sexual preference, housing status, marital status, familial status, or other protected classifications. If Lessee is found to be in violation of the State of California Fair Employment andHousing Act or any similar provision of state or federal law in the conduct of Lessee's activities underthis Lease, it shall be found in default under this Lease and such default shall constitute a material breach of the Lease, entitling the City to all availableremedies in this Lease or by law. 23. BINDING EFFECT. The provisions of this Lease shall,subject to Section 20 on assignment, apply to and bind the heirs,successors,executors,administrators and assigns of all the parties hereto. 24. NOTICES. All notices must be in writing and shall be delivered byhand, by nationally recognized overnight express delivery service or by U.S. registered or certified mail, to the addresses set forth below: LESSEE: Santa Clara Audubon Society Attention:Jeanne, Interim Executive Director 22221 McClellan Road Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY: City of Cupertino Attn: Director of Recreation and Community Services 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 25. GENERAL PROVISIONS. a. Entire Agreement. This document comprises the entire and integrated agreement of the partiesconcerning the lease of the Property andsupersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements,either written or oral. Any amendments to this document shall be effective only if in writing and signed by the City and Lessee. Lease 0113 AGT Audubon Lease(3)gmb revision 6-24-13 11 200 b. Attorneys' Fees. If legal action is commenced to enforce or to declare the effect of any provision of this Lease, the prevailing party shall be awarded attorneys' fees and costs incurred by such party in the action. Service mailed to the address of Lessees set forth herein shall be adequate service for such litigation. If City is involuntarily made a party defendant to any litigation concerning this Lease or the Premisesby reason of anyact or omission of Lessee, then, Lessee shall hold harmlessCity from all liabilities by reason thereof, including reasonable attorneys'feesand all costs incurred by City in such litigation. City shall be entitled to recover all collection costs including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by it as a result of Lessee's default as herein provided. c. Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Lease is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the rest of this Lease shall remain in full force and effect andshall in no way be affected,impaired or invalidated. d.Time.Time is of the essence of this Lease. e. Waiver. No delay orfailure to exercise any right or remedy of Cityonany default by Lessee shall impair such a right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. Additionally, the subsequent receipt and acceptance of rent by the City shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breachby Lessee of any term, covenantor condition of this Lease, other than the failure of Lessee to pay the particularrent so accepted, regardless of the City's knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such rent. Any waiver by City of any default must be in writing andshall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Lease. f. Remedies Cumulative. The remedies provided herein shall be cumulative, therefore, the exercise of any one remedy shall not be to the exclusion of any other remedy. g. Binding onHeirs;Joint and Several Liability.All of the terms,covenants and conditions of this Lease shall apply to and bind the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto; and the parties hereto shall be jointly and severallyliable hereunder. h. Governing law.The laws of the state of California shall govern this Lease. In the event any legal action is commencedregarding this Lease,venue shall be in Santa Clara County. i. Recordation.Neither Lessee nor City shall record this Lease. H H H H j.Authority.The individuals signing this Lease on behalf of the Parties have the authority to sign on behalf of their respective entities. Lease 0113 AGT Audubon Lease(3)gmb revision 6-24-13 12 201 In Witness Whereof,the Parties have executed this AGREEMENT. LESSEE CITY Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Ci f C perti o ecutive Director City Manager ATTEST: 6 wAt CityClerk APPROVED AS TOFORM: City Attorney Attachments Exhibit A Cupertino Municipal Code Title 13 Exhibit B Scope of Services to Community Lease 0113 AGT Audubon Lease(3)gmb revision 6-24-13 13 202 624113, doamend(1).f*m Cupertino, CA Municipal Code CHAPTER 13.04: PARKS Section 13.04.010 Purpose. 13.04.020 Definitions. 13.04.030 Compliancerequired. 13.04.040 Park and/or bulling permitRequired. 13.04.050 Park and/or building permi—Application 13.04.060 Park and/or building pem*-Contents. 13.04.070 Park and/or building pemit—Granting or denial. 13.04.080 Park and/or bulling permitAppeal 13.04.090 Park and/or building permitFees and dep6sit. 13.04.100 Park and/or building permitLiability. 13.04.110 Park and/or building per ni-Revocation 13.04.120 Use ofpark property. 13.04.130 Behavior ofpersons in parks. 13.04.140 Sanitationrequirements. 13.04.150 Vehicle requirements. 13.04.160 Swirrm ing restrictions. 13.04.170 Picnic area use restrictions. 13.04.180 Advertising and sale restrictions. j 13.04.190 Closing hours—Prohibitions. 13.04.191 Towingofvehicles rerrraining after closing hours. 13.04.200 Closing sections ofparks. SiclifCNsers/Gary3oAdoadsM=Mwt(1).Mm 1112 203 Br24/13' dommm(1))M . 13.04.201 Nature and/or rural preserve. 13.04.202 Regulations and guidelines. 13.04.210 Lost articles. 13.04.220 Administrativeauthority. 13.04.230 Enforcement authority. 13.04.240' Violation—Penalty. 13.04.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to regulatethe use of the parks and recreation buMi p of the City in order that all persons may enjoy and make use of such parks and buildings and to protect therights ofthose inthe surrounding areas. Ord. 531, § 1, 1972) 13.04.020 Definitions. The following words and phrases,whenever used in this chapter, shall be construed as defined inthis section: A. `Building?'incl des those bindings,or any portionthereof under the supervision of tie parks and recreation department made available to.exclusive use pernittees. B. `BCW'means the City ofCupertino. C. ."City Manager"means the City Manager of the City of Cupertino. D. `dark"means a park,reservation,playground,swimnvng poo],recreation center or any other area in the City,owned or used by the City or county and devoted to active or passive recreations. E. "Permif'means a permit for exclusive use ofpauks or buildings as provided for and defined in this chapter. F. `persons"includepersons, associations,partnerships,fim>s and corporations,or any company organization of airy kind. G. "Sound an p fyingequipment"means any machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, music, or any other sound. "Sound amplifying equipment"does not includestandard automobile radios when used and heard only by the occupants of the vehicle in which the automobile radio is installed. ."Sound an4mying equipment,"as used in this section,does not include warning devices on authorized emergency vehicles or horns or otherwarning devices of any vehicle used only for traffic safety purposes. H. `Vehicle"means anywheeled conveyance,whether motor-powered,animal-drawn, or self-propelled. The term includes anytrailer in tow of any size,kind or description. Exception is made for baby,carriages, fileJIIC:/Users6wVDaWosds/dommw t(i)Am 2112 204 624/13, d=uot(1)JIM wheelchairs,and vehicles in the service of the City parks. I. "Nature and/or rural preserve"means a park sodesignated by the City Council pursuant to Section 13.04.201. Ord. 710, (part), 1975;Ord. 531, § 2, 1972) 13.04.030 Compliance Required. No person shall enter,be,or remain in any park or building of the City unlesshe complies with all of the regulations set forth in this chapter applicable to such park or binding. Ord. 531, § 3, 1972) 13.04.040 Park and/or Building Permit—Required. The City's parks and/or buildings shall be made available for theexclusive use of persons and groupssubject to the issuance of a permit by the City Manager. No exchisive use of arty park and/or bwldungs for pre- advertised assemblies or groups maybe made without the issuance of a permit therefor. All applications for exclusive use must be signed or cosigned by an adult,which adult shall agree to be responsible for said exclusive use. No exclusive use permit will be granted if,prior to the time the application was fled,the City has scheduled a City-sponsored event at the same timeandplace as the activityproposed in the application, if the requested timeand place has been pre-empted by a previously issued permit,or if cause for denial is found to exist. Ord. 531,§4, 1972) 13.04.050 Park and/or BuildingPermit Application. Any personapplying for a permit hereunder shall file an application for such permitwith the City Manager not less than fourteen days nor more than sixty days prior to the proposed use of said park and/or building. The City Manager,where good cause is shown thereffir, shall have the authority to consider any applicationhereunder which is filed less thanfourteen days before the date such proposed activity is to be conducted. Ord. 531, § 5, 1972) 13.04.060 Park and/or Building Permit—Contents. Theapplication shall contain the following A. Name of the applicaM the sponsoring organization,and the name of the person in charge of the proposedactivity; B. The addresses and telephone numbers of thosenamed in subsection A. above; C. The park and/or binding,or room being applied for, D. The startingtime ofthe proposedactivity; B eJ IC ll secslGatyDadoadsld cut nt(,).Fdm 3112 205 Mi 3' dOCWT td(1)Jft E. The finishingtune of the proposed activity, F. The number ofpersons expected; G. Additional City facilities requested,such as personnel, tables,chairs, etc.; H. The nature of the proposed activity or activities including egiipment'and vehicles to be brought into the park,nature and duration of the use of any amplified sound,whether speech or music; I. The form of application shall beprovided or prescribed by the parks and recreation department. Ord. 531, § 6, 1972) 13.04.070 Park And/or Building Permit-Granting or Denial. A. The City Manager shall grant or deny such application on or before four days after the fling of the application unless the time for such granting or denial of the permit has been waived by the applicant in writing. The decision gmntbg or denying said application shallbemarled to the applicant. B. The City Manager,in granting theapplication,may imposereasonable requirements andconditions concerning theuse ofthe park or bui1lmg by the applicant. C. The City Manager shall grant the application when the application contains information showingthat the number ofpersons expected at the activity complies with the occupancy bad ofthe building and upon granting such permit may imposereasonablerequirementsand conditions concerning theuse of said bulling with respect to time and duration ofuse and tnnnber ofpersons allowed in the building.' D. The City Managermay grant the application for a bulling other than that applied for with the consent of the applicant in the event that a permit has alreadybeen issued for said bulling or that the binding does not meet the occupancy load requirements. In theevent thatmore thanone application is received for one park or binding for use at the same tone,the City Manager shall fast act upon the applca6on fastreceived. E. The City Manager shall deny the application if he finds: 1. That the proposedactivity or use wil unreasonably interfere, or detract from the promotion of the public health,welfare, safety and recreation; 2. That the proposed activity or use is anticipated to incite violence,crime or disorderly conduct; 3. That the proposed activity or use will entail unusual, extraordinary,or burdensome expense or police operation by the City; 4. That the City has scheduled an activityat the same time and place as the activityproposed by the applicant; 5. That the applicant reveals that the City has no park which will accommodate the activity by the applicant; fits!!/C1UserstGarSlDar la dsldoctsnerd(1)htrn 4112 206 6#24113' docaanerd(1).Fdrn 6. That the applicant refuses to agree in writing to comply with any and all conditions in the permit; 7. That the applicant fdils to filo a tinteiy application,unless waived in writing by the City Manager. F. All denials for applications for permits shall specify the groins therefor. Ord. 531, § 7, 1972) 13.04.080 Park and/or BuildingPermit-Appeal. The applicant shall have the right to appeal the denial ofa permit by the City Manager to the City Council. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within fivedays ofthe City Manager's mailing the notice of denial ofthe application for a pennit. The City Council shall actupon the appeal at its next meeting following receipt ofnotice of appeal and its decision shall be final. Ord. 531, § 8, 1972) 13.04.090 Park and/or Building Permit-Fees and Deposit. Upon thegranting of a permit under this chapter, any fees or deposits required for the use of City personnel, binding, equipment, and facilities shall be contained in said permit andsaid fees or deposits shall be paid by the applicant within ten days ofthe,receipt of said permit.. Ifsaid fees or deposits are not paid within said ten days, then,in that event,the permit therefor issued shall be null and void: A. Bulling feesand charges have been established and areregulated by the type of organization or individual usage proposed by the application and such fees are subject to change as required by personnel or City costs; B. Buulding deposit fees are refundable upon to incite violence,crinx or disorderly conduct;approval of the City Manager,providing no damage arises from the applicant's usage. Ord. 531, § 9, 1972) 13.04.100 Park and/or Building Permit-Liability. Persons to whom anexclusive use permit has been granted nest agree in writing to hold,the City hanmmless and indemnify the City from any and all liability for injury to persons or property occurring as a result ofthe activity sponsored by the perm*ee and said person shall be liable to the City for any and all damage toparks, facilities,and buildings owned by the City,which results,from the activity of permittee or is caused by any participant in said activity. Ord. 531 § 10,1972) 13.04.110 Park and/or building permit-Revocation. The City Manager shall have the authority to refuse a permitupon a finding that any use or activity is in violation ofthe provisions ofthis chapter,or any other ordinance oftheCity,or ofany rule promulgated file•JllClUsW4r-3sgffi dOaWd=nVNd(1)AIM 512 207 6124113, d=MWd(1)AM hereunder,or upongood cause shown. Ord 531, § 11, 1972) 13.04.120 Use of Park Property. No personin a park shall do any of the following: A. WrU*mark,deface, disfigure,injure,tamper with or displace or remove any buildings,bridges,tables, benches, fireplaces, railing,paving or paving material,water lines or other public utilities or parts or appurtenances whatsoever, either real or personal; B. Litter,soil or defile restrooms. No person over theage of six years shall use restrooms and washrooms designed for the opposite sex; C. Dig or remove any soil,rock, stones,trees, shrubs or plants,down timber or other wood or materials, or make anyexcavation by tool,equipment,blasting or other means or agency. It is unlawfulto gather firewood or to collect within the park any'type of plant material for the purpose of budding a campfire; D. Construct or erectany bmldmg or structure ofwhatever kind,whether permanent or temporary in character, or run or string any public service utky into,upon or acrosssuch lands,except on special written permit issued under this chapter, E. Goupon anylawn or grass plot,where prohibited by the parks and recreation department,and where such prohibition is indicated by proper andlegible signs; F. Damage,cut, carve,transplant or removeany tree or plant,or injure the bark, orpick the flowers or seeds of arry tree or plant. Nor shall any person attach any rope,wire, or other contrivance to any tree or plant. No person shall dig in,or.otherwise disturbany gmss area,or in any way injure or impair the natural beauty or usefiilness of any areas; G. Climb any tree or walk, stand or sit upon any monranents,vases, fountains,raft fences,or upon any other property not designated or customarily used for swh purposes; H. Hun%r olest,harm frighten,kill trap, chase, tease, shoot or throw missiles at any animal, reptile, or bird;nor shall any person remove or have in his possession the young ofany wild animal,or the eggs or nest or young of any reptile or bird. Exception to the foregoing is made in that snakes known to be deadly poisonous, such as rattlesnakes,or otherdeadly reptiles may bekilledon sight; I. Use any system for amplifying sounds,whether for speech or music or otherwise, unless an exclusive use permit is first secured. Ord. 531, § 12, 1972) 13.04.130 Behavior of Persons in Parks. No person in a park shatdo any of the following: filed//CNserslGary Dmtoads/docwwd(1)J*n 6112 208 r924M3 ' d=rnent(1)A*n A. Bring to a park anyalcoholic beverages, and no personmay drink alcoholic beverages at anytime is a park,except plcknlckers,who may bring to a park, and drink,beer or wine with their picnic meal, so long as they conduct themselves in an orderly manner, B. Enter or remain in a park whale under the influence of intoxicating liquor or anydrug; C. Have brought,or have in his possession, or setoff,or otherwise cause to explode or discharge or burn, any firecrackers,torpedoes,rockets, or other fireworks or explosives of inflammable material,or discharge them or throw them intoany such area from land or any highway adjacent thereto. This prohibition includes any substance, compound,mixture or article that,in conjunction with any other substance or compound would be dangerous from arty of the foregoingstandpoints; D. No person having the control or care of any dog, shall suffer or permit such dog to enter or remain in a pant or sport field,unless posted for such use, and then only if it is led by a leash of suitable strength not more than sixfeet in length,unless it is permitted to be off-leash by the City as part of a City-authori2 ed event or program;and the owner and the attendant shall be responsible for any damage caused, in anyeveM by such dog, even if on leash; E. Lead,ride,drive,keep or let looseany anlnal,reptile or fowl of any kind,without a permitto do so from the Director ofparks and recreation; F. Make or kindle a fire for any purpose, except at places provided for such purpose,unless prior special permission be obtained therefor from the Director, G. Tauter an area posted as`Closed to the Public,"and no person shall use, or abet theuse o any area in violation ofposted notices; H. Play or bet at or against any game which is played,conducted, dealt,or carried on for money,chips, shell, credit or any other representative ofvalue,or maintain or exhibit artygambling table or other instrument of gambling or gaming, or play any game prohibited by any other ordinance ofthe City, I. Sleep, or protractedly lounge, on the seats,benches,or other areas, or engage inloud,boisterous, threatening,abusive, insulting, or indecent language,or engage in any disorderly conduct or behavior tending to a breach of the public peace; J. Use,carry, or possess firearms of any description, or air rifles,spring guns,bow and arrows, slings or any other forts ofweapons potentially dangerous to wfid life or to human safety. Shooting into park areas from beyond park boundaries is prohibited; K. Solicit alms or contributions for any purpose,whether public or private,without prior percussion from the City Council; L. Use or allow the use ofpowered model airplanes except in areas sodesignated by the department of parks and recreation; M. Play or practice golf or use golf clubs in any area of the parknot designated for such use; N. Indulge in riotous,boisterous,threatening or indecent conduct. file)/IC RJsersfC3eryPDaWoads/docxmerd(1).F hn 7112 209 fir2M13 ' d000merd(1)AM O. No person shall skate or rollerblade in a manner that causes damage to park amenities or threatens the safety or well being ofpark patrons. Skating or rolicrblading is prohibited on raised surfaces where signed. P. Feeding WaterfowlProhbited.No person shall feed or in any manner intentionally providefood to any waterfowl(geese,ducks,or coots)in any City park. Ord. 13-2105, § 2,2013;Ord. 12-2101,§ 1 (part),2013;Ord. 1945, 2004;Ord. 1886, (part),2001;Ord. 531, § 13, 1972) 13.04.140 Sanitation Requirements. No person in a park shah do arty ofthe following: A. 'Throw,discharge or otherwise place or cause tobe placedin the waters of any fountain,pond, lake, stream,bay or other body ofwater fit or adjacent to any park or,any tributary,stream,storm sewer or drain flowing into such waters,any substance,matter or thing, liquid or solid,which will or may result in the pollution of such waters; B. Dump,deposit or leave anybottles,broken glass,ashes,paper,boxes, cans,refuse or trash on the grounds thereof Such items shall be placed inthe proper receptacles where these are provided;and,where such receptacles are not provided,all such rubbish or waste shall be carried away from the park by the person responsible for its presence, and properly disposed of elsewhere. Ord. 531, § 14, 1972) 13.04.150 vehicle Requirements. No person in the park shall do any ofthe following: A. Fad to comply with as applicableprovisions of the Vehicle Code of thestate in regard to equipment and operation ofvehicles,together with such regulations as arecontained in this chapter andany other ordinances of the City regulating trate; B. Fail to obey all trafficofficers and park employees who are hereafter auffioriaedand instructedto direct traffic in the parks in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and such supplementary regulations as may be issued by the Director, C. Fag to observe carefully all iraffic signs indicating speed, direction, caution, stopping or parking and ail other signs posted for proper control and to safeguard life and property; D. Ride or drive a vehicle at a rate of speed exceeding fifteen mass an hour, except upon such roads as the City may designate by posted signs for speedier travel; E. Drive anyvehicle on any area except paved roads or parking areas,or such other areasas maybe specifcalty designated as temporary parking areas by the department of parks andrecreation; F. Park a vehicle in other than an established or designated parking area, and such useshalt be in accordance wfth the posted directions there,and with the instructions ofany attendant who maybe present; filid//CR,senaciwyDmtoa*moa,mem(,).Mm SM2 210 62411V document(1)J*i G. Rude a motorcycle,motor bice,or similarvehicle in any park,exceptwhere used to transport im+alid persons; H. Ride a bicycle on other than a paved road or path. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no personmayrale a bicycle on a paved road or path where such activity is prohibited by posted signage. A bicyclist may wheel or push a bicycle by hand over any gassy area,wooded trail,or over any other area in which bicycle riding is otherwise prohibited; I. Ride a bicycle other than on the rim side ofthe road paving as close as conditionspermit,and bicycles shall be kept in single fide when two or more are operating as a group. Bicyclists shall at all times operate their machine with reasonable regard to the safety of others, signal.all turns,pass to the left of any vehicle they are overtaking and pass to the right of anyvehicles they maybe meeting; L Rideany other person on a bicycle,except where the bicycle is built for operation by more than one person; K. Leave a bicycle in a place other than a bicycle rack where a bicycle rack is provided and there is space available; L. Leave a bicycle lying on the ground or paving or set against trees,or in any place or position where other persons may trip over or beinjured by it. Ord. 2014, 2008;Ord. 531, § 15, 1972) 13.04.160 Swimming Restrictions. No person in a park shall swine, bathe,wade in or pollute the water of any fountain,pond, lake or strearry except that wading and swimming shall be permitted in pools specific*provided for these purposes, and so posted. Ord. 531, § 16, 1972) 13.04.170 Picnic Area Use Restrictions. No person in a park shall do any ofthe followng; A. Picnic or lunch in a placeother than onedesignated for that purpose. Attendants shall have the authority to regiulate the activities Mi such areas,when necessary to prevent congestion and to securethe maxi mem use of the park facilities EDrJ the comfort and convenience of all. Visitors shall comply with any directionsgiven to achievethisend.Individual fireplaces or tables and benches shall be used on the basis of"first corm, fust served B. Use any portion of the picnic areas,or any of the park bwldings or structures for the purpose of holding picnics,to the exclusion of other persons,and no person shall use such area and facilities for anunreasonable length of tines if they are crowded; C. Leave a picnic area before afire started.or later used by him is completely extinguished. file ll/C Ns si(3ar iDo rdodot(1)Mm 9112 211 612413• doaMM9(1)Jft Ord. 531, § 17,1972) 13.04.180 Advertising and Sale Restrictions. A. No personin a park shall,without prior pem-&slon from the City Council,do any ofthe following. 1. Expose or offer for sale any article or thing,nor shall he station or place any stand,cart or vehicle for the transportation, sale or display of any such article or thing, 2. Annmunce,advertise or canthe public attention in any way to any article or service for sale or hire; 3. Paste,glue,tack or otherwise postany sign,placard,advertisement or inscription B. In addition,in orderto insure the public safety, health and general welfare,no person shall expose or offer for sale any article or thing,nor shaIlhe station or place any stand,cart or vehicle for the sale or display of anyarticle or thing,on a public street,within f m hundredfeet ina straightEm from the nearest boundary of any per• Ord. 1886,(part),2001;Ord 531, § 18, 1972) 13.04.190 ClosingHours—Prohibitions. No person ina park shall do any ofthe following A. Remain,stay or loiter in any pubic park,between the hours often p.m and six a.m of the following day,or as mayotherwise be designated by n*Rte order or resolution of the City Council The opening and closinghours for each individual park shall be posted therein by the department ofparks and recreation for public ir&rnmtlon; B. Set up tents or other temporary shelter for the purpose of ovemight camping,nor shall anyperson park or leave in a park, alter closing hours, any vehicle or movablestructure to be used, or that couldbe used, for such purposes,such as a horse trailer,camp trailer, pickup camper,or the Ike; C. Park or leave ina park, after closing hours, any vehicle. Signs shall be posted at all park entrances to notify park visitors ofthe effects ofparagraph C ofthis section. Ord. 754, § 1, 1976;Ord. 610, § 1, 1974; Ord. 531, § 19, 1972) 13.04.191 Towing of Vehicles Remaining after ClosingHours. Any vehicle or movablestructure left in a park after closing hours may be towedaway to a pubic garage at the owner's expense. Signs shall be posted at allpark entrances to notify park visitors ofthe eft'ects of this section. Ord. 752, § 1, 1976) 13.04.200 Closing Sections of Parks. hie irc Iileesstca loaM,o /doasr nc(1)t,tn 1012 212 6124113 d=nTwt(1).MM Any section or part of a park may be declaredclosed to the public by the Director of parks and recreationat any time, and for any interval oftime,either temporarily or at regular andstated intervals(daffy or otherwise), and either entirely or merely to certain uses, as the Director may reasonably findnecessary. Ord. 531, § 20, 1972) 13.04.201 Nature and/or Rural Preserve. A. Any park characterized by such unique natural features that it is deemd a valuableand irreplaceable resource may be designated by the City Council either by ordltance or resolution as a nature and/or rural preserve, in which event it shall be used and treated in a mannerconsistent therewith. B. Usesshall be Tnrled to those which will maintainand protect the ecology of the area,conserve the natural features and scenic values, expand con city awareness andunderstanding of natural history and the environment and provide enjoyment ofthe resources present consistent withh their preservation. C. McClellan Ranch Park is designated a nature and rural preserve. Ord. 710, (part), 1975) 13.04.202 Regulations and Guidelines. The City Council shall by resolution adopt regulations controlling the use andguidelines pertaining to the development of any part designated as anature and/or rural preserve. Arry such regulations adopted by the City Council shall,where inconsistent therewith,take precedence over any general regulations contained in Chapter 13.04. Ord 710, (part), 1975) 13.04.210 Lost Articles. The finding of lost articles in parks shall be reported to the department ofparks and recreation or the park dep"nt personnel on duty. Ord. 531, § 21, 1972) 13.04.220 Administrative Authority. There is conferred upon the City Manager those powers and dutiesnecessary for the administration of this chapter. In addition,there is also conferred upon the City Manager the authority and power to designate such City officers and employees as may be required to carry out the intent and purpose ofthis chapter. Ord. 531, §22, 1972) 13.04.230 Enforcement Authority. The parks foreman, all park attendants and/or allpeace officers authorized or directed by the City shall be flirj/icJusemrA y m doaWdocwiW(1).hbn 11/12 213 Fil24/.13. document(1).htm responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of the chapter and of any mile promulgatedherelmder. Ord. 531, § 23, 1972) 13.04.240 Violation—Penalty. Any person who violates die provisions of this chapter shall beguilty of an infraction and uponconviction thereof shall be punished as provided in Chapter 1.12. Ord. 1179, § 2 (part), 1982; Ord. 531, § 25, 1972). Disclaimer: This Code of Ordinances and/or any otherdocuments that appear on this site may not reflect the most current legislation adopted by the Municipality.American Legal Publishing Corporation provides these documents for informational purposes only.Thesedocuments should not be retied upon as the definitiveauthority for locallegislation.Additionally,the formatting andpaginationof the posted docurnants varies from the formatting and pagination of the official copy.The official printed copy of a Code of Ordinances should be consulted prior to any action being taken. For further information regarding the official version of any of this Code ofOrdinances or other documentsposted on this site, please contact the Minicipality directly or contact American Legal Publishing toll-free at 800-445-5588. O 2013 American Legal Publishing Corporation techsupport(o)anIegal.com 1.800.445.5588. a filet//C./Users/Gar%/DoAdoads/document(1).htm 12112 214 Exhibit B TheSanta Clara Valley Audubon Societytakes part in collaborativeprograms withthe City and other community partners to enhance theoutdooreducation for park users at McClellanRanch Preserve. Below is a list of community benefits: The front office is open from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mon-Friday and 10:00 am. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturdays. This includes the nature store. Althoughthese are the official hours, there are manynature events after hours. Atthe nature store, there's printed information on theMcClellan Ranchandoften visitors to the Ranch drop in and ask for information on the Ranch and theMuseum. The information includes a history of the ranch, a map, the Museum and wild life, including birds, that reside in the park. Thenaturestore is opento all visitors, not only Audubon members. SCVAS provides internships to local college students and recent graduates. Manyof the interns have been Cupertino residents. SCVAS has engaged volunteers in advocacy for keeping nature the focus of Stevens Creek Corridor SCVAS is currentlyworking with Apple to make their newcampus a bird friendly environment. TheEducation and Outreach Program offers a lot ofopportunities for Cupertino residents: Birdingand gardeningclasses for adults (though outthe year) Nest Box monitoring during the spring/summer-supports local populations of birds, AND an education tool Nest box building activities for Cupertinoscouts and home school groups (as requested, throughout the year) Summer camp for children Winter and spring serviceprojects for families (in partnership with the city and with Acterra) tocleanup thepreserve Native Plant display garden - helps support habitat for local wildlife but also gives communitymembers a chance to see what native gardening looks like/gives themideas Birding walks for schools, scout troops, families, etc. (i.e. anyone that asks...) - bothat McClellan Ranchand by request at local parks Free Community festival (Wildlife Education Day) - also participate in Cupertino festivals e.g. Earth Day, Fall Festival, etc.). A LOT of Cupertino high schoolstudents participate in this event to get community service hours Other communityservice hour projects for Cupertinomiddle andhigh school students Schools programs (including bird walks, talks, presentations, fieldtrips)for Cupertino Unified School District students Birding and habitatpresentations for Cupertinogarden clubs, Cupertinolibrary, and Cupertino Adult Day centers Birding presentations for Cupertino after-schoolprograms and scouttroops Holiday open house (open to the public) - and really, any of our membership meetings are open to thepublic. Author talks, book-signings, etc. -open to the public. (we haven't done many of those since they started the construction, but we used todoat least one a year) Ongoing parnerships with City Naturalist and Acterra 215 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1735 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:5/26/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Lans Garden Restaurant, 19634 Stevens Creek Bouelvard Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Application Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:ApplicationforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforLansGardenRestaurant,19634 Stevens Creek Bouelvard RecommendapprovaltotheCaliforniaDepartmentofAlcoholicBeverageControlofthe ApplicationforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforLansGardenRestaurant,19634StevensCreek Boulevard CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™216 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 21, 2016 Subject Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Lans Garden Restaurant, 19634 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Lans Garden Restaurant, 19634 Stevens Creek Boulevard Description Name of Business: Lans Garden Restaurant Location: 19634 Stevens Creek Boulevard Type of Business: Restaurant Type of License: 41 – On-Sale Beer & Wine – Eating Place (Restaurant) Reason for Application: Original Fees, Annual Fee, State Fingerprinting, Federal Fingerprints Discussion There are no zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol as proposed and staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 41 authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on or off the premises where sold. Distilled spirits may not be on the premises (except brandy, rum, or liqueurs for use solely for cooking purposes). Must operate and maintain the licensed premises as a bona fide eating place. Must maintain suitable kitchen facilities, and must make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption on the premises. Minors are allowed on the premises. Sustainability Impact None Fiscal Impact None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org 217 _____________________________________ Prepared by: Beth Ebben, Planning Department Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager - Community Development and Strategic Planning Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachment: A - Application 218 219 220 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1754 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/1/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Sizzling Gourmet, Inc., 19541 Richwood Drive Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Application Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:ApplicationforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforSizzlingGourmet,Inc.,19541 Richwood Drive RecommendapprovaltotheCaliforniaDepartmentofAlcoholicBeverageControlofthe Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Sizzling Gourmet, Inc., 19541 Richwood Drive CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™221 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 21, 2016 Subject Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Sizzling Gourmet, Inc, 19541 Richwood Drive Recommended Action Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Sizzling Gourmet, Inc, 19541 Richwood Drive Description Name of Business: Sizzling Gourmet, Inc. Location: 19541 Richwood Drive Type of Business: Restaurant Type of License: 41 – On-Sale Beer & Wine – Eating Place (Restaurant) Reason for Application: Person-to-Person Transfer, Annual Fee, Issue Temporary Permit, State Fingerprinting, Federal Fingerprints Discussion There are no zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcoho l as proposed and staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 41 authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on or off the premises where sold. Distilled spirits may not be on the premises (except brandy, rum, or liqueurs for use solely for cooking purposes). Must operate and maintain the licensed premises as a bona fide eating place. Must maintain suitable kitchen facilities, and must make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption on the premises. Minors are allowed on the premises. Sustainability Impact None Fiscal Impact None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org 222 _____________________________________ Prepared by: Beth Ebben, Planning Department Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager - Community Development and Strategic Planning Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachment: A - Application 223 224 225 226 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1765 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/6/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for WAC Kitchen, LLC (dba The Yard), 10235 S. De Anza Boulevard Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Application Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:ApplicationforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforWACKitchen,LLC(dbaTheYard), 10235 S. De Anza Boulevard RecommendapprovaltotheCaliforniaDepartmentofAlcoholicBeverageControlofthe ApplicationforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforWACKitchen,LLC(dbaTheYard),10235S. De Anza Boulevard CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™227 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 21, 2016 Subject Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for WAC Kitchen, LLC (dba The Yard), 10235 S. De Anza Boulevard Recommended Action Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for WAC Kitchen, LLC (dba The Yard), 10235 S. De Anza Boulevard Description Name of Business: WAC Kitchen, LLC (dba The Yard) Location: 10235 S. De Anza Boulevard Type of Business: Restaurant Type of License: 41 – On-Sale Beer & Wine – Eating Place (Restaurant) Reason for Application: Person-to-Person Transfer, Annual Fee, Issue Temporary Permit, State Fingerprinting, Federal Fingerprints Discussion There are no zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol as proposed and staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 41 authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on or off the premises where sold. Distilled spirits may not be on the premises (except brandy, rum, or liqueurs for use solely for cooking purposes). Must operate and maintain the licensed premises as a bona fide eating place. Must maintain suitable kitchen facilities, and must make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption on the premises. Minors are allowed on the premises. Sustainability Impact None Fiscal Impact None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org 228 _____________________________________ Prepared by: Beth Ebben, Planning Department Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager - Community Development and Strategic Planning Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachment: A - Application 229 230 231 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1793 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/10/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for CDUBB Restaurant Ventures, LLC (dba Coconut Fish Cafe), 20010 Stevens Creek Boulevard Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Application Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:ApplicationforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforCDUBBRestaurantVentures,LLC (dba Coconut Fish Cafe), 20010 Stevens Creek Boulevard RecommendapprovaltotheCaliforniaDepartmentofAlcoholicBeverageControlofthe ApplicationforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforCDUBBRestaurantVentures,LLC(dba Coconut Fish Cafe), 20010 Stevens Creek Boulevard CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™232 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 21, 2016 Subject Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for CDUBB Restaurant Ventures, LLC (dba Coconut Fish Cafe), 20010 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for CDUBB Restaurant Ventures, LLC (dba Coconut Fish Cafe), 20010 Stevens Creek Boulevard Description Name of Business: CDUBB Restaurant Ventures, LLC (dba Coconut Fish Cafe) Location: 20010 Stevens Creek Boulevard Type of Business: Restaurant Type of License: 41 – On-Sale Beer & Wine – Eating Place (Restaurant) Reason for Application: Annual Fee, Original Fee, State Fingerprinting, Federal Fingerprints Discussion There are no zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol as proposed and staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 41 authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on or off the premises where sold. Distilled spirits may not be on the premises (except brandy, rum, or liqueurs for use solely for cooking purposes). Must operate and maintain the licensed premises as a bona fide eating place. Must maintain suitable kitchen facilities, and must make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption on the premises. Minors are allowed on the premises. Sustainability Impact None Fiscal Impact None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org 233 _____________________________________ Prepared by: Beth Ebben, Planning Department Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager - Community Development and Strategic Planning Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachment: A - Application 234 235 236 237 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1812 Name: Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/16/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Cancel the Special Meeting of July 6, and consider all items related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative, including the Elections Code Section 9212 report and whether to place the Initiative on the ballot, at the July 5, 2016 Meeting. Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:CanceltheSpecialMeetingofJuly6,andconsiderallitemsrelatedtotheVallco TownCenterSpecificPlanInitiative,includingtheElectionsCodeSection9212reportand whether to place the Initiative on the ballot, at the July 5, 2016 Meeting. CanceltheSpecialMeetingofJuly6,andconsiderallitemsrelatedtotheVallcoTownCenter SpecificPlanInitiative,includingtheElectionsCodeSection9212reportandwhethertoplace the Initiative on the ballot, at the July 5, 2016 Meeting. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™238 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1425 Name: Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/26/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Development Permit to allow the demolition of a 342 unit apartment complex (The Hamptons) and the construction of a 942 unit apartment complex in a Planned Residential Zoning District, Environmental Analysis proposing adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Architectural and Site approval for the demolition of a 342 unit apartment complex (The Hamptons) and the construction of a new 942 unit apartment development on the same site with associated site and landscaping improvements, Use Permit to allow a bicycle hub and a separate bar facility within a club house located in a 942 unit apartment development, Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 277 trees in conjunction with the construction of a new apartment development, and Development Agreement for a new 942 apartment unit development in a Planned Residential Zoning District. Application No(s): DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05,TR-2015-21, DA-2015 -01; Applicant(s): Carlene Matchniff (The Irvine Company/IAC at Cupertino LLC); Location: 19500 Pruneridge Avenue APN# 316-06-032, 316-06-037 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report CC-1 DP-2015-04 Draft Resolution CC-2 ASA-2015-13 Draft Resolution CC-3 U-2015-05 Draft Resolution CC-4 TR-2015-21 Draft Resolution CC-5 ORD DA-2015-01 Draft Ordinance CC-5A Hamptons DA CCSR 21 Draft Agreement CC-6 PC minutes & staff report CC-7 PC resolutions CC_8 ERC CC-9 Parking demand CC-10 Arch review CC-11 Comments CC-12-a MND_Cover CC_12-b TOC CC-12-c_MND Intro CC-12-d MND Checklist CC-12-e MND ProjectDescription CC-12-f GP EIR ConsistencyAnalysis CC-12-g EnvironmentalAnalysis CC-12-h MMRP CC-12-i OrgPersonsConsulted CC-13 Response ISMND comments CC-14 Project plans cover letter CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™239 CC-14a Project plans link Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:DevelopmentPermittoallowthedemolitionofa342unitapartmentcomplex(The Hamptons)andtheconstructionofa942unitapartmentcomplexinaPlannedResidential ZoningDistrict,EnvironmentalAnalysisproposingadoptionofaMitigatedNegative Declaration,ArchitecturalandSiteapprovalforthedemolitionofa342unitapartment complex(TheHamptons)andtheconstructionofanew942unitapartmentdevelopmentonthe samesitewithassociatedsiteandlandscapingimprovements,UsePermittoallowabicycle hubandaseparatebarfacilitywithinaclubhouselocatedina942unitapartmentdevelopment, TreeRemovalPermittoallowtheremovalandreplacementof277treesinconjunctionwiththe constructionofanewapartmentdevelopment,andDevelopmentAgreementforanew942 apartmentunitdevelopmentinaPlannedResidentialZoningDistrict.ApplicationNo(s):DP- 2015-04,EA-2015-03,ASA-2015-13,U-2015-05,TR-2015-21,DA-2015-01;Applicant(s): CarleneMatchniff(TheIrvineCompany/IACatCupertinoLLC);Location:19500Pruneridge Avenue APN# 316-06-032, 316-06-037 The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council A) Adopt Resolution No. 16-065 approving Development Permit DP-2015-04 and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration EA-2015-03; and B) Adopt Resolution No. 16-066 approving Architectural and Site Approval ASA-2015-13; and C) Adopt Resolution No. 16-067 approving Use Permit U-2015-05; and D) Adopt Resolution No. 16-068 approving Tree Removal Permit TR-2015-21; and E) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 16-2144: "An Ordinance of the Cupertino City Council approving a Development Agreement by and between the City of Cupertino and IAC at Cupertino LLC for the Hamptons project located at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue" File #:16-1425,Version:1 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™240 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: June 21, 2016 SUBJECT Redevelopment of the Hamptons Apartments with associated amenities and landscaping. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve, in accordance with the draft resolutions: 1. Development permit (DP-2015-04) and Environmental analysis (Mitigated Negative Declaration) (EA-2015-03) per attached resolution (Attachment CC-1). 2. Architectural and site approval (ASA-2015-13) per attached resolution (Attachment CC- 2). 3. Conditional use permit (U-2015-05) per attached resolution (Attachment CC-3). 4. Tree removal permit (TR-2015-21) per attached resolution (Attachment CC-4). 5. Development agreement (DA-2015-01) per attached ordinance (Attachment CC-5). DESCRIPTION A. Application Summary Applications: DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Applicant: Carlene Matchniff Property owner: Irvine Company Property Location: 19500 Pruneridge Avenue (APNs: 316-06-032 and 316-06-037), northeast of Wolfe Road and I-280. B. Project Description 1. Development permit (DP-2015-04) to allow the demolition of a 342 unit apartment complex (The Hamptons) and the construction of a 942 unit apartment complex in a Planned Residential Zoning District. 2. Environmental analysis (EA-2015-03). An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. 3. Architectural and site approval (ASA-2015-103) for the demolition of a 342 unit apartment complex (The Hamptons) and the construction of a new 942 unit apartment development on the same site with associated site and landscaping improvements. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 241 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016 4. Use permit (U-2015-05) to allow a bicycle hub and separate bar facility within a club house located in a 942 unit apartment development. 5. Tree removal permit (TR-2015-21) to allow the removal and replacement of 277 trees in conjunction with the construction of a new apartment development. 6. Development agreement (DA-2015-01) for a new 942-unit apartment development in a Planned Residential Zoning District. C. Project Data Summary Requirement/Standard Allowed/Required Proposed General Plan designation Residential – high density (> 35 units/acre); HE 85 units/acre 76 units/net acre Zoning designation P (Res) – Planned Development (Residential/multiple-family) No change Consistency with General Plan Yes Consistency with Zoning Yes Environmental Assessment Initial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Height limit 60 – 75 feet 60 – 75 feet Setbacks: Front – along Pruneridge Avenue 1:1 slope line drawn from arterial curb line 1:1 slope line drawn from arterial curb line Along Wolfe Road 1:1 slope line drawn from arterial curb line 1:1 slope line drawn from arterial curb line Rear n/a 25 feet Building area n/a 1,088,775 sq.ft. Lot area n/a 12.5 gross acres/12.4 net acres Lot coverage n/a 61.3% including covered parking Parking Vehicles – 2 per unit 1882 spaces 1696 spaces (1.8 per unit) Bikes - .4 per unit 377 377 242 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016 BACKGROUND The applicant, Irvine Company, is proposing to demolish an existing 342 unit apartment complex (The Hamptons) and construct a new 942 unit apartment complex in a Planned Residential Zoning District. Project Plans are included as Attachment 5. Surrounding land uses currently include a mix of these nearby commercial, residential and office:  To the north and east, Apple Campus 2 under construction  To the west on Wolfe Road, Arioso Apartments, Courtyard and Hilton Garden hotels  To the northwest on Wolfe Road, Cupertino Village commercial center The application was originally submitted on May 28, 2015. Following the formal application, the applicant worked with staff and the City’s consultant to further refine the plans, development agreement terms, and community outreach, particularly commencing dialogue with current residents of the existing Hamptons. A final revised plan was submitted on January 29, 2016. The applicant proposes to begin the construction phase in mid-2017, with projected completion date of 2020. Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission comments and discussion. The Planning Commission reviewed the subject application at its May 10, 2016 regular meeting. Comments, questions and discussions were focused on traffic impacts, bicycle hub and connectivity, access points to the site for various users including emergency vehicles, parking exception, and the need for more below market rate housing. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4-1-0 vote to recommend that the City Council approve the application, subject to conditions. As part of the motion, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to increase the number of below market rate units on site in exchange for waiver of impact fees. The Planning Commission staff report, minutes and final Planning Commission resolutions are in Attachment CC-6 and CC-7. DISCUSSION Environmental Review Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared and is included as Attachment CC-12. The IS/MND is tiered from the General Plan EIR in accordance with Sections 15152 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code Section 21094. The General Plan EIR analyzes full implementation of uses and physical development proposed under the General Plan, and it identifies measures to mitigate the significant adverse program- level and cumulative impacts associated with that growth. The proposed project is an element of the growth that was anticipated in the General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. As discussed in greater detail of the IS/MND Chapter 1.2, the CEQA concept of "tiering" refers to the evaluation of general environmental matters in a broad program-level EIR, with 243 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016 subsequent focused environmental documents for individual projects that implement the program. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of tiered environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive paperwork in the environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered documents by eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately addressed in the program EIR and by incorporating those analyses by reference. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and General Plan EIR because:  The proposed project was included in the scope of the development projected in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, which also identified and analyzed project scenarios with a higher number of units and height limits.  The project site is located in an area designated for residential land uses in the General Plan.  The changes to population associated with the proposed project are included within the scope of the General Plan’s population projections; and  The proposed project is within the scope of the cumulative analysis in the General Plan EIR. A more detailed discussion is provided within the IS/MND, Chapter 4 under the topic “General Plan EIR Consistency Analysis.” On May 5, 2016, the Environmental Review Committee held a public meeting and recommended approval of the Initial Study/MND (See attachment CC-12). During the public comment period, the City received comment letters from four agencies: City of Sunnyvale, Caltrans, Santa Clara County and VTA. While not required, the City’s environmental consultant completed a response to comments for a complete and thorough environmental review record, Attachment CC-13. General Plan and Zoning North Vallco Gateway. The parcels are identified within the General Plan as part of the North Vallco Gateway, located within North Vallco Park special planning area. The North Vallco Park area is envisioned to become a sustainable office and campus environment surrounded by a mix of connected, high-quality and pedestrian-oriented neighborhood center, hotels and residential uses. Taller heights may be allowed in the North Vallco Gateway per the Land Use and Community Design Element and additional residential development may be allowed per the Housing Element. The allowed General Plan land use designation is high density residential. The General Plan, Figure LU-1, references these development standards: maximum density of 85 units per acre, 1:1 slope line drawn from arterial curb line, 75 feet height limit, 60 feet height limit for buildings within 50 feet of the property line abutting Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue and Apple Campus 2. The project is consistent with these requirements. Planned development (P) zoning district. The site is within a planned development zoning district for multi-family residential (“P(Res)”). Therefore, as a residential development, it is an allowed use consistent with the P zoning district. 244 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016 Housing Element The site is identified as a “Priority Housing Element Site” in the Housing Element, which has been allocated 600 net new units in addition to the existing development. The project would provide a mix of studio (242), one- (413) and two-bedroom (287) units. The original development approval, recorded with the parcel in 1997, established 34 units as below market rate (BMR) units, which would have approximately 12 years remaining after construction of the new development. The applicant proposed to provide 34 BMR units by completing the 12 year term. Due to the City’s challenge of acquiring units off site through impact fees, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to consider additional units on site in exchange for a reduction in the estimated $12,900,000 housing mitigation fee. Staff utilized data within the housing impact fee nexus study and BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual, which provides the basis for the credit. The credit results in a total of 62 BMR units and a remainder fee of $128,999. The overview of proposed affordable units is as follows: Existing Affordable Units (Current Hamptons) Number of Bedrooms Very Low Income Low Income Totals One 5 4 9 Two 12 13 25 TOTALS: 17 17 34 New Affordable Units (Redeveloped Hamptons) Number of Bedrooms Very Low Income to Replace Existing Affordable Units Low Income to Replace Existing Affordable Units Low Income for New Affordable Units Totals Studio - - 7 7 One 5 4 13 22 Two 12 13 8 33 TOTALS: 17 17 28 62 In order to address relocation of tenants in the affordable housing currently on the project site, the applicant would provide relocation benefits to BMR tenants, to be implemented by the City through a third–party relocation consultant consistent with a relocation plan. The draft relocation plan would be presented to the City Council as a separate item for review and 245 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016 approval, after approval of the project; a more detailed discussion is within the development agreement section of this staff report and Attachment CC-5. Site Plan The multi-family residential complex consists of six buildings and approximately 32,000 sq.ft. of associated recreation and amenity areas, such as a bicycle hub, pool areas, club house and three levels of parking within a podium and basement level. The primary site access would be at the first level off of Pruneridge Avenue for guest parking and residential vehicle entry. The main bicycle and pedestrian access would be at the corner of Pruneridge and Wolfe, anchored by the bicycle hub and plaza area, where the required public art location is also proposed. There will be no general vehicular access from Wolfe Road other than for emergency vehicle access (EVA), which rings the site along the west, south and east property lines. The EVA would be multi-purpose for emergency, service and move-in vehicle access only to enhance circulation, with designated loading docks along the interior of the site, as shown on the fire and service access exhibit on sheet A2.60. The site incorporates 60% open space throughout the site through balcony areas, ground level landscaped/pervious areas, outdoor plazas, amenity decks, as shown on plan sheet A0.50 and A0.60. The proposed 3,400 sq.ft. bicycle hub is envisioned to be an amenity space for residents, surrounding community and Apple Campus 2 employees. The programming would include a gathering space, repair shop, short-term bike rentals, lockers, restrooms and coffee and juice bar. A separate bar facility would be located within the clubhouse.. The application seeks to incorporate sustainability elements such as 40 EV charging stations, use of recycled water for landscaping, plant list of California natives and climate-appropriate species, and promoting transportation alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. A more detailed discussion is provided within the transportation/parking section of the staff report. 246 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016 Architecture The Irvine Company’s design concept and intent is as follows:  Compatibility: Compatible with the natural landscape around the Apple headquarters. Landscaping and buildings become integrated. Landscape between each dwelling and around the perimeter of the site results in a natural setting. Drought tolerant planting selected to promote minimal maintenance.  Form: Buildings are ‘pixelated’, recalling the voids that once existed in early computer cards. Each building is composed with a series of interlocking cubes. Several facades shift forward or backward with respect to the other.  Color: The facades are composed of painted metal panels, each ‘pixel’ a varying tone of silver or grey. Each façade represents a change in tonality from light to dark.  Pattern/rhythm: The windows follow a rigid and expected order, while the infill panels provide an unexpected rhythm across each facade. The project incorporates recommendations from the City’s consulting architect to increase the quality to various design elements, such as pedestrian/bicycle sense of arrival and linkages, refinement of colors and materials, details to promote pedestrian scale, field review of plaster finish, and signs. The orientation of residential units, in relation to public and private spaces, provides a combination of privacy and natural light. Centrally located amenities and recreation areas promote use of on- site resources, which increases opportunities for a sense of community and reduction of vehicle miles traveled. Perception of massing is reduced through several design elements: (a) the bicycle hub’s location at the corner of Wolfe and Pruneridge Avenue anchors a pedestrian-oriented frontage including a plaza area; (b) articulated walls; (c) the preservation of large-scaled property line trees which create a landscape buffer zone at the exterior of the property on all sides, including Wolfe Road and I-280; (d) community buildings and amenity areas utilize larger glass facades or windows; 247 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016 (e) the buildings step down along city streets so that the tallest portion of the buildings are within the center of the site. The spaces between buildings are activated with a series of interior walkways, courtyards on all quadrants, and amenity spaces. These spaces also provide visual relief, gathering places, and walking/biking proximity and accessibility to Apple Campus 2 and other off-site resources. The design elements support the intent of attracting a demographic that prefers to be less dependent on cars and a more active lifestyle. Additional recommendations by the consulting architect are included in the conditions of approval. Landscaping and Tree Removal The proposed landscape plan seeks to create a California native palette, establish a unified identity and conserve water. The applicant would continue the recycled water extension from the north on Wolfe Road to its project. The demolition of the existing complex would result in the removal of 276 of the 433 existing trees from the center of the site. The majority of redwood trees along the property line perimeter would be preserved to maintain both the character of the site and the buffer between the buildings and city streets. Trees proposed for removal along the perimeter are limited to those not suitable for preservation to those that are in poor condition. The majority of the species of the trees proposed for removal are Fern pine, Southern magnolia, London plane, Purpleleaf plum, Callery pear, Evergreen pear, Coast redwood, and Chinese elm. While not protected by species as defined by Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18, these trees are protected under the category of “approved development tree,” because they were part of a development plan for the originally-approved Hamptons. Therefore, replacement plantings are required for those proposed for removal. 396 additional trees, within the range of 36”-60” box sizes, are proposed to be planted as part of the new landscape plan as shown on plan sheet L2.00. The schedule of species, number, size and locations are additionally detailed in the tree survey within the IS/MND’s technical appendix and plan sheets L5.00 and L6.00-L6.11. Transportation/Parking Traffic Impact Analysis. The General Plan EIR (“GP EIR”) included an analysis of 820 additional units for the site; however, the proposed project would have only 600 additional units on the project site. A detailed discussion of methodology and intersection analyses is within the IS/MND, page 5-81 and technical appendix. At a project-level analysis, the project would not cause any impacts per se. However, the GP EIR analyzed a number of projects, some of which were not finally adopted in the GP. The GP EIR showed that cumulatively, through the build-out horizon of 2040, traffic impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable and a statement of overriding consideration was adopted after ensuring that all feasible mitigation measures were included. Since the project is tiering off that GP EIR, it would have to comply with all pertinent mitigation measures as outlined in the GP EIR. These include: 248 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016  Implementation of General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF‐1 requires the City to commit to preparing and implementing a Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (TMFP) to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF‐1, which was previously adopted by the City and incorporated into the General Plan, will be implemented by the City. General Plan Policy M-10.2 requires the City to enact a transportation impact fee for new development to ensure sustainable funding levels for the Transportation Improvement Plan (General Plan Policy M-10.1), and General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF‐1 requires the City to commit to preparing and implementing a Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (TMFP) to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards. As part of the preparation of the TMFP, the City is required to prepare a nexus study, for which the process is currently underway. Because the project is part of the projected General Plan development allocation, the project is required to contribute its fair share. The TMFP has not yet been adopted; therefore, as a condition of project approval the project, and included on the development agreement, the project will contribute its fair share of the cost to accommodate cumulative traffic improvement needs due to build out of the General Plan. That amount is currently estimated to be $3,000 per net new residential unit. If a traffic impact fee is adopted that is less than this estimate prior to the time that the final building permit is issued, the applicant will only be required to pay the amount of the fee. If a traffic impact fee is adopted that is more than this estimate, the applicant will only be required to pay the estimated fee and not the higher, actual fee. Transportation alternatives. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program proposes:  Transportation coordinator  Communications/information to tenants  Rideshare facilitation  Walking and biking routes designed into the complex  Bicycle hub  Unbundled parking  VTA eco passes  Contribution to potential/future Transportation Management Association and proposed shuttle/rideshare stop at project frontage The concept behind unbundled parking is that no parking is truly free and can be presented as an option. Residents would only pay for the actual cost of parking, that which they use. The cost of resident parking is separated from rental costs and may either reduce the incentive to own a 249 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016 car as residents are charged per space, or reduce transportation costs for those who would already choose the alternative options. Parking. Multi-family developments are currently required by the Municipal Code to have two parking spaces per unit, regardless of bedroom count. A parking demand study is required when an applicant is proposing a parking ratio of less than two spaces per unit for Planned Development zoning. The project proposes a parking ratio of 1.8 per unit (1696 spaces for 942 units). Fehr & Peers conducted a third party parking demand study in April 2016 as scoped by the City. The third party studies included on-site studies of two sites within the City of Cupertino, entire “old and new” (circa 1972 plus circa 2014 units) Biltmore Apartments site and existing Hamptons, between the hours of midnight and 3 a.m. on a weekday to determine a projected parking demand; due to limited/gated access to residence-only parking facilities, Arioso was studied qualitatively only based upon information about the site, including their use of unbundled parking, in which parking is not “free” or hidden within the cost of rent. Rather , each unit is assigned one space per unit and each additional car pays separately for the space. While no two sites are identical, the sites were selected as those that most closely resemble the future operations of the proposed project. The results are detailed within Attachment CC-9 and summarized as follows: Profile Hamptons (existing) 19500 Pruneridge Ave. 1/2/3 bedrooms Biltmore Stevens Creek & Blaney Ave. 1/2 bedrooms (entire development) Arioso 19608 Pruneridge Ave. 1/2 bedrooms Occupancy rate 96% 95% 95% Parking spaces total 603 479 379 Residential units 342 259 201 Assigned parking 356 259 201 Open guest parking 182 220 31 Unbundled parking (charge for extra space) n/a n/a 167 Parking demand ratio per study 1.7 1.8 1.6 The parking ratio of 1.8 can be supported for this site because: 1. existing multi-family sites within Cupertino located along arterials are shown to adequately accommodate parking with a ratio of less than 2 spaces per unit in a high occupancy rate scenario; 250 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016 2. A previous 2010 parking demand study at the existing Hamptons complex indicated the project had adequate parking at a development approved ratio (supply) of 1.76 per unit with demand at 1.7 per unit; 3. The average parking demand ratio for surveyed apartments is 1.69; 4. 68% of the mix of unit size within the proposed Hamptons redevelopment is either a studio or one bedroom unit, whereas for the existing Hamptons, more than half of the units are 2 or 3 bedrooms. 5. the application provides alternative transportation options through both programming and site design; 6. the location of the site is in close proximity to employment centers, shopping, schools and quick access to major routes, which allows alternative transportation options to be more realistic. 7. there is no single-family residential neighborhood within reasonable walking distance with on-street parking or other public parking facility; lack of parking would potentially cause spillover and conflict/impact to adjacent parking facilities, but no such scenario exists in this location. Nearby parking facilities are privately controlled and monitored. Development Agreement Community benefits. Standard and required impact fees such as housing, parks, and schools are not included in the consideration of public benefits. Public benefits are characterized as those voluntary contributions beyond required fees, outlined as follows and to be included in the development agreement. These are the proposed contributions by IAC at Cupertino LLC, a limited liability corporation created by Irvine Company for this project: 1. Civic facilities, $7,000,000 2. Extend reclaimed water line for potable water conservation, $1,800,000 3. Wolfe Interchange project, $7,000,000 4. Santa Clara Unified School District, $2,400,000. In 1997, the property was mapped and recorded in the Santa Clara Unified School District service boundaries. 5. Transportation Demand Association set-up, $250,000 6. Transportation Demand Association operations, $50,000 per year Other exhibits within the development agreement include these terms and conditions: 1. Affordable housing relocation agreement a. Reimbursement to the City for costs of relocation consistent with state law, including moving expenses, rent differential, storage costs and utility connection charges; b. Preparation and implementation of a relocation plan through third-party consultant accountable to the City; c. Offer of comparable units at the North Park Apartment Homes in San Jose at the same rent as was charged for the original BMR units; d. Right of first refusal to return to new Hamptons units once constructed. 251 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016 e. After approval of the project, a relocation consultant will prepare a plan, to be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Once the plan is approved and executed, the consultant would provide a monthly report to the City and Developer regarding the progress of the relocation. 2. Affordable housing agreement and declaration of restrictive covenants. While some provisions in this agreement overlap with the above relocation agreement, the housing agreement covers the broader terms of the BMR units ongoing such as: a. Suspension period. Suspension of rental of the original 34 affordable units recognizes the events that must occur during the interim period, such as the relocation noticing period, the relocation process, demolition of existing development, and the construction process for the new project. b. Relocation of BMR tenants, as discussed above. c. Provisions for construction of project and affordable units. d. Rent regulatory provisions and occupancy covenants, including unit counts per income category. 3. Existing impact fees While providing community benefits, development agreements also provide certainty for the applicant. With respect the park impact fees, the applicants’ liability is capped for 18 months after the effective date of the agreement as defined within section 4.1.2 of the development agreement. 4. Transportation demand management (TDM) program Discussed in previous section regarding transportation/parking. 5. Annual review form. The compliance report, covering the obligations met within the previous calendar year for the development agreement, is due annually to the City on January 31st. Staff recommends additional language to clarify the terms within the development agreement regarding affordable housing (BMR units), specifically that there is no credit given for any time that the BMR units are not available to the City. PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH The following is a brief summary of the noticing completed for the project: 252 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016 PUBLIC COMMENTS Written comments received as of the production of this report are included in Attachment CC- 11. Members of the public who attended the May 10, 2016 hearing included those in support of the project and those who commented on specific topics. Staff also received comments by phone. A summary of the comments with clarifications and responses are as follows: Comment/question Response Concern about parks and impact or overcrowding other existing parks. The proposed project provides 35% of landscape area and 60% open space. Plans include onsite programming and facilities such as pool, 32,000 square feet of residential amenity space, outdoor seating areas, children’s play area, walking paths and bicycle hub. Additionally, the project is required to pay a parks impact fee. Traffic concerns; impacts cannot be solved with fees. Given the complexity of traffic issues, traffic is addressed through more than one approach, with the overall goal of reducing dependence on cars, reducing single occupancy vehicles and providing safe and reliable transportation alternatives. Traffic impact fees should be paid. As implementation of the GP EIR mitigation measure TRAF-1, the applicant would pay the traffic impact fee according to terms identified within the conditions of approval and development agreement. Separately, Irvine Company has also agreed to make a contribution to the Wolfe interchange. Why the emphasis on bicycles? As recognized within the Mobility Element of the General Plan, Cupertino’s transportation networks are multi-faceted and extend beyond accommodating cars. Other modes must be Public Notice Agenda  Legal ad placed in newspaper at least 10 days prior to the hearing  Mailed notice of public hearing to property owners within 300 feet radius  Posted site notice on two property lines abutting street  Project updates provided to subscribers of e- notices on www.cupertino.org  Community meeting held on October 26, 2015  Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board at least one week prior to the hearing  Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site at least one week prior to the hearing 253 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016 Comment/question Response considered. Policy M-2.3 for Connectivity is to “promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve connectivity between planning areas, neighborhoods and services, and foster a sense of community.” Is there a location for shuttles and rideshare? Irvine Company proposes a shuttle/rideshare stop near the parking lot entrance on the south side of Pruneridge Avenue along their project frontage. Tree removal Trees within the interior of the site are proposed for removal. The majority of perimeter trees are being preserved. Concern with displaced residents. A tenant relocation plan would be prepared upon the approval of this application and would be reviewed at a future City Council hearing. The tenant relocation plan would be required to meet state law requirements, including advance written notice provided to all residents and comprehensive, relocation benefits for below market rate housing tenants. Concerns with schools. The project is located within the Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD). The project is subject to paying impact fees to the district and has made a one-time voluntary contribution of $2.4 million. Residents have the ability to file a request with the SCUSD that their children remain within the same school if they move within SCUSD. However, placement decisions are within the authority of the SCUSD and city staff relayed such information as a courtesy and not a commitment. Sidewalks around the complex. Pedestrian pathways are proposed around and throughout the site. Concern with affordable (BMR) housing. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to increase the number of onsite BMR units in exchange for the impact fee. Previously, the applicant proposed 34 units for an additional 12 years. The current proposal is for 62 BMR units for the life of the project. PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT This application is not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 – 65964) because a development agreement is a legislative act and shall be enacted by ordinance 254 DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01 Hamptons Redevelopment June 21, 2016 only after a public hearing before the City Council. However, the application is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Guideline 15107, which states that the IS/MND must be adopted 180 days after the application is accepted as complete. Sixty days after adoption of the IS/MND, the lead agency must approve, disapprove or conditionally approve the project. In this case, the application and IS/MND are being concurrently presented. The application was deemed completed on March 15, 2016. Therefore, final action on the project must be completed by September 15, 2016. NEXT STEPS After the first reading of the ordinance for the development agreement, a second reading of the ordinance would be scheduled for July 5, 2016. All approvals granted by the City Council regarding the ordinance and development agreement shall go into effect after 30 days of the second reading of the project. __________________________________ Prepared by: Catarina Kidd, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved by: David Brandt, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: CC-1 City Council Resolution for Development Plan DP-2015-04 and Environmental assessment EA-2015-03 CC-2 City Council Resolution for Architectural and Site Approval, ASA-2015-13 CC-3 City Council Resolution for Use Permit U-2015-05 CC-4 City Council Resolution for Tree Removal Permit, TR-2015-21 CC-5 City Council Ordinance for Development Agreement, DA-2015-01 CC-5A Development Agreement CC-6 Planning Commission minutes and staff report, May 10, 2016 CC-7 Final Planning Commission Resolutions (Nos. 6802-6806) CC-8 Environmental Review Committee recommendation CC-9 Parking demand study, Fehr & Peers, dated May 4, 2016 CC-10 Architectural review, Studios Architecture, dated September 16, 2015 CC-11 Comments received CC-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Technical appendices available online: http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1306 CC-13 Response to IS/MND comments, Placeworks, dated June 9, 2016 CC-14 Project plans 255 ATTACHMENT CC-1 DP-2015-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 16-_______ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF A 342 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX (THE HAMPTONS) AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 942 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX IN A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 19500 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: DP-2015-04 and File No. EA-2015-03 Applicant: Carlene Matchniff Property Owner: Irvine Company Location: 19500 Pruneridge Ave (APN: 369-06-032, 316-06-037) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for a Development Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 10, 2016 and recommended that the City Council approve the application, subject to conditions, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: a) The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; The project site is located in an area designated for residential land uses in the General Plan and would contribute to additional improvements to the area, including bicycle and pedestrian linkages. The project is 256 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 designed to minimize impact upon the surrounding community and the environment. Centrally located amenities and recreation areas promote use of on-site resources, which increases opportunities for a sense of community and reduction of vehicle miles traveled. The spaces between buildings are activated with a series of interior walkways, courtyards on all quadrants, and amenity spaces. These spaces also provide visual relief, gathering places, and walking/biking proximity and accessibility to Apple Campus 2 and other off-site resources. The design elements support the intent of attracting a demographic that prefers to be less dependent on cars and a more active lifestyle, which promotes public health. b) The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the City’s zoning ordinances. The proposed development will be located on parcels identified within the General Plan as part of the North Vallco Gateway, located within North Vallco Park special planning area. The North Vallco Park area is envisioned to become a sustainable office and campus environment surrounded by a mix of connected, high- quality and pedestrian-oriented neighborhood center, hotels and residential uses. Taller heights may be allowed in the North Vallco Gateway per the Land Use and Community Design Element and additional residential development may be allowed per the Housing Element. The proposal is consistent with height, setback, density and unit count prescribed within the General Plan. The site is within a planned development zoning district that allows multi-family residential development (“P(Res)”). Therefore the residential proposal is consistent with the purpose of the City’s zoning ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof, 1. The application for a Development Permit, Application no. DP-2015-04 is hereby approved; and 2. A mitigated negative declaration with a mitigation monitoring report (file no. EA-2015-03) is hereby adopted; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no.(s) DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of June 21, 2016, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on (1) the architectural, civil, landscape and signage plan set dated received January 29, 2016 consisting of ninety (90) sheets labeled “The Hamptons Redevelopment” and prepared by Arquitectonica, BKF, Olin and RSM Design; (2) colors and materials board dated October 13, 2015 and prepared by Arquitectonica; (3) perspective exhibits labeled “Amenity Deck Views” dated July 29, 2015 prepared by Arquitectonica; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 257 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01, and shall be applicable to this approval. 3. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS Development Permit approval is granted for 942 new apartment units and demolition of the existing 342 unit apartment complex. The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project considered major by the Director of Community Development. 4. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 4. ODOR ABATEMENT SYSTEMS Odor abatement systems shall be installed for all new eating establishments and common food preparation areas. The design of the odor abatement system will be finalized at the building permit stage. Equipment associated with the odor abatement systems shall be appropriately screened if visible from the public right-of-way. 5. LOT LINES A lot line adjustment shall be processed as a separate application to meet the requirements of the California Building Code and to meet the specific terms of the development agreement regarding a lot tying agreement, which shall be reviewed by the city attorney’s office prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. 6. SIGNAGE AND SIGN PROGRAM Signage is not approved with this application. A separate sign program and building permit shall be required prior to the installation of any signage. Signage shall conform to the regulations stipulated in the City’s Sign Ordinance, unless otherwise approved with a sign program. 7. PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT The final design, display, and location of the public art shall be brought before the Fine Arts Commission for review and approval. The minimum expenditure for the artwork, including but not limited to design, fabrication, and installation, is one-quarter of one percent, with an expenditure cap of one hundred thousand dollars. 8. HOUSING MITIGATION For residential projects, a housing mitigation fee is required and must be paid as defined within the development agreement. 9. TRAFFIC MITIGATION The applicant shall contribute a fair share amount according to specified terms of the development agreement pertaining to traffic impact fees. 10. CONDOMINIUMIZATION 258 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 Parcelization/condominiumization of units is not approved as part of this project. Any proposed changes to the map shall require further City review and approval. 11. CIRCULATION AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS The project shall maintain the total amount of proposed parking of 1696 car parking stalls at the ratio of 1.8 spaces per unit and 377 bicycle parking stall. Changes to the number of provided parking stalls will require further City review and approval. 12. BICYCLE PARKING CLASS All provided bicycle parking shall be identified as Class 1 bicycle parking and be consistent with the City’s requirements to the satisfaction of Director of Community Development. 13. SITE LIGHTING All new lighting must conform to the standards in the Parking Regulations Ordinance, and the final lighting plan (including a detailed photometric plan) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to building permit issuance. A report from a licensed lighting engineer may be required to confirm all exterior lighting throughout the site complies with the City’s Ordinance. 14. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. A line of sight plan may be required to demonstrate that the equipment will not be visible from any public right-of-way. The location of the equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 15. SCREENING OF UTILITY STRUCTURES All new utility structures shall be located underground or screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and the Public Works Department. 16. NOISE LEVELS AND ABATEMENT Project construction and use shall comply with the City’s Community Noise Control Ordinance at all times. Should the project exceed any of the stipulated maximum noise levels outlined in the City’s Community Noise Control Ordinance, an acoustical engineer may be required to submit noise attenuation measures to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development at the applicant’s expense. 17. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A demolition and construction management plan shall be submitted and reviewed prior to building permit issuance. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall arrange for a pre-construction meeting with the pertinent departments (Building, Planning, and Public Works) to review the prepared construction management plan, to ensure that construction complies with the conditions of approval, staging of construction equipment is appropriate, tree protection measures are in place, public access routes are identified is defined, and noise and dust control measures are established. 259 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 18. CONSTRUCTION HOURS Construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 am to 8 pm and Saturday and Sunday, 9 am to 6 pm. Construction activities are not allowed on holidays. Maximum noise levels are delineated in the City’s Community Noise Control Ordinance. The developer shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions. Rules and regulations pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site. 19. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials were recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 20. DUST CONTROL The following construction practices shall be implemented during all phases of construction for the proposed project to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the site: a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods to prevent visible dust from leaving the site; active areas adjacent to windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives. b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard; c) Pave, apply water at least three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. d) Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. e) The applicant shall incorporate the City’s construction best management practices into the building permit plan set. 21. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Per the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program based on the Initial Study dated April 15, 2016, titled “Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, The Hamptons Redevelopment Project,” prepared by PlaceWorks and adopted as Mitigated Negative Declaration EA-2015-03, the following is an outline of mitigation measures that apply: a. Mitigation Measure AQ-1a: The project’s construction contractor shall comply with the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing construction emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5):  Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. 260 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016  Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.  Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).  Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.  Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.  Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.  Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).  Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph).  Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.  Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways b. Mitigation Measure AQ-1b: During construction, the construction contractor(s) shall use construction equipment fitted with engines that meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)-Certified Tier 3 emissions standards for equipment of 50 horsepower or more. The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City of Cupertino Building Division official or their designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall properly service and maintain construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The construction contractor shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with CARB Rule 2449. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Cupertino Planning Department and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement for US EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. c. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code. If construction activities and any required tree removal occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August 31), a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct surveys prior to tree removal or construction activities. Preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction activities outside the nesting period. If construction would occur during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or construction. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped. Locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be documented and protective measures implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. Protective measures shall include establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange 261 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by a qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active nest within an exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status. The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active. d. Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives from the City and the archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the City shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) would be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out. e. Mitigation Measure CULT-2: In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the project proponent determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project based on the qualities that make the resource important. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. f. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The project applicant shall adhere to the seismic design criteria for the maximum estimated ground shaking (i.e., peak ground acceleration of 0.58 gravity (g) as recommended in the recent 2015 geotechnical investigation for the proposed project. 262 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 g. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prior to issuing building permits, the City shall require the project applicant to consult with a corrosion protection engineer in order to develop specific recommendations regarding corrosion protection for buried metal pipe or buried metal pipe- fittings. The project applicant shall implement the recommendations during construction to be verified by the City’s Building Department. 22. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 23. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 24. CONSULTING ARCHITECT REVIEW The applicant shall incorporate the final comments of the consulting architect dated September 15, 2015 as follows, which shall be reviewed by the City’s consulting architect prior to application and issuance of a building permit: a. The water feature should be sized appropriately given the severe drought conditions. b. A stronger connection between the arrival plaza and the first amenity level should be introduced. c. Program elements such as the Bicycle Hub and Resident Members Club areas should be well grounded with a mix of elements that ensure the vitality of public plaza areas. Site furnishings should be identified to define spaces for interaction. 25. CITY ARBORIST REVIEW Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a peer review of the tree management plan shall be conducted to confirm condition of trees slated for preservation or transplant, review replacement plantings, verify installation of tree protection measures prior to demolition, grading or other sit e work. The project arborist shall provide an installation report prior to final sign-off of the building permit by the Planning Division. 26. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) In addition to the proposed TDM as prepared by the applicant, the following shall be added to the program contents:  Participate in fair-share contribution if and when a Transportation Management Association (TMA) is formed.  Provide VTA eco passes to residents who have one or no car per residential unit and to employees of Irvine Company. 263 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 27. ANNUAL REPORT The applicant and/or other designated respresentative for the project, such as the transportation coordinator, shall file an annual report to the Community Development Director on January 31st of each year, detailing the progress of the terms within the development agreement and conditions of approval. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 28. WOLFE ROAD CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT CONTRIBUTION The developer will be required to provide a financial contribution to the Wolfe Road Corridor Improvement Project to be established by the City. The contribution will be based on fair-share portion of the improvements as established by the Wolfe Road Corridor Study to be conducted subsequent to the adoption of City’s 2040 General Plan. The scope of the improvements may include widening of Wolfe Road, modifications or replacement of the Wolfe Road overcrossing, and modifications to the Hwy 280/Wolfe Road interchange. 29. MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS The Developer shall retrofit the street median to be consistent with the recent improvements performed on the Wolfe Rd medians located between Pruneridge Ave and Homestead Rd. The Development Application plans shall show this work, and shall clearly indicate all of the trees that will be removed due to facilitate the median improvements. Planting plans and irrigation plans will be required prior to issuance of permits for the project, unless permitted otherwise by the Director of Public Works. 30. RECLAIMED WATER As part of Development Agreement, the developer may be required, at the discretion of the Director of Public Works, to extend a reclaimed water main from the intersection of Wolfe and Homestead Roads. 31. LOT MERGER Prior to approval of the Building permit, a lot merger will be required. Proposed building cannot straddle between parcel lines. 32. STREET WIDENING Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 33. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. For the proposed emergency access off of Wolfe Road, Public Works recommends a mountable curb rather than a standard driveway. Details to be addressed at the street improvement plan stage. 34. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS 264 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 Developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle related improvements consistent with the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines, and as approved by the City Engineer. 35. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 36. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 37. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre- and post- development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on-site (e.g., via buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid an increase of the ten percent flood water surface elevation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be directed away from neighboring private properties and to the public right of way as much as reasonably possible. 38. All storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words “No Dumping – Flows to Creek” using permanently affixed metal medallions or equivalent, as approved by the Environmental Programs Division. 39. BICYCLE PARKING Developer shall provide bicycle parking consistent with the City’s requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 40. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits: Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: Per current fee schedule ($2,788.00 or 5%) b. Grading Permit: Per current fee schedule ($2,618.00 or 6%) c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: TBD e. Power Cost: Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC 265 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 f. Map Checking Fees: Per current fee schedule ($8,831.00) g. Park Fees: Per current fee schedule h. Street Tree: By Developer Bonds: i. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements j. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement k. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 41. C.3 REQUIREMENTS  C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S.F. or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures, for storm water treatment, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer.  The project is located in a Hydromodification Management (HM) area and will create and/or replace one acre or more of impervious surface. The project must comply with the Post- Construction Hydromodification Management requirements which entail HM projects to demonstrate that post-project runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project runoff rates and durations.  The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required.  All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third party reviewer. 42. TRASH, RECYCLING AND COMPOST ENCLOSURES Trash enclosure plans must be designed in accordance with the City’s “Public Works Guidelines posted at www.cupertino.org/nowaste, and to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. Clearance by the Public Works Department is required prior to obtaining a building permit. (CMC 9.18.210 H & K) The following items must be met:  All three trash compactors must be enclosed by a roof with a minimum of 24’ clearance. Roof clearance is needed to service compactors without dragging on pavement from enclosure. 266 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016  Compression pad in front of compactors must be reinforced concrete to withstand truck wear and prevent pavement damage.  Compactor trash enclosure must be sufficiently insulated with sound attenuating materials to meet municipal code sound level thresholds during operation (50 dBA day and 60 dBA night). Environmental Programs staff recommends that Planning Division require an acoustical engineering report to demonstrate code compliance.  Applicant must install sanitary sewer clean out at all locations where fire sprinkler safety tests are conducted since there will be not be sufficient landscaping to discharge test water. Alternatively, discharged test water may be collected in a tank truck for re-use as landscape irrigation water. If the latter is chosen, written agreement by the property owner must be provided and a copy maintained on-site and filed with the Environmental Programs Division. 43. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to final occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non-standard appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk, pavers, and street lights. 44. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 45. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 46. WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS Domestic and Fire Water Backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment shall be placed away from the public right of way and site driveways to a location approved by the Cupertino Planning Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department and the water company. 47. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 48. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT 267 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 49. EROSION CONTROL PLAN Developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 50. WORK SCHEDULE Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project. 51. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 52. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 53. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 54. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include written approval of the location of any proposed Fire Backflow Preventers, Fire Department Connections and Fire Hydrants (typically Backflow Preventers should be located on private property adjacent to the public right of way, and fire department connections must be located within 100’ of a Fire Hydrant). 55. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 56. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE Provide California Water Service Company approval for water connection, service capability and location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers before issuance of a building permit approval. 57. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES 268 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 Developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with California Water Services Company for water service to the subject development. 58. DEDICATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS Developer shall “quit claim” to the City all rights to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara Valley. 59. SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to issuance of building permits. 60. UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, AT&T, and California Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building permits. SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS 1. Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official. CFC Sec. 503 and SCCFD SD&S A-1 2. FIRE ENGINE ACCESS 1. Minimum clear width: The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shall be 20 feet. Modifications to the design or width of a fire access road, or additional access road(s) may be required when the fire code official determines that access to the site or a portion thereof may become compromised due to emergency operations or nearby natural or manmade hazards (flood prone areas, railway crossings, bridge failures, hazardous material-related incidents, etc.) 2. Access and loading: Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road (including bridges and culverts) with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34050 kg) or as otherwise determined by the fire code official. 3. Minimum clear height: Vertical clearance over required vehicular access roads and driveways shall be 13'6". 4. Grade: Maximum grade shall not exceed 15% (6.75 degrees). 5. Turn Radius (circulating): The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required access roadways. Greater radius up to 60 feet may be required where the Fire Department determines that Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating refers to travel along a roadway 269 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 without dead ends. 6. Turning Radius (Cui-de-sacs): The minimum outside turning radius is 36 feet. Use of cui-de-sacs is not acceptable where it is determined by the Fire Department that Ladder Truck access is required, unless greater turning radius is provided. 7. Turnarounds: Turnarounds are required for all dead end roadways with a length in excess of 150 feet. The turnaround details shown in this document are intended to provide a general design concept only. Modifications or variations of these designs may be approved by the Fire Department on a case-by-case basis. All turnaround designs submitted for Fire Department review shall meet all previously stated requirements. These details are applicable when a 36-foot minimum turning radius for dead ends is specified. These details are not applicable where turning radius greater than 36 feet is specified or when a circulating radius is specified. 8. Dead ends: Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (45720 mm) shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions as determined by the fire code official. 9. Parking: When parking is permitted on streets, in both residential/commercial applications, it shall conform to the following: - parking is permitted both sides of the street with street widths of 36 feet or more - parking is permitted on one side of the street with street widths of 28-35 feet - no parking is permitted when street widths are less than 28 feet NOTE: Rolled curbs can be part of the curb I sidewalk and used to increase the roadway width with approval from the fire code official. Additional requirements may apply for buildings 30 feet in height or greater. See requirements under AERIAL FIRE APPARTUS ACCESS ROADS. 10. Access to a hydrant: Fire hydrants located on a public or private street, or on-site, shall have an unobstructed clearance of not less than 30 feet (15 feet either side of hydrant), in accordance with California vehicle code 22514. Marking shall be per California vehicle code 22500.1 11. Traffic calming: Traffic calming devices and the design thereof shall be approved by the fire department. CFC Sec. 503 and SCCFD SD&S A-1 3. TIMING OF REQUIRED ROADWAY INSTALLATIONS Required access roads, up through first lift of asphalt, shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of combustible construction. During construction, emergency access roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded. Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. Temporary access roads may be approved on a case by case basis. CFC Sec. 501 4. PRIVATE ON-SITE FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED (NOTE: Exact square footage of new residential buildings is not provided) Provide private on-site fire hydrant(s) installed per NFPA Std. #24, at location(s) to be determined by the Fire Department. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet, with a minimum acceptable flow of TBD GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Prior to design, the project civil engineer shall meet with the fire department water supply officer to jointly spot the required fire hydrant locations. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B, Table B105.1 and Appendix C 5. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings and 270 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 structures. Exception: Group A, B, E, F, I, L, M, S and U occupancy buildings and structures that do not exceed 1,000 square feet of building area and that are not located in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. NOTE: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. A State of California licensed (C -16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CFC Sec. 903.2 as adopted and amended by CUPMC 6. POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2007 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7 7. TIMING OF REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY INSTALLATIONS Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, and accepted. CFC Sec. 501 8. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 14 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. 9. EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE Ground-ladder rescue from second and third floor rooms shall be made possible for fire department operations. With the climbing angle of seventy five degrees maintained, an approximate walkway width along either side of the building shall be no less than seven feet clear. Landscaping shall not be allowed to interfere with the required access. CFC Sec. 1029 10. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. CFC Sec. 505 SECTION VI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT 1. SANITARY SEWER AVAILABILITY 271 Resolution No. _______ DP-2015-04 and EA-2015-03 June 21, 2016 Sanitary sewer is currently available for the subject parcel. 2. IMPROVEMENT PLANS Improvement plans shall be submitted to the District for review and comments. 3. FEES AND PERMITS Cupertino Sanitary District fees and permits will be required. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 21st day of June 2016, by the following roll call vote: Vote: Members of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________ _______________________ Grace Schmidt Barry Chang City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 272 ATTACHMENT CC-2 ASA-2015-13 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF A 342 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX (THE HAMPTONS) AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 942 UNIT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON THE SAME SITE WITH ASSOCIATED SITE AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE AT 19500 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2015-13 Applicant: Carlene Matchniff Property Owner: Irvine Company Location: 19500 Pruneridge Ave (APN: 369-06-032, 316-06-037) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL: WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 10, 2016 and recommended that the City Council approve the application, subject to conditions, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 273 Resolution No. _____ ASA-2015-13 June 21, 2016 The project site is located in an area designated for residential land uses in the General Plan and would contribute to additional improvements to the area, including bicycle and pedestrian linkages. The project is designed to minimize impact upon the surrounding community and the environment. Centrally located amenities and recreation areas promote use of on-site resources, which increases opportunities for a sense of community and reduction of vehicle miles traveled. The spaces between buildings are activated with a series of interior walkways, courtyards on all quadrants, and amenity spaces. These spaces also provide visual relief, gathering places, and walking/biking proximity and accessibility to Apple Campus 2 and other off-site resources. The design elements support the intent of attracting a demographic that prefers to be less dependent on cars and a more active lifestyle, which promotes public health. 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.134, Architectural and Site Review, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, and applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances, conditional use permits, exceptions, subdivision maps, or other entitlements to use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria: a) Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bulk should be achieved between new and existing buildings; The Project avoids abrupt changes and provides a gradual transition by observing the height and setback requirements within the General Plan which specifies a 1:1 slope line drawn from the curb line of Pruneridge Avenue and Wolfe Road, a 75 feet height limit, and a 60 feet height limit within 50 feet of Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue and Apple 2 Campus. Existing perimeter trees, most of which are mature Coast redwoods, are being preserved to provide a landscape buffer zone between city streets, where there are existing buildings, and the proposed new buildings. b) In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with design and color schemes, and, with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting should harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots should be concealed. The planting of ground cover or various types of pavements should be used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees should be avoided. Lighting for development should be adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments, and provide shielding to prevent spill-over light to adjoining property owners; The orientation of residential units, in relation to public and private spaces, preserves harmony by providing a combination of privacy and natural light. Perception of massing is reduced through several design elements: (a) the bicycle hub’s location at the corner of Wolfe and Pruneridge Avenue anchors a pedestrian- oriented frontage including a plaza area; (b) articulated walls; (c) the preservation of large-scaled property line trees which create a landscape buffer zone at the exterior of the property on all sides, including Wolfe Road and I-280; 274 Resolution No. _____ ASA-2015-13 June 21, 2016 (d) community buildings and amenity areas utilize larger glass facades or windows; (e) the buildings step down along city streets so that the tallest portion of the buildings are within the center of the site. The spaces between buildings are activated with a series of interior walkways, courtyards on all quadrants, and amenity spaces. These spaces also provide visual relief, gathering places, and walking/biking proximity and accessibility to Apple Campus 2 and other off-site resources, these site and architectural design elements are consistent with the character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated, because the North Vallco Gateway special area is envisioned to become a sustainable office and campus environment surrounded by a mix of connected, high-quality and pedestrian-oriented neighborhood center, hotels and residential uses. The Hamptons redevelopment would contribute to the residential component of the special planning area. Parking lots are below grade or concealed within a podium structure. The landscape plan seeks to create a California native palette, establish a unified identity and conserve water. The site would have no exposed soils as the site plan accommodates the building footprint, landscape area and hardscape area. The applicant would continue the recycled water line extension from the north on Wolfe Road to its project. The demolition of the existing complex would result in the removal of 276 of the 433 existing trees from the center of the site. The majority of redwood trees along the property line perimeter would be preserved to maintain both the character of the site and the buffer between the buildings and city streets. Trees proposed for removal along the perimeter are limited to those not suitable for preservation to those in poor condition. The majority of the species of the trees proposed for removal are Fern pine, Southern magnolia, London plane, Purpleleaf plum, Callery pear, Evergreen pear, Coast redwood, and Chinese elm. While not protected by species as defined by Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18, these trees are protected under the category of “approved development tree,” because they were part of a development plan for the originally- approved Hamptons. Therefore, replacement plantings are required for those proposed for removal. 396 additional trees, within the range of 36”-60” box sizes, are proposed to be planted as part of the new landscape plan. A preliminary lighting and photometric plan has been provided for the site, and final lighting for the development would be reviewed with the construction documents to meet safety requirements while preventing spill-over light to adjacent properties. c) The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development; and Signage is not approved with this application. A separate sign program and building permit shall be required prior to the installation of any signage. Signage shall conform to the regulations stipulated in the City’s Sign Ordinance, unless otherwise approved with a sign program. d) With respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. The project meets this finding as discussed in Finding #2.b. above. 275 Resolution No. _____ ASA-2015-13 June 21, 2016 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 3 thereof: The application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Application No. ASA-2015-13, is hereby approved, and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. ASA-2015-13 as set forth in the Minutes of City Council Meeting of June 21, 2016, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on (1) the architectural, civil, landscape and signage plan set dated received January 29, 2016 consisting of ninety (90) sheets labeled “The Hamptons Redevelopment” and prepared by Arquitectonica, BKF, Olin and RSM Design ; (2) colors and materials board dated October 13, 2015 and prepared by Arquitectonica; (3) perspective exhibits labeled “Amenity Deck Views” dated July 29, 2015 prepared by Arquitectonica; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file no. DP-2015-04, TR-2015-21, U-2015-05, DA-2015-01, and EA-2015-03 and shall be applicable to this approval. 4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans. 5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS The final building design and exterior treatment plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits and through an in-field mock-up of colors prior to application. The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Portland Cement plaster and finish coat cut sheet shall be incorporated into the construction drawings with a “Santa Barbara Finish” or other comparable formula designed to provide a smooth, five-coat stucco finish texture over Portland Cement base coats. 276 Resolution No. _____ ASA-2015-13 June 21, 2016 6. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 7. INDEMNIFICATION Except as otherwise prohibited by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defen se of the litigation. The applicant shall pay such attorneys’ fees and costs within 30 days following receipt of invoices from City. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. 8. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 21st day of June 2016, by the following roll call vote: Vote: Members of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________ _______________________ Grace Schmidt Barry Chang City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 277 ATTACHMENT CC-3 U-2015-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 16-______ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BICYCLE HUB AND SEPARATE BAR FACILITY WITHIN A CLUB HOUSE LOCATED IN A 942 UNIT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT AT 19500 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: U-2015-05 Applicant: Carlene Matchniff Property Owner: Irvine Company Location: 19500 Pruneridge Ave (APN: 369-06-032, 316-06-037) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for a Conditional Use Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 10, 2016 and recommended that the City Council approve the application, subject to conditions, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; The bicycle hub provides a location at the corner of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue that anchors a pedestrian-oriented frontage including a plaza area. The programming would include a gathering space, 278 Resolution No. 6806 U-2015-05 May 10, 2016 repair shop, short-term bike rentals, lockers, restrooms and coffee and juice bar. A separate bar facility would be located within the clubhouse designated for residents only. Both amenities provide on-site resources that encourage car trip reduction for residents, which promotes public health, safety, general welfare, and convenience. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of this title. The bar facility within the clubhouse is a residential-serving amenity, located on a site designated as a multi-family residential land use, which is consistent with land use policies of the General Plan. The bicycle hub is intended to be both a resident and a community serving amenity, which is consistent with Goal LU-3, to ensure that project site planning and building design enhance the public realm and integrate with adjacent neighborhoods. The bicycle hub improves bicycle access by providing a gathering space, lockers, repair tools and bicycle rentals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof, the application for a Use Permit, Application no. U-2015-05 is hereby approved and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. U-2015-05 as set forth in the Minutes of City Council, dated June 21, 2016, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on (1) the architectural, civil, landscape and signage plan set dated received January 29, 2016 consisting of ninety (90) sheets labeled “The Hamptons Redevelopment” and prepared by Arquitectonica, BKF, Olin and RSM Design; (2) colors and materials board dated October 13, 2015 and prepared by Arquitectonica; (3) perspective exhibits labeled “Amenity Deck Views” dated July 29, 2015 prepared by Arquitectonica; and (4) “The Hub Program” as prepared by Irvine Company dated received January 29, 2016, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans. 279 Resolution No. 6806 U-2015-05 May 10, 2016 4. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file no. DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015- 05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01, and and shall be applicable to this approval. 5. EXPIRATION If the use for which this conditional use permit is granted and utilized has ceased or has been suspended for two year or more, this permit shall be deemed expired and a new use permit application must be applied for and obtained. 6. RESIDENT-SERVING AMENITY The bar facility shall be primarily a resident-serving amenity for residents and their guests and not a commercial use. Any changes to this condition require additional City review and modification to the use permit. 7. COMMUNITY-SERVING AMENITY As stated within the applicant’s program materials, the bicycle hub facility shall be an amenity space for Hamptons residents, Apple employees and residents of the surrounding community. 8. MODIFICATION OF USE PERMIT The Director of Community Development is empowered to make or allow adjustments to the operation of the amenities to address any documented problem or nuisance situation that may occur or changes proposed. 9. REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT The Director may initiate proceedings for revocation of the Use Permit in any case where, in the judgment of the Director: a. Substantial evidence indicates that the conditions of the conditional use permit have not been implemented, or b. Complaints are received related to the tenant under this use permit, and the complaints are not immediately addressed by the property management and/or the tenant, or c. Where the permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, in accord with the requirements of the municipal code. 10. LAW ENFORMENT SUPPORT The property owner shall address security concerns in the event that they arise to the satisfaction of the City. The property owner shall pay for any additional Sheriff enforcement time resulting from documented incidents in the development at the City’s contracted hourly rate with the Sheriff Department at the time of the incident. The City reserves the right to require additional security patrols and/or other measures as prescribed by the Sheriff’s Office or Code Enforcement. 280 Resolution No. 6806 U-2015-05 May 10, 2016 11. BUSINESS LICENSE The operator shall obtain a City of Cupertino business license prior to building permit issuance. 12. WINDOW DETAILS The windows for each the respective amenity shall be kept open and transparent to the greatest extent possible. The final floor plan, storefront design and window display shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 13. SIGNAGE Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform to the City Sign Code. 14. ODOR ABATEMENT Applicant shall install an odor abatement system to reduce odor impacts from any common food preparation area to the adjacent community. The odor abatement system shall be installed prior to final occupancy. Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 15. MECHANICAL AND OTHER EQUIPMENT SCREENING To the extent possible, unless demonstrated otherwise, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, all mechanical and other equipment shall be placed in areas not visible from the public street areas. In the event that it is not possible to locate such equipment away from the public street areas, all mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 16. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 17. INDEMNIFICATION Except as otherwise prohibited by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or procee ding brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs 281 Resolution No. 6806 U-2015-05 May 10, 2016 incurred in defense of the litigation. The applicant shall pay such attorneys’ fees and costs within 30 days following receipt of invoices from City. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. 18. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 21st day of June 2016, by the following roll call vote: Vote: Members of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________ _______________________ Grace Schmidt Barry Chang City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 282 ATTACHMENT CC-4 TR-2015-21 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. _______ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 277 TREES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 942-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATED AT 19500 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2015-21 Applicant: Carlene Matchniff Property Owner: Irvine Company Location: 19500 Pruneridge Ave (APN: 369-06-032, 316-06-037) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tree Removal Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 10, 2016 and recommended that the City Council approve the application, subject to conditions, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: a) That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s). The trees proposed for removal are all in conflict with the proposed new building and site improvements. The demolition of the existing complex would result in the removal of 276 of the 433 existing trees from the center of the site, where new buildings and landscape are proposed. The majority of redwood trees along the property 283 Resolution No. _______ TR-2015-21 June 21, 2016 line perimeter would be preserved to maintain both the character of the site and the buffer between the buildings and city streets. Trees proposed for removal along the perimeter are limited to those not suitable for preservation and/or those in poor condition. The majority of the species of the trees proposed for removal are Fern pine, Southern magnolia, London plane, Purpleleaf plum, Callery pear, Evergreen pear, Coast redwood, and Chinese elm. While not protected by species as defined by Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18, these trees are protected under the category of “approved development tree,” because they were part of a development plan for the originally-approved Hamptons. Therefore, replacement plantings are required for those proposed for removal. 396 additional trees, within the range of 36”-60” box sizes, are proposed to be planted as part of the new landscape plan as shown on plan sheet L2.00. The schedule of species, number, size and locations are additionally detailed in the tree survey within the IS/MND’s technical appendix and plan sheets L5.00 and L6.00-L6.11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof: The application for a Tree Removal Permit, application no. TR-2015-21 is hereby approved and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning application no. TR-2015-21 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of June 21, 2016 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on (1) the architectural, civil, landscape and signage plan set dated received January 29, 2016 consisting of ninety (90) sheets labeled “The Hamptons Redevelopment” and prepared by Arquitectonica, BKF, Olin and RSM Design; (2) colors and materials board dated October 13, 2015 and prepared by Arquitectonica; (3) perspective exhibits labeled “Amenity Deck Views” dated July 29, 2015 prepared by Arquitectonica; and (4) Tree Survey dated May 2015 prepared by HortScience, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans. 284 Resolution No. _______ TR-2015-21 June 21, 2016 4. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file no. DP-2015-04, EA-2015-03, ASA-2015-13, U-2015-05, TR-2015-21, DA-2015-01, and and shall be applicable to this approval. 5. TREE PROTECTION The existing trees to remain or transplanted shall be protected during construction per the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance (Chapter 14.18 of the Municipal Code). The City’s standard tree protection measures shall be listed on the plans, and protective fencing shall be installed around the trees to remain prior to issuance of building permits. A bond or letter of credit shall be posted based on the value of the trees prior to issuance of the demolition permit. A report ascertaining the good health of these trees shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. 6. REPLACEMENT PLANTING PLAN The final replacement planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. The variety, size, planting distance shall be consistent with the City’s requirements. The Director of Community Development shall have the discretion to require additional tree replacements as deemed necessary. An ISA Certified Arborist shall confirm that the replacement trees were planted properly and according to plan prior to final occupancy. 7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 8. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The applicant and City shall use best efforts to select mutually agreeable legal counsel to defend such action, and the applicant shall pay all compensation for such legal counsel, following the applicant’s receipt of invoices from City, together with reasonable supporting documentation. Such compensation shall include reasonable compensation paid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. If the applicant and the City cannot in good faith agree on joint counsel, the City shall have the right to retain counsel of its own choosing, separate from the applicant’s litigation counsel. 9. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified 285 Resolution No. _______ TR-2015-21 June 21, 2016 that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 21st day of June 2016, by the following roll call vote: Vote: Members of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________ _______________________ Grace Schmidt Barry Chang City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 286 ATTACHMENT CC-5 DA-2015-01 ORDINANCE NO. 16-_______ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND IAC AT CUPERTINO LLC, FOR THE HAMPTONS PROJECT LOCATED AT 19500 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE WHEREAS, IAC at Cupertino LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, (“IAC”) has a legal and equitable interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 12.44 acres located within the City of Cupertino (“City”) more particularly described and depicted in Exhibits A and B of the Development Agreement (defined below) (“Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is currently developed with 342 residential apartments that are owned and operated by IAC; and WHEREAS, on or about May 28, 2015, IAC applied for various approvals including a Development Permit (DP-2015-04), an Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2015-13), a Use Permit (U-2015-05), a Tree Removal Permit (TR-2015-21), and a Development Agreement (DA-2015-01) to redevelop its existing 342 unit apartment community on the Property with 942 apartment homes, approximately 32,000 square feet of resident amenity space, and associated facilities and infrastructure (“Project”); and WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 65864 through 68569.5 provide the statutory authority for development agreements between municipalities and parties with a fee or equitable interest in real property; and WHEREAS, Cupertino Municipal Code (“CMC”) Section 19.144.010 et seq., establishes additional procedures for review and approval of proposed development agreements by the City of Cupertino (“City”); and WHERAS, the City and IAC have negotiated a development agreement for the Project attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (“Development Agreement”); and WHEREAS, approval of the Development Agreement will provide IAC with assurances that its development of the Property in connection with the Project can proceed without disruption caused by a change in City planning and development policies and requirements, which assurance will thereby reduce the actual or perceived risk of planning, financing and proceeding with construction and use of the development and promote the achievement of the private and public objectives of the development; and WHEREAS, the terms of the Development Agreement include the following community benefits funded by IAC: 1. Civic facilities, $7,000,000 287 Ordinance No. 16-_______ June 21, 2016 2. Extend reclaimed water line for potable water conservation, $1,800,000 3. Wolfe Interchange project, $7,000,000 4. Santa Clara Unified School District, $2,400,000. In 1997, the property was mapped and recorded in the Santa Clara Unified School District service boundaries. 5. Transportation Demand Association set-up, $250,000 6. Transportation Demand Association operations, $50,000 per year WHEREAS, the Development Agreement includes terms regarding affordable housing relocation agreement, affordable housing agreement and declaration of restrictive covenants, existing impact fees, transportation demand management program and annual review form; and WHEREAS, the Project is the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resour ces Code section 21000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on May 10, 2016 recommended to the City Council adoption of the MND, and approval of the Development Permit, the Architectural and Site Approval Permit, the Use Permit, the Tree Removal Permit, and the Development Agreement, with the recommendation to negotiate the extension of the term of the original affordable housing agreement for the Project and consider a reduction in housing impact fees in exchange for additional affordable units by adoption of Resolutions Nos. 6802, 6803, 6804, 6805, 6806; and WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement was amended to extend the term of the original affordable housing agreement and to add additional affordable units to the Project, for a total of 62 affordable units, with a reduction in the housing impact fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: That after careful consideration of the facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the City Council based upon the findings described above, the public hearing record and the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2016, and subject to the conditions specified below: Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety. Section 2. The City Council, having considered the evidence received at the public hearing duly noticed and held for said proposed Development Agreement, finds that the community benefits outlined in the recitals are consistent with the General Plan because these benefits contribute to the quality of life and general livability for those who live and/or work in Cupertino. The proposed contributions can be set aside for the future provision of community 288 Ordinance No. 16-_______ June 21, 2016 amenities including transportation improvements, civic facilities, schools, water conservation, affordable and/or special needs housing. As Cupertino’s resident and worker population increase, additional amenities will be necessary to maintain and improve the livability of the community. The Community Benefit Program is one of the key tools the City will use to help finance and achieve those amenities that maintain and increase quality of life. In addition to the community benefits through the development agreement, the proposed application does not request any General Plan Amendments and is consistent with the General Plan and Housing Element development standards. Therefore, the City Council further finds that: A. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. B. The proposed Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the Project is located. C. The proposed Development Agreement is in conformity with and will promote public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice. D. The proposed Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare. E. The proposed Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values. F. The proposed Development Agreement will promote and encourage the development of the Project by providing a greater degree of requisite certainty. Section 3. The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement. This approval is based on the City Council’s consideration of and reliance on the MND and in accordance with the plans, details and descriptions contained therein, and in the Resolution adopting the MND. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Development Agreement, subject to such minor or technical revisions as may be approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days following its adoption. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 21st day of June 2016, and ENACTED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 5th day of July, 2016, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 289 Ordinance No. 16-_______ June 21, 2016 ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ _____________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang, Mayor, City of Cupertino 290 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Attention: City Manager Record for the Benefit of The City of Cupertino Pursuant to Government Code Section 27383 Space Above Reserved for Recorder’s Use Only DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE HAMPTONS BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF CUPERTINO AND IAC AT CUPERTINO LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company Effective Date: ____________________ ATTACHMENT CC-5A 291 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 -i- ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Definitions.............................................................................................................. 3 ARTICLE 2 EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM ............................................................................ 9 2.1 Effective Date ........................................................................................................ 9 2.2 Initial Term of Agreement ..................................................................................... 9 2.3 City Representations and Warranties ..................................................................... 9 2.4 Developer Representations and Warranties ......................................................... 10 ARTICLE 3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY ............................................................... 10 3.1 Vested Rights ....................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Life of Approvals ................................................................................................. 10 3.3 Permitted Uses ..................................................................................................... 11 3.4 Intentionally Deleted ............................................................................................ 11 3.5 Applicable Law .................................................................................................... 11 3.6 Timing of Development ....................................................................................... 12 3.7 Compliance with Laws ........................................................................................ 13 3.8 No Conflicting Enactments .................................................................................. 13 3.9 Changes in the Law .............................................................................................. 13 3.10 Initiatives and Referenda ..................................................................................... 13 3.11 Regulation by Other Public Agencies .................................................................. 14 3.12 No Reservation of Sanitary Sewer or Potable Water Capacity ............................ 14 3.13 Affordable Housing ............................................................................................. 14 ARTICLE 4 FEES ....................................................................................................................... 16 4.1 Impact Fees .......................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Processing Fees .................................................................................................... 18 4.3 Other Agency Fees ............................................................................................... 18 4.4 Taxes and Assessments ........................................................................................ 19 4.5 Connection Fees ................................................................................................... 19 4.6 Right to Challenge Fees ....................................................................................... 19 ARTICLE 5 PUBLIC BENEFITS ............................................................................................... 19 292 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page #46291703_v2 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 -ii- 5.1 Public Benefits Obligations ................................................................................. 19 5.2 City of Cupertino Business License ..................................................................... 20 5.3 Sales Tax Point of Sale Designation .................................................................... 21 5.4 Gateway Signage and Treatment ......................................................................... 21 ARTICLE 6 ANNUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................... 21 6.1 Annual Review..................................................................................................... 21 ARTICLE 7 COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................... 23 7.1 Subsequent Approvals ......................................................................................... 23 7.2 Scope of Review of Subsequent Approvals ......................................................... 23 7.3 Processing Applications for Subsequent Approvals. ........................................... 23 7.4 Other Agency Subsequent Approvals; Authority of City .................................... 24 ARTICLE 8 AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT AND PROJECT APPROVALS ................... 24 8.1 Amendment by Written Consent ......................................................................... 24 8.2 Project Approval Amendments ............................................................................ 24 8.3 Amendment of this Agreement ............................................................................ 25 8.4 Amendments to Development Agreement Statute ............................................... 25 8.5 Requirement for Writing ...................................................................................... 26 8.6 Reliance on Project MND .................................................................................... 26 8.7 Subsequent CEQA Review .................................................................................. 26 ARTICLE 9 INSURANCE, INDEMNITY AND COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE ....................................................................................... 26 9.1 Insurance Requirements ....................................................................................... 26 9.2 Indemnity and Hold Harmless ............................................................................. 27 9.3 Defense and Cooperation in the Event of a Litigation Challenge ....................... 27 ARTICLE 10 ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE ..................................................... 28 10.1 Assignment .......................................................................................................... 28 10.2 Release of Transferring Developer ...................................................................... 29 10.3 Assignment to Financial Institutions or Mortgagee ............................................. 29 10.4 Successive Assignment ........................................................................................ 29 ARTICLE 11 MORTGAGEE PROTECTION ............................................................................ 29 293 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page #46291703_v2 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 -iii- 11.1 Mortgagee Protection ........................................................................................... 29 11.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated .................................................................................... 30 11.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee ........................................................................... 30 11.4 No Supersedure .................................................................................................... 30 11.5 Mortgagee Requested Amendments .................................................................... 30 ARTICLE 12 DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION ........................................................ 31 12.1 Breach and Default .............................................................................................. 31 12.2 Withholding of Permits ........................................................................................ 31 12.3 Termination .......................................................................................................... 31 12.4 Specific Performance for Violation of a Condition ............................................. 31 12.5 Legal Actions. ...................................................................................................... 31 12.6 Rights and Remedies Are Cumulative ................................................................. 32 12.7 No Damages ......................................................................................................... 32 12.8 Resolution of Disputes ......................................................................................... 32 12.9 Surviving Provisions ............................................................................................ 33 ARTICLE 13 GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................................... 33 13.1 Condemnation ...................................................................................................... 33 13.2 Covenants Binding on Successors and Assigns and Run with Land ................... 33 13.3 Notice ................................................................................................................... 33 13.4 Permitted Delays .................................................................................................. 34 13.5 Counterparts ......................................................................................................... 35 13.6 Waivers ................................................................................................................ 35 13.7 Construction of Agreement .................................................................................. 35 13.8 Headings .............................................................................................................. 35 13.9 Severability .......................................................................................................... 35 13.10 Time is of the Essence ......................................................................................... 35 13.11 Extension of Time Limits .................................................................................... 35 13.12 Other Necessary Acts ........................................................................................... 36 13.13 Signatures ............................................................................................................. 36 13.14 Entire Agreement ................................................................................................. 36 294 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page #46291703_v2 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 -iv- 13.15 Estoppel Certificate .............................................................................................. 36 13.16 Recordation of Termination ................................................................................. 36 13.17 City Approvals and Actions ................................................................................. 37 13.18 Negation of Partnership ....................................................................................... 37 13.19 No Third Party Beneficiaries ............................................................................... 37 13.20 Governing State Law ........................................................................................... 37 13.21 Exhibits ................................................................................................................ 37 295 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement (“Agreement”), dated as of ______ (“Effective Date”), is entered into pursuant to the Development Agreement Law, by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and IAC AT CUPERTINO LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Developer”). Developer and City are referred to individually in this Agreement as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” R E C I T A L S This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of the Parties. The following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement; capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined are defined in Article 1 of this Agreement. A. In order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs and risks of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code (“Development Agreement Statute”) which authorizes a city and a developer having a legal or equitable interest in real property to enter into a binding, long-term development agreement establishing certain development rights in the property. B. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, the City Council of the City of Cupertino enacted Municipal Code section 19.144.010 et seq. (“Development Agreement Regulations”), which authorize the execution of development agreements and set forth the required contents and form of those agreements. The provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and the City’s Development Agreement Regulations are collectively referred to herein as the “Development Agreement Law.” C. Developer is the owner of that certain real property of approximately 12.44 acres in size (the “Property”) more particularly described and depicted in Exhibits A and B attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Property is currently developed with 342 residential apartments currently owned and operated by the Developer. D. Developer has submitted applications to the City for a Development Permit (DP- 2015-04) (the “Development Permit”), an Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2015- 13) (the “Architectural and Site Approval Permit”), a Use Permit (U-2015-05) (the “Use Permit”), a Tree Removal Permit (TR-2015-21) (the “Tree Removal Permit”), and a Development Agreement (DA-2015-01) (the “Development Agreement”), plus further applications for approvals necessary or convenient to develop the Property. These applications are in furtherance of the request by the Developer to redevelop an existing 342 unit apartment community on the Property with 942 apartment homes (600 Net New Residential Units), approximately 32,000 square feet of resident amenity space, and associated facilities and infrastructure (“Project”). E. The Project is the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code 296 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 2 section 21000 et seq.). The MND is tiered from the General Plan EIR in accordance with Sections 15152 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines and CEQA Section 21094. F. The Planning Commission on ______, 2016 recommended to the City Council certification of the MND, and approval of the Development Permit, the Architectural and Site Approval Permit, the Use Permit, the Tree Removal Permit, and the Development Agreement, with the recommendation to negotiate the extension of the term of the Original Declaration and consider a reduction in Housing Impact Fees in exchange for additional Affordable Units, _______ by adoption of Resolutions Nos. _______, _______, _______, ______, _______, and _______. G. Prior to or concurrently with approval of this Agreement, the City has taken or will take actions to review and plan for the future development and use of the Project (“Existing Approvals”). These include: 1. Certification of the MND by Resolution No. _____ adopted by the City Council on ______. 2. Approval of the Development Permit by Resolution No. _______ adopted by the City Council on _______; 3. Approval of the Architectural and Site Approval Permit by Resolution No. ________ adopted by the City Council on ______; 4. Approval of the Use Permit by Resolution No. _______ adopted by the City Council on ______; and 5. Approval of the Tree Removal Permit by Resolution No. _______ adopted by the City Council on ______. H. It is the intent of City and Developer to establish certain conditions and requirements related to review and development of the Project, which are or will be the subject of subsequent development applications and land use entitlements and this Agreement. I. City specifically finds, as required by Municipal Code section 19.144.110, that the Agreement will promote orderly growth and quality development in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan; is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the district in which the Property is located; will promote the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice; will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare; will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property value; and will promote and encourage the development of the Project by providing a greater degree of requisite certainty. J. City and Developer have reached mutual agreement and desire to voluntarily enter into this Agreement to facilitate development of the Project subject to the conditions and requirements set forth herein. 297 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 3 K. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this Agreement and has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and Municipal Code section 19.144.090. The City has reviewed and evaluated this Agreement in accordance with the Development Agreement Law and found that the provisions of this Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the Development Agreement Law and the goals, policies, standards and land use designations specified in the General Plan. L. On ______________ the City Council introduced Ordinance No. _________ approving this Agreement and authorizing its execution, and adopted that Ordinance on ____________ (the “Enacting Ordinance”). The Enacting Ordinance became effective on _______________. A G R E E M E N T NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein and other valuable consideration, the Parties hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 Definitions. “Administrative Agreement Amendment” is defined in Section 8.3.1. “Administrative Project Amendment” is defined in Section 8.2.1. “Affiliated Party” is defined in Section 10.1. “Affordable Housing Agreement” is defined in Section 3.13.4. “Affordable Units” is defined in Section 3.13.1. “Agreement” shall mean this Development Agreement between City and Developer, including all Exhibits hereto. “Applicable City Regulations” means (a) all City ordinances, rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications set forth in this Agreement and the Existing Approvals, including the specific conditions of approval adopted with respect to the Existing Approvals; (b) with respect to matters not addressed by this Agreement or the Existing Approvals but governing permitted uses of the Property; building locations, sizes, densities, intensities, design and heights; site design, setbacks, lot coverage and open space; parking; and Exactions, those ordinances, rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications in force and effect on the Effective Date; and (c) with respect to all other matters, including building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes, the ordinances, rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications in force and effect as may be enacted, adopted and amended from time to time, including New City Laws, except those in conflict with this Agreement or the Existing Approvals. 298 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 4 “Applicable Law” means the Applicable City Regulations and all State and Federal laws and regulations applicable to the Property and the Project as enacted, adopted and amended from time to time. City laws, rules, regulations and policies applicable to the Property and/or the Project are further described in Section 3.3. “Architectural and Site Approval Permit” is defined in Recital D. “Assignee” is defined in Section 10.1. “Assignment” is defined in Section 10.1.2. “CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq., as amended from time to time. “CEQA Guidelines” means the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq.), as amended from time to time. “Certificate” is defined in Section 6.1.4. “Changes in the Law” is defined in Section 3.9. “Civic Facilities Payment” is defined in Section 5.1.1.1. “City” means the City of Cupertino. “City Council” means to the City Council of the City of Cupertino. “City Manager” means the City’s City Manager or his or her designee. “City Parties” means and includes City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, contractors and representatives. “Citywide Transportation Impact Fee” is defined in Section 4.1.4.1. “Claims” means liabilities, obligations, orders, claims, damages, fines, penalties and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs. “Connection Fees” means those fees charged by City on a citywide basis or by a utility provider to utility users as a cost for connecting water, sanitary sewer, and other applicable utilities, except for any such fee or portion thereof that constitutes an Impact Fee, as defined below. “Construction Tax” is defined in Section 4.4. “Consumer Price Index” shall mean the United States Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumer, All Items, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, California, or the successor of such index. “Default” is defined in Section 12.1. 299 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 5 “Developer” means IAC at Cupertino LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and its permitted successor and assigns. “Development Agreement” is defined in Recital D. “Development Agreement Law” is defined in Recital B. “Development Agreement Regulations” is defined in Recital B. “Development Agreement Statute” is defined in Recital A. “Development Permit” is defined in Recital D. “Development Project” means a development project as defined by section 65928 of the California Government Code. Notwithstanding section 65928 of the California Government Code, Development Project shall also include all ministerial approvals required to carry out, construct, reconstruct, and occupy such a development project. “Effective Date” means the date that this Agreement becomes effective as determined under Section 2.1. “Enacting Ordinance” refers to the Ordinance identified in Recital L. “Exactions” means exactions that may be imposed by the City as a condition of developing the Project, including requirements for acquisition, dedication or reservation of land; and obligations to construct on-site or off-site public and private infrastructure improvements such as roadways, utilities or other improvements necessary to support the Project, whether such exactions constitute subdivision improvements, mitigation measures in connection with environmental review of the Project, or impositions made under Applicable City Regulations. For purposes of this Agreement, Exactions do not include Impact Fees. “Existing Affordable Units” is defined in Section 3.13.1. “Existing Affordable Unit Tenants” is defined in Section 3.13.1. “Existing Approvals” means and includes those permits and approvals for the Project granted by City to Developer as of the Effective Date as set forth in Recital G. “Existing Impact Fees” is defined in Section 4.1. “Existing Residential Development” means the approximately 330,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area of the Existing Residential Units. “Existing Residential Units” means the three hundred and forty two (342) residential units in existence and in operation on the Property as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. “Extension Term” is defined in Section 2.2.1. 300 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 6 “General Plan” means the City of Cupertino’s General Plan 2000-2020, as amended through the Effective Date. “General Plan EIR” means the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that was certified by the City Council in December 2014 and the addendum to that EIR that was approved by the City Council in October 2015. “Gross Floor Area” means the total floor area, measured in square feet, of all residential units as measured from the interior surfaces of the most exterior walls of each unit. “Housing Mitigation Fees” are defined in Section 4.1.1. “Impact Fees” means the monetary amount charged by City in connection with a Development Project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of mitigating the impacts of the Development Project or development of the public facilities related to the Development Project, including, any “fee” as that term is defined by Government Code section 66000(b). For purposes of this Agreement, a fee that meets both the definitions of an Impact Fee and an Exaction will be considered to be an Impact Fee. “Initial Term” is defined in Section 2.2. “Initial Suspension Period” is defined in Section 3.13.3. “Litigation Challenge” is defined in Section 9.3. “Major Agreement Amendment” is defined in Section 8.3.2 “Major Project Amendment” is defined in Section 8.2.2 “Material Condemnation” is defined in Section 13.1. “Maximum Suspension Period” is defined in Section 3.13.2. “MND” is defined in Recital E. “Mortgage” means any mortgage, deed of trust, security agreement, and other like security instrument encumbering all or any portion of the Property or any of the Developer’s rights under this Agreement “Mortgagee” means the holder of any Mortgage, and any successor, assignee or transferee of any such Mortgage holder. “Municipal Code” means and refers to the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code, as amended from time to time. “Negotiated Transportation Infrastructure Contribution” is defined in Section 4.1.4.1 301 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 7 “New Affordable Units” is defined in Section 3.13.1. “Net New Residential Development” means the aggregate total Gross Floor Area, measured in square feet, of the Net New Residential Units in excess of the Existing Residential Development. “Net New Residential Units” means all residential apartment homes in the Project in excess of the Existing Residential Units, which as of the Effective Date, is 600 Net New Residential Units. “New City Laws” means and includes any ordinances, resolutions, orders, rules, official policies, standards, specifications, guidelines or other regulations, which are promulgated or adopted by the City (including but not limited to any City agency, body, department, officer or employee) or its electorate (through their power of initiative or otherwise) after the Effective Date. “Notice of Breach” is defined in Section 12.1. “Original Declaration” is defined in Section 3.13.1. “Other Agency Fees” is defined in Section 4.3. “Other Agency Subsequent Approvals” means Subsequent Project Approvals to be obtained from entities other than the City. “Park Impact Fees” are defined in Section 4.1.2. “Parties” shall mean City and Developer. “Permitted Delay” is defined in Section 13.4. “Planning Commission” means the City of Cupertino Planning Commission. “Prevailing Wage Laws” is defined in Section 9.2. “Processing Fees” means all fees for processing development project applications, including any required supplemental or other further environmental review, plan checking and inspection and monitoring for land use approvals, design review, grading and building permits, General Plan maintenance fees, and other permits and entitlements required to implement the Project, which are in effect at the time those permits, approvals or entitlements are applied for, and which are intended to cover the actual costs of processing the foregoing. “Project Approvals” means the Existing Approvals and all Subsequent Approvals. “Project” is defined in Recital D. “Property” is defined in Recital C. 302 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 8 “Public Art Contribution” is defined in Section 4.1.3. “Relocation Notice” is the ninety (90) day notice to Existing Affordable Unit Tenants prior to the requirement that the Existing Affordable Unit Tenants vacate an Existing Affordable Housing Unit given pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.3. “Relocation Plan” is defined in Section 3.13.2. “Relocation Consultant” is defined in Section 3.13.2. “Relocation Suspension Notice” is defined in Section 3.13.2. “Residential Building Permit” shall mean a building permit issued by the City for the vertical construction of any residential building (or buildings) within the Project, and shall not include any demolition permit, grading permit, or building permit issued for a foundation or subterranean parking garage. “Revised Net New Residential Development” is defined in Section 4.1. “School Fees Agreement” is defined in Section 5.1.2. “SCUSD” is defined in Section 5.1.2. “SCVWD” is defined in Section 5.1.1.2. “SCVWD Agreement” is defined in Section 5.1.1.2. “Subdivision Map Act” means California Government Code sections 66410 through 66499.58, as it may be amended from time to time. “Subsequent Approvals” is defined in Section 7.1. “Term” means the Initial Term plus any Extension Term, if such Extension Term is granted under the terms of this Agreement. “TMA” is defined in Section 5.1.3. “TMA Payment” is defined in Section 5.1.3. “Tree Removal Permit” is defined in Recital D. “Use Permit” is defined in Recital D. “Wolfe Road Interchange Project” means improvements to the interchange of I- 280 and Wolfe Road as may be finally determined and approved by Caltrans and the City and any other agencies with jurisdiction. “Wolfe Road Interchange Project Payment” is defined in Section 5.1.1.3. 303 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 9 ARTICLE 2 EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM 2.1 Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the later of (a) the date that is thirty (30) days after the date that the Enacting Ordinance is adopted, and (b) the date this Agreement is fully executed by the Parties. The Effective Date is inserted at the beginning of this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that section 65868.5 of the Development Agreement Statute requires that this Agreement be recorded with the County Recorder no later than ten (10) days after the City enters into this Agreement, and that the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the Parties to this Agreement. The City Clerk shall cause such recordation. 2.2 Initial Term of Agreement. The “Initial Term” of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire on the tenth (10th) anniversary of the Effective Date, unless earlier terminated. 2.2.1 Extension of Initial Term. The Initial Term of this Agreement shall be extended from the date of expiration of the Initial Term until the date which is five (5) years following the expiration of the Initial Term (“Extension Term”), provided that at the end of the Initial Term: (a) Developer is not, at the time, in Default of any of its obligations hereunder following notice and expiration of applicable cure periods; (b) the applicable Developer warranties and representations in Section 2.4 below continue to be true and correct; (c) no event has occurred which with the passage of time or giving of notice or both would constitute a Default by Developer hereunder; and (d) Developer has completed the underground parking structure and the City has issued certificates of occupancy for 50 percent of the residential units in the Project, including all required Affordable Units at the applicable percentage of the Project. Following the expiration of the Term, or the earlier completion of development of the Project and satisfaction of all of Developer’s obligations in connection therewith, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect. 2.2.2 Memorandum of Extension. If the Extension Term is granted, City and Developer agree to execute, acknowledge and record in the Official Records of Santa Clara County a memorandum evidencing approval of the Extension Term. 2.3 City Representations and Warranties. City represents and warrants to Developer that, as of the Effective Date: 2.3.1 City is a municipal corporation, and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California to enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of City under this Agreement. 2.3.2 The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of the obligations of the City hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary City Council action and all necessary approvals have been obtained. 304 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 10 2.3.3 This Agreement is a valid obligation of City and is enforceable in accordance with its terms. During the Term of this Agreement, City shall, upon learning of any fact or condition which would cause of any of the warranties and representations in this Section 2.3 not to be true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to Developer. 2.4 Developer Representations and Warranties. Developer represents and warrants to City that, as of the Effective Date: 2.4.1 Developer is duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is in good standing and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California to own property interests and in all other respects enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of Developer under this Agreement. 2.4.2 The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the necessar y performance of the obligations of Developer hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary company action and all necessary approvals have been obtained. 2.4.3 This Agreement is a valid obligation of Developer and is enforceable in accordance with its terms. 2.4.4 Developer has not (a) made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; (b) filed any voluntary petition in bankruptcy or suffered the filing of any involuntary petition by Developer’s creditors; (c) suffered the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all, or substantially all, of Developer’s assets; (d) suffered the attachment or other judicial seizure of all, or substantially all, of Developer’s assets; or (e) admitted in writing its inability to pay its debts as they come due. During the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall, upon learning of any fact or condition which would cause any of the warranties and representations in this Section 2.4 not to be true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to City. ARTICLE 3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY 3.1 Vested Rights. The Property is hereby made subject to the provisions of this Agreement. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Property and the Project in accordance with and subject to the Existing Approvals, the Subsequent Approvals, Applicable Law and this Agreement, which shall control the permitted uses, density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height and size of buildings on the Property. 3.2 Life of Approvals. Pursuant to Government Code section 66452.6(a) and this Agreement, the life of the Project Approvals shall automatically be extended to and until the later of the following: (1) the end of the Term of this Agreement; or (2) the end of the term or life of 305 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 11 any such Approval. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the vested elements secured by Developer under this Agreement shall have a life no greater than the Term of this Agreement. 3.3 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses for the Property and the Project are those set forth in the Project Approvals, and include the following: a) 942 apartment units (600 Net New Residential Units) in six buildings ranging in height from six to seven stories; b) Five (5) uninhabitable model showrooms for lease-up purposes; c) Parking structure with two (2) levels of below grade and one and one half (1.5) levels of at-grade parking; d) Approximately 32,000 square feet of flexible use resident amenity space, which could include a fitness center, clubroom with bar, café, game room, and sale of food, alcohol, and sundry items, which uses and location of amenity space may change over time, but would remain within the same total area; e) 4,000 square feet of leasing and resident service space; and, f) Public amenities including an at-grade public bike hub, which may serve as flexible space to host various events such as a farmer's market, fairs, or similar social gatherings, and outdoor common-use seating area, which could include a lounge and juice/coffee bar. The number of residential units and amount of square footage for each use are subject to the Project and Agreement amendment processes as set forth in Sections 8.2 and 8.3 herein. In the event of a conflict between the Existing Project Approvals and the terms of this Section 3.3, the Existing Project Approvals shall govern. 3.4 Intentionally Deleted. 3.5 Applicable Law. City and Developer acknowledge and agree that City is restricted in its authority to limit its police power by contract and that the limitations, reservations and exceptions contained in this Agreement are intended to reserve to City all of its police power that cannot be so limited. Notwithstanding the foregoing reservation of City, it is the intent of City and Developer that this Agreement be construed to provide Developer with the maximum rights afforded by law, including but not limited to, the Development Agreement Statute. Therefore, the laws, rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications of City applicable to the development of the Property and/or the Project shall be (collectively, “Applicable Law”): a) Those rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications of the City set forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement; b) With respect to matters not addressed by and not otherwise inconsistent with the Project Approvals and this Agreement, those laws, rules, regulations, official policies, standards 306 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 12 and specifications (including City ordinances and resolutions) governing permitted uses, building locations, timing and manner of construction, densities, intensities of uses, heights and sizes, requirements for on- and off-site infrastructure and public improvements, fees and exactions, including without limitation ordinances, regulations, policies and enactments regulating the timing or density on hillside development, in each case only to the extent in full force and effect on the Effective Date; c) New City Laws that relate to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure imposed at any time, provided such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties; d) New City Laws that revise City’s uniform construction codes, including City’s building code, plumbing code, mechanical code, electrical code, fire code, grading code and other uniform construction codes, as of the date of permit issuance, provided, that such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties; e) New City Laws that are necessary to protect physical health and safety of the public; provided, that such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties; f) New City Laws that do not conflict with this Agreement or the Project Approvals, provided such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties; and g) New City Laws that do not apply to the Property and/or the Project due to the limitations set forth above, but only to the extent that such New City Laws are accepted in writing by Developer in its sole discretion. 3.6 Timing of Development. Developer shall have no obligation to develop the Project or any component of the Project. The Project may be built in phases in response to market conditions and other factors. The Parties acknowledge that Developer cannot at this time predict when or the rate at which or the order in which phases will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the control of Developer, such as market orientation and demand, Developer’s business needs, interest rates, competition and other similar factors. Without any limitation of the foregoing, it is the desire of the Parties hereto to avoid the result in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), in which the California Supreme Court held that the failure of the parties therein to consider, and expressly provide for, the timing of development resulted in a later-adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties’ agreement. Notwithstanding the adoption of any New City Laws, including an initiative adopted after the Effective Date by City’s electorate to the contrary, the Parties acknowledge that, except for the Affordable Units, which shall be developed as set forth in Section 3.13 below, and as otherwise provided for in this Agreement, Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate in its sole discretion. 307 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 13 3.7 Compliance with Laws. Developer, at its sole cost and expense, shall comply with the requirements of, and obtain all permits and approvals required by local, State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction over the Property or Project. Furthermore, Developer shall carry out the Project work in conformity with all Applicable Law, including applicable state labor laws and standards; Applicable City Regulations; and all applicable disabled and handicapped access requirements, including the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. section 12101, et seq., Government Code section 4450, et seq., Government Code section 11135, et seq., and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51, et seq. 3.8 No Conflicting Enactments. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, City shall not impose on the Project (whether by action of the City Council or by initiative, referendum or other means) any New City Law that is in conflict with this Agreement or the Existing Approvals. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, City shall not (a) apply to the Property any change in land use designation or permitted use of the Property; (b) limit or control the ability to obtain public utilities, services, or facilities (provided, however, nothing herein shall be deemed to exempt the Project or the Property from any water use rationing requirements that may be imposed from time to time in the future); (c) limit or control building setbacks, square footages or heights; the location of buildings and structures; parking requirements; or grading in a manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the limitations included in the Existing Approvals or this Agreement; or (d) limit or control the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of the approval, development or construction of all or any part of the Project. 3.9 Changes in the Law. As provided in section 65869.5 of the Development Agreement Law, this Agreement shall not preclude the applicability to the Project of changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies, to the extent that such changes are specifically mandated and required by changes in State or Federal laws or by changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies of special districts or other governmental entities, other than the City, created or operating pursuant to the laws of the State of California (“Changes in the Law”). In the event Changes in the Law prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith in order to determine whether such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended, or performance thereof delayed, as may be necessary to comply with Changes in the Law, and City and Developer shall agree to such action as may be reasonably required. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude Developer from contesting by any available means (including administrative or judicial proceedings) the applicability to the Project of any such Changes in the Law. 3.10 Initiatives and Referenda. If any New City Law is enacted or imposed by initiative or referendum, or by the City Council directly or indirectly in connection with any proposed initiative or referendum, which New City Law would conflict with this Agreement or reduce the development rights provided by this Agreement, such New City Law shall not apply to the Project. No moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing, phasing, density, height or sequencing of development) affecting subdivision maps, building permits or other entitlements to use that are approved or to be approved, issued or granted within the City, or portions of the City, shall apply to the Project. City, except to submit to vote of the electorate initiatives and referendums required by applicable law to be placed on a ballot, shall not adopt or enact any New City Law, or take any other action which would violate the express provisions of 308 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 14 this Agreement or the Project Approvals. Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any New City Law that would conflict with this Agreement or reduce the development rights provided by this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge that City’s approval of this Agreement is a legislative action subject to referendum. Developer acknowledges and agrees that City does not have authority or jurisdiction over any other public agency’s ability to grant governmental approvals or permits or to impose a moratorium or other limitation that may affect the Project. 3.11 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. Developer acknowledges that other public agencies not within the control of City possess authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with City, and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. Developer will, at the time required in accordance with Developer’s construction schedule, apply for all such other permits and approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental entities in connection with the development of, or the provision of services to, the Project. Developer acknowledges that City does not control the amount of any fees imposed by such other agencies. In the event that such fees are imposed upon Developer and are in excess of those allowed by Applicable Law and Developer wishes to object to such fees, Developer may pay such fees under protest. The City agrees not to delay issuance of permits or other Subsequent Approvals and entitlements under these circumstances, provided Developer provides City with proof of payment of such fees. 3.12 No Reservation of Sanitary Sewer or Potable Water Capacity. City has found the Project to be consistent with the General Plan which anticipates that there will be sufficient potable water and sanitary sewer capacity to serve future development contemplated by the General Plan, including the Project, through the Term. However, nothing in this Agreement is intended to provide any reservation of potable water or sanitary sewer capacity. 3.13 Affordable Housing. 3.13.1 Original Declaration. Developer is subject to that certain “City of Cupertino Below Market Rate Rental Housing Declaration of Resale Controls” dated September 8, 1997 and recorded on October 20, 1997, as Document No. 13902426 in the Official Records of Santa Clara County (the “Original Declaration”). The Original Declaration requires that thirty-four (34) units (the “Existing Affordable Units”) on the Property be occupied exclusively by, and rented to, households of low and very low income until October 20, 2027; and that any modification, amendment, or deletion of any terms of the Original Declaration must be requested in writing and approved by the City Council of the City of Cupertino. The Developer has requested in writing that the City amend and restate the Original Declaration to allow the Existing Affordable Units to be removed or unoccupied for a period of approximately four years so that the Project may be built. City’s approval of Developer’s request will result in the displacement of the tenants of the Existing Affordable Units, and City has determined that it is required to pay relocation benefits to tenants displaced from the Affordable Units (the “Existing Affordable Unit Tenants”) as required by Government Code Section 7260 et seq. and implementing regulations (25 CCR Section 6000 et seq.) (collectively, “State Relocation Laws”). Developer desires to reimburse City for its costs of compliance with State Relocation Laws so that the Project may be built and to comply with the provisions of the Original Declaration to the maximum extent feasible. 309 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 15 3.13.2 Affordable Housing Relocation Agreement. Prior to or concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, Developer and City shall enter into an Affordable Housing Relocation Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C to provide, among other things: (1) the terms by which Developer will reimburse City for the costs of preparation of a relocation plan (“Relocation Plan”) and for the City’s costs and payments to Existing Affordable Unit Tenants under State Relocation Laws through such Relocation Plan; (2) Developer’s commitment to offer affordable units to the Existing Affordable Unit Tenants at Developer’s North Park project in San Jose while the Project is under construction; and (3) rights of the Existing Affordable Unit Tenants to elect to occupy Affordable Units (as defined below) in the Project. The Relocation Plan shall be prepared by a City-retained relocation consultant (“Relocation Consultant”). The Parties acknowledge their mutual goal to approve a Relocation Plan consistent with State Relocation Laws within one hundred and twenty (120) days following the Effective Date of this Agreement. In the event that the Developer decides, in its sole and absolute discretion, not to proceed with the demolition of the Existing Residential Development and notifies the City in writing of its decision prior to the City Council approval of the Relocation Plan (“Relocation Suspension Notice”), the City shall direct the Relocation Consultant to suspend work on the Relocation Plan. Upon further written notice to the City of the Developer’s intent to proceed, the Developer shall pay for the costs of any necessary revisions to the Relocation Plan. In order to minimize disruption of the Existing Affordable Unit Tenants to the maximum extent practical, no Relocation Notices shall be sent subsequent to the adoption of a Relocation Plan until the Parties mutually agree in writing that the Developer intends to proceed with the Project. In the event that the revisions are necessary to the Relocation Plan prior to the time the Parties agree to send the Relocation Notices, the Developer shall pay all such costs. Once relocation commences, the Developer must complete the relocation of all Existing Affordable Housing Tenants. All relocation of Existing Affordable Housing Tenants shall be completed prior to issuance of any demolition permit(s) for demolition of the Existing Residential Development. 3.13.3 Affordable Housing Agreement. Prior to or concurrently with the recordation of this Agreement, Developer and City shall enter into and record an Affordable Housing Agreement in the form attached as Exhibit D (“Affordable Housing Agreement”), which shall amend, restate and supersede the Original Declaration to provide, among other things: (1) Developer’s right to initially suspend re-occupying the Existing Affordable Units prior to the adoption of the Relocation Plan (“Initial Suspension Period”); (2) provisions for suspension of the obligation to provide Existing Affordable Units from the time an Existing Affordable Unit Tenant vacates an Existing Affordable Unit until no later than January 1, 2021 (“Maximum Suspension Period”); (3) the provision of a total of sixty two (62) affordable units in the Project, which includes (i) replacement of the thirty four (34) Existing Affordable Units and (ii) the addition of twenty eight (28) affordable units on the Property to be occupied exclusively by, and rented to, households of low income in lieu of a portion of the Housing Impact Fees pursuant to Section 4.1.1. of this Agreement (“New Affordable Units”); (4) a concurrent term for all of the Existing Affordable Units and New Affordable Units (collectively the “Affordable Units”) of the later of (i) fifty five (55) years from the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the Project or (ii) the date the Project buildings are either (X) demolished or (Y) converted to a non-residential use by the Developer with any City-issued approvals and permits that may be required; (5) rights of the Existing Affordable Unit Tenants to 310 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 16 elect to occupy Affordable Units in the Project; and (6) the priority of the Affordable Housing Agreement over any liens or deeds of trust recorded against the Property other than current unpaid taxes. In the event that the Developer does not submit an application for a demolition permit for the Existing Residential Development by the end of the Initial Suspension Period, or that the Developer re-offers any other units in the Existing Residential Development for rent, Developer shall re-open any unoccupied Existing Affordable Units to Eligible Households and comply fully with the terms of the Affordable Housing Agreement applicable to the Existing Affordable Units and include such new tenants in the Relocation Plan when and if the Developer proceeds with demolition. ARTICLE 4 FEES 4.1 Impact Fees. Except as otherwise provided in Section 4.1.4 below with respect to the potential Citywide Transportation Impact Fee, during the Term, City has the right to impose only such Impact Fees as City has adopted as of the Effective Date, including those set forth in the Project Approvals (“Existing Impact Fees”). For convenience of reference, the Existing Impact Fees are identified in Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein. Any Existing Impact Fees that are in existence as of the Effective Date but are inadvertently omitted from Exhibit E may still be charged. In the event of such inadvertent omission, the Parties shall revise Exhibit E to correct such error. Except as provided in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 below, payment of the Existing Impact Fees shall be at the rates in effect when such fees are due, provided, however, that Developer shall have the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to elect to prepay in full any Existing Impact Fees (including the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee if and when adopted) otherwise required under this Agreement, and if such prepayment is made to the City, then the Existing Impact Fees (including the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee if and when adopted) shall be paid at the rate in effect at time of payment. 4.1.1 Housing Mitigation Fees. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in City Resolution No. 15-036, in lieu of and in full satisfaction of, the affordable housing mitigation fees payable pursuant to the fee program adopted by City Resolution No. 15-036 (the “Housing Mitigation Fees”) that would be applicable to all Net New Residential Units and currently estimated, as of the Effective Date, at Twelve Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($12,900,000), Developer shall comply with the obligation to provide the Affordable Units as set forth in Section 3.13.3 of this Agreement and shall pay a Housing Mitigation Fee balance of $128,999.00 payable at the time of issuance of the first Residential Building Permit (the “Housing Mitigation Balance”). The Housing Mitigation Balance will increase annually starting one year after the Effective Date based on increases in the Consumer Price Index over the prior one-year period. 4.1.2 Park Impact Fees. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Municipal Code Chapter 13.08, the Developer shall pay to the City at the time of issuance of the first Residential Building Permit for the Project in full those parkland impact fees payable pursuant to the fee program codified in Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 (the “Park Impact Fees”), with such fee amount to be determined based on the rate in effect at the time of payment, estimated as of the Effective Date at Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($21,600) per Net New 311 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 17 Residential Unit. Based on an estimated 600 Net New Residential Units, and the exclusion of the Affordable Units to which the Park Impact Fees shall not apply as provided below, the total Park Impact Fees for the Project are estimated as of the Effective Date to be Eleven Million Seven Hundred Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Eight Dollars ($11,782,368). If Developer modifies the Project pursuant to Section 8 of this Agreement and such amendment results in a change in the number of Net New Residential Units, the Park Impact Fees shall be calculated by multiplying the revised number of Net New Residential Units by the per unit rate in effect at time of payment. Developer hereby waives its right to claim a credit against park fees available to Developer pursuant to Section 13.08.070 of the Municipal Code for private and public recreation and open space within the Project. The twenty eight (28) New Affordable Units shall be subject to a full (100%) credit against the Park Impact Fees. The thirty four (34) Existing Affordable Units shall receive a credit of 78% of the Park Impact Fee (currently estimated as of the Effective Date at a $16,848 per unit credit or $21,600 x 0.78). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 4.1.2, if the Developer pays the Park Impact Fee by [insert specific calendar date calculated as a week day that is eighteen months after the Effective Date in execution version], the amount of the Park Impact Fee shall be exactly Eleven Million Seven Hundred Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Eight Dollars ($11,782,368) and no further Park Impact Fees shall be applied to the Project unless the Developer modifies the Project pursuant to Section 8 of this Agreement and such amendment results in an increase in the number of Net New Residential Units, in which case the additional Park Impact Fees shall be calculated by multiplying only the additional Net New Residential Units by the per unit rate in effect at time of payment. 4.1.3 Public Art Contribution. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Municipal Code Chapter 19.148, Developer shall expend a minimum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for public artwork, including but not limited to design, fabrication, and installation as part of the Project (“Public Art Contribution”). Developer shall be allowed to meet its Public Art Contribution obligation by providing Public Artwork within the Project at a cost of not less than $100,000. The Public Artwork shall be approved by City and installed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project. 4.1.4 Transportation Impact Fees. 4.1.4.1 The Parties acknowledge that, as of the Effective Date, the City has not adopted Citywide traffic Impact Fees, but is in the process of considering a Citywide regional transportation Impact Fee that would be applicable to the Project and other similarly situated projects in the City (“Citywide Transportation Impact Fee”). If City has not adopted a Citywide Transportation Impact Fee prior to issuance of the first Residential Building Permit for the Project, the Developer shall pay to the City an amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) per Net New Residential Unit as a negotiated transportation infrastructure contribution (“Negotiated Transportation Infrastructure Contribution”). The Negotiated Transportation Infrastructure Contribution shall be payable at the time of building permit issuance for each Net New Residential Unit. Based on an estimated 600 Net New Residential Units, the total Negotiated Transportation Infrastructure Contribution for the Project shall not exceed One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000). If Developer modifies the Project pursuant to Section 8 of this Agreement and such amendment results in a change in the number of Net New Residential Units, the Negotiated Transportation Infrastructure Contribution shall be 312 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 18 calculated by multiplying the revised number of Net New Residential Units by $3,000.00. If the City adopts a Citywide Transportation Impact Fee at any time prior to the final Residential Building Permit for the Project, the Developer shall pay, for all Net New Residential Units, the lesser of (i) the Negotiated Transportation Infrastructure Contribution or (ii) the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee at the rate in effect at the time of payment, subject to potential reduction pursuant to section 4.1.4.2 below. In the event that the City adopts a Citywide Transportation Impact Fee after issuance of the final Residential Building Permit such that the Developer has paid the full amount of the Negotiated Transportation Infrastructure Contribution, and the amount of such Citywide Transportation Impact Fee is less than the amount of the Negotiated Transportation Infrastructure Contribution, including the potential reduction pursuant to section 4.1.4.2 below, the City shall credit the Developer the difference by (1) first applying the credit to any fees or payments owed to the City up to the date of issuance of the last certificate of occupancy; then (2) after application of all applicable credits, up to the date that is one year from the issuance of the final Residential Building Permit, refunding the remainder of the difference. On and after the date that is one year from the issuance of the final Residential Building Permit, Developer shall have no further rights to any refund of the difference between the amount of the Negotiated Transportation Infrastructure Contribution and the amount of such Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. 4.1.4.2 The Parties acknowledge that Developer is obligated to make a one-time payment to City in the amount of Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000) to assist in funding the Wolfe Road Interchange Project as set forth in Section 5.1.1.2 below, and, as of the Effective Date, it is not anticipated that the Wolfe Road Interchange Project will be funded by the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. Therefore, if the amount of the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee is based on any costs related to the Wolfe Road Interchange Project, the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee applicable to the Project shall be proportionately reduced based on the ratio that the amount of the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee allocable to the Wolfe Road Interchange Project bears to the total amount of the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. (For example only, if the cost basis for the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee includes the Wolfe Road Interchange Project and that project accounts for twenty percent (20%) of the fee, Developer would receive a credit that would reduce the amount of the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee by 20%.) 4.2 Processing Fees. Subject to Developer’s right to protest and/or pursue a challenge in law or equity to any new or increased Processing Fee, City may charge and Developer agrees to pay all fees for processing Development Project applications, including any required supplemental or other further environmental review, plan checking and inspection and monitoring for land use approvals, design review, grading and building permits, General Plan maintenance fees, and other permits and entitlements required to implement the Project (“Processing Fees”), which are in effect on a City-wide basis at the time those permits, approvals or entitlements are applied for, and which are intended to cover the actual costs of processing the foregoing. 4.3 Other Agency Fees. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude City from collecting fees from Developer that are lawfully imposed on the Project by another agency having jurisdiction over the Project, which the City is required to collect pursuant to Applicable Law (“Other Agency Fees”). 313 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 19 4.4 Taxes and Assessments. City may impose and Developer agrees to pay any and all existing, new, modified or increased taxes and assessments imposed in accordance with the laws in effect as of the date due, at the rate in effect at the time of payment, including without limitation, the construction taxes imposed by Chapter 3.32 of the Municipal Code (“Construction Tax”). The City acknowledges and agrees that the Construction Tax shall only apply to the Net New Residential Units, which number shall be reduced by the number of Affordable Units which shall not be subject to the Construction Tax. 4.5 Connection Fees. Subject to Developer’s right to protest and/or pursue a challenge in law or equity to any new or increased Connection Fee, City may charge and Developer shall pay any Connection Fee that is lawfully adopted. 4.6 Right to Challenge Fees. Developer reserves the right to protest or pursue a challenge in law or equity to any new or increased fee. In the event Developer desires to challenge such new or increased fee, Developer shall pay the fee under protest. The City agrees not to delay issuance of permits, approvals or entitlements pending resolution of such protest or challenge to the fee. ARTICLE 5 PUBLIC BENEFITS 5.1 Public Benefits Obligations. In consideration of the rights and benefits conferred by City to Developer under this Agreement, Developer shall perform the public benefit obligations and pay to City the contributions set forth in this Article 5 all within the times set forth herein. 5.1.1 Public Facility Contributions. Developer shall make the following payments to City to fund public facilities: 5.1.1.1 Civic Facilities Payment. At the time of issuance of the first Residential Building Permit for the Project, Developer shall make a one-time payment to City in the amount of Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000) to assist in funding a civic facility to be identified by the City Council in its discretion (“Civic Facilities Payment”). 5.1.1.2 SCVWD Agreement. At the time of issuance of the first Residential Building Permit for the Project, Developer shall enter into a separate written agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (“SCVWD”) for Developer to extend to the Project, at Developer’s cost, SCVWD’s reclaimed water line (“SCVWD Agreement”). As of the Effective Date, the Parties acknowledge that the estimated value of the waterline improvements to be funded by Developer pursuant to the terms of the SCVWD Agreement is One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000). 5.1.1.3 Wolfe Road Interchange Payment. At the time of issuance of the first Residential Building Permit for the Project, Developer shall make a one- 314 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 20 time payment to City in the amount of Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000) to assist in funding the Wolfe Road Interchange Project (“Wolfe Road Interchange Payment”). The Parties acknowledge that, at the request of the City, Developer made a Two Hundred Thousand Dollar ($200,000) advance payment to the City prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement to assist with the City’s efforts to design the Wolfe Road Interchange Project and Developer shall be provided with a dollar of dollar credit in this amount against the Wolfe Road Interchange Payment. 5.1.2 School Fees Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that, prior to the Effective Date, Developer and the Santa Clara Unified School District (“SCUSD”) entered into that certain School Impact Mitigation Agreement dated February 11, 2016, providing for the payment of statutory school impact fees and an additional voluntary community benefit contribution of Two Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,400,000) by Developer (“School Fees Agreement”). Under the terms of the School Fees Agreement, the payments required under the School Fees Agreement are only imposed if and when Developer applies for building permits for the Project, and are payable directly to SCUSD by the Developer upon issuance of such building permits. 5.1.3 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. Developer shall fund and fully implement the TDM Program attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated herein by this reference. In addition, the Parties agree that if (a) a Transportation Management Association ("TMA") is formed whose coverage area includes the Property, and (b) the TMA includes the operation or funding of a shuttle that includes a shuttle stop immediately adjacent to or within the Property, Developer shall (i) within thirty (30) days following City’s demand, make a one-time payment to City in the amount of Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) to fund a portion of the start-up costs of such TMA, and (ii) on January 1 of the calendar year following (i) such initial payment and (ii) at least fifty percent (50%) initial occupancy of the Project, and each January 1 thereafter, make an annual payment to City equal to the lesser of (A) the Project’s proportionate share of estimated ridership for the TMA program, or (B) the Annual Maximum Contribution (collectively, the “TMA Payments”). “Annual Maximum Contribution” means Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) per year as increased annually based on increases in the Consumer Price Index over the prior one-year period. Except as the Parties may otherwise agree, the TMA Payments shall represent the Developer’s sole contribution and obligation towards the formation of the TMA. If the City Council does not authorize the formation and ongoing operation of a TMA during the Term, the Developer shall have no further obligation under this Agreement to make the TMA Payments. Other than the obligations of this Section 5.1.3, the Developer shall have no further obligations under this Agreement with respect to any TMA in Cupertino. Developer reserves the right to elect, in its sole and absolute discretion, to join any TMA if and when formed. If a TMA is formed, the City and Developer shall review, on an annual basis, the TDM Program to ensure that there is a minimum of duplicative efforts. In addition, to the extent City is involved in the formation of the TMA, City shall exercise good faith efforts to ensure Developer has a role in the operation and management of the TMA. 5.2 City of Cupertino Business License. Developer, at its expense, shall obtain and maintain a City of Cupertino business license at all times during the Term, and shall include a 315 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 21 provision in all general contractor agreements for the Project requiring each such general contractor to obtain and maintain a City of Cupertino business license during performance of the work of construction. 5.3 Sales Tax Point of Sale Designation. Developer shall use good faith, diligent efforts to the extent allowed by law to require all persons and entities providing bulk lumber, concrete, structural steel and pre-fabricated building components, such as roof trusses, to be used in connection with the construction and development of, or incorporated into, the Project, to (a) obtain a use tax direct payment permit; (b) elect to obtain a subcontractor permit for the job site of a contract valued at Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) or more; or (c) otherwise designate the Property as the place of use of material used in the construction of the Project in order to have the local portion of the sales and use tax distributed directly to City instead of through the county-wide pool. Developer shall instruct its general contractor(s) for the Project to, and cause such general contractor(s) to instruct its/their subcontractors to, cooperate with City to ensure the local sales/use tax derived from construction of the Project is allocated to City to the fullest extent possible. To assist City in its efforts to ensure that such local sales/use tax is so allocated to City, Developer shall on an annual basis, or more frequently upon City’s request, provide City with such information as shall be reasonably requested by City regarding subcontractors working on the Project with contracts in excess of the amount set forth above, including a description of all applicable work and materials and the dollar value of such subcontracts, and, if applicable, evidence of their designation, such as approvals or applications for the direct payment permit, of City as the place of use of such work and materials. City may use such information to contact each subcontractor who may qualify for local allocation of use taxes to City. 5.4 Gateway Signage and Treatment. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project, Developer shall install signage and treatments in the Project reflecting the fact that this area is a gateway into Cupertino from Interstate 280 and points north in accordance with General Plan Policy LU-20.5. As of the Effective Date, the Parties acknowledge that the estimated value of the signage and treatment is Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000). ARTICLE 6 ANNUAL REVIEW 6.1 Annual Review. 6.1.1 Purpose. As required by California Government Code section 65865.1 and Municipal Code section 19.144.060(H), City and Developer shall review this Agreement and all actions taken pursuant to the terms of this Agreement with respect to the development of the Project every twelve (12) months to determine good faith compliance with this Agreement. Specifically, City’s annual review shall be conducted for the purposes of determining compliance by Developer with its obligations under this Agreement. Each annual review shall also document: (a) the status of the Project development, and (b) any extension of the Initial Term of this Agreement pursuant to Section 2.2.1. 316 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 22 6.1.2 Conduct of Annual Review. The annual review shall be conducted as provided in this Section 6.1.2. By December 1st of each year, Developer shall provide documentation of its good faith compliance with this Agreement during the previous calendar year, including a completed Annual Review Form in the form provided in Exhibit G and such other information as may reasonably be requested by the Planning Director. If the Planning Director finds good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Agreement, Developer shall be notified in writing and the review for that period shall be concluded. If the Planning Director is not satisfied that Developer is performing in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Planning Director shall prepare a written report specifying why the Developer may not be in good faith compliance with this Agreement, refer the matter to the City Council, and notify Developer in writing at least fifteen (15) business days in advance of the time at which the matter will be considered by the City Council. This notice shall include the time and place of the City Council’s public hearing to evaluate good faith compliance with this Agreement, a copy of the Planning Director’s report and recommendations, if any, and any other information reasonably necessary to inform Developer of the nature of the proceeding. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing at which Developer must submit evidence that it has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Developer shall be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. The findings of the City Council on whether Developer has complied with this Agreement for the period under review shall be based upon substantial evidence in the record. If the City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence, that Developer has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review for that period shall be concluded. If the City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, or there are significant questions as to whether Developer has complied with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City Council, at its option, may continue the hearing and may notify Developer of the City’s intent to meet and confer with Developer within thirty (30) days of such determination, prior to taking further action. Following such meeting, the City Council shall resume the hearing in order to further consider the matter and to make a determination regarding Developer’s good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. In the event City determines Developer is not in good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, City may give the Developer a written Notice of Breach, in which case the provisions of Section 12.1, below, shall apply. 6.1.3 Failure to Conduct Annual Review. Failure of City to conduct an annual review shall not constitute a waiver by the City of its rights to otherwise enforce the provisions of this Agreement nor shall Developer have or assert any defense to such enforcement by reason of any such failure to conduct an annual review. 6.1.4 Certificate of Compliance. If, at the conclusion of the annual review described in this Section 6.1.2, the Developer is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, City shall, upon request by Developer, issue a Certificate of Compliance (“Certificate”) to Developer stating that after the most recent annual review and based upon the information actually known to an appropriate official of City specified in such Certificate that: (a) this Agreement remains in effect, and (b) the Developer is not in Default. The Certificate shall be in a recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record 317 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 23 notice of the finding of compliance, and shall state the anticipated date of commencement of the next annual review. Developer may record the Certificate without cost or expense to City. ARTICLE 7 COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 7.1 Subsequent Approvals. Certain subsequent land use approvals, entitlements, and permits other than the Existing Approvals, will be necessary or desirable for implementation of the Project (“Subsequent Approvals”). The Subsequent Approvals may include, without limitation, the following: amendments of the Existing Approvals, grading permits, building permits, design review permits, sewer and water connection permits, certificates of occupancy, lot line adjustments or lot merger, site plans, development plans, land use plans, building plans and specifications, and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the foregoing. The Parties acknowledge that: 1) the Property includes two parcels with Assessor Parcel Numbers 316-06- 032 and 316-06-037; 2) the Project includes a proposed building that would cross the boundary between the two parcels. The Developer reserves the right, in its discretion, to apply for, as a Subsequent Approval, either (1) a lot line adjustment (including, if applicable and warranted based on the configuration of the proposed adjusted lots crossing a proposed building, a recorded lot tying agreement in form and content acceptable to the City in its reasonable discretion), or (2) a lot merger. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the City shall not impose requirements or conditions upon the development and construction of the Project that are inconsistent with the Existing Approvals and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Further, except as expressly provided herein, the City shall not exercise discretion in determining whether or how to grant Subsequent Approvals in a manner that would prevent development of the Project in accordance with Existing Approvals. 7.2 Scope of Review of Subsequent Approvals. By approving the Existing Approvals, City has made a final policy decision that the Project is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare. Accordingly, City shall not use its authority in considering any application for a discretionary Subsequent Approval to change the policy decisions reflected by the Existing Approvals or otherwise to prevent or delay development of the Project as set forth in the Project Approvals. 7.3 Processing Applications for Subsequent Approvals. 7.3.1 Timely Submittals by Developer. Developer acknowledges that City cannot begin processing applications for Subsequent Approvals until Developer submits complete applications on a timely basis. Developer shall use diligent good faith efforts to (a) provide to City in a timely manner any and all documents, applications, plans, and other information necessary for City to carry out its obligations hereunder; and (b) cause Developer’s planners, engineers, and all other consultants to provide to City in a timely manner all such documents, applications, plans and other materials required under Applicable Law. It is the express intent of Developer and City to cooperate and diligently work to obtain any and all Subsequent Approvals. 318 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 24 7.3.2 Timely Processing by City. Upon submission by Developer of all appropriate applications and Processing Fees for any pending Subsequent Approval, City shall, to the full extent allowed by Applicable Law, promptly and diligently, subject to City ordinances, policies and procedures regarding hiring and contracting, commence and complete all steps necessary to act on Developer’s currently pending Subsequent Approval applications including: (a) providing at Developer’s expense and subject to Developer’s request and prior approval, reasonable overtime staff assistance, additional staff and/or staff consultants for concurrent, expedited planning and processing of each pending Subsequent Approval application (Developer shall pay such costs at cost plus the then-applicable rate for administrative costs, which is 15% as of the Effective Date); (b) if legally required, providing notice and holding public hearings; and (c) acting on any such pending Subsequent Approval application. 7.4 Other Agency Subsequent Approvals; Authority of City. City shall cooperate with Developer, to the extent appropriate and as permitted by applicable law, in Developer’s efforts to obtain, as may be required, Other Agency Subsequent Approvals. Notwithstanding the issuance to Developer of Other Agency Subsequent Approvals, Developer agrees that City shall have the right to review, modify, approve and/or reject any and all submissions subject to the Other Agency Subsequent Approvals which, but for the authority of the other governmental or quasi-governmental entities issuing the Other Agency Subsequent Approvals, would otherwise require City approval. Developer agrees that City may review, modify, approve and/or reject any such materials or applications to ensure consistency with this Agreement and the Project Approvals and Developer shall incorporate any and all changes required by City prior to submitting such materials and applications to the other governmental or quasi-governmental entities for review and/or approval. ARTICLE 8 AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT AND PROJECT APPROVALS 8.1 Amendment by Written Consent. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein (including Section 6.1 relating to City’s annual review and Section 12.3 relating to termination in the event of a breach), this Agreement may be terminated, modified or amended only by mutual written consent of the Parties hereto or their successors in interest or assignees and in accordance with the provisions of Government Code sections 65967, 65867.5 and 65868. 8.2 Project Approval Amendments.To the extent permitted by Applicable Law, Project Approvals or Subsequent Project Approvals may, from time to time, be amended in the following manner: 8.2.1 Administrative Project Amendments. Upon Developer’s written request for an amendment or modification to the Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals, the City Manager shall determine: (i) whether the requested amendment or modification is minor when considered in light of the Project as a whole; and (ii) whether the requested amendment or modification is consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law. If the City Manager or his/her designee finds, in his or her sole discretion, that the proposed amendment or modification is minor, consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law, and will result in no new significant impacts not addressed and mitigated in the MND, the amendment or modification 319 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 25 shall be determined to be an “Administrative Project Amendment” and shall not be considered an amendment to the applicable Project Approvals and shall not require an amendment to this Agreement. Upon the City Manager’s approval, any Administrative Project Amendment shall be automatically incorporated into the applicable Project Approvals and this Agreement. Lot line adjustments, minor changes in land uses involving minimal acreage, minor alterations in vehicle circulation patterns or vehicle access points, minor changes in the amount of parking and parking layout, changes in pathway alignments, substitutions of comparable landscaping for any landscaping shown on any final development plan or landscape plan, variations in the location of structures that do not substantially alter the infrastructure connections or facilities that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project, and minor adjustments to the Site Map or Property Description shall be treated as Administrative Project Amendments. 8.2.2 Major Project Amendments. Any amendment to the Project Approvals or Subsequent Project Approvals which is determined not to be an Administrative Project Amendment as set forth above in Section 8.2.1 shall be deemed a “Major Project Amendment” and shall require giving of notice and a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with the Applicable Law. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority to determine if an amendment is a Major Project Amendment subject to this Section 8.2.2 or an Administrative Project Amendment subject to Section 8.2.1 above. 8.3 Amendment of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time, in whole or in part, by mutual written consent of the parties or their successors in interest, as follows: 8.3.1 Administrative Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement which does not substantially affect (a) the term of this Agreement; (b) permitted uses of the Property; (c) provisions for the reservation or dedication of land; (d) conditions, terms restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) increases in the density or intensity of the use of the Property or the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (f) monetary contributions by Developer, shall be deemed an “Administrative Agreement Amendment” and the City Manager or his or her designee, except to the extent otherwise required by Applicable Law, shall approve the Administrative Agreement Amendment without notice and public hearing. 8.3.2 Major Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement which is determined not to be an Administrative Agreement Amendment as set forth above in Section 8.3.1 shall be deemed a “Major Agreement Amendment” and shall require giving of notice and a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with the Applicable Law. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority to determine if an amendment is a Major Agreement Amendment subject to this Section 8.3.2 or an Administrative Agreement Amendment subject to Section 8.3.1 above. 8.4 Amendments to Development Agreement Statute. This Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute as those provisions existed as of the date of execution of this Agreement. No amendment or addition to those provisions which would materially affect the interpretation or enforceability of this 320 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 26 Agreement shall be applicable to this Agreement, unless such amendment or addition is specifically required by the California State Legislature, or is mandated by a court of competent jurisdiction. If such amendment or change is permissive (as opposed to mandatory), this Agreement shall not be affected by same unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to amend this Agreement to permit such applicability. 8.5 Requirement for Writing. No modification, amendment or other change to this Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective for any purpose unless specifically set forth in a writing which refers expressly to this Agreement and is signed by duly authorized representatives of both Parties or their successors in interest. A copy of any change shall be provided to the City Council within thirty (30) days of its execution. 8.6 Reliance on Project MND. The MND which has been certified by City as being in compliance with CEQA, addresses the potential environmental impacts of the entire Project as it is described in the Project Approvals. It is agreed that, in acting on any discretionary Subsequent Approvals for the Project, City will rely on the MND to satisfy the requirements of CEQA to the fullest extent permissible by CEQA and City will not require a new initial study, negative declaration or subsequent or supplemental MND unless required by CEQA and will not impose on the Project any mitigation measures or other conditions of approval other than those specifically imposed by the Project Approvals or this Agreement or specifically required by Applicable Law. 8.7 Subsequent CEQA Review. In the event that any additional CEQA documentation is legally required for any discretionary Subsequent Approval, then the scope of such documentation shall be focused, to the extent possible consistent with CEQA, on the specific subject matter of the Subsequent Approval, and the City, at Developer’s expense, shall conduct such additional CEQA review as expeditiously as possible. ARTICLE 9 INSURANCE, INDEMNITY AND COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE 9.1 Insurance Requirements. Prior to commencement of construction activities and through completion of all construction activities (including demolition) for the Project, Developer shall procure and maintain, or cause its contractor(s) to procure and maintain, a commercial general liability policy in an amount not less than two million ($2,000,000) combined single limit, including contractual liability together with a comprehensive automobile liability policy in the amount of one million ($1,000,000), combined single limit. Such policy or policies shall be written on an occurrence form, so long as such form of policy is then commonly available in the commercial insurance marketplace. Developer’s insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-:VII or a rating otherwise approved by the City in its sole discretion. Developer shall furnish at City’s request appropriate certificate(s) of insurance evidencing the insurance coverage required hereunder, and City Parties shall be named as additional insured parties in such policies. The certificate of insurance shall contain a statement of obligation on the part of the carrier to notify City of any material change, cancellation or termination of the coverage at least thirty (30) days in advance of the effective 321 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 27 date of any such material change, cancellation or termination (ten (10) days advance notice in the case of cancellation for nonpayment of premiums) where the insurance carrier provides such notice to the Developer. Coverage provided hereunder by Developer shall be primary insurance and shall not be contributing with any insurance, self-insurance or joint self-insurance maintained by City, and the policy shall contain such an endorsement. The insurance policy or the endorsement shall contain a waiver of subrogation for the benefit of City. 9.2 Indemnity and Hold Harmless. Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) and hold harmless City Parties from and against any and all present and future liabilities, obligations, orders, claims, damages, fines, penalties and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and costs), including claims for any bodily injury, death, or property damage, resulting directly or indirectly from the development or construction of the Project by or on behalf of Developer or relocation of any existing tenants on the Property, and/or from any other acts or omissions of Developer under this Agreement, whether such acts or omissions are by Developer or any of Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, except to the extent such Claims arise from the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of City or City Parties. This Section 9.2 includes any and all present and future liabilities, obligations, orders, claims, damages, fines, penalties and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and costs) arising out of or in any way connected with Developer’s or its contractors’ obligations to comply with all State Labor Code requirements and implementing regulations of the Department of Industrial Relations pertaining to “public works” (collectively, “Prevailing Wage Laws”), including all claims that may be made by contractors, subcontractors or other third party claimants pursuant to Labor Code sections 1726 and 1781. 9.3 Defense and Cooperation in the Event of a Litigation Challenge. City and Developer shall cooperate in the defense of any court action or proceeding instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement, or the Project Approvals (“Litigation Challenge”), and the Parties shall keep each other informed of all developments relating to such defense, subject only to confidentiality requirements that may prevent the communication of such information. To the extent Developer desires to contest or defend such Litigation Challenge, (a) Developer shall take the lead role defending such Litigation Challenge and may, in its sole discretion, elect to be represented by the legal counsel of its choice; (b) City may, in its sole discretion, elect to be separately represented by the legal counsel of its choice in any such action or proceeding with the reasonable costs of such representation to be paid by Developer; (c) Developer shall reimburse City, within ten (10) business days following City’s written demand therefor, which may be made from time to time during the course of such litigation, all reasonable costs incurred by City in connection with the Litigation Challenge, including City’s administrative, legal, and court costs and City Attorney oversight expenses; and (d) Developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City Parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees or cost awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against City by way of judgment, settlement, or stipulation. Any proposed settlement of a Litigation Challenge shall be subject to City’s approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. If the terms of the proposed settlement would constitute an amendment or modification of this Agreement or any Project Approvals, the settlement shall not become effective unless such amendment or modification is approved by City in accordance with Applicable Law, and City reserves its full 322 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 28 legislative discretion with respect thereto. If Developer opts not to contest or defend such Litigation Challenge, City shall have no obligation to do so. ARTICLE 10 ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE 10.1 Assignment. Because of the necessity to coordinate development of the entirety of the Property pursuant to plans for the Project, particularly with respect to the provision of on- and off-site public improvements and public services and benefits, certain restrictions on the right of Developer to assign or transfer its interest under this Agreement with respect to the Property, or any portion thereof, are necessary in order to assure the achievement of the goals, objectives and public benefits of the Project and this Agreement. Developer agrees to and accepts the restrictions set forth in this Section 10.1 as reasonable and as a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement. Developer shall have the right to sell or transfer its fee interest, or ground lease its interests in the Property, in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act) to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm, company, corporation or other entity (any of the foregoing, an “Assignee”) subject to the written consent of City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned, provided that Developer may assign its rights under this Agreement without the consent of City to any corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other entity which is controlling of, controlled by, or under common control with Developer, and “control,” for purposes of this definition, means effective management and control of the other entity, subject only to major events requiring the consent or approval of the other owners of such entity (“Affiliated Party”). City’s written consent, as required above, shall be provided by City within thirty (30) days of City’s receipt of the notice provided in Section 10.1.2 below, if Developer has satisfied all of the following conditions: 10.1.1 No Default. Developer is not in Default under this Agreement or the Assignee agrees to cure any Default; 10.1.2 Notice. Developer shall provide the City with written notice of any proposed transfer or assignment of Developer’s rights or obligations hereunder (each, an “Assignment”) at least thirty (30) days prior to such Assignment. Each such notice of proposed Assignment shall be accompanied by evidence of Assignee’s assumption of Developer’s obligations hereunder in the form of Exhibit H, which shall be recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County; and 10.1.3 Payment of Costs. Developer shall pay the actual costs borne by City in connection with its review of the proposed Assignment, including the costs incurred by the City Attorney’s Office. Assignee shall succeed to the rights, duties and obligations of Developer only with respect to the parcel or parcels, or portion of the Property so purchased, transferred, ground leased or assigned, and Developer shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement with respect to any remaining portions of the Property retained by Developer and not assigned. 323 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 29 10.2 Release of Transferring Developer. Except with respect to a permitted transfer and assignment to an Affiliated Party, notwithstanding any sale, transfer or assignment of all or a portion of the Property, Developer shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement as to all or the portion of the Property so transferred unless City has consented to the assignment as provided above. 10.3 Assignment to Financial Institutions or Mortgagee. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, Developer may assign all or any part of its rights and duties under this Agreement to any financial institution or Mortgagee from which Developer has borrowed funds for use in constructing the Project or otherwise developing the Property and such financing shall not require consent from City. Developer shall provide a copy of the deed of trust and notice of any such financing assignment to City within ten (10) business days following execution thereof. A conditional assignment or other transfer by a financial institution or Mortgagee back to Developer as part of any financing transaction shall not require the City’s consent. In addition, nothing contained in this Agreement shall prevent a transfer or assignment of the Property, or any portion thereof, to a financial institution or Mortgagee as a result of a foreclosure of a Mortgage or deed in lieu of foreclosure, and any lender or Mortgagee acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, as a result of foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure shall take such Property subject to the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, in no event shall such lender or Mortgagee be liable for any Default of the Developer arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by such lender or Mortgagee (other than continuing Defaults for which Mortgagee shall be liable); and provided further in no event shall any lender or Mortgagee or its successors or assigns be entitled to a building permit or occupancy certificate for any portion of the Project until all outstanding obligations of the Developer have been performed, and until any and all outstanding Defaults have been cured. 10.4 Successive Assignment. In the event there is more than one Assignment under the provisions of this Article 10, the provisions of this Article 10 shall apply to each successive Assignment and Assignee. ARTICLE 11 MORTGAGEE PROTECTION 11.1 Mortgagee Protection. Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or limit Developer, at its sole discretion, from granting one or more Mortgages encumbering all or a portion of Developer’s interest in the Property or portion thereof or improvement thereon as security for one or more loans or other financing, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against and shall run to the benefit of Mortgagee who acquires title or possession to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise. Developer shall provide the City with a copy of the deed of trust or mortgage within ten (10) days after its recording in the official records of Santa Clara County; provided, however, 324 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 30 that Developer’s failure to provide such document shall not affect any Mortgage, including without limitation, the validity, priority or enforceability of such Mortgage. 11.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. No Mortgagee (including one who acquires title or possession to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise) shall have any obligation to construct or complete construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any use except in full compliance with this Agreement and the other Project Approvals nor to construct any improvements thereon or institute any uses other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Agreement, or otherwise under the Project Approvals. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 11.2, all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, the other Project Approvals, the Affordable Housing Relocation Agreement and the Affordable Housing Agreement, shall be binding upon and effective against and shall run to the benefit of any person or entity, including any Mortgagee, who acquires title or possession to the Property, or any portion thereof. 11.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If City receives a notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then City agrees to use its diligent, good faith efforts to deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any Notice of Default given to Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of Default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City’s Notice of Default. If a Mortgagee is required to obtain possession in order to cure any Default, the time to cure shall be tolled so long as the Mortgagee is attempting to obtain possession, including by appointment of a receiver or foreclosure, but in no event may this period exceed 120 days from the date the City delivers the Notice of Default to Developer. 11.4 No Supersedure. Nothing in this Section 11.4 shall be deemed to supersede or release a Mortgagee or modify a Mortgagee’s obligations under any subdivision or public improvement agreement or other obligation incurred with respect to the Project outside this Agreement, nor shall any provision of this Section 11.4 constitute an obligation of City to such Mortgagee, except as to the notice requirements of Section 11.3. 11.5 Mortgagee Requested Amendments. The Parties agree that they will make reasonable amendments to this Agreement, at the expense of Developer, to meet the requirements of any lender or Mortgagee for the Project. For the purposes of this Section 11.5, a reasonable amendment is one that does not relieve Developer of any of its material obligations under this Agreement or impair the ability of the City to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The Parties further agree that any reasonable amendments to the Mortgagee Protection provisions of this Agreement required to conform to current industry practice would qualify as a Minor Amendment and may be processed in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of this Agreement. 325 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 31 ARTICLE 12 DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION 12.1 Breach and Default. Subject to a Permitted Delay in Section 12.1 or a mutual extension pursuant to Section 13.11, except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, breach of, failure, or delay by either Party to perform any term or condition of this Agreement shall constitute a “Default.” In the event of any alleged Default of any term, condition, or obligation of this Agreement, the Party alleging such Default shall give the defaulting Party notice in writing specifying the nature of the alleged Default and the manner in which the Default may be satisfactorily cured (“Notice of Breach”). The defaulting Party shall cure the Default within thirty (30) days following receipt of the Notice of Breach, provided, however, if the nature of the alleged Default is non-monetary and such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, then the commencement of the cure within such time period, and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure thereafter, shall be deemed to be a cure, provided that if the cure is not diligently prosecuted to completion, then no additional cure period shall be provided. If the alleged failure is cured within the time provided above, then no Default shall exist and the noticing Party shall take no further action to exercise any remedies available hereunder. If the alleged failure is not cured, then a Default shall exist under this Agreement and the non-defaulting Party may exercise any of the remedies available under this Agreement. 12.2 Withholding of Permits. In the event of a Default by Developer, or following notice of breach to Developer pursuant to Section 12.1 above and during the cure period provided therein, upon a finding by the City Manager that Developer is in breach, City shall have the right to refuse to issue any permit or other Subsequent Approvals to which Developer would otherwise have been entitled pursuant to this Agreement until such Default or breach is cured. This provision is in addition to and shall not limit any actions that City may take to enforce the conditions of the Project Approvals. 12.3 Termination. In the event of a Default by a Party, the non-defaulting Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon giving notice of intent to terminate pursuant to Government Code section 65868 and regulations of City implementing such section. Following notice of intent to terminate, the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review in the manner set forth in Government Code section 65867 and City regulations implementing said section. Following consideration of the evidence presented in said review before the City Council, a Party alleging Default by the other Party may give written notice of termination of this Agreement to the other Party. Termination of this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12.9 hereof. 12.4 Specific Performance for Violation of a Condition. If City issues a Project Approval pursuant to this Agreement in reliance upon a specified condition being satisfied by Developer in the future, and if Developer then fails to satisfy such condition, City shall be entitled to specific performance for the purpose of causing Developer to satisfy such condition. 12.5 Legal Actions. 326 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 32 12.5.1 Institution of Legal Actions. In addition to any other rights or remedies, a Party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any Default, to enforce any covenants or agreements herein, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, or to obtain any other remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Any such legal action shall be brought in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County, California, except for actions that include claims in which the Federal District Court for the Northern District of the State of California has original jurisdiction, in which case the Northern District of the State of California shall be the proper venue. 12.5.2 Acceptance of Service of Process. In the event that any legal action is commenced by Developer against City, service of process on City shall be made by personal service upon the City Clerk of City or in such other manner as may be provided by law. In the event that any legal action is commenced by City against Developer, service of process on Developer shall be made by personal service upon Developer’s General Counsel, Developer’s registered agent for service of process, or in such other manner as may be provided by law. 12.6 Rights and Remedies Are Cumulative. The rights and remedies of the Parties are cumulative, and the exercise by a Party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same Default or any other Default by the other Party, except as otherwise expressly provided herein. 12.7 No Damages. In no event shall a Party, or its boards, commissions, officers, agents or employees, be liable in damages for any Default under this Agreement, it being expressly understood and agreed that the sole legal remedy available to a Party for a breach or violation of this Agreement by the other Party shall be an action in mandamus, specific performance or other injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, or to terminate this Agreement. This limitation on damages shall not preclude actions by a Party to enforce payments of monies or fees or the performance of obligations requiring an obligation of money from the other Party under the terms of this Agreement including, but not limited to, obligations to pay attorneys’ fees and obligations to advance monies or reimburse monies. In connection with the foregoing provisions, each Party acknowledges, warrants and represents that it has been fully informed with respect to, and represented by counsel of such Party’s choice in connection with, the rights and remedies of such Party hereunder and the waivers herein contained, and after such advice and consultation has presently and actually intended, with full knowledge of such Party’s rights and remedies otherwise available at law or in equity, to waive and relinquish such rights and remedies to the extent specified herein, and to rely to the extent herein specified solely on the remedies provided for herein with respect to any breach of this Agreement by the other Party. 12.8 Resolution of Disputes. With regard to any dispute involving the Project, the resolution of which is not provided for by this Agreement or Applicable Law, a Party shall, at the request of another Party, meet with designated representatives of the requesting Party promptly following its request. The parties to any such meetings shall attempt in good faith to resolve any such disputes. Nothing in this Section 12.8 shall in any way be interpreted as requiring that Developer, City and/or City’s designee reach agreement with regard to those matters being 327 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 33 addressed, nor shall the outcome of these meetings be binding in any way on City or Developer unless expressly agreed to in writing by the parties to such meetings. 12.9 Surviving Provisions. In the event this Agreement is terminated, neither Party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder, except for those obligations of Developer set forth in Section 9.2 and Section 9.3. ARTICLE 13 GENERAL PROVISIONS 13.1 Condemnation. As used herein, “Material Condemnation” means a condemnation of all or a portion of the Property that will have the effect of materially impeding or preventing development of the Project in accordance with this Agreement and the Project Approvals. In the event of a Material Condemnation, Developer may (a) request the City to amend this Agreement in accordance with the Development Agreement Statute and/or to amend the Project Approvals or Applicable City Regulations, which amendment shall not be unreasonably withheld; (b) decide, in its sole discretion, to challenge the condemnation; or (c) request that City agree to terminate this Agreement by mutual agreement, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld, by giving a written request for termination to the City. If the condemnation is not a Material Condemnation, Developer shall have no right to request termination of this Agreement pursuant to this Section 13.1. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed, or deemed to be, any waiver or release by Developer of any compensation or damages awarded pursuant to a Material Condemnation. 13.2 Covenants Binding on Successors and Assigns and Run with Land. Except as otherwise more specifically provided in this Agreement, this Agreement and all of its provisions, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations, shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns, and all other persons or entities acquiring the Property, or any interest therein, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, as provided in Government Code section 65868.5. 13.3 Notice. Any notice, demand or request which may be permitted, required or desired to be given in connection herewith shall be given in writing and directed to the City and Developer as follows: If to the City: City Clerk City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Telephone: (408)777-3200 328 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 34 with a copy to: City Attorney City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Telephone: (408)777-3200 And: City Manager City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Telephone: (408)777-3200 If to Developer: Carlene Matchniff Vice President IAC at Cupertino LLC. 690 North McCarthy Boulevard, #100 Milpitas, CA 95035 with a copy to: Jennifer Hernandez Partner Holland & Knight LLC 50 California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Notices to be deemed effective if delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested, or commercial courier, with delivery to be effective upon verification of receipt. Any Party may change its respective address for notices by providing written notice of such change to the other Parties. 13.4 Permitted Delays. Performance by either of the Parties of an obligation hereunder shall be excused during any period of “Permitted Delay.” Permitted Delay shall mean delay beyond the reasonable control of a Party including, without limitation, an inability to perform caused by (a) calamities, including without limitation earthquakes, floods, and fire; (b) civil commotion; (c) riots or terrorist acts; (d) strikes or other forms of material labor disputes; (e) shortages of materials or supplies; or (f) vandalism. A Party’s financial inability to perform or obtain financing or adverse economic conditions generally shall not be grounds for claiming a Permitted Delay. The Party claiming a Permitted Delay shall notify the other Party of its intent to claim a Permitted Delay, the specific grounds of the same and the anticipated period of the Permitted Delay within thirty (30) business days after the occurrence of the conditions which establish the grounds for the claim. If notice by the Party claiming such extension is sent to the other Party more than thirty (30) days after the commencement of the cause, the period shall commence to run only thirty (30) days prior to the giving of such notice. The period of 329 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 35 Permitted Delay shall last no longer than the conditions preventing performance. In no event shall any Permitted Delay extend the Term of this Agreement. 13.5 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 13.6 Waivers. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, any failures or delays by any Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies under this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any such rights or remedies, or deprive any such Party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. A Party may specifically and expressly waive in writing any condition or breach of this Agreement by the other Party, but no such waiver shall constitute a further or continuing waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other provision. Consent by one Party to any act by the other Party shall not be deemed to imply consent or waiver of the necessity of obtaining such consent for the same or similar acts in the future. 13.7 Construction of Agreement. All Parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed according to the fair meaning of its language. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, (a) the plural and singular numbers shall each be deemed to include the other; (b) the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders shall each be deemed to include the others; (c) “shall,” “will,” or “agrees” are mandatory, and “may” is permissive; (d) “or” is not exclusive; (e) “includes” and “including” are not limiting; and (f) “days” means calendar days unless specifically provided otherwise. 13.8 Headings. Section headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement. 13.9 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any term or provision of this Agreement to a specific situation, is found to be invalid, or unenforceable, in whole or in part for any reason, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unless an essential purpose of this Agreement would be defeated by loss of the invalid or unenforceable provisions, in which case any Party may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice thereof to the other Party. 13.10 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. All references to time in this Agreement shall refer to the time in effect in the State of California. 13.11 Extension of Time Limits. The time limits set forth in this Agreement may be extended by mutual consent in writing of the Parties in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 330 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 36 13.12 Other Necessary Acts. Each Party shall execute and deliver to the other all such further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals and this Agreement and to provide and secure to the other Party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges of this Agreement. 13.13 Signatures. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into and to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective legal entities of Developer and the City. 13.14 Entire Agreement. This Agreement (including all Recitals, exhibits attached hereto, each of which is fully incorporated herein by reference), integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and constitutes the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and all prior or contemporaneous oral agreements, understandings, representations and statements, and all prior written agreements, understandings, representations, and statements are terminated and superseded by this Agreement. 13.15 Estoppel Certificate. Developer or its lender may, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the City requesting the City to certify in writing (a) that this Agreement is in full force and effect; (b) that this Agreement has not been amended or modified or, if so amended or modified, identifying the amendments or modifications; (c) that Developer is not in Default of the performance of its obligations, or if in Default, to describe therein the nature and extent of any such Defaults; (d) those obligations under this Agreement have been satisfied since the date of the last Annual Review and those obligations under this Agreement that remain unsatisfied; and (e) such other information or matters relating to this Agreement and/or the Project as may be reasonably requested by Developer. Developer shall pay, within thirty (30) days following receipt of City’s invoice, the actual costs borne by City in connection with its review of the proposed estoppel certificate, including the costs expended by the City Attorney’s Office in connection therewith. The City Manager shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer hereunder. The form of estoppel certificate shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney. The City Manager shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following Developer’s request therefor. Developer and City acknowledge that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by tenants, transferees, investors, partners, bond counsel, underwriters, bond holders and Mortgagees. The request shall clearly indicate that failure of the City to respond within the thirty-day period will lead to a second and final request. Failure to respond to the second and final request within fifteen (15) days of receipt thereof shall be deemed approval of the estoppel certificate. 13.16 Recordation of Termination. Upon completion of the Project and Developer’s payment of all Impact Fees under Article 4 and other payments under Article 5 and recordation of the Affordable Housing/Relocation Agreement, or upon any earlier termination of this Agreement upon the mutual written consent of the Parties or as otherwise expressly provided herein, a written statement acknowledging Developer’s satisfaction of all obligations under this Agreement or such termination, in form and content reasonably satisfactory to the Parties, shall be executed by the Parties shall be recorded by City or Developer in the Official Records of Santa Clara County. 331 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 37 13.17 City Approvals and Actions. Whenever a reference is made herein to an action or approval to be undertaken by City, the City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to act on behalf of City, unless specifically provided otherwise or the context requires otherwise. 13.18 Negation of Partnership. The Parties specifically acknowledge that the Project is a private development, that no Party to this Agreement is acting as the agent of any other in any respect hereunder, and that each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. None of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between or among the Parties in the businesses of Developer, the affairs of the City, or otherwise, or cause them to be considered joint venturers or members of any joint enterprise. 13.19 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the signatory Parties and their successors and assigns, including Mortgagees. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision in this Agreement. 13.20 Governing State Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to its choice of law provisions. 13.21 Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference for all purposes as if set forth herein in full: Exhibit A: Property Description Exhibit B: Site Map Exhibit C: Affordable Housing Relocation Agreement Exhibit D: Affordable Housing Agreement Exhibit E: Existing Impact Fees Exhibit F: TDM Program Exhibit G: Annual Review Form Exhibit H: Form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement If the recorder refuses to record any exhibit, the City Clerk may replace it with a single sheet bearing the exhibit identification letter, stating the title of the exhibit, the reason it is not being recorded, and that the original, certified by the City Clerk, is in the possession of the City Clerk and will be reattached to the original when it is returned by the recorder to the City Clerk. 332 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 38 [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 333 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 39 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. CITY: CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation By: David Brandt, City Manager [Signature must be notarized] ATTEST: By: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Randolph Stevenson Hom, City Attorney DEVELOPER: IAC AT CUPERTINO LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Name: Its: By: Name: Its: [Signatures must be notarized] 334 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Acknowledgments ACKNOWLEDGMENTS State of California ) ) ss County of ___________ ) On , before me,___________________________________________, (Name of Notary) notary public, personally appeared _________________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Notary Signature) A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 335 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Acknowledgments ACKNOWLEDGMENTS State of California ) ) ss County of ___________ ) On , before me,___________________________________________, (Name of Notary) notary public, personally appeared _________________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Notary Signature) A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 336 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit A-1 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL A: ALL OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED FOR RECORD ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1973 IN BOOK 329 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 49, RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF DEDICATED AND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, BY DEED RECORDED MAY 7, 1975 IN BOOK B397, PAGE 613, OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF PRUNERIDGE AVENUE WITH THE CENTERLINE OF WOLFE ROAD AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 329 OF MAPS AT PAGE 49, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID AVENUE, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID ROAD, S. 0° 35’ 45" W., 432.35 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID ROAD, S. 89° 24’ 15" E., 54.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING ALSO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF WOLFE ROAD AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE N. 0° 35’ 45" E., 326.33 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63° 15’ 31", AN ARC LENGTH OF 66.24 FEET; THENCE IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, WHOSE CENTER BEARS S. 26° 08’ 44" E., THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63° 15’ 31", AN ARC LENGTH OF 44.16 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 11.00 FEET EASTERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID EASTERLY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE S. 0° 35’ 45" W., 276.81 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15° 00’ 00", AN ARC LENGTH OF 26.18 FEET; THENCE S. 15° 35’ 45" W., 16.17 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15° 00’ 00", AN ARC LENGTH OF 26.18 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LYING WITHIN AREA 1 AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" OF THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22760862 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 337 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit A-2 EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS RIGHTS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN, GEOTHERMAL STEAM, ANY OTHER MATERIAL RESOURCES AND ALL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANY OF THE FOREGOING, THAT MAY BE WITHIN OR UNDER THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DRILLING, MINING, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFOR AND STORING IN AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM THE LAND OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM PROPERTIES OTHER THAN THOSE CONVEYED HEREBY, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS INTO, THROUGH OR ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND, AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, RETUNNEL, EQUIP, MAINTAIN, REPAIR, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES; WITHOUT, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DRILL, MINE, STORE, EXPLORE AND OPERATE THROUGH THE SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND AS RESERVED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MARCH 27, 2013, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22148706 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL B: PARCEL TWO AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A" AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "C" ATTACHED TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "B" TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT GRANT DEED, RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22760859 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LYING WITHIN AREA 1 AND 2 AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" OF THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22760862 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS RIGHTS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN, GEOTHERMAL STEAM, ANY OTHER MATERIAL RESOURCES AND ALL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANY OF THE FOREGOING, THAT MAY BE WITHIN OR UNDER THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DRILLING, MINING, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFOR AND STORING IN AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM THE LAND OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM PROPERTIES OTHER THAN THOSE CONVEYED HEREBY, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS INTO, THROUGH OR ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND, AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, RETUNNEL, EQUIP, MAINTAIN, REPAIR, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES; WITHOUT, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DRILL, MINE, STORE, EXPLORE AND OPERATE 338 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit A-3 THROUGH THE SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND AS RESERVED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MARCH 27, 2013, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22148706 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 339 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit B EXHIBIT B SITE MAP [TO BE INSERTED] 340 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit C-1 EXHIBIT C AFFORDABLE HOUSING RELOCATION AGREEMENT This AFFORDABLE HOUSING RELOCATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of this __ day of ____ 2016 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (the "City"), and IAC AT CUPERTINO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Developer"), (individually a "Party" and together the "Parties"), with reference to the following facts: A. Developer is the owner of that certain real property of approximately 12.44 acres located at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, California, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Parties have entered into a Development Agreement ("Development Agreement"), effective ______________ and recorded on ________ in the Official Records of Santa Clara County as Instrument No. __________, to facilitate development of the Property subject to certain terms and conditions. Developer intends to demolish the existing 342-unit apartment community on the property (“Existing Residential Development”) and redevelop the property with 942 apartments and related uses, as further described in the Development Agreement (the “Project”). All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Agreement have the meaning ascribed to them in the Development Agreement. C. As a material consideration for the long term assurances, vested rights, and other City obligations provided by the Development Agreement and as a material inducement to City to enter into the Development Agreement, Developer offered and agreed to certain conditions as specified in the Development Agreement. Section 3.13.2 of the Development Agreement specifies that the Parties shall enter into this Agreement prior to or concurrently with the execution of the Development Agreement. In addition, the Development Agreement Section 3.13.3 specifies that the Parties shall also enter an Affordable Housing Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for the Affordable Units in the Project (“Affordable Housing Agreement”). D. Developer is the successor-in-interest of Irvine Apartment Communities, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Original Declarant”), which executed that certain “City of Cupertino Below Market Rate Rental Housing – Declaration of Resale Controls” dated September 8, 1997 and recorded on October 20, 1997, as Document No. 13902426 in the Official Records of Santa Clara County (the “Original Declaration”) and declared for itself, its successors, heirs, grantees, and assigns that its interest in the Property would be held subject to the Original Declaration. The Original Declaration provided, in part, that thirty-four (34) units (the “Affordable Units”) that now exist on the Property would be occupied exclusively by, and rented to, persons or households of very low and low income in compliance with the provisions of the City’s Housing Mitigation Procedural Manual for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of recordation, or until October 20, 2027; and that any modification, amendment, or deletion of any terms of the 341 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit C-2 Original Declaration must be requested in writing and approved by the City Council of the City of Cupertino. E. Developer, as successor-in-interest to the Original Declarant, has requested in writing that City modify the Original Declaration to allow the Affordable Units to (i) be unoccupied for a period of approximately four years so that the Project may be built and (ii) to allow the Affordable Units to be removed and replaced in the Project. City’s approval of Developer’s request will result in the displacement of the tenants of the Affordable Units, and the City has determined that it is required to pay relocation benefits to tenants displaced from the Affordable Units (the “Affordable Unit Tenants”) as set forth in Government Code Section 7260 et seq. and implementing regulations (25 CCR Section 6000 et seq.) (collectively, “State Relocation Laws”). Developer desires to reimburse City for its costs of compliance with State Relocation Laws, to make replacement housing available to Affordable Unit Tenants, and otherwise to provide assistance to City in meeting its relocation obligations, thus enabling Developer to construct the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement and other valuable consideration, it is mutually agreed by and between the Parties as follows. AGREEMENT The Parties agree and acknowledge that the above recitals are true and accurate, and are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. ARTICLE 1. REIMBURSEMENT TO CITY OF COSTS OF RELOCATION Section 1.1. Reimbursement of Relocation Costs. Subject to the express terms of this Agreement, Developer hereby agrees to reimburse City for all third-party consultant costs and payments to Affordable Unit Tenants made under State Relocation Laws, including without limitation relocation advisory services, preparation of a Relocation Plan, moving expenses, rent differential, if any, storage costs, and utility connection charges (collectively “Relocation Costs”). Section 1.2. Deposit and Accounting of Funds. The City shall establish an account in which the Developer’s funds shall be deposited within thirty (30) days of the execution o f this Agreement and from which funds shall be disbursed from time to time by the City to pay Relocation Costs in accordance with this Agreement. The City shall keep separate records of the account, showing all deposits made by the Developer and all disbursements made by the City. All interest shall be retained with the fund. Not more than once every six months during the term of this Agreement, Developer shall have the right to review and/or audit and copy all books and records of City pertaining to City’s administration of this Agreement. 342 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit C-3 Section 1.3. Use of Funds and Additional Deposits. The City shall be permitted to utilize funds from the account to pay Relocation Costs as they are incurred. The Developer shall make an initial deposit equal to the cost of preparing the Relocation Plan within thirty (30) days of written notice of the cost from the City. If, at any time, a disbursement from the account will result in the balance in such account being reduced below the sum of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), City shall give written notice of such fact to Developer and Developer shall, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of such notice, deposit with City such additional amount as may be necessary to restore the balance of the account to Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000). In the event of any failure or refusal by Developer to deposit such additional amounts, City shall be entitled to suspend all further work of any type related to the relocation of the tenants from the Affordable Units, subject to the default and dispute resolution procedures as described in Section 3.1 of this Agreement. At the City’s option, written notice of payments due may be provided by e-mail to an address specified by the Developer, or by first class mail to the addresses specified in Section 4.2. Section 1.4. Reports to Developer. The City shall provide a monthly report to Developer showing the amount and purpose of each expenditure from the account. With respect to disbursements to consultants for Relocation Costs, the report shall identify the consultant and include a description of the services rendered, hours spent by consultant staff, and amount charged for such services. Disbursements to tenants shall be identified by category of payment (moving expenses, rent differential, etc.). Records of deposits and expenditures from the account shall be available to the Developer for inspection during the City’s regular business hours. Developer may submit written objections to any Relocation Costs that Developer believes are inconsistent with this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt of the monthly reports. Following completion of tenant relocation, any balance remaining in the account shall be refunded to Developer. ARTICLE 2. RELOCATION PROCESS Section 2.1. Preparation and Implementation of Relocation Plan. (a) City shall retain a consultant (the “Relocation Consultant”) to prepare a Relocation Plan in conformance with State Relocation Laws, including, but not limited to, 25 CCR § 6038, for approval by the City Council. The Relocation Plan shall provide relocation benefits to Affordable Unit Tenants as required by State Relocation Laws. The Relocation Consultant shall consult with the Developer in the preparation of the Relocation Plan. The Parties acknowledge their mutual goal to approve a Relocation Plan consistent with State Relocation Laws within one hundred and twenty (120) days following the Effective Date of this Agreement. (b) Prior to the date of the Relocation Notice, any Affordable Unit Tenant who: (i) occupied an Affordable Unit in the Existing Residential Development for at least ninety (90) days prior to the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, and (ii) moves from the Existing Residential Development after the Effective Date of the Development Agreement shall be considered a “displaced person” under the State Relocation Laws and shall be entitled to Relocation Costs. Within ten (10) days after an Affordable Unit Tenant notifies Developer of its 343 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit C-4 intent to vacate an Affordable Unit, the Developer shall provide the City with written notice and current contact information for any such Affordable Unit Tenant. The City, or, at the City’s option, the Relocation Consultant, shall provide any such Affordable Unit Tenant with written notice of the Affordable Unit Tenant’s rights as a displaced person as required by State Relocation Laws and shall provide relocation benefits to such Affordable Unit Tenant as applicable. (c) In the event that the Developer decides, in its sole and absolute discretion, not to proceed with the demolition of the Existing Residential Development and notifies the City in writing of its decision prior to the City Council approval of the Relocation Plan (“Relocation Suspension Notice”), the City shall direct the Relocation Consultant to suspend work on the approval and implementation of the Relocation Plan until further written notice. Upon further written notice to the City of the Developer’s intent to proceed, the Developer shall pay for the costs of any necessary revisions to the Relocation Plan. (d) In order to minimize disruption of the Affordable Unit Tenants to the maximum extent practical, no Relocation Notices pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.3 shall be sent subsequent to the adoption of a Relocation Plan until the Parties mutually agree in writing that the Developer intends to proceed with the Project. In the event that the revisions are necessary to the Relocation Plan prior to the time the Parties agree to send the Relocation Notices, the Developer shall pay all such costs. (e) The consultant shall provide relocation advisory services to Affordable Unit Tenants as required by State Relocation Laws. Section 2.2. Availability of Developer Property for Relocation during Construction. Developer has agreed that the Relocation Plan shall offer Affordable Unit Tenants comparable replacement dwellings in Developer’s North Park Apartment Homes, located at 3500 Palmilla Drive, San Jose 95134 (“North Park”), to the extent such units are then available, at the rental rate permitted by Section 3.2 of the Affordable Housing Agreement, for the period from the initial occupancy of the North Park unit by the Affordable Unit Tenant until an Affordable Unit is available for occupancy by the Affordable Unit Tenant in the Project, as further described in Article 3 of the Affordable Housing Agreement. No North Park units offered to the Affordable Unit Tenants, however, shall have been designated as affordable housing by the City of San Jose. Section 2.3. Right of First Refusal to Return. All Affordable Unit Tenants who are Eligible Households, as defined in the Affordable Housing Agreement, shall be offered a one- time right of first refusal for rental of a comparable Affordable Unit in either: (i) the Existing Residential Development if units are re-offered for rent prior to demolition of the Existing Residential Development; (ii) Relocated Affordable Units, if the Developer does not complete construction of the Project within the Maximum Suspension Period; or (iii) rental of a comparable Affordable Unit in the Project at the time a comparable Affordable Unit first becomes available for occupancy after completion, as further described in Sections 3.5 and 5.4(b) of the Affordable Housing Agreement (“Right of First Refusal”). Section 2.4. Monthly Annual Report. Following completion of the Relocation Plan, the Relocation Consultant shall submit a monthly report to the City and Developer, in a form 344 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit C-5 prescribed by or otherwise acceptable to the City, describing Relocation Consultant’s activities and the progress of tenant relocation. ARTICLE 3. DEFAULT Section 3.1. Default. Failure of the Developer to satisfy any of Developer's obligations under the terms of this Agreement within thirty (30) days after the delivery of a notice of default from the City, or, if the default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days, failure of the Developer to commence to cure within thirty (30) days and to thereafter diligently pursue such cure and complete such cure within ninety (90) days, will constitute a default under this Agreement and a default under the Development Agreement. The Parties agree to meet and confer during the cure period in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute regarding the asserted default or the cure thereof. In addition to remedies for breach of this Agreement, the City may exercise any and all remedies available to it, including but not limited to: (a) withholding, conditioning, suspending or revoking any permit, license, subdivision approval or map, or other entitlement for the Project, including without limitation issuance of demolition permits and building permits. (b) instituting against the Developer, or other parties, a civil action for declaratory relief, injunction or any other equitable relief, or relief at law, to compel or enforce Developer’s performance of its obligations under this Agreement, including without limitation an action to rescind a transaction and/or to require repayment of any funds received in connection with such a default; (c) where one or more persons have received financial benefit as a result of violation of this Agreement, the City may assess, and institute legal action to recover as necessary, a penalty in any amount up to and including the amount of financial benefit received, in addition to recovery of the benefit received; (d) any other means authorized under the City of Cupertino Municipal Code or any other federal or state statute. Section 3.2. Remedies Cumulative. No right, power, or remedy given to the City by the terms of this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other right, power, or remedy; and each and every such right, power, or remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to every other right, power, or remedy given to the City by the terms of this Agreement or by any statute or ordinance or otherwise against Developer and any other person. Neither the failure nor any delay on the part of the City to exercise any such rights and remedies shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise by the City of any such right or remedy preclude any other or further exercise of such right or remedy, or any other right or remedy. 345 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit C-6 ARTICLE 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 4.1. Hold Harmless. Developer will indemnify and hold harmless (without limit as to amount) City and its elected officials, officers, employees and agents in their official capacity (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), and any of them, from and against all loss, all risk of loss and all damage (including expense) sustained or incurred because of or by reason of any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, judgments and executions for damages of any and every kind and by whomever and whenever made or obtained, allegedly caused by, arising out of or relating in any manner to Developer's performance or non- performance under this Agreement or due to a legal action, claim, or proceeding instituted by a third party arising, directly or indirectly, from any damage to persons or property arising or resulting directly or indirectly from this Agreement or the relocation of the tenants from the Affordable Units and shall protect and defend Indemnitees, and any of them with respect thereto, except to the extent arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. The provisions of this Section shall survive expiration or other termination of this Agreement and the provisions of this Section shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4.2. Notices. Except as provided in Section 1.3, all notices required pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Party to receive such notice at the addressed set forth below: TO THE CITY: City of Cupertino Office of City Attorney 250 Hamilton Avenue Cupertino, CA 94301 TO THE DEVELOPER: Carlene Matchniff IAC at Cupertino LLC 890 North McCarthy Boulevard, #100 Milpitas, CA 95035 WITH A COPY TO: Jennifer L. Hernandez Holland & Knight LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 941111 Any Party may change the address to which notices are to be sent by notifying the other Parties of the new address, in the manner set forth above. 346 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit C-7 Section 4.3. Integrated Agreement; Relationship to Other Related Agreements and Documents. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties and no modification hereof shall be binding unless reduced to writing and signed by the Parties hereto. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement was negotiated and entered concurrently with the Development Agreement and the Affordable Housing Agreement. The Parties hereby agree that in effect of a direct conflict between this Agreement and the Development Agreement, the Development Agreement shall control. In the event of a direct conflict between this Agreement and the Affordable Housing Agreement, the Affordable Housing Agreement shall control. Section 4.4. Each Party’s Role in Drafting the Agreement. Each Party to this Agreement has had an opportunity to review the Agreement, confer with legal counsel regarding the meaning of the Agreement, and negotiate revisions to the Agreement. Accordingly, neither Party shall rely upon Civil Code Section 1654 in order to interpret any uncertainty in the meaning of the Agreement. Section 4.5. Amendment of Agreement; Approvals and Consents. (a) Amendments to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Council. No amendment may be approved that is inconsistent with State law, the Cupertino Municipal Code, the Development Agreement, or the Relocation Plan. Upon approval, a restated Agreement or amendments to this Agreement, as appropriate, shall be executed. (b) The City has authorized the City Manager to execute this Agreement and has authorized the Director to deliver such approvals or consents as are required by this Agreement. Any consents or approvals required under this Agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld or made, unless it is specifically provided that a sole discretion standard applies. Section 4.6. No Claims. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create or justify any claim against the City by any person that Developer may have employed or with whom Developer may have contracted relative to the purchase of materials, supplies or equipment, or the furnishing or the performance of any work or services with respect to the Property or the construction of the Project or construction of the Affordable Units. Section 4.7. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by California law. Venue shall be the County of Santa Clara. Section 4.8. Waivers. Any waiver by the City of any obligation or condition in this Agreement must be in writing. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure by the City to take action on any breach or default of Developer or to pursue any remedy allowed under this Agreement or applicable law. Any extension of time granted to Developer to perform any obligation under this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver or release from any of its obligations under this Agreement. Consent by the City to any act or omission by Developer shall not be construed to be a consent to any other or subsequent act or omission or to waive the requirement for the City's written consent to future waivers. 347 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit C-8 Section 4.9. Title of Parts and Sections. Any titles of the sections, subsections, or subparagraphs of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in interpreting any part of the Agreement's provisions. Section 4.10. Multiple Originals; Counterpart. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts. Section 4.11. Severability. In the event any limitation, condition, restriction, covenant, or provision contained in this Agreement is to be held invalid, void or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Agreement shall nevertheless be and remain in full force and effect. Section 4.12. Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated upon either (A) mutual written agreement of the parties or (B) the occurrence of the all of the following: (i) satisfaction of all Developer obligations under the Relocation Plan, (ii) full reimbursement to the City under Section 1.1, (iii) satisfaction of the Developer obligation to offer the Right of First Refusal in the Project under Section 2.3, and (iv) the execution and recording of the Affordable Housing Agreement. 348 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit C-9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. DEVELOPER: IAC at Cupertino LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By:__________________________________ Its:__________________________________ CITY: City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation By: ________________________ Its: _________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By:________________________________ 349 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit C-10 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Real property in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL A: ALL OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED FOR RECORD ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1973 IN BOOK 329 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 49, RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF DEDICATED AND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, BY DEED RECORDED MAY 7, 1975 IN BOOK B397, PAGE 613, OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF PRUNERIDGE AVENUE WITH THE CENTERLINE OF WOLFE ROAD AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 329 OF MAPS AT PAGE 49, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID AVENUE, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID ROAD, S. 0° 35’ 45" W., 432.35 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID ROAD, S. 89° 24’ 15" E., 54.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING ALSO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF WOLFE ROAD AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE N. 0° 35’ 45" E., 326.33 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63° 15’ 31", AN ARC LENGTH OF 66.24 FEET; THENCE IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, WHOSE CENTER BEARS S. 26° 08’ 44" E., THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63° 15’ 31", AN ARC LENGTH OF 44.16 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 11.00 FEET EASTERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID EASTERLY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE S. 0° 35’ 45" W., 276.81 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15° 00’ 00", AN ARC LENGTH OF 26.18 FEET; THENCE S. 15° 35’ 45" W., 16.17 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15° 00’ 00", AN ARC LENGTH OF 26.18 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LYING WITHIN AREA 1 AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" OF THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22760862 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS RIGHTS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN, GEOTHERMAL STEAM, ANY OTHER MATERIAL RESOURCES AND ALL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANY OF THE FOREGOING, THAT MAY BE WITHIN OR 350 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit C-11 UNDER THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DRILLING, MINING, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFOR AND STORING IN AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM THE LAND OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM PROPERTIES OTHER THAN THOSE CONVEYED HEREBY, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS INTO, THROUGH OR ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND, AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, RETUNNEL, EQUIP, MAINTAIN, REPAIR, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES; WITHOUT, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DRILL, MINE, STORE, EXPLORE AND OPERATE THROUGH THE SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND AS RESERVED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MARCH 27, 2013, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22148706 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL B: PARCEL TWO AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A" AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "C" ATTACHED TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "B" TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT GRANT DEED, RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22760859 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LYING WITHIN AREA 1 AND 2 AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" OF THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22760862 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS RIGHTS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN, GEOTHERMAL STEAM, ANY OTHER MATERIAL RESOURCES AND ALL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANY OF THE FOREGOING, THAT MAY BE WITHIN OR UNDER THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DRILLING, MINING, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFOR AND STORING IN AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM THE LAND OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM PROPERTIES OTHER THAN THOSE CONVEYED HEREBY, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS INTO, THROUGH OR ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND, AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, RETUNNEL, EQUIP, MAINTAIN, REPAIR, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES; WITHOUT, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DRILL, MINE, STORE, EXPLORE AND OPERATE THROUGH THE SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND AS RESERVED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MARCH 27, 2013, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22148706 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 351 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-1 EXHIBIT D RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Attn.: City Manager No fee for recording pursuant to (Space above for Recorder's Use) Government Code Section 27383 AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS This AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ("Agreement") is entered into as of this __ day of ____ 2016 (“Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (the "City"), and IAC AT CUPERTINO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Developer"), (individually a "Party" and together the "Parties"), with reference to the following facts: A. Developer is the owner of that certain real property of approximately 12.44 acres located at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, California, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Parties have entered into a Development Agreement ("Development Agreement"), effective ______________ and recorded on ________ in the Official Records of Santa Clara County as Instrument No. __________, to facilitate development of the Property subject to certain terms and conditions. Developer intends to demolish the existing 342-unit apartment community on the property (“Existing Residential Development”) and redevelop the property with 942 apartments and related uses, as further described in the Development Agreement (the “Project”). All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Agreement have the meaning ascribed to them in the Development Agreement. C. As a material consideration for the long term assurances, vested rights, and other City obligations provided by the Development Agreement and as a material inducement to City to enter into the Development Agreement, Developer offered and agreed to certain terms as specified in the Development Agreement. Section 3.13.3 of the Development Agreement specifies that the Parties shall enter into and record this Agreement prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the Development Agreement. D. Developer is the successor-in-interest of Irvine Apartment Communities, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Original Declarant”), which executed that certain “City of Cupertino Below Market Rate Rental Housing – Declaration of Resale Controls” dated September 8, 1997 and recorded on October 20, 1997, as Document No. 13902426 in the Official Records of Santa Clara County (the “Original Declaration”) and declared for itself, its successors, heirs, grantees, 352 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-2 and assigns that its interest in the Property would be held subject to the Original Declaration. The Original Declaration provided, in part, that thirty-four (34) units (the “Original Affordable Units”) that now exist on the Property would be occupied exclusively by, and rented to, persons or households of very low to low income in compliance with the provisions of the City’s Housing Mitigation Procedural Manual for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of recordation, or until October 20, 2027; and that any modification, amendment, or deletion of any terms of the Original Declaration must be requested in writing and approved by the City Council of the City of Cupertino. E. Developer, as successor-in-interest to the Original Declarant, has requested in writing that City modify the Original Declaration to allow the Original Affordable Units to (i) be unoccupied for a period of approximately four years so that the Project may be built and (ii) to allow the Original Affordable Units to be removed and replaced in the Project. F. To facilitate development of the Project, the Parties desire to release the Property from the terms of the Original Declaration and subject the Property to the terms of this Agreement. Should demolition of the Original Affordable Units not commence in the time period set forth in this Agreement, the Original Affordable Units shall be regulated in accordance with this Agreement. G. Should the Project proceed as contemplated, pursuant to Section 4.1.1 of the Development Agreement, in lieu of payment of some Housing Impact Fees (as that term is defined in the Development Agreement), the Developer has voluntarily committed to (1) provide an additional twenty eight (28) units in the Project to be occupied exclusively by, and rented to, households of low income (“New Affordable Units”) and (2) extend the term applicable to the Original Affordable Units in the Project to a term that is concurrent with the New Affordable Units. H. This Agreement allows the Developer to suspend the obligation to provide affordable units on the Property for a limited period, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; provides for inclusion of Affordable Units in the Project; and provides for the rights of Affordable Unit Tenants to occupy Affordable Units in the Project. The Parties intend that this Agreement shall embody the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter of the Original Declaration and, except as expressly provided in this Agreement, shall thereby supersede the Original Declaration on and after the Effective Date of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement and other valuable consideration, it is mutually agreed by and between the Parties as follows. AGREEMENT The Parties agree and acknowledge that the above recitals are true and accurate, and are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS Section 1.1. Definitions. When used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in this Article 1. 353 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-3 (a) “Affordable Rent” is the maximum allowable Rent for an Affordable Unit, equal to, for Affordable Units occupied by Low Income Households: one-twelfth (1/12th) of thirty percent (30%) of sixty percent (60%) of Area Median Income; and, for Affordable Units occupied by Very Low Income Households: one-twelfth (1/12th) of thirty percent (30%) of fifty percent (50%) of Area Median Income, both adjusted for assumed household size of one person in a studio Affordable Unit, two persons in a one-bedroom Affordable Unit, three persons in a two- bedroom Affordable Unit, and one additional person for every additional bedroom thereafter. (b) “Affordable Units" are those units to be constructed as part of the Project to be available at Affordable Rent to Very Low and Low Income Households. “Affordable Units” also include Original Affordable Units, Relocated Affordable Units, and the New Affordable Units, where applicable. (c) “Affordable Unit Tenants” are tenants displaced from Original Affordable Units. (d) “Agreement” is defined in the first paragraph on page 1 of this Agreement. (e) "Area Median Income" is the median Household Income in Santa Clara County as determined periodically by the State of California pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932 or successor provision. (f) “City” is defined in the first paragraph on page 1 of this Agreement. (g) “City Council” is the City Council of the City of Cupertino. (h) “Developer” is defined in the first paragraph on page 1 of this Agreement. (i) “Development Agreement” is defined in Recital B. (j) "Director" is the Community Development Director or successor position. (k) “Effective Date” is defined in the first paragraph on page 1 of this Agreement. (l) "Eligible Household" is a household which has been determined to be eligible to rent an Affordable Unit in compliance with this Agreement. (m) "Household Income" of a Tenant is determined as provided in the City’s Policy and Procedures Manual or successor publication. (n) “Initial Suspension Period” is defined in Section 3.1(a). (o) "Low Income Household" is a household with a Household Income between fifty percent (50%) and eighty percent (80%) of Area Median Income, adjusted for actual household size. (p) "Market Rate Units" are units in the Project which are not Affordable Units. (q) “Maximum Suspension Period” is defined in Section 3.1(b). 354 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-4 (r) “Mortgagee” is the holder of any mortgage, deed of trust, security agreement, and other like security instrument encumbering all or any portion of the Property or any of the Developer’s rights under this Agreement. (s) “New Affordable Units” is defined in Recital G. (t) “North Park” is Developer’s North Park Apartment Homes, located at 3500 Palmilla Drive, San Jose 95134. (u) “Original Affordable Units” is defined in Recital D. (v) “Original Declarant” is defined in Recital D. (w) “Original Declaration” is defined in Recital D. (x) “Original Term” is defined in Section 2.2(a). (y) "Party" or “Parties” are defined in the first paragraph on page 1 of this Agreement. (z) “Policy and Procedures Manual” is the Policy and Procedures Manual for Administering Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units, or successor publication, adopted from time to time by the City Council to the extent such successor publication does not conflict with any material terms of this Agreement. (aa) "Project" is defined in Recital B. (bb) “Property” is defined in Recital A. (cc) “Relocated Affordable Unit” is defined in Section 3.4. (dd) “Relocation Notice” is the ninety (90) day notice to Tenants prior to the requirement that the Tenants vacate an Original Affordable Housing Unit given pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.3. (ee) “Relocation Plan” is a plan adopted by the City regarding the relocation of the Affordable Unit Tenants as required by Government Code Section 7260 et seq. and implementing regulations (25 CCR Section 6000 et seq.). (ff) “Relocation Suspension Period” is defined in Section 3.1(b). (gg) "Rent" includes monthly rent paid to the Developer, utilities, and all mandatory fees for parking and other housing services associated with the Affordable Unit, including but not limited to parking, bicycle storage, storage lockers, and use of all common areas. An allowance for utilities paid by the Tenant is established by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority, and includes garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas and other heating, cooking and refrigeration fuel, but not telephone service or cable TV, and such allowance must be deducted from the monthly rent paid to the Developer. (hh) "Tenant" is a household occupying an Affordable Unit pursuant to a valid lease or rental agreement with the Developer. 355 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-5 (ii) "Tenant Lease" is defined in Section 6.4. (jj) “Term” is defined in Section 5.2. (kk) "Very Low Income Household" is a household with a Household Income at or below fifty percent (50%) of Area Median Income, adjusted for actual household size. Section 1.2. Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to and incorporated into this Agreement: Exhibit A Legal Description of the Property. Exhibit B Schedule of Affordable Units. Exhibit C Example of Affordable Rents and Maximum Income Level of Tenants for Affordable Units. ARTICLE 2. PRE-DEMOLITION RENT REGULATORY PROVISIONS Section 2.1. Effect of Article 2. The terms and conditions of this Article 2 shall apply as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. Upon Developer's application for, and City’s issuance of, a demolition permit to demolish all or part of the Existing Residential Development in connection with the Project, the terms and conditions of this Article 2 shall be of no further force and effect, and the terms and conditions of Article 4 and Article 5 shall govern the affordability and occupancy of the Affordable Units. Upon the termination of the applicability of this Article 2, the Parties shall cooperate in good faith to prepare and record a notice of such termination in a mutually-acceptable form. Section 2.2. Original Term. (a) The “Original Term” of this Agreement is the period in which each of the Original Affordable Units shall be rented to Very Low and Low Income Households for so long as this Article 2 remains in effect. For all of the Original Affordable Units, the Original Term shall be that period of time that is thirty (30) years from the effective date of the Original Declaration (or October 20, 2027); provided, however, that upon Developer's application for, and City’s issuance of, a demolition permit pursuant to Section 2.1 this Section shall have no further force and effect, and the Original Term shall be superseded by the Term, pursuant to Section 5.2. Section 2.3. Affordability and Occupancy Covenants. (a) Occupancy Requirements. Subject to the provisions of subsection (e) of this Section, the Affordable Units shall be rented to and occupied by Tenants meeting the following income requirements in accordance with Exhibit B: (1) Very Low Income Units. Seventeen (17) of the Affordable Units shall be rented at Affordable Rent to Very Low Income Households. 356 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-6 (2) Low Income Units. Seventeen (17) of the Affordable Units shall be rented at Affordable Rent to Low Income Households. (3) The Affordable Units shall not be kept vacant or used for any purpose except for residential use and shall be offered for rent to Eligible Households at Affordable Rents, except as expressly provided in Section 3.1 below. (b) Allowable Rent. Subject to the provisions of subsection (e) of this Section below, the maximum Rent charged to Tenants of the Affordable Units shall not exceed Affordable Rent. (c) City Approval of Rent Increases. The City shall review all proposed Rent increases to determine whether the proposed increases are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement. Developer shall certify to the City that Developer is not charging any fee other than Affordable Rent to Tenants of the Affordable Units for all of the components of Rent defined in Section 1.1(gg) above. (d) Schedule of Affordable Rents. The City has provided the Developer with a schedule of Affordable Rents for the Affordable Units in effect on the date of this Agreement, set forth in attached Exhibit C. The City annually determines Affordable Rents (including utility allowances) based on changes in Area Median Income and utility allowances, and Developer shall annually obtain a copy of the schedule from the Director. (e) Increased Income of Tenants. (1) Increase from Very Low Income to Low Income. If, upon annual recertification of a Tenant's Household Income, the Developer determines that a former Very Low Income Household's income has increased and exceeds the qualifying income for a Very Low Income Household, but does not exceed the qualifying limit for a Low Income Household, then, upon expiration of the Tenant's lease and after sixty (60) days written notice to the Tenant, the Tenant's Rent may be increased to Affordable Rent for Low Income Households. The Developer shall rent the next available Affordable Unit to a Very Low Income Household at a Rent not exceeding Affordable Rent for Very Low Income Households. (2) Increase above Low Income. If, upon recertification of a Tenant's Household Income, the Developer determines that the Tenant's Household Income has increased and exceeds the qualifying income for a Low Income Household, then the Tenant shall be given written notice that Tenant shall vacate the Affordable Unit three (3) months from the date of the notice or upon expiration of the Tenant's lease, whichever is later. A three (3) month extension may be granted by the Director in cases of extreme hardship. If, prior to the date by which the Tenant must vacate the Affordable Unit, another unit in the Project is vacated which is not designated as an Affordable Unit and is of appropriate bedroom size, the Developer may, at the Developer's option, request the Director to approve a change in the location of the Affordable Unit; allow the Tenant to remain in the original unit at market rent; and designate the newly vacated unit as an Affordable Unit if approved by the Director. 357 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-7 ARTICLE 3. SUSPENSION OF AFFORDABLE UNIT REQUIREMENTS; TENANT RELOCATION Section 3.1. Suspension Periods. (a) From and after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the requirement to maintain the Original Affordable Units at the Property shall be suspended for the period between the date an Affordable Unit Tenant voluntarily vacates an Original Affordable Unit and the earlier to occur of the following: (i) the date of the Relocation Notice, (ii) ninety (90) days after the Original Affordable Unit is vacated, or (iii) one (1) year after the Effective Date (the "Initial Suspension Period"). (b) The requirement to maintain the Original Affordable Units at the Property shall further be suspended for the period between the date an Affordable Unit Tenant vacates an Original Affordable Unit following the date of the Relocation Notice and the date that a replacement Affordable Unit is available for rent in the Project to that Affordable Unit Tenant (the “Relocation Suspension Period”). In no event shall the Relocation Suspension Period extend past January 1, 2021 (the “Maximum Suspension Period”). Section 3.2. Relocation of Affordable Unit Tenants. (a) Prior to the date of the Relocation Notice, any Affordable Unit Tenant who: (i) occupied an Affordable Unit in the Existing Residential Development for at least ninety (90) days prior to the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, and (ii) moves from the Existing Residential Development after the Effective Date of the Development Agreement shall be considered a “displaced person” under the State Relocation Laws and shall be entitled to Relocation Costs. Within ten (10) days after an Affordable Unit Tenant notifies Developer of its intent to vacate an Affordable Unit, the Developer shall provide the City with written notice and current contact information for any such Affordable Unit Tenant. The City, or, at the City’s option, the Relocation Consultant, shall provide any such Affordable Unit Tenant with written notice of the Affordable Unit Tenant’s rights as a displaced person as required by State Relocation Laws and shall provide relocation benefits to such Affordable Unit Tenant as applicable. (b) Following the date of the Relocation Notice, if an Affordable Unit Tenant is provided relocation assistance pursuant to the Relocation Plan and vacates the Original Affordable Unit, the Original Affordable Unit may remain vacant until: (i) it is demolished, (ii) units in the Existing Residential Development are re-offered for rent, or (iii) January 1, 2021, whichever is earlier. (c) Affordable Unit Tenants that elect to be relocated to North Park shall be charged Affordable Rent based on the Tenant’s Household Income, subject to the provisions of subsection (d) of this Section below, during the period between the initial occupancy of the North Park unit by the Affordable Unit Tenant and the earliest of: (i) the date that the Affordable Unit Tenant voluntarily vacates the unit in North Park, or (ii) thirty (30) days after the date that the sixty (60)-day period described in Section 3.5 expires. (d) Increased Income of Tenants. (1) Increase from Very Low Income to Low Income. If, upon annual recertification of a Tenant's Household Income, the Developer determines that a former Very 358 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-8 Low Income Household's income has increased and exceeds the qualifying income for a Very Low Income Household, but does not exceed the qualifying limit for a Low Income Household, then, upon expiration of the Tenant's lease and after sixty (60) days written notice to the Tenant, the Tenant's Rent may be increased to Affordable Rent for Low Income Households. (2) Increase from Very Low or Low Income to Moderate Income. If, upon annual recertification of a Tenant's Household Income, the Developer determines that a former Very Low or Low Income Household's income has increased and exceeds the qualifying income for a Very Low or Low Income Household, as applicable, but does not exceed the qualifying limit for a Moderate Income Household, then, upon expiration of the Tenant's lease and after sixty (60) days written notice to the Tenant, the Tenant's Rent may be increased to thirty-five percent (35%) of the Tenant’s Household Income. (3) Increase above Moderate Income. If, upon recertification of a Tenant's Household Income, the Developer determines that the Tenant's Household Income has increased and exceeds the qualifying income for a Moderate Income Household, then the Tenant shall be given written notice that Tenant shall vacate the North Park unit three (3) months from the date of the notice or upon expiration of the Tenant's lease, whichever is later. The Developer may, at the Developer's option, allow the Tenant to remain in the North Park unit at market rent. (4) For purposes of this Section, "Moderate Income Household" is a household with a Household Income between the Low Income limit and one hundred twenty percent (120%) of Area Median Income, adjusted for actual household size. Section 3.3. Original Affordable Units Not Demolished within Maximum Suspension Period. If any Original Affordable Units are not demolished within the Maximum Suspension Period, the Original Affordable Unit shall be made available for rent to an Eligible Household in the income category required under Article 2 of this Agreement; or the Developer shall make available a Relocated Affordable Unit as specified in Section 3.4. Section 3.4. Original Affordable Units Demolished; Construction Not Completed within Maximum Suspension Period. If Developer does not complete vertical construction of an Affordable Unit to replace an Original Affordable Unit at the Project before the end of the Maximum Suspension Period, Developer shall, no later than 90 days after the end of such Maximum Suspension Period, make available a “Relocated Affordable Unit” for rent to an Eligible Household in the same income category as the Original Affordable Unit. The Relocated Affordable Unit may be provided at an alternate location either within any existing structures at the Property or at such other alternate location within the City of Cupertino as mutually acceptable to City and Developer. Section 3.5. Right of First Refusal to Return. (a) The Developer shall provide all Affordable Unit Households who are Eligible Households a one-time right of first refusal for rental of a comparable Affordable Unit in either: (i) the Existing Residential Development if units are re-offered for rent prior to demolition of the Existing Residential Development; (ii) Relocated Affordable Units, if the Developer does not complete construction of the Project within the Maximum Suspension Period; or (iii) rental of a comparable Affordable Unit in the Project at the time a comparable Affordable Unit first becomes available for occupancy after completion. 359 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-9 (b) The Developer shall provide the City with written notice at least sixty (60) days before any units in the Existing Residential Development are re-offered for rent pursuant to this Article 3; before any Relocated Affordable Unit is offered for rent; or before an Affordable Unit in the Project becomes available for occupancy after completion. (c) After receiving notice from the Developer, the City shall provide an Affordable Unit Tenant with written notice of its one-time right to rent the Affordable Unit, subject to that tenant’s qualifying as an Eligible Household. The Affordable Unit Tenant shall have sixty (60) days from the date of such notice to qualify as an Eligible Household and to notify the City that the tenant elects to occupy the Affordable Unit, and shall have an additional thirty (30) days to occupy the Affordable Unit. If the Affordable Unit Tenant does not notify the City within the sixty (60)-day period, qualify as an Eligible Household, and occupy the Affordable Unit within the additional thirty (30)-day period, the Affordable Unit Tenant shall have no further rights to occupy an Affordable Unit. ARTICLE 4. CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT AND AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS Section 4.1. Applicability. The terms and conditions of this Article 4 shall apply upon Developer’s application for, and City’s issuance of, a demolition permit to demolish all or part of the Existing Residential Development in connection with the Project, upon which time the terms and conditions of Article 2 shall be of no further force and effect. Section 4.2. Construction of Affordable Units. The Affordable Units shall be constructed in the Project in proportion to construction of the Market-Rate Units, at a ratio of one Affordable Unit to each fifteen (15) Market-Rate Units. No building permit shall be issued for any Market-Rate Unit unless a proportional number of building permits have been issued for Affordable Units, and no certificates of occupancy or final inspections shall be issued for any Market-Rate Units unless a proportional number of certificates of occupancy or final inspections have been issued for Affordable Units. The Director may approve a modified construction schedule if this timing requirement will create unreasonable delays in the issuance of certificates of occupancy for Market-Rate Units and if the Developer provides satisfactory assurance, as approved by the Director, that the Affordable Units will be completed prior to completion of all of the Market-Rate Units. Each Affordable Unit shall be inspected by the City prior to occupancy to determine that it meets the construction and other standards required by this Agreement. Section 4.3. Appearance, Size and Bedroom Count of Affordable Units. (a) Appearance and Maintenance of Affordable Units. The Affordable Units in the Project shall be comparable to Market-Rate Units in terms of unit type, number of bedrooms per unit, quality of exterior appearance, and overall quality of construction. Affordable Unit sizes should be generally representative of the unit sizes of the Market-Rate Units, and the Affordable Units shall be dispersed throughout the Project, in accordance with Exhibit B. Interior features and finishes of Affordable Units shall be durable, of good quality, and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. Developer shall allocate and assign parking spaces, bicycle storage, storage lockers, and other spaces reserved for use by individual units to the Affordable Units on the same basis as for the Market-Rate Units, and Tenants of the Affordable Units shall have equal access to the Project's common areas as is given to the residents of the Market-Rate Units, but any fee charged for use of common areas or for spaces reserved for 360 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-10 individual units shall be included in the Tenant's Rent, as defined in Section 1.1(gg). Once completed, the Affordable Units shall not be kept vacant or used for any purpose except for residential use and, if vacant, shall be marketed concurrently with the Market-Rate Units and offered for rent to Eligible Households at Affordable Rents. (b) Location and Characteristics of Affordable Units. Developer shall provide Affordable Units in the Project in accordance with the schedule shown in Exhibit B. As provided in Exhibit B, the Affordable Units have a bedroom mix equivalent to the bedroom mix of the Market-Rate Units, except that the Developer may elect to provide the Affordable Units with more bedrooms. (c) Location of Affordable Units. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the Project, Developer shall submit to the Director the proposed location of the Affordable Units, for the Director’s reasonable approval consistent with Exhibit B. ARTICLE 5. PROJECT RENT REGULATORY PROVISIONS Section 5.1. Effect of Article 5. The terms and conditions of this Article 5 shall apply upon Developer's application for, and City’s issuance of, a demolition permit to demolish all or part of the Existing Residential Development in connection with the Project, upon which time the terms and conditions of Article 2 shall be of no further force and effect. Section 5.2. Term; Expiration of Term. The “Term” of this Agreement is the period in which each Affordable Unit shall be rented to Very Low and Low Income Households. For all Affordable Units, the Term shall be that period of time that is the later of (i) fifty five (55) years from the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the Project or (ii) the date the Project buildings are either (1) demolished or (2) converted to a non-residential use by the Developer with any City-issued approvals and permits that may be required. Section 5.3. Affordability and Occupancy Covenants. (a) Occupancy Requirements. Subject to the provisions of subsection (e) of this Section, the Affordable Units shall be rented to and occupied by Tenants meeting the following income requirements: (1) Very Low Income Units. Seventeen (17) of the Affordable Units shall be rented at Affordable Rent to Very Low Income Households. (2) Low Income Units. Forty five (45) of the Affordable Units shall be rented at Affordable Rent to Low Income Households. (3) The Affordable Units shall not be kept vacant or used for any purpose except for residential use and shall be offered for rent to Eligible Households at Affordable Rents. (b) Allowable Rent. Subject to the provisions of subsection (e) of this Section below, the maximum Rent charged to Tenants of the Affordable Units shall not exceed Affordable Rent. 361 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-11 (c) City Approval of Rents. Initial Rents for all Affordable Units shall be approved by the City prior to occupancy, which approval shall be in accordance with Affordable Rent as defined in Section 1.1(a) above. The City shall review all proposed Rent increases to determine whether the proposed increases are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement. Developer shall certify to the City that Developer is not charging any fee other than Affordable Rent to Tenants of the Affordable Units for all of the components of Rent defined in Section 1.1(gg) above. (d) Schedule of Affordable Rents. The City has provided the Developer with a schedule of Affordable Rents for the Affordable Units in effect on the date of this Agreement, set forth in attached Exhibit C. The City annually determines Affordable Rents (including utility allowances) based on changes in Area Median Income and utility allowances, and Developer shall annually obtain a copy of the schedule from the Director. (e) Increased Income of Tenants. (1) Increase from Very Low Income to Low Income. If, upon annual recertification of a Tenant's Household Income, the Developer determines that a former Very Low Income Household's income has increased and exceeds the qualifying income for a Very Low Income Household, but does not exceed the qualifying limit for a Low Income Household, then, upon expiration of the Tenant's lease and after sixty (60) days written notice to the Tenant, the Tenant's Rent may be increased to Affordable Rent for Low Income Households. The Developer shall rent the next available Affordable Unit to a Very Low Income Household at a Rent not exceeding Affordable Rent for Very Low Income Households. (2) Increase above Low Income. If, upon recertification of a Tenant's Household Income, the Developer determines that the Tenant's Household Income has increased and exceeds the qualifying income for a Low Income Household, then the Tenant shall be given written notice that Tenant shall vacate the Affordable Unit three (3) months from the date of the notice or upon expiration of the Tenant's lease, whichever is later. A three (3) month extension may be granted by the Director in cases of extreme hardship. If, prior to the date by which the Tenant must vacate the Affordable Unit, another unit in the Project is vacated which is not designated as an Affordable Unit and is of appropriate bedroom size, the Developer may, at the Developer's option, request the Director, pursuant to Section 4.2(c) above, to approve a change in the location of the Affordable Unit; allow the Tenant to remain in the original unit at market rent; and designate the newly vacated unit as an Affordable Unit if approved by the Director. Section 5.4. Marketing; Right of First Refusal to Return to Project. (a) Required City Approvals. At least sixty (60) days before any Affordable Units in the Project receive a final inspection or certificate of occupancy, the Developer shall notify City of the availability of the Affordable Units and certify in writing to the City its intent to manage the Affordable Units consistent with the Policy and Procedures Manual; the proposed form of Tenant Lease to confirm conformance with the provisions of Section 6.4 below; and proposed Affordable Rents for the Affordable Units, all for City review and approval. The Affordable Units shall be marketed concurrently with the marketing of the Market-Rate Units. (b) Tenants of Original Affordable Housing Prior to Construction. When each Affordable Unit at the Project is first made available for rent, the City shall provide an Affordable 362 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-12 Unit Tenant with written notice of its one-time right to rent the Affordable Unit, as provided in and subject to the conditions in Section 3.5 above. ARTICLE 6. GENERALLY APPLICABLE RENT REGULATORY PROVISIONS Section 6.1. Effect of Article 6. The terms and conditions of this Article 6 shall apply as of the Effective Date and continue through the later of the Original Term or the Term, regardless of whether Article 2 or Article 5 is in effect. Section 6.2. Agreement to Limitation on Rents. The Developer hereby covenants that the City's agreements to modify the Original Declaration and to enter into a Development Agreement for the Project are forms of assistance specified in Chapter 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. The Developer further covenants that it has agreed to limit Rents in the Affordable Units in consideration for the City's agreements to modify the Original Declaration and to enter into a Development Agreement for the Project under Civil Code Sections 1954.52(b) and 1954.53(a)(2). The Developer hereby agrees that any Affordable Units provided pursuant to this Agreement are not subject to Civil Code Section 1954.52(a) or any other provision of the Costa-Hawkins Act inconsistent with controls on rents, and further agrees that any limitations on Rents imposed on the Affordable Units are in conformance with the Costa-Hawkins Act. Section 6.3. Notice to Developer. Developer further acknowledges and agrees that the City, in its review of the Project and the Development Agreement, provided adequate and proper notice pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 of Developer's right to protest any requirements for fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions as may be included in this Agreement, that no protest in compliance with Section 66020 was made within ninety (90) days of the date that notice was given, and that the period has expired in which Developer may protest any and all fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions as may be included in this Agreement. Section 6.4. Lease Provisions. The Developer shall use a form of Tenant lease (the "Tenant Lease") approved by the City for the Affordable Units. The City shall either approve or specify its basis for disapproval, if any, within thirty (30) days after Developer submits such proposed form lease to City. The Tenant Lease shall, among other matters: (a) provide for termination of the lease for failure: (1) to provide any information required under this Agreement or reasonably requested by the Developer to establish or recertify the Tenant's qualification, or the qualification of the Tenant's household, as an Eligible Household in accordance with this Agreement, or (2) to qualify as an Eligible Household as a result of any material misrepresentation made by such Tenant with respect to the Household Income computation or certification; (b) provide that the Rent may not be raised more often than once every twelve (12) months. The Developer will provide each Tenant with at least sixty (60) days written notice of any increase in Rent applicable to such Tenant; 363 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-13 (c) prohibit subleasing of the Affordable Unit or any portion of the Affordable Unit or any spaces reserved for the use of the Tenant, contain nondiscrimination provisions, and include the Tenant's obligation to inform the Developer of any need for maintenance or repair; (d) allow termination of the tenancy only for an increase in T enant’s Household Income above qualifying income for Low Income Households or for good cause, including violation of the terms and conditions of the Tenant Lease, violations of applicable federal, state, or local law, or other good cause; (e) include, at Developer's option, the obligation for Tenant to provide a security deposit not exceeding two months' rent; (f) be for an initial term of one year; and (g) otherwise conform to the Policy and Procedures Manual. Section 6.5. Income Certification and Reporting. (a) Section 8 Vouchers and Certificate Holders. The Developer will review applications from prospective tenants of Affordable Units, on the same basis as all other prospective tenants, from persons who are recipients of federal certificates for rent subsidies pursuant to the existing housing program under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act or any successor. The Developer shall not apply selection criteria to Section 8 certificate or voucher holders that are more burdensome than criteria applied to all other prospective tenants for the Affordable Units, nor shall the Developer apply or permit the application of management policies or lease provisions with respect to the Project which have the effect of precluding occupancy of Affordable Units by such prospective tenants. (b) Income Certification. (1) Prior to Developer’s entering into a lease with a prospective tenant of an Affordable Unit, the prospective tenant household shall be certified by the City or its assignee as an Eligible Household. Developer may rely upon such certification by City without being required to independently verify such certification. (2) Annually thereafter, the Developer will obtain, complete and maintain on file Household Income certifications for each Tenant renting any of the Affordable Units. Developer shall make a good faith effort to verify that the Household Income statement provided by a Tenant is accurate by taking two or more of the following steps as a part of the verification process for all members of the Tenant household age eighteen (18) or older: (a) obtaining a minimum of the three (3) most current pay stubs; (b) obtaining an income tax return for the most recent tax year; (c) conducting a credit agency or similar search; (d) obtaining the three (3) most current savings and checking account bank statements; (e) obtaining an income verification form from a current employer; (f) obtaining an income verification form from the Social Security Administration and/or the California Department of Social Services if an adult member of the Tenant's household receives assistance from either of such agencies; or (g) if the Tenant is unemployed and has no such tax return, obtain another form of independent verification. Copies of annual Tenant Household Income certifications shall be provided to the City or its assignee for review. 364 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-14 (3) As an alternative to the procedure described in subparagraph (ii) of this subsection (b), Developer may contract with a provider approved by the City to certify Tenant Household Incomes on an annual basis. (c) Reports to City. (1) Annual Report. The Developer shall submit to the City on April 1st of each year a report, in a form prescribed by or otherwise acceptable to the City, verifying compliance by Developer with the terms of this Agreement and certified as correct by the Developer. The annual report shall include without limitation: Household Income for all Tenants of Affordable Units at the time of initial occupancy and at recertification; number of persons in each Affordable Unit; amount of Rent charged; other information reasonably required by the City. (2) Other Reports. Within fifteen (15) days after receipt of a written request, Developer shall provide any other information or completed forms reasonably requested by the City to ensure compliance with this Agreement. Section 6.6. Management of Property and Property Maintenance. (a) Management Responsibilities. Except for the City’s initial certification of a Tenant as an Eligible Household, the Developer is responsible for all management functions with respect to the Project, including, without limitation, the annual recertification of household size and Household Income (subject to review by the City or its assignee), selection of Tenants, evictions, collection of Rents and deposits, maintenance, landscaping, routine and extraordinary repairs, replacement of capital items, and security. The City shall have no responsibility over management of the Project. (b) Property Maintenance. The City places prime importance on quality maintenance to ensure that all developments within the City which include affordable housing units are not allowed to deteriorate due to below-average maintenance. Developer shall provide the Affordable Units with the same level and quality of maintenance, including performance of repairs and periodic replacement of fixtures as the Market-Rate Units. The Developer agrees to maintain all interior and exterior improvements, including landscaping, on the Property in good condition and repair (and, as to landscaping, in a healthy condition) and in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, ordinances, orders and regulations of all federal, state, county, municipal, and other governmental agencies and bodies having or claiming jurisdiction and all their respective departments, bureaus, and officials. (c) Taxes and Assessments. Developer shall pay all real and personal property taxes, assessments, if any, and charges and all franchise, income, employment, old age benefit, withholding, sales, and other taxes assessed against it, or payable by it, at such times and in such manner as to prevent any penalty from accruing, or any lien or charge from attaching to the Property; provided, however, that Developer shall have the right to contest in good faith, any such taxes, assessments, or charges. In the event Developer exercises its right to contest any tax, assessment, or charge against it, Developer, on final determination of the proceeding or contest, shall immediately pay or discharge any decision or judgment rendered against it, together with all costs, charges and interest. Section 6.7. Change in Location of Affordable Units. If, after recordation of this Agreement, Developer desires to change the location of any Affordable Unit within the Property, 365 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-15 Developer shall submit a written request for such change to the Director, who may approve such request provided that any relocated Affordable Units shall be comparable to those listed in Exhibit B and shall contain the same number of bedrooms. Section 6.8. Notice of Expiration of Term. Prior to the expiration of the Term (or the Original Term, if Article 2 remains in effect), Developer shall provide all notifications required by Government Code Sections 65863.10 and 65863.11 or successor provisions and any other notification required by any state, federal, or local law. In addition, at least six (6) months prior to the expiration of the Term for an Affordable Unit, the Developer shall provide a notice by first- class mail, postage prepaid, to all Tenants in the Affordable Units whose Term is expiring. The notice shall contain (a) the anticipated date of the expiration of the Term, (b) any anticipated Rent increase upon the expiration of the Term, (c) a statement that a copy of such notice will be sent to the City, and (d) a statement that a public hearing may be held by the City on the issue and that the Tenant will receive notice of the hearing at least fifteen (15) days in advance of any such hearing. The Developer shall file a copy of the above-described notice with the City Manager. ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT Section 7.1. Covenants Running with the Land. The City and Developer hereby declare their express intent that the covenants and restrictions set forth in this Agreement shall apply to and bind Developer and its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, transferees, and assignees having or acquiring any right, title or interest in or to any part of the Property and shall run with and burden such portions of the Property until terminated in accordance with Sections 2.2 or 5.2. Until all or portions of the Property are expressly released from the burdens of this Agreement, each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereafter executed covering or conveying the Property or any portion thereof shall be held conclusively to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to such covenants and restrictions, regardless of whether such covenants or restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument. In the event of foreclosure or transfer by deed-in-lieu of all or any portion of the Property prior to completion and sale of all of the Affordable Units, title to all or any portion of the Property shall be taken subject to this Agreement. Developer acknowledges that compliance with this Agreement is a land use requirement and a requirement of the Development Agreement, and that no event of foreclosure or trustee's sale may remove these requirements from the Property. Section 7.2. No Subordination; Notice to Mortgagees. In no event shall this Agreement be subordinated to, or recorded subordinate to, a mortgage, deed of trust, or other method of security encumbering the Property, other than current unpaid taxes. If City receives a notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then City agrees to use its diligent, good faith efforts to deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice of default given to Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City’s notice of default. If a Mortgagee is required to obtain possession in order to cure any default, the time to cure shall be tolled so long as the Mortgagee is attempting to obtain possession, including by appointment of a receiver or foreclosure, but in no event may this period exceed 120 days from the date the City delivers the notice of default to Developer. 366 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-16 Section 7.3. Release of Property from Agreement. Upon the expiration of the Term for all Affordable Units, Original Affordable Units, and Relocated Affordable Units, City shall execute and record a release of the Project, the Property, and each unit in the Project from the burdens of this Agreement within thirty (30) days following written notice from the Developer, if at the time the Developer is in compliance with all terms of this Agreement, including without limitation the provisions of Section 6.7 regarding notice of the expiration of the Term. Section 7.4. Default. Failure of the Developer to satisfy any of Developer's obligations under the terms of this Agreement within thirty (30) days after the delivery of a notice of default from the City, or, if the default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days, failure of the Developer to commence to cure within thirty (30) days and to thereafter diligently pursue such cure and complete such cure within ninety (90) days, will constitute a default under this Agreement and a default under the Development Agreement. The Parties agree to meet and confer during the cure period in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute regarding the asserted default or the cure thereof. In addition to remedies for breach of this Agreement, the City may exercise any and all remedies available to it, including but not limited to: (a) withholding, conditioning, suspending or revoking any permit, license, subdivision approval or map, or other entitlement for the Project, including without limitation final inspections for occupancy and/or certificates of occupancy; (b) instituting against the Developer, or other parties, a civil action for declaratory relief, injunction or any other equitable relief, or relief at law, including without limitation an action to rescind a transaction and/or to require repayment of any funds received in connection with such a violation; (c) where one or more persons have received financial benefit as a result of violation of this Agreement, the City may assess, and institute legal action to recover as necessary, a penalty in any amount up to and including the amount of financial benefit received, in addition to recovery of the benefit received; (d) requiring the Developer or his/her successors in interest to the Property to pay the City Rent or any other payment received by the Developer for the Affordable Unit from the date of any unauthorized use of the Affordable Unit or in excess of Affordable Rent; and (e) any other means authorized under the City of Cupertino Municipal Code or any other federal or state statute. Section 7.5. Remedies Cumulative. No right, power, or remedy given to the City by the terms of this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other right, power, or remedy; and each and every such right, power, or remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to every other right, power, or remedy given to the City by the terms of this Agreement or by any statute or ordinance or otherwise against Developer and any other person. Neither the failure nor any delay on the part of the City to exercise any such rights and remedies shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise by the City of any such right or remedy preclude any other or further exercise of such right or remedy, or any other right or remedy. Section 7.6. Force Majeure. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either Party shall not be deemed to be in Default where delays or defaults are due to causes beyond the Parties' reasonable control, including but not limited to acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, floods, earthquakes, terrorism, and strikes, and unusually severe 367 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-17 weather. An extension of time for any cause will be deemed granted if notice by the Party claiming such extension is sent to the other within ten (10) days from the commencement of the cause and such extension of time is not rejected in writing by the other Party within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice. In no event shall the City be required to agree to cumulative delays in excess of one hundred eighty (180) days. ARTICLE 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 8.1. Appointment of Other Agencies. At its sole discretion, the City may designate, appoint or contract with any other public agency, for-profit or non-profit organization to perform some or all of the City's obligations under this Agreement. Section 8.2. Records. Developer shall retain all records related to compliance with obligations under this Agreement for a period not less than five (5) years from the date of origination of such records, and make them available to City employees or others designated by the City for inspection and copying on five (5) business days' written notice. The City shall be entitled to monitor compliance with this Agreement, and Developer shall cooperate with City monitoring, including obtaining Rent and Household Income verification upon request of the City. Section 8.3. Monitoring Fee. Developer agrees to pay an annual monitoring fee as may be adopted by resolution of the City Council which is in force and effect for a similar class of affordable units. Section 8.4. Nondiscrimination. All of the Affordable Units shall be available for occupancy to members of the general public. Except as provided in this Agreement, the Developer shall not give preference to any particular class or group of persons in renting or selling the Affordable Units, except to the extent that the Affordable Units are required to be rented and sold to Eligible Households and as required by this Agreement; provided, however, there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons, on account of any bases prohibited by the Fair Housing Act and Fair Employment and Housing Act in the leasing, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of any unit in the Project, nor shall the Developer or any person claiming under or through the Developer, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use, or occupancy of any unit or in connection with the employment of persons for the construction, operation and management of the Project. Section 8.5. Hold Harmless. Developer will indemnify and hold harmless (without limit as to amount) City and its elected officials, officers, employees and agents in their official capacity (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), and any of them, from and against all loss, all risk of loss and all damage (including expense) sustained or incurr ed because of or by reason of any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, judgments and executions for damages of any and every kind and by whomever and whenever made or obtained, allegedly caused by, arising out of or relating in any manner to development or operation of the Project, the Affordable Units, or Developer's performance or non-performance under this Agreement, and shall protect and defend Indemnitees, and any of them with respect thereto, except to the extent arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. The provisions of this Section shall survive expiration or other termination of this 368 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-18 Agreement or any release of part or all of the Property from the burdens of this Agreement, and the provisions of this Section shall remain in full force and effect. Section 8.6. Notices. All notices required pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Party to receive such notice at the addressed set forth below: TO THE CITY: City of Cupertino Office of City Attorney 250 Hamilton Avenue Cupertino, CA 94301 TO THE DEVELOPER: Carlene Matchniff IAC at Cupertino LLC 890 North McCarthy Boulevard, #100 Milpitas, CA 95035 WITH A COPY TO: Jennifer L. Hernandez Holland & Knight LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 941111 Any Party may change the address to which notices are to be sent by notifying the other Parties of the new address, in the manner set forth above. Section 8.7. Integrated Agreement; Relationship to Other Related Agreements and Documents. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties and no modification hereof shall be binding unless reduced to writing and signed by the Parties hereto. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement was negotiated and entered concurrently with the Development Agreement and the Relocation Agreement. The Parties hereby agree that in the event of a direct conflict between this Agreement and either of those, this Agreement shall control. In addition, in the event of any direct conflict between a material term of this Agreement (including but not limited to, the Term of this Agreement) and the terms of the Policy and Procedures Manual, this Agreement shall control. Section 8.8. Each Party’s Role in Drafting the Agreement. Each Party to this Agreement has had an opportunity to review the Agreement, confer with legal counsel regarding the meaning of the Agreement, and negotiate revisions to the Agreement. Accordingly, neither Party shall rely upon Civil Code Section 1654 in order to interpret any uncertainty in the meaning of the Agreement. 369 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-19 Section 8.9. Amendment of Agreement; Approvals and Consents. (a) Amendments to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Council. No amendment may be approved that is inconsistent with State law, the Cupertino Municipal Code, the Development Agreement, or the Policy and Procedure Manual. Upon approval, a restated Agreement or amendments to this Agreement, as appropriate, shall be executed and recorded. (b) The City has authorized the City Manager to execute this Agreement and has authorized the Director to deliver such approvals or consents as are required by this Agreement. Any consents or approvals required under this Agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld or made, unless it is specifically provided that a sole discretion standard applies. Section 8.10. No Claims. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create or justify any claim against the City by any person that Developer may have employed or with whom Developer may have contracted relative to the purchase of materials, supplies or equipment, or the furnishing or the performance of any work or services with respect to the Property or the construction of the Project or construction of the Affordable Units. Section 8.11. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by California law. Venue shall be the County of Santa Clara. Section 8.12. Waivers. Any waiver by the City of any obligation or condition in this Agreement must be in writing. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure by the City to take action on any breach or default of Developer or to pursue any remedy allowed under this Agreement or applicable law. Any extension of time granted to Developer to perform any obligation under this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver or release from any of its obligations under this Agreement. Consent by the City to any act or omission by Developer shall not be construed to be a consent to any other or subsequent act or omission or to waive the requirement for the City's written consent to future waivers. Section 8.13. Title of Parts and Sections. Any titles of the sections, subsections, or subparagraphs of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in interpreting any part of the Agreement's provisions. Section 8.14. Multiple Originals; Counterpart. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts. Section 8.15. Recording of Agreement. This Agreement shall be recorded against the Property in the Official Records of the County of Santa Clara prior to the recordation of any parcel map or final subdivision map or issuance of any building permit for the Project, whichever occurs first. Section 8.16. Estoppel Certificate. Developer or its lender may, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the City requesting the City to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the City (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the Parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified or, if so amended or modified, identifying the amendments or modifications, and (c) Developer is not in Default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in Default, to describe the nature of 370 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-20 any Defaults. Developer and City acknowledge that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by the Developer and Mortgagees. The Developer may request the estoppel certificate to be in a recordable form and may record such certificate in the Official Records of Santa Clara County at its sole cost and expense. The City Manager shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer in a form reasonably approved by the City Attorney. The Developer shall pay all costs borne by City in connection with its review of any proposed estoppel certificate. Section 8.17. Severability. In the event any limitation, condition, restriction, covenant, or provision contained in this Agreement is to be held invalid, void or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Agreement shall nevertheless be and remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. DEVELOPER: IAC AT CUPERTINO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By:__________________________________ Its:__________________________________ CITY: City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation By: ________________________ Its: _________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ By:_________________________________ 371 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF __________________ ) On ____________________, before me, ___________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ____________________________________ Name: _____________________________ Notary Public A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 372 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-22 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF __________________ ) On ____________________, before me, ___________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ____________________________________ Name: _____________________________ Notary Public A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 373 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-23 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Real property in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL A: ALL OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED FOR RECORD ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1973 IN BOOK 329 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 49, RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF DEDICATED AND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, BY DEED RECORDED MAY 7, 1975 IN BOOK B397, PAGE 613, OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF PRUNERIDGE AVENUE WITH THE CENTERLINE OF WOLFE ROAD AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 329 OF MAPS AT PAGE 49, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID AVENUE, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID ROAD, S. 0° 35’ 45" W., 432.35 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID ROAD, S. 89° 24’ 15" E., 54.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING ALSO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF WOLFE ROAD AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE N. 0° 35’ 45" E., 326.33 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63° 15’ 31", AN ARC LENGTH OF 66.24 FEET; THENCE IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, WHOSE CENTER BEARS S. 26° 08’ 44" E., THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63° 15’ 31", AN ARC LENGTH OF 44.16 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 11.00 FEET EASTERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID EASTERLY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE S. 0° 35’ 45" W., 276.81 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15° 00’ 00", AN ARC LENGTH OF 26.18 FEET; THENCE S. 15° 35’ 45" W., 16.17 FEET; THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15° 00’ 00", AN ARC LENGTH OF 26.18 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LYING WITHIN AREA 1 AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" OF THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22760862 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS RIGHTS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN, GEOTHERMAL STEAM, ANY OTHER MATERIAL RESOURCES AND ALL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANY OF THE FOREGOING, THAT MAY BE WITHIN OR 374 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-24 UNDER THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DRILLING, MINING, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFOR AND STORING IN AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM THE LAND OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM PROPERTIES OTHER THAN THOSE CONVEYED HEREBY, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS INTO, THROUGH OR ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND, AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, RETUNNEL, EQUIP, MAINTAIN, REPAIR, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES; WITHOUT, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DRILL, MINE, STORE, EXPLORE AND OPERATE THROUGH THE SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND AS RESERVED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MARCH 27, 2013, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22148706 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL B: PARCEL TWO AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A" AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "C" ATTACHED TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "B" TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT GRANT DEED, RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22760859 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LYING WITHIN AREA 1 AND 2 AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" OF THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22760862 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS RIGHTS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN, GEOTHERMAL STEAM, ANY OTHER MATERIAL RESOURCES AND ALL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANY OF THE FOREGOING, THAT MAY BE WITHIN OR UNDER THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DRILLING, MINING, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFOR AND STORING IN AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM THE LAND OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM PROPERTIES OTHER THAN THOSE CONVEYED HEREBY, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS INTO, THROUGH OR ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND, AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, RETUNNEL, EQUIP, MAINTAIN, REPAIR, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES; WITHOUT, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DRILL, MINE, STORE, EXPLORE AND OPERATE THROUGH THE SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND AS RESERVED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MARCH 27, 2013, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22148706 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 375 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-25 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Existing Affordable Units Pursuant to Article 2 Number of Bedrooms Very Low Income Low Income Totals One 5 4 9 Two 12 13 25 TOTALS: 17 17 34 New Affordable Units Pursuant to Article 4 and Article 5 Number of Bedrooms Very Low Income to Replace Existing Affordable Units Low Income to Replace Existing Affordable Units Low Income for New Affordable Units Totals Studio - - 7 7 One 5 4 13 22 Two 12 13 8 33 TOTALS: 17 17 28 62 376 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit D-26 EXHIBIT C MAXIMUM INITIAL AFFORDABLE RENTS FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS AND MAXIMUM INCOME LEVEL OF TENANTS (Provided for reference. These limits are adjusted annually, as determined and published by the City. Project shall be subject to the Affordable Rents and Household Income limits in effect at the time Developer submits marketing plan to City.) A. Affordable Rents. Affordable Rent is defined in Section 1.1 of this Agreement. The table below illustrates how Affordable Rent is calculated, based upon 20__ State Income Limits adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development and contained in California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932. Number of Bedrooms AMI* for Assumed Household Size [50 or 60] Percent of AMI Maximum Annual Rent Maximum Monthly Affordable Rent** (1/12 of Maximum Annual Rent) (a) * AMI is Area Median Income. **A reasonable allowance for tenant-paid utilities must be deducted from the Tenant's monthly payments to the Developer. See definition of Rent in Section 1.1 for other fees and charges that must be deducted from the Tenant's monthly payments to the Developer. 20__ utility allowances are available at: __________________________________. B. Maximum Household Income of Tenants (Income Limits) Household Size (Number of Persons) Maximum Gross Annual Household Income Income limits for larger households available upon request from the City. 377 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit E EXHIBIT E EXISTING IMPACT FEES 1. Housing Mitigation Fees Section 4.1.1 2. Park Impact Fees Section 4.1.2 Fee in effect at time of payment if paid after [insert date per 4.1.2], estimated as of the Effective Date at $11,782,368 3. Public Art Contribution Section 4.1.3 Not less than $100,000 4. Citywide Transportation Impact Fees (if adopted) Section 4.1.4 $1,800,000, subject to reimbursement as provided in Section 4.1.4.2 378 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit F-1 EXHIBIT F TDM PROGRAM 1. TDM Management and Marketing Structure a. Transportation Coordinator. A Transportation Coordinator will be assigned to the Hamptons with the authority to implement TDM strategies and oversee the management and marketing of TDM programs. The Transportation Coordinator will be responsible for developing information materials, managing transportation services offered as part of the TDM program (i.e. websites, transit passes etc.), monitoring results, and coordinating with City/VTA staff and on-site representatives as needed. The Transportation Coordinator will also be responsible for providing annual reports on implementation of the TDM strategies and programs in coordination with the annual review of the Development Agreement. 2. TDM Program Content a. TDM Communications. Welcome Packets, Orientation Training and Information on transportation options and/or links to the appropriate website or app will be conveyed to all prospective tenants who are approved to rent an apartment and all prospective employees who receive an offer to work within the development. b. Transit Passes. The Welcome Packet will include annual VTA Eco Passes for the residents of the Project at the rate of one annual VTA Eco Pass per unit and valid for the first year of residency. c. Transportation Information Boards and Website. The development will have a location at which both residents and employees can obtain the above information on alternative transportation services. At a minimum, information posted at these sites will include a link to the website and contact information for the Transportation Coordinator and Representatives. Information may also include train and bus schedules, information on the 511 Rideshare program and transit pass programs. d. Rideshare Facilitation. The TDM Coordinator or TDM Representative will assist residents or employees in identifying other residents or employees from throughout the development who may be able to carpool to the site together. The TDM Coordinator or TDM Representative will assist with carpool and vanpool formation by finding suitable partners with similar work schedules, origins, and destinations. The TDM Coordinator or TDM Representative will assist the resident or employee in registering for the ridematching services such as those offered by 511.org. e. Development of Transportation Materials. The Transportation Coordinator will be responsible for developing materials that provide residents and employees with 379 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit F-2 information on how to get to and from the site using alternative modes. This may include: i. Transit passes available through transit agencies ii. Walking and biking routes within the area including estimated times iii. Bike parking facilities available on-site iv. Links to the schedules including train and bus schedules 3. TDM Design Features and Amenities a. Site Features and Bike Hub Design. The Northern portion of the on-grade public bike paseo provides a welcoming entrance for both pedestrians and bicyclists. The bike hub provides a destination, it is a flexible space where people can meet, bike to other destinations, and the surrounding space is ample enough for other programmatic aspects such as a farmers market for the local community. Bicyclists will have several opportunities to connect to both Wolfe Road and Pruneride Ave from the project. The paseo will be open during the day to the public which meanders throughout the buildings and amenity spaces allowing both bikers and pedestrians to enjoy lush landscape, water features, and a fireplace seating area. On site pathways will be provided on site for bicyclists to circulate the perimeter of the project for leisure or workout uses. b. Bicycle and Pedestrian Network. A well-designed network of streets, paths and crossings is key to improving pedestrian accessibility, which has been designed into the Hamptons project. Access to Wolfe Rd will be via two new proposed bike paths. Access to Pruneridge Ave will be primarily via the bike paseo on the Northern portion of the project. Creating a safe, comfortable, and convenient walking environment within a quarter- (5-minute walk) to half-mile (10-minute walk) of transit stations and stops is critical to supporting transit use. c. Bicycle Facilities. The bike hub space will serve several purposes. Besides providing ample class 1 bike storage, the bike hub will allow both residents and guests to service their bicycle as needed, socialize, and enjoy a cup of coffee. The bike hub will be designed to have air compressors, water, and other commonly used bicycle accessories. Over 377 additional bike storage spaces will be provided for residents in the garage. d. Bikesharing. Bike share systems provide a network of public bicycles from self- service bike share stations located in different places. Similar to carsharing, members can check out a bicycle, ride to their destination and return the bicycle to any bike share pod in the system. Bike share systems can provide real time information on the status of available bikes and empty docks through the web, kiosk and mobile application. A bikeshare program will be looked into for the Hamptons. 380 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit F-3 e. Multimodal Signage and Amenities. Multimodal way-finding and signage for residents, visitors and employees will be provided at major entry points to the site to provide information on the location of short-term and long-term bicycle parking and connections to transit stops. Internal way-finding will be provided to direct residents, visitors and guests to transit, and bicycle parking and car-share vehicle locations. f. Carpool and vanpool spaces. A certain number of parking spaces for carpool or vanpool vehicles will be provided and can encourage ridesharing. Parking spaces will be clearly marked and located in highly visible areas within the visitor parking area, near convenient access points such as the entrance to buildings. g. Parking Management. The project proponent will ensure that on-site parking programs within the complement area-wide parking strategies that are managed by the City such as time limits, residential permit parking, or metered parking. This cooperation aims to reduce potential parking spillovers that could result from residents or visitors of the residents. h. Unbundled Parking. Parking costs are generally subsumed into the rental price of housing. Although the cost of parking is often hidden in this way, parking is never free; instead the cost to construct and maintain the “free” parking is hidden in the lease pricing. Hamptons will provide unbundled parking which will be a strong incentive for residents to reduce the number of vehicles they operate. 4. TDM Program Compliance. a. Implementation, Monitoring and Enforcement. Ongoing monitoring is needed to ensure compliance with the TDM Program, in conjunction with the project design features and proximity to transit. As result of periodic review of the TDM Program, this TDM Program may be modified, with the prior approval of the City Planning Director, from time to time to include alternate equally or more effective measures. If a TMA is formed and the Project is part of the TMA, the City Planning Director shall, annually, review the TDM Program to minimize duplicative efforts that are provided by the TMA. 5. Parking Provided. a. Parking Ratio. As supported by the Project’s parking study a parking ratio of 1.8 parking stalls per (1) residential unit is proposed for this project. On average, the Irvine Company’s current Northern California portfolio of apartment homes have a 1.8 parking ratio, which has proven to be more than adequate and often times is a higher ratio than the municipality requires. The Hamptons has a high ratio of 1 BR and studio units (68%) of the total mix which justifies the lower than 2:1 parking ratio. The recent re-design of the bike hub and paseo that incentivizes pedestrian and bicycle use combined with the vast amount of bike parking and storage provided is another compelling reason a 1.8 parking ratio is requested. 381 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit F-4 Tenants of two bedroom units must pay for more than one parking space to order to incentivize tenants to own and operate one vehicle. . 382 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit G-1 EXHIBIT G ANNUAL REVIEW FORM This Annual Review Form is submitted to the City of Cupertino (“City”) by IAC at Cupertino LLC (“Developer”) pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code section 65865.1 and Chapter 18.245 of the City’s Municipal Code regarding Developer’s good faith compliance with its obligations under the Development Agreement between the City and Developer having an Effective Date of ________________ (“Development Agreement”). All Article and Section references are to the Development Agreement. Any capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Development Agreement. Annual Review Period: ______________ to ______________. Generally summarize the status of Developer’s efforts and progress in processing, constructing and selling or leasing residential units allocated under the Development Agreement. Generally summarize specific strategies to be followed in the coming year intended to facilitate the processing of permits and or Project construction. Specify whether Developer’s compliance with any of the following agreements have been satisfied during this annual review period:  Affordable Housing Relocation Agreement (and Relocation Plan) under Section 3.13.1.  Affordable Housing Agreement under Section 13.3.2. Specify whether applicable Existing Impact Fees, processing fees, connection fees and/or other fees due and payable under Article 4 have been paid during this annual review period, including but not limited to the following:  Housing Mitigation Fees under Section 4.1.1.  Park Impact Fees under Section 4.1.1.  Public Art Contribution under Section 4.1.3.  Transportation Impact Fees under Section 4.1.4. Describe whether Developer’s compliance with any of the following Public Benefits under Article 5 have been satisfied during this annual review period:  Civic Facilities Payment pursuant to Section 5.1.1.1.  SCVWD Agreement pursuant to Section 5.1.1.2. 383 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit G-2  Wolfe Road Interchange Project Payment pursuant to Section 5.1.1.3.  School Fees Agreement pursuant to Section 5.1.2.  TDM Program and Vallco TMA Payment pursuant to Section 5.1.3.  Business License pursuant to Section 5.2.  Sales Tax Point of Sale Designation under Section 5.3.  Gateway Sign under Section 5.4. Describe whether other applicable Development Agreement obligations were completed during this annual review period. Describe any extension of the Initial Term of the Development Agreement as a result of either Section 2.2.1 or Permitted Delay pursuant to Section 13.4. Specify whether Developer has assigned the Development Agreement or otherwise conveyed the Property during this annual review period. The undersigned representative confirms that Developer is: ______ In good faith compliance with its obligations under the Development Agreement for this annual review period. ______ Not in good faith compliance with its obligations under the Development Agreement for this annual review period, in response to which Developer is taking the actions set forth in the attachment hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Developer has executed this Annual Review Form as of this ____ day of _________________, 20__. DEVELOPER: IAC AT CUPERTINO LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Name: Title: 384 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit H-1 EXHIBIT H FORM OF ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ Attention: ________________________ Exempt from Recording Fee per Government Code Section 27383 Space Above This Line for Recorder’s Use Only ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE HAMPTONS This Assignment of Rights and Obligations Under Development Agreement (this “Assignment”) is entered into this _____ day of ________________, 20__ (“Effective Date”), by and between _________________________________________, a _________________ (“Assignor”) and _________________________________________, a _________________ (“Assignee”). Assignor and Assignee are collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.” R E C I T A L S A. Assignor and the City of Cupertino, a California municipal corporation (“City”) have entered into that certain Development Agreement dated as of ________________, 2016 (“DA”) which was recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County on _____________, 2016 as Instrument No. _____________. B. Assignor [has requested approval from the City of the assignment to Assignee described herein pursuant to Section 10.1 of the DA] [has the right to make the assignment to Assignee under Section 10.1 of the DA.] C. [City has consented to the assignment described herein pursuant to Section 10.1 of the DA.] [Assignor has provided the City with documentation establishing that the assignment is appropriate pursuant to Article 10 of the DA because _______________.] A G R E E M E N T S NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual covenants set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 385 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit H-2 1. Assignment and Assumption of Interest. Assignor hereby transfers, assigns and conveys to Assignee, all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to, and all obligations, duties, responsibilities, conditions and restrictions under, the DA (the “Rights and Obligations”). Assignee, for itself and its successors and assigns, hereb y accepts the foregoing assignment, assumes all such Rights and Obligations, and expressly agrees for the benefit of City, to pay, perform and discharge all obligations of Assignor under the DA and to comply with all covenants and conditions of Assignor arising from or under the DA. 2. Governing Law; Venue. This Assignment shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. Any action to enforce or interpret this Assignment shall be filed and litigated exclusively in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California or in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. 3. Entire Agreement/Amendment. This Assignment constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior written and oral agreements with respect to the matters covered by this Assignment. This Assignment may not be amended except by an instrument in writing signed by each of the Parties and consented to in writing by City. 4. Further Assurances. Each Party shall execute and deliver such other certificates, agreements and documents and take such other actions as may be reasonably required to consummate or implement the transactions contemplated by this Assignment and the DA. 5. Benefit and Liability. Subject to the restrictions on transfer set forth in the DA, this Assignment and all of the terms, covenants, and conditions hereof shall extend to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective successors and permitted assigns of the Parties. 6. Rights of City. All rights of City under the DA and all obligations to City under the DA which were enforceable by City against Assignor prior to the Effective Date of this Assignment shall be fully enforceable by City against Assignee from and after the Effective Date of this Assignment. 7. Rights of Assignee. All rights of Assignor and obligations to Assignor under the DA which were enforceable by Assignor against City prior to the Effective Date of this Assignment shall be fully enforceable by Assignee against City from and after the Effective Date of this Assignment. 8. Release. As of the Effective Date, Assignor hereby relinquishes all rights under the DA, and all obligations of Assignor under the DA shall be terminated as to, and shall have no 386 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit H-3 more force or effect with respect to, Assignor, and Assignor is hereby released from any and all obligations under the DA. 9. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of any litigation pertaining to this Assignment, the losing party shall pay the prevailing party’s litigation costs and expenses, including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees. 10. City Consent; City is a Third-Party Beneficiary. City’s countersignature below is for the limited purposes of indicating consent to the assignment and assumption and release set forth in this Assignment (if necessary under the DA) pursuant to Sections 10.1 and 10.2 of the DA, and for clarifying that there is privity of contract between City and Assignee with respect to the DA. The City is an intended third-party beneficiary of this Assignment, and has the right, but not the obligation, to enforce the provisions hereof. 11. Recordation. Assignor shall cause this Assignment to be recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, and shall promptly provide conformed copies of the recorded Assignment to City and Assignee. 12. Address for Notices. Assignee’s address for notices, demands and communications under the DA is as follows: Office of the General Counsel 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 13. Captions; Interpretation. The section headings used herein are solely for convenience and shall not be used to interpret this Assignment. The Parties acknowledge that this Assignment is the product of negotiation and compromise on the part of both Parties, and the Parties agree, that since both have participated in the negotiation and drafting of this Assignment, this Assignment shall not be construed as if prepared by one of the Parties, but rather according to its fair meaning as a whole, as if both Parties had prepared it. 14. Severability. If any term, provision, condition or covenant of this Assignment or its application to any party or circumstances shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction, to any extent, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Assignment, or the application of the term, provision, condition or covenant to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected, and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law unless the rights and obligations of the Parties have been materially altered or abridged thereby. 387 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit H-4 15. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall, irrespective of the date of its execution and delivery, be deemed an original, and the counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF Assignor and Assignee have executed this Assignment as of the date first set forth above. ASSIGNOR: ________________________________, a _________________________________ By: FORM – DO NOT SIGN Name: Its: ASSIGNEE: ________________________________, a _________________________________ By: FORM – DO NOT SIGN Name: Its: [NOTE: The presence of the signature blocks below in this form shall not be deemed to require the consent of the City to any assignment that does not otherwise require the consent of City under the DA.] City of Cupertino, a California municipal corporation, hereby consents to the assignment and assumption described in the foregoing Assignment and Assumption Agreement. CITY: CITY OF CUPERTINO, a California municipal corporation By: FORM – DO NOT SIGN _______________, City Manager ATTEST: 388 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Exhibit H-5 ________________, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________, City Attorney 389 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGMENTS State of California ) ) ss County of ___________ ) On , before me,___________________________________________, (Name of Notary) notary public, personally appeared _________________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Notary Signature) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 390 #46824387_v1 OAK #4844-1370-8846 v12 Acknowledgements State of California ) ) ss County of ___________ ) On , before me,___________________________________________, (Name of Notary) notary public, personally appeared _________________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Notary Signature) A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 The Hamptons Redevelopment Project for the City of Cupertino April 15, 2016 | Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Image Credit: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2015. 466 467 Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles/Downtown • Los Angeles/West • Inland Empire • San Diego www.placeworks.com Prepared By: PlaceWorks 1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, California 94709 510.848.3815 510.848.4315 (f) The Hamptons Redevelopment Project for the City of Cupertino April 15, 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 468 469 PLACEWORKS i Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1. 1.1 Initial Study ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Tiering Process .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Report Organization ........................................................................................................ 1-3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 3-1 3. 3.1 Project Location and Site Characteristics .................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Project Components ..................................................................................................... 3-11 3.3 Required Permits and Approvals ................................................................................. 3-44 3.4 Required Fees and Community Benefits .................................................................... 3-44 GENERAL PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 4-1 4. 4.1 General Plan and General Plan EIR Consistency ....................................................... 4-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 5-1 5. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ..................................................................................... 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ......................................................... 6-1 6. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ........................................................................... 7-1 7. APPENDICES Appendix A: Tree Survey Appendix B: Geotechnical Investigation Appendix C: Water Supply Assessment Appendix D: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Appendix E: Health Risk Assessment Appendix F: Draft Tenate Relocation Plan Appendix G: Noise Data Appendix H: Draft Transportation Management Plan Appendix I: Parking and Transportation Data 470 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO TABLE OF CONTENTS ii APRIL 15, 2016 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1 Regional and Vicinity Map ............................................................................................. 3-2 Figure 3-2 Aerial View of Project Site and Surroundings .............................................................. 3-3 Figure 3-3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-4 Existing Views from Project Area .................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-5 Conceptual Site Plan .................................................................................................... 3-14 Figure 3-6 Conceptual Open Space Plan ................................................................................... 3-17 Figure 3-7 Bike Hub and Conceptual Promenade Plan ............................................................ 3-18 Figure 3-8 Site Sections .................................................................................................................... 3-19 Figure 3-9 Building Height Compliance ........................................................................................ 3-21 Figure 3-10 West Elevation ................................................................................................................ 3-22 Figure 3-11 North Elevation ............................................................................................................... 3-23 Figure 3-12 East Elevation .................................................................................................................. 3-24 Figure 3-13 South Elevation ............................................................................................................... 3-25 Figure 3-14 Setback Compliance .................................................................................................... 3-26 Figure 3-15 Vehicular Circulation Map ........................................................................................... 3-28 Figure 3-16 On-site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Map ...................................................... 3-29 Figure 3-17 Off-Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Map ..................................................... 3-30 Figure 3-18 Conceptual Landscaping Plan ................................................................................... 3-34 Figure 3-19 Tree Removal and Protection Plan A ......................................................................... 3-37 Figure 3-20 Tree Removal and Protection Plan B .......................................................................... 3-38 Figure 3-21 Conceptual Utility Plan A .............................................................................................. 3-39 Figure 3-22 Conceptual Utility Plan B .............................................................................................. 3-40 Figure 3-23 Conceptual Stormwater Control Plan A .................................................................... 3-41 Figure 3-24 Conceptual Stormwater Control Plan B ..................................................................... 3-42 Figure 5-1 Simulated Height from the Street Level Perspective .................................................. 5-4 Figure 5-2 Study Area Intersections ............................................................................................... 5-84 471 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO TABLE OF CONTENTS PLACEWORKS iii LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Demolition and Construction Phasing ........................................................................ 3-13 Table 3-2 Existing Transit Service .................................................................................................... 3-32 Table 3-3 Required Fees and Community Benefits .................................................................... 3-44 Table 5-1 Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates ............................. 5-11 Table 5-2 Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates - Mitigated ......... 5-12 Table 5-3 Operation-Related Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Forecast ................................. 5-13 Table 5-4 Construction Risk Summary – Unmitigated ................................................................ 5-16 Table 5-5 Construction Risk Summary – Mitigated ..................................................................... 5-17 Table 5-6 On-Site Risk Summary .................................................................................................... 5-18 Table 5-7 Project GHG Emissions ................................................................................................... 5-38 Table 5-8 Project Contributions to Traffic Noise Levels .............................................................. 5-61 Table 5-9 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels .................................................................. 5-66 Table 5-10 Maximum Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment ...................................... 5-67 Table 5-11 Average Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment ........................................ 5-68 Table 5-12 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Level ............................................................ 5-70 Table 5-13 Signalized Intersection LOS Definitions........................................................................ 5-81 Table 5-14 Freeway Segment Level of Service Definitions .......................................................... 5-81 Table 5-15 Existing Intersection Level of Service Results .............................................................. 5-83 Table 5-16 Existing Freeway (I-280) Level of Service Results ....................................................... 5-85 Table 5-17 Existing Transit Service .................................................................................................... 5-87 Table 5-18 Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Results ......................................... 5-90 Table 5-19 Background Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Results ............................... 5-92 Table 5-20 Construction Traffic Trip Generation Estimates ......................................................... 5-94 Table 5-21 Existing Freeway (I-280) Level of Service Results ....................................................... 5-96 Table 5-22 Water Supply Projections and Demand in Normal, Single-Dry Year and Multi-Dry Years .............................................................................................................. 5-102 Table 6-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ........................................................... 6-2 472 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO TABLE OF CONTENTS iv APRIL 15, 2016 This page intentionally left blank. 473 PLACEWORKS 1-1 Introduction 1. This document is an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Hamptons Redevelopment project (“proposed project”) prepared by the City of Cupertino (City) to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). Pursuant to Section 15051 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. The project site is located on a 12.4‐acre site at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue, which is currently developed with 342 occupied residential apartment units. The proposed project would involve demolishing the existing apartment complex and constructing a new 942‐unit residential apartment complex with the net new 600 residential units being consistent with the identification of the site as a “Priority Housing Element Site” in the 2014 ‐ 2022 Housing Element. The project site is assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 316‐06‐037 and is currently zoned Planned Development with Residential (P(Res)) and located within the High Density with greater than 35 dwelling units per acre (High Density (greater than 35 du/ac)) General Plan Land Use Designation. Under the current zoning and land use designations, the permitted residential density is 85 du/ac and the maximum height is 75 feet or 60 feet for buildings located within 50 feet of property lines abutting Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue and the Apple Campus 2 (AC2) site. 1.1 INITIAL STUDY Pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines,1 an Initial Study is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the lead agency as a basis for determining what form of environmental review is required for a project. The CEQA Guidelines require that an Initial Study contain a project description, description of environmental setting, identification of environmental effects by checklist or other similar form, explanation of environmental effects, discussion of mitigation for significant environmental effects, evaluation of the project’s consistency with existing and applicable land use controls, and the name of persons who prepared the study. 1.2 TIERING PROCESS The CEQA concept of "tiering" refers to the evaluation of general environmental matters in a broad program‐level EIR, with subsequent focused environmental documents for individual projects that implement the program. This Initial Study incorporates by reference the discussions in the City’s General 1 The CEQA Guidelines are found in California Code of Regulations, Title, 14, Sections 15000 et seq. 474 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO INTRODUCTION 1-2 APRIL 15, 2016 Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified by the Cupertino City Council in December 20142 and the addendum to that EIR that was approved by the City Council in October 2015,3 together hereinafter “General Plan EIR.” The analysis in this Initial Study concentrates on project‐specific issues of The Hamptons Redevelopment project. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of tiered environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive paperwork in the environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered documents by eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately addressed in the program EIR and by incorporating those analyses by reference. Section 15168(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides for simplifying the preparation of environmental documents on individual parts of the program by incorporating by reference analyses and discussions that apply to the program as a whole. Where an EIR has been prepared or certified for a program or plan, the environmental review for a later activity consistent with the program or plan should be limited to effects that were not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR or that are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15152[d]). This Initial Study is tiered from the General Plan EIR in accordance with Sections 15152 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code Section 21094. The General Plan EIR is a program EIR that was prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. The General Plan (Community Vision 2015–2040), hereinafter “General Plan,” is a comprehensive long‐range plan for the physical development of the city and serves as the basis for all planning‐related decisions made by City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council through the buildout horizon year 2040. The General Plan EIR analyzes full implementation of uses and physical development proposed under the General Plan, and it identifies measures to mitigate the significant adverse program‐level and cumulative impacts associated with that growth. The proposed project is an element of the growth that was anticipated in the General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. By tiering from the General Plan EIR, the analysis presented in Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of this tiered Initial Study relies on the General Plan EIR for the following:  a discussion of general background and setting information for environmental topic areas,  overall growth‐related issues,  issues that were evaluated in sufficient detail in the 2014 General Plan EIR for which there is no significant new information or change in circumstances that would require further analysis,  assessment of cumulative impacts, and  mitigation measures adopted and incorporated into the General Plan. This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project with respect to the General Plan EIR to determine what level of additional environmental review, if any, is appropriate. 2 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 4, 2014. 3 City of Cupertino, approved General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR Final Addendum, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 4, 2014. 475 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO INTRODUCTION PLACEWORKS 1-3 1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION This Initial Study is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter provides an introduction and overview of the Initial Study document. Chapter 2: Initial Study Checklist. This chapter summarizes pertinent details for the proposed project, including lead agency contact information, proposed project location, and General Plan and Zoning designations. Chapter 3: Project Description. This chapter describes the location and setting of the proposed project, along with its principal components, as well as a description of the policy setting and implementation process for the proposed project. Chapter 4: Consistency with the General Plan EIR. This chapter describes the consistency of the proposed project with the General Plan EIR. Chapter 5: Environmental Analysis. Making use of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, and Appendix F, Energy Conservation, this chapter identifies and discusses anticipated impacts from the proposed project, providing substantiation of the findings made. Chapter 6: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This chapter identifies the recommended mitigation measures as well as the conditions set forth for project approval categorized by impact area. Chapter 7: Organizations and Persons Consulted. This chapter presents a list of City and other agencies and consultant team members that contributed to the preparation of the Initial Study. 476 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO INTRODUCTION 1-4 APRIL 15, 2016 This page intentionally left blank. 477 PLACEWORKS 2-1 Initial Study Checklist 2. 1. Project Title: The Hamptons Redevelopment Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Catarina Kidd, Senior Planner catarinak@cupertino.org 408‐777‐3214 4. Project Location: 19500 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 5. Project Applicant’s Name and Address: Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Land Use Designation: High Density with greater than 35 dwelling units per acre (High Density (greater than 35 du/ac)) 7. Zoning: Planned Development with Residential (P(Res)) 8. Description of Project: See Project Description in Chapter 3 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See Project Description in Chapter 3 10. Other Public Agencies whose Approval is Required: The City of Cupertino is the sole agency responsible for approving the proposed project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration; however, permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board would be required for construction of the project. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE All documents cited in this report and used in its preparation are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. Copies of documents referenced herein are available for review at the City of Cupertino, Community Development Department, and 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014. 478 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 2-2 APRIL 15, 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact, as shown in Chapter 5 of this Initial Study.  Aesthetics  Agriculture & Forestry Resources  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Geology & Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Hydrology & Water Quality  Land Use  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population & Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation/Circulation  Utilities & Service Systems  Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Approved by: ___________________ Aarti Shrivastava, Date Community Development Director/Assistant City Manager City of Cupertino Community Development Department 479 PLACEWORKS 3-1 Project Description 3. The Irvine Company, the project applicant, is proposing the Hamptons Redevelopment Project (“proposed project”) that would involve the construction of a multi‐family residential project on a 12.4‐acre site. The site is currently developed with a 342‐unit multi‐family unit apartment complex. The proposed project would involve demolishing the existing 342 multi‐family apartment complex and redeveloping the site with a new 942‐unit residential apartment complex, with the net new 600 residential units being consistent with the identification of the site as a “Priority Housing Element Site” in the 2014‐2022 Housing Element. The proposed project would establish a six‐building residential apartment community with buildings ranging in height from six‐ to seven‐stories. This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including the location, setting, and characteristics of the project site, the principal project features, construction phasing and schedule, as well as a list of the required permits and approvals. Additional descriptions of the environmental setting discussions are included in the Sections I through XV of the environmental checklist by topic area in Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of this Initial Study. 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS 3.1.1 REGIONAL LOCATION As shown on Figure 3‐1, the project site is located in Cupertino, which is in the northwestern portion of Santa Clara County. Cupertino is roughly 45 miles south of San Francisco and 10 miles west of downtown San Jose. Interstate 280 (I‐280) provides regional access to the project site. 3.1.2 LOCAL SETTING The project site is located at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue in the northeast region of the city. The site is adjacent to the new Apple Campus 2 (AC2) that is currently under construction and proposed to be complete by the end of 2016. As shown on Figure 3‐2, the project site is bounded by Pruneridge Avenue to the north, AC2 to the east, the I‐280 exit ramp to the southwest, and Wolfe Road to the west. 480 280 280 880 680 85 85 237 17 87 101 PaloAlto Fremont SanJose SantaClara Sunnyvale Mountain View LosAltos LosAltos Hills Milpitas Campbell Los Gatos Saratoga SANMATEO COUNTY ALAMEDA COUNTY SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Cupertino Oakland Berkeley Palo Alto Fremont SanJose Santa Clara Sunny- vale Mt. View Los Altos Menlo Park Milpitas Hayward Dublin Redwood City SanMateo Daly City Union City Campbell Los Gatos Saratoga ALAMEDA COUNTY CITY& COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SANMATEO COUNTY SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONTRACOSTACOUNTY MARIN COUNTY SANTACRUZ COUNTY San Francisco Bay Pacific Ocean Cupertino 00.5 12345Miles Legend CityBoundary UrbanServiceAreaBoundary UnincorporatedAreasWithin BoundaryAgreementLine 2-2 Land Use/Community Design City of Cupertino General Plan Figure2-A. Cupertino Regional Location Regional Location Figure 3-1 Regional and Vicinity Map Source: City of Cupertino General Plan. Approximate Project Site Location THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 481 Source: Google Earth Pro, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2016. Figure 3-2 Aerial View of Project Site and SurroundingsProject Site 0 Scale (Feet) 1,000 Apple Campus 2 (AC2) Cupertino Village Shopping Center N. W o l f e R o a d N. T a n t a u A v e Homestead Road Pruneridge Ave Westwood Oaks Park Jenny Strand Park Cupertino High School Laurelwood Elementary School Sedgwick Elementary School Portal Park Pruneridge Ave PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 482 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-4 APRIL 15, 2016 As shown on Figure 3‐2, the location of the site is within one‐half a mile of employment centers and the Cupertino Village Shopping Center to the southeast. Cupertino Village offers cafes and restaurants for nearby workers and serves as a village center for the residential uses in this area. Portal Park is located approximately one mile to the southwest, Jenny Strand Park is located approximately three‐quarters of a mile to the southeast, and Westwood Oaks Park is located approximately one‐half mile to the east of the site. Cupertino High School and Sedgwick Elementary School in the Cupertino Union School District are approximately 1.5 miles to the south, while Laurelwood Elementary School in the Santa Clara Unified School District is located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast in the City of Santa Clara. 3.1.3 EXISTING SITE CHARACTER The project site was developed in 1998. As shown on Figure 3‐3, the site is currently developed with 10 residential buildings containing 342 apartment units and associated parking, recreational facilities, and ornamental landscaping, including numerous trees. A recent tree survey evaluated 433 trees on the site that represent 15 species.1 All trees appeared to have been planted as part of landscape development when the property was developed. While coast redwood is native to California, no trees of this species were indigenous to the project site and no trees met the City of Cupertino’s criteria for protected status.2 Using data from the Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG)3 habitat mapping program, the site is classified as an “urban area” that tends to have low to poor wildlife habitat value due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation of remaining open space areas and parks, and intensive human disturbance. The site is generally flat with elevation ranging from 160 to 205 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The surficial geology is young, unconsolidated Quaternary alluvium,4 which is described as Holocene‐age younger alluvium and coarse‐grained alluvium that are composed of unconsolidated, poorly sorted gravel, silt, sand, and clay and organic matter. Stormwater from the site would drain to a network of City‐maintained storm drains that collect runoff from city streets and carries it to the creeks that run through Cupertino and to the San Francisco Bay. 1 Tree Survey, The Hamptons, prepared for the Irvine Company by HortScience, Inc. May 2015. See Appendix A, Tree Survey, of this Initial Study. 2 The City of Cupertino Municipal Code (Section 14.80.050) defines “Protected” trees. See Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning, of this chapter for a summary of the City’s tree protection ordinance. 3 The CALVEG system was initiated in January 1978 by the Region 5 Ecology Group of the US Forest Service to classify California’s existing vegetation communities for use in statewide resource planning. CALVEG maps use a hierarchical classification on the following categories: forest; woodland; chaparral; shrubs; and herbaceous. 4 US Geological Survey, 1994, Preliminary Quaternary Geologic Maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties, California: A Digital Database, Open‐File Report 94‐231, by E.J. Helley, R.W. Graymer, G.A. Phelps, P.K. Showalter, and C.M. Wentworth. 483 0 Scale (Feet) 300Source: Google Earth Pro, 2016. Figure 3-3 Existing Conditions N. W o l f e R o a d Pruneridge Ave Apple Campus 2 (AC2) Project Site PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 484 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-6 APRIL 15, 2016 As shown on Figure 3‐4, distant views looking south towards the Coast Range and looking east to the East Bay Mountains are limited from public vantage points along Wolfe Road surrounding the project site due to flat topography and existing development and landscaping. 3.1.4 LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING GENERAL PLAN 3.1.4.1 The project site is assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 316‐06‐037. In addition to the General Plan land use designation, the project site is located in a special planning area and designated gateway within the city. A description of the applicable General Plan policies and permitted development in these areas and designations is provided below. Planning Area and Gateway Under the adopted General Plan the site is located in the North Vallco Gateway, which is within the North Vallco Park Special Area. As described in Chapter 2, Planning Areas, of the General Plan, the North Vallco Park Special Area encompasses 240 acres and is an important employment center for Cupertino and the region. In addition to the project site, the North Vallco Gateway also includes two hotels and the Cupertino Village Shopping Center west of Wolfe Road. The North Vallco Park Special Area is envisioned to become a sustainable, office and campus environment surrounded by a mix of connected, high‐quality, pedestrian‐oriented retail, hotels and residential uses. Taller building heights and additional density may be allowed in the North Vallco Gateway. Building Height Building height affects the city’s appearance and identity, particularly in the pedestrian‐scaled areas. By regulating building heights, the City can protect view corridors, regulate building scale, and ensure consistency and compatibility within an area or along a street. As described in Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Design Element, and Chapter 4, Housing Element, the maximum height of 75 feet or 60 feet for buildings located within 50 feet of property lines abutting Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue and the AC2 site is allowed in this gateway. Land Use Designation The General Plan land use designation is High Density with greater than 35 dwelling units per acre (High Density (greater than 35 du/ac)). This land use designation promotes a wide range of housing choices in multi‐family dwellings. This land use designation is permitted at locations with adequate utility services or transit or both, and offers maximum opportunity for housing choice, especially for people who want a city environment. Development in these areas may result in structures with multiple levels and underground parking. 485 1 2 3 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. View 1: Looking South East on Wolfe Road. View 3: Looking North East on Wolfe Road. View 1: Looking South East on Wolfe Road. Figure 3-4 Existing Views From Project Area N. W o l f e R o a d Pruneridge Ave PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 486 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-8 APRIL 15, 2016 Housing Element Site The project site is one of the five Priority Housing Element sites in the City’s adopted Housing Element5 to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014–2022 planning period and meet the City’s fair‐share housing obligation of 1,064 units. As described in the Housing Element, the maximum density on the project site is 85 du/ac and the realistic capacity is a net increase of 600 units.6 ZONING 3.1.4.2 Zoning District The project site is within the Planned Development with Residential (P(Res)) zoning district. As described in Municipal Code 19.80.010,7 the planned development zoning district is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the city that is uniquely suited for planned coordination of land uses. Development in this zoning district provides for a greater flexibility of land use intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical considerations, and community design objectives. This zoning district is intended to accomplish the following:  Encourage variety in the development pattern of the community.  Promote a more desirable living environment.  Encourage creative approaches in land development.  Provide a means of reducing the amount of improvements required in development through better design and land planning.  Conserve natural features.  Facilitate a more aesthetic and efficient use of open spaces.  Encourage the creation of public or private common open space. All planned development districts are identified on the zoning map with the letter coding "P" followed by a specific reference to the general type of use allowed in the particular planning development zoning district. The general type of use allowed on the project site is Residential (RES). Setbacks The required setbacks for the project site include a front setback of 1:1 slope from the edge of the existing curb8 and a rear yard setback of 20 feet. 5 The City’s 2014‐2022 Housing Element was adopted on May 19, 2015. 6 Cupertino 2014‐2022 Housing Element, Table HE‐5, Summary of Priority Housing Element Sites To Meet The RHNA‐ Scenario A. 7 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.80, Planed Development, Section 19.80.010, Purpose. 8 The setback dimensions from the curb are equal to the building height. Thus, the project structures are set back from the edge of the adjacent curb at least the same number of feet as the height of the building. For example, a 75‐foot building would have a 75‐foot setback. 487 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-9 Housing As described in Municipal Code Section 19.80.030,9 if a site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City’s adopted Housing Element of the General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for the site in the Housing Element shall be a permitted use. Parking Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.124.040, high‐density residential apartments are required to provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit for vehicular parking and 0.4 bicycle storage spaces per dwelling unit.10 Vehicular parking spaces must have a stall dimension of 9.5 feet by 20 feet and provide Class I bicycle parking facilities. Bicycle parking facilities are classified as Class I and Class II facilities. Class I facilities protect the entire bicycle from theft, vandalism, and inclement weather and are appropriate for long‐term storage. Examples include bike lockers, rooms with key access, guarded parking areas, and valet/check‐in parking. Class II parking facilities include bicycle racks to which the frame and at least one wheel can be secured with a user‐provided lock. Landscaping Landscape Ordinance Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, implements the California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 by establishing new water‐efficient landscaping and irrigation requirements. In general, any building or landscape projects that involve more than 2,500 square feet of landscape area are required to submit a Landscape Project Submittal to the Director of Community Development for approval. Existing and established landscapes over 1 acre, including cemeteries, are required to submit water budget calculations and audits of established landscapes. Protected Tree Ordinance Chapter 14.12, Protected Tree Ordinance, provides regulations for the protection, preservation, and maintenance of trees of certain species and sizes. Removal of a protected tree requires a permit from the City. “Protected” trees include trees of a certain species and size in all zoning districts; heritage trees in all zoning districts; any tree required to be planted or retained as part of an approved development application, building permit, tree removal permit, or code enforcement action in all zoning districts; and approved privacy protection planting in R‐1 zoning districts. 9 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.80, Planned Development, Section 19.80.030, Establishment of Districts–Permitted and Conditional Uses. 10 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.124, Parking Regulations, Section 19.124.040, Regulations For Off‐ Street Parking, Table 19.124.040(A). 488 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-10 APRIL 15, 2016 The City is currently reviewing its Protected Tree Ordinance to evaluate the possibility of streamlining the removal of Protected Trees and potentially allowing flexibility in the standards for allowing removal of trees as long as adequate replacements are planted. Public Art Chapter 19.148, Required Artwork In Public and Private Developments, requires public art to enhance community character and identity; provide attractive public arts to residents and visitors alike; and stimulate opportunities for the arts through cooperative relations between local business and the City. Under Section 19.148.020, any development of 50,000 square feet or larger involving construction of new buildings and/or the expansion of existing buildings shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter. Utilities The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations [CCR]) to apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in the code, throughout the State of California. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.11 Section 4.408, Construction Waste Reduction Disposal and Recycling, mandates that, in the absence of a more stringent local ordinance,12 a minimum of 50 percent of non‐hazardous construction and demolition debris must be recycled or salvaged. CALGreen requires that all applicants have a waste management plan for on‐site sorting of construction debris. The waste management plan shall do the following:  Identify the materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reused on the project, or salvaged for future use or sale.  Specify if materials will be sorted on‐site or mixed for transportation to a diversion facility.  Identify the diversion facility where the material collected will be taken.  Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated.  Specify that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by both. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process. 11 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the California Code of Regulations. 12 Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 16.72 addresses construction debris recycling and mandates applicants for any covered project are required to recycle or divert at least 60 percent of all generated debris from demolition projects to an approved facility or by salvage. 489 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-11 Chapter 16.58, Green Building Ordinance, includes the CAlGreen requirements with local amendments for projects in the city. The City’s Green Building Ordinance codifies green building techniques, including measures affecting water use efficiency and water conservation. Sections 16.58.100 through 16.58.220 sets forth the standards for green building requirements by type of building. As shown on Table 101.10 in Section 16.58.220, single family and multi‐family homes greater than nine homes and buildings larger than 50,000 square feet are required to be Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED)13 Certified and buildings from 25,000 to 50,000 square feet to be Silver. Section 16.58.230 permits applicants to apply an alternate green building standard for a project in lieu of the minimum standards outlined in Section 16.58.220 that meet the same intent of conserving resources and reducing solid waste. Chapter 9.18, Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, provides regulations and gives legal effect to the Municipal Regional Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) issued to the City of Cupertino. This chapter also ensures ongoing compliance with the most recent version of the City of Cupertino's MRP regarding municipal storm water and urban runoff requirements. This chapter applies to all water entering the storm drain system generated on any private, public, developed, and undeveloped lands lying within the city. The code contains permit requirements for construction projects and new development or redevelopment projects to minimize the discharge of storm water runoff. 3.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS As previously stated, the project applicant proposes to redevelop the project site with a multi‐family residential complex consisting of six buildings and associated amenities and infrastructure. Development of the proposed project would involve demolition of existing structures and associated parking, and construction of the principal project components outlined below. Demolition and construction would take place over a 3‐year period, which is anticipated to begin in the summer of 2017 and to be completed in August 2020, subject to regulatory approval. 3.2.1 DEMOLITION, SITE PREPARATION, AND CONSTRUCTION The project applicant proposes to demolish the existing residential buildings and remove some of the existing on‐site vegetation. Demolition would take place over a period of approximately 4 months, while grading and site preparation would be completed over a 3‐month period. Demolition debris would be off‐ hauled for disposal in accordance with the City of Cupertino’s Recycling and Diversion of Construction and 13 Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) is a green building certification program that recognizes best‐in‐class building strategies and practices that reduce consumption energy, and water, and reduce solid waste directly diverted to landfills. LEED certified buildings are ranked in order of efficiency from Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum being the highest ranking with the greatest efficiency standard. LEED Silver certified buildings typically reduce is the third highest ranking out of the four, with just being certified being the lowest and Gold and Platinum being the second highest. 490 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-12 APRIL 15, 2016 Demolition Waste Ordinance.14 Debris to be hauled would include approximately 276 non‐indigenous trees that were planted as part of the existing urbanized landscape, 342,000 square feet of building demolition debris, 119,000 square feet of asphalt/concrete material, and 150,000 cubic yards of grading and soil export. Typical equipment to be used for demolition and site preparation would include excavators, a skid steer loader, a grader, a rubber‐tired dozer, scrapers, and an off‐highway truck. Site preparation, including grading and utility trenching, would occur in compliance with the recommendations identified in the project’s geotechnical engineering report.15 The grading and drainage strategy for the project includes the following:  Setting the building finish floor in conjunction with the overland release elevation.  Setting finish grades around the building to slope away to the surrounding emergency vehicle access road.  Keeping all on‐site drainage on the project at all times by establishing the correct relationship between the project and conform points.  Applying the stormwater Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) for New Development and Redevelopment treatment control measures around the project site.  Coordinating with the landscape architect and architect on the general aesthetics of the proposed grading. The project construction would consist of approximately 1 million square feet of buildings, 700,000 square feet of parking facilities, 150,000 square feet of landscaped areas, and 120,000 square feet of hardscape (e.g., curb, gutters, planters, seat walls, etc.). No pile driving, rock blasting, or crushing would occur during the construction phase. Typical equipment to be used during construction of the project would include a backhoe, a crane, aerial lifts, a generator, a diesel pump, dumpers, rollers, and a paver. As shown in Table 3‐1, the project demolition and construction could generate up to 800 temporary jobs with approximately 5 to 600 workers on‐site depending on the demolition and construction phase. The busiest construction phase would be during the dry wall and framing period during which up to 600 employees would be on the site. These construction workers would be shuttled to the project site from an off‐site location. Demolition and construction work would be conducted between 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and the period from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends as provided for in Municipal Code Section 10.48.053, Grading, Construction and Demolition.16 14 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Building and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste. 15 Geotechnical Investigation, The Hamptons Apartments, Cupertino, California, Report No. 238182, prepared by TRC, dated July 10, 2015. See Appendix B, Geotechnical Investigation, of this Initial Study. 16 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 10, Public Peace, Safety and Morals, Chapter 10.48, Community Noise Control, Section 10.48.053, Grading, Construction and Demolition. 491 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-13 During demolition and construction, vehicle, equipment, and materials would be staged and stored on a portion of the project site. The construction site and staging areas would be clearly marked, and construction fencing would be installed to prevent disturbance and safety hazards. No staging would occur in the public right‐of‐way. A combination of on‐ and off‐site parking facilities for construction workers would be identified during demolition, grading, and construction. TABLE 3‐1 DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING Phase Months Employees Demolition 4 5 Grading 6 10 Garage Construction 13 Building Construction 27 150 Dry Wall and Framing 6 600 Paving 1 10 Architectural Coating/Painting 1 25 Source: PlaceWorks, The Irvine Company (project applicant), 2015. 3.2.2 RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT APARTMENT UNITS 3.2.2.1 As shown on Figure 3‐5, the proposed project would involve construction of 942 apartment units in six buildings that are organized around a central resident outdoor space and central common building. The total building footprint would cover approximately 269,487 square feet (6.8 acres) of space, including a 4,000 square foot leasing office. The proposed apartments would include 242 studios, 272 one‐bedroom, 141 one‐bedroom plus dens, and 287 two‐bedroom units. Apartment units would range in size from 1,464 square feet (penthouse) to 575 square feet (studio). Of the proposed 942 units, 34 units would be available to rent to very low and low‐income residents (3.7 percent), which is consistent with the remainder of the original Hamptons’ Residence Agreement described in the draft Tenant Relocation Plan discussed below. 492 0 Scale (Feet) 160Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016. Figure 3-5 Conceptual Site Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 493 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-15 Based on an average household size of 2.88 persons,17 it is assumed the proposed project would increase the number of residents on the site by 1,728.18 When this increase of new residents is added to the existing 985 residents,19 the total number of residents would be approximately 2,713 at project buildout in 2020. As the majority of the proposed apartment units would be studio and one‐bedroom units, it is likely that a total resident population of 2,713 is high, thereby allowing for a conservative analysis of potential environmental impacts. It is anticipated that residents of the project would be drawn largely from Cupertino and other communities in the San Francisco Bay Area in part due to the location near the AC2. Tenant Relocation Plan The project applicant, a diversified, privately held real‐estate investment company and master‐planning firm since 1864,20 has prepared a draft Tenant Relocation Plan for the existing 308 market rate units, and 34 below market rate units (see Appendix F, Draft Tenant Relocation Plan, of this Initial Study). Under the draft Tenant Relocation Plan, a relocation agency would be hired 6 months prior to the demolition and remain under contract until all of the existing tenants, both renters of market rate units and below market rate units, have moved out of the existing apartments and relocated to new housing. The project applicant’s portfolio of apartment homes that would be available to displaced tenants is made up of over 6,000 apartment homes located in San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara. Together, the project applicant and the relocation agency would keep all tenants apprised of the schedule, which is subject to change. The tenants would be given updates regularly on the date demolition would commence and the date each household would need to vacate their unit. If a market rate or below market rate unit is vacated early, a month‐to‐month lease would be available. However, if the lease signed is less than 12 months in duration due to the timing of the demolition, these tenants would not be eligible for relocation benefits, which may include, but are not limited to, application fee waivers, deposit refunds, and moving expenses. RESIDENT AND PUBLIC AMENITIES 3.2.2.2 Resident Amenities As described above and shown on Figure 3‐6, the six apartment buildings would be oriented around a central outdoor space and common‐use building with a shared deck and two outdoor pools. The proposed project’s open space and balcony area totals 326,127 square feet (7.46 acres), of which approximately 32,000 square feet (0.43 acres) would be for recreational amenities. Such recreational amenities could include a fitness center, clubroom with bar, cafe, and game room. While such amenities within the building may change overtime, the total area would remain the same. Secondary courtyards could include space for a dog park, children’s play area, and outdoor gym. Pathways and landscape areas 17 This analysis is based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2013 projections of the average household size of 2.88 persons for Cupertino in 2020. This is the standard approach for population and housing analysis in Cupertino. 18 600 new units multiplied by 2.88 persons per unit equals 1,728 new residents. 19 342 existing units multiplied by 2.88 persons per unit equals 985 existing residents. 20 Irvine Company website, https://www.irvinecompany.com/about‐us/, accessed March 1, 2016. 494 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-16 APRIL 15, 2016 would connect the residential buildings and common‐use space. Furthermore, the project includes a 0.5‐ mile Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) lane around the site that serves as a dual‐lane for bicycle and pedestrian recreation. Public Amenities As shown on Figure 3‐7, the proposed project includes an at‐grade public bike hub and outdoor common‐ use seating area on the northern section of the project site at the corner of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue for use by residents, visitors, and members of the public. The public bike hub and promenade would serve as a social meeting area and could include a lounge and juice/coffee bar, and would be open during the day to the public. The bike hub would serve as a flexible space to host various events such as a farmer’s market, fairs, or similar social gatherings. The bike hub would include air compressors, water, and other commonly used bicycle accessories for both residents and guests to service their bicycles as needed. The promenade and seating area would include a landscaped area with a primary waterfall feature and outdoor tables and chairs. The bike hub and promenade would be an incentive for pedestrian and bicycle use. LEASING AND RESIDENT SERVICE OFFICE 3.2.2.3 The project includes a 4,000‐square‐foot leasing and resident serving office, as well as five model units, located off the main entry on Pruneridge Avenue. The model units are not included in the total 942 units. These model units would not include plumbing and would not be available for leasing in the future. A full service staff (25 employees) including leasing agents, security staff, and maintenance personnel, would be present on site to manage the property, see to tenant needs, and welcome potential new residents. The staff would coordinate community social events (e.g., wine tasting, movie nights, and holiday parties). The leasing office’s normal hours of operation would be between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS 3.2.2.4 As shown on Figure 3‐8, the proposed buildings would consist of six and seven‐story buildings over two levels of below‐grade parking and 1.5 levels of at‐grade parking. The proposed project would be 75 feet tall at its highest point. As shown on Figure 3‐9, the proposed buildings would conform to all Cupertino height regulations, maintaining 60‐foot maximum (six stories) height within 50 feet of the adjacent property line along Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue, and the AC2 property. Where buildings are seven stories, the height would be beneath the 75‐feet maximum height limitation. Building elevations are shown on Figures 3‐10 through 3‐13 and correspond to buildings identified as A through F shown on Figure 3‐5. As shown on Figure 3‐14, all buildings comply with the 1:1 front setback requirement as measured from the adjacent curb and existing topography, and exceed the 20‐foot rear‐yard setback requirement. 495 Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016. 0 Scale (Feet) 240 Figure 3-6 Conceptual Open Space Plan THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 496 Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016. Figure 3-7 Bike Hub and Promenade Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 497 Figure 3-8 Site Sections 0 Scale (Feet) 60 Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016. PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 498 499 Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016.Figure 3-9 Building Height Compliance PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 500 0 Scale (Feet) 64 Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016.Figure 3-10 West Elevation PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 501 0 Scale (Feet) 64 Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016.Figure 3-11 North Elevation PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 502 0 Scale (Feet) 64 Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016.Figure 3-12 East Elevation PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 503 0 Scale (Feet) 64 Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016.Figure 3-13 South Elevation PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 504 0 Scale (Feet) 120 Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016.Figure 3-14 Setback Compliance PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 505 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-27 3.2.3 CIRCULATION AND ACCESS VEHICULAR ACCESS 3.2.3.1 As shown on Figure 3‐15, the primary residential ingress/egress access is located off Pruneridge Avenue. The access includes two lanes for entrance into the parking structure; one for residents and one for visitors. Residents would be able to enter the parking structure with a controlled access key fob21 and guest and leasing visitors would be directed to parking located on level one, in close proximity to the leasing office elevator. Emergency vehicle access (EVA) is provided at two points; one located off of Wolfe Road and one off Pruneridge Avenue. As discussed above, the project’s circulation design includes a 0.5‐ mile EVA lane that connects to the cul‐de‐sac off Pruneridge Avenue, forming a clockwise pattern around the site. Dedicated 26‐feet by 60 ‐feet fire truck access pads are provided for firefighting equipment to access each building along the route. There are six designated fire aerial rig locations strategically placed around the building on the EVA lane. The EVA lane is made of a variety of building materials along its length. In some instances, the EVA lane utilizes asphalt concrete while others have turf that can support the weight of a fire truck and give the appearance of a linear park. Fire access is maintained and provided to the AC2 gate at the southern portion of the property. The EVA lane is proposed as a dual‐use lane with move‐in/out vehicle access to loading zones and trash collection sites. The EVA lane also provides distinct destinations that cater to multiple uses, including a dog park, children’s play area, and outdoor gym. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS 3.2.3.2 As shown on Figure 3‐15, pedestrians and bicyclists would access the project site off of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue. As shown on Figure 3‐16, the EVA lane serves as both a pedestrian and bicycle path extends around the perimeter of the project site and offers multiple access points to the apartment buildings and secure bicycle‐parking facilities. Pruneridge Avenue to the north, Tantau Avenue to the east, and Wolfe Road to the west, all have Class II Bikeways. Class II Bikeways are bike lanes for bicyclists that are generally adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes and have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. These bike lanes are generally 5 feet wide. Adjacent vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross‐flow are permitted with Class II Bikeways. As shown on Figure 3‐17, the project’s proposed pedestrian and bicycle paths would allow unimpeded access to the existing Class II Bikeways surrounding the project site, which connect to a wider city‐wide network, including the future pedestrian and bicycle path around the AC2 site. 21 A key fob is a small hardware device with built‐in authentication mechanisms and acts as an ordinary real‐world key to control access to the owner's home, garage or car, etc. 506 Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016.Figure 3-15 Vehicular Circulation Map 0 Scale (Feet) 120 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 507 Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016.Figure 3-16 On-site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 508 Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016.Figure 3-17 Off-site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 509 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-31 In addition, the proposed project includes additional off‐site improvements at the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection that would enhance and complement the improvements required under the AC2 project. These improvements are as follows:  Add new directional curb ramps22 at the northwest corner.  Relocate the southbound, left‐turn bike box23 so that it is outside of the path of southbound bike traffic.  Relocate the crosswalk at the western leg of the intersection to accommodate the relocation of the southbound left‐turn bike box, and relocate the associated southwest corner curb ramp to align with the relocated crosswalk.  Paint green dashed lines24 on the Class II bike lanes on Wolfe Road. A diagram showing these improvements is included in Appendix I of this Initial Study. PARKING 3.2.3.3 Vehicular Parking As previously stated in Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning, pursuant to City requirements, high‐density residential apartments are required to provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit. The project proposes a total of 942 dwelling units, which would equate to a parking supply requirement of 1,884 vehicle parking spaces based on City code. However, the project applicant proposes to provide 1,716 vehicle parking spaces, for a parking supply rate of approximately 1.8 parking spaces per dwelling unit, which, as discussed in Section IX, Land Use and Planning, under criterion (b), is an appropriate parking ratio for the proposed project. Vehicular parking would be provided on two levels of below‐grade parking and 1.5 levels of at‐grade parking as shown on Figure 3‐8. Tandem stalls are located throughout the parking garage for residents, and guest parking is located on the first level and accessed from the Pruneridge Avenue entrance. The proposed project would include parking with electric vehicle charging stations. Bicycle Parking The proposed project includes more than the 377 Class I bike storage spaces in accordance with the 0.4 space per dwelling unit requirement described in Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning. As shown on Figure 3‐15, these bike storage/parking spaces are located throughout the project site within the podium structure. Additional spaces would be available in the bike hub space in the northern section of the project, which would allow residents and guests to service their bicycles as needed. 22 A curb ramp is a transition between the sidewalk and the street to bring the curb to the level of the street; thus, eliminating the curb as an obstacle. 23 A bike box is an area of safety for bicyclists while they wait for their turn to proceed through the intersection. The bike box is located in an area that makes the bicyclist more visible to drivers. 24 The dashed lines are indicators that create awareness of the intersection’s common space shared by bikes and vehicles. 510 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-32 APRIL 15, 2016 TRANSIT 3.2.3.4 Transit services in close proximity to the project site are described below. Table 3‐2 summarizes the destinations, closest stop to the project site, hours/days of operation, and service frequencies for transit services within a 2,000‐foot walking distance. Transit services are provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Caltrain. TABLE 3‐2 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE Route From To Distance to Nearest Stopa Weekdays Saturdays Average Peak Load Factorb Operating Hoursd Peak Headwayc Operating Hoursd Peak Headwayc VTA Bus Service 26 Sunnyvale / Lockheed Martin Transit Center Eastridge Transit Center 0.15 0.27 5:52 am – 11:31 pm 30 6:46 am – 10:40 pm 30 81 San Jose State University Vallco 0.10 0.07 6:17 am – 8:19 pm 30 9:30 am – 4:30 pm 60 101 Camden & Highway 85 Palo Alto 0.55 0.23 6:51 am – 7:48 am 4:52 pm – 5:55 pm 2 NB Runs – AM 2 SB Runs – PM No Service 182 Palo Alto IBM/Bailey Avenue 0.60 0.07 7:27 am – 8:34 am 5:05 pm – 6:14 pm 1 SB Run – AM 1 NB Run – PM No Service Commuter Rail Service Caltrain San Francisco San Jose Diridon 3.00 N/A 4:40 am – 1:20 pm 30 (local) / 15 (express) 7:10 am – 1:26 pm 60 Notes: AM = morning commuter period; PM = evening commute period. VTA = Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority a. Approximate distance in miles from nearest stop to Hamptons Apartment Complex driveway. b. Average peak load factor is the ratio of the average peak number of on‐board passengers aboard during the peak period to supply of seats. c. Headways are defined as the time interval between two transit vehicles traveling in the same direction over the same route. d. Operating hours consider earliest and latest stop at each bus lines closest stop to the Hamptons Apartment Complex. Source: Fehr & Peers, December 2015, Table 7‐1 of TIA. VTA Bus Service  Bus Route 26 provides service between Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin Transit Center and the Eastridge Transit Center. Route 26 follows major arterials and travels through Sunnyvale, Cupertino, San Jose, and Campbell on Fair Oaks Avenue, Wolfe Road, Campbell Avenue, and Tully Road. Bus stops for Route 26 are provided immediately north of the project site along Wolfe Road.  Bus Route 81 provides service between San Jose State University and Vallco via the Santa Clara Transit Center and Downtown San Jose. This route operates on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Benton Street, West 511 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-33 San Carlos Street, and San Fernando Street with nearby stops at Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue.  Bus Route 101 is an express bus route that operates on I‐280, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Lawrence Expressway; it connects a Park & Ride lot at the Camden Avenue interchange along SR 85 to Palo Alto. This route passes through the Winchester Transit Center and has a bus stop south of the project site at Wolfe Road/Vallco Mall which provides connections to Routes 26, 23, and 323.  Bus Route 182 is an express bus route that operates on I‐280, Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard; it connects the Park & Ride lot at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road in Palo Alto with the IBM Santa Teresa Facility at Bailey Avenue. One Route 182 run departs Palo Alto in the morning. In the evening, one Route 182 run travels northbound. Route 182 has stops at the Vallco shopping plaza. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.2.3.5 The proposed project is required to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The project applicant prepared a draft TDM Plan that includes many design features and amenities that promote the use of alternative transportation, and reduce vehicular parking needs. The draft TDM Plan is included in Appendix H, Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan, of this Initial Study. The draft TDM Plan outlines trip reduction measures and strategies in order to:  Reduce the amount of traffic generated by the proposed project.  Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities.  Maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage.  Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the desired alternative mode use is achieved. As part of the project operations, a Transportation Coordinator would be assigned to the project with the authority to implement TDM strategies and oversee the management and marketing of TDM programs. The Transportation Coordinator would be responsible for developing information materials, managing transportation services offered as part of the TDM program (i.e., websites, transit passes etc.), monitoring results, and coordinating with City/VTA staff and on‐site representatives as needed. The content of the draft TDM Plan includes direction and protocol for how to implement the TDM reduction measures. For example, the draft TDM plan describes how information about the TMD Plan is to be shared with future residents, protocol for facilitating ridesharing, how to access alternate modes of transportation, and describes the project’s site features for multi‐modal transportation. The TDM Plan describes the methods for ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the TDM measures by the Transportation Coordinator to ensure the targeted reduction metrics are being met. 3.2.4 LANDSCAPING Under existing conditions, the project site includes 249,307 square feet of pervious landscaped areas and the project would result in 219,026 square feet of pervious landscaped surfaces, for a net decrease of 30,218 square feet of pervious landscaped surfaces. Figure 3‐18 illustrates the proposed landscaping plan. 512 Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016.Figure 3-18 Conceptual Landscaping Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 513 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-35 As shown on Figure 3‐18, the project site includes landscaping throughout the project site’s interior and the surrounding perimeter. As stated above in Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning, the project is required to submit a Landscape Project Submittal for approval by the City. The proposed landscaping would be consistent with the surrounding Northern California landscape and would include native and/or adaptive, and drought resistant plant materials of similar water use grouped by hydrozones. The majority of plantings would be drought tolerant grasses, shrubs, and trees that, once established, are adapted to a dry summer and intermittent rain in the winter season. The exception to this is the existing Redwoods that require a more consistent level of potable irrigation throughout the year. As previously stated in Section 3.1.3, Existing Site Character, a Tree Survey prepared for the project site included an evaluation of 433 trees representing 15 species.25 According to the Tree Survey, none of the trees on the project site meet the criteria for protected status. The project applicant has prepared a Tree Removal and Protection Plan for the project. This Plan is shown on Figures 3‐19 and 3‐20. While all trees would be removed from the center of the project site, Redwood trees that surround the perimeter of the development would remain to ensure a visual identity as well as to maintain privacy and screening from the surrounding area. 3.2.5 LIGHTING The source, intensity, and type of exterior lighting for the project site would be typical for orientation and safety needs. All on‐site lighting would be low‐level illumination and shielded to reduce light spill or glare. In landscaped and paved areas, light sources would be concealed and not visible from a public viewpoint. All exterior surface and above‐ground mounted fixtures would be sympathetic and complementary to the architectural theme. 3.2.6 PUBLIC ART There are several locations where public art could be located throughout the project. These locations include the Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Road intersection, the project’s primary access point on Pruneridge Avenue, the amenities areas including the lawn area and deck and pool areas, and the Wolfe Road and 1‐280 exit ramp. While no precise public art exhibits have been determined at this time, the project would be required to provide public art features per Municipal Code Section 19.148.020 described above in Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning. 3.2.7 UTILITIES The proposed utility infrastructure would connect to the existing water, sewer, storm drain system, natural gas and electricity network in the area, and would be served by an existing solid waste landfill. 25 Tree Survey, The Hamptons, prepared for the Irvine Company by HortScience, Inc. May 2015. See Appendix A, Tree Survey, of this Initial Study. 514 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-36 APRIL 15, 2016 WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION 3.2.7.1 The project site is located within the California Water Service (Cal Water) Los Altos Suburban District (LASD) service area, and Cal Water would supply water for the project. As shown on Figure 3‐21, the proposed project would connect to existing water lines along Wolfe Road. The proposed project would also extend the reclaimed water line in the vicinity of the project to the project site. Any new connections or replaced water lines would not encroach on undisturbed areas. The project incorporates a number of features meant to conserve water used for on‐site irrigation. The irrigation water on the site would be dual sourced recycled water and potable water as available from the LASD. Any lawn areas can use 100 percent recycled water. All landscape zones would be irrigated as required by the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance, and water uses would be tailored to meet Cal Green Building Standards, which as described in Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning, requires water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. A water supply assessment (WSA) was prepared for the project pursuant to Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), Water Code Section 10910 et seq. The WSA was prepared by CalWater and is included in Appendix C of this Initial Study. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE 3.2.7.2 The project site is located within the Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) service area and wastewater would be treated at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SC WPCP). As shown on Figures 3‐ 21 and 3‐22, connections to the existing sanitary sewer system would be made on Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 3.2.7.3 The proposed project would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces of 30,281 square feet as compared to existing conditions, which is approximately a 10 percent increase. As a result, the project would result in a slight increase in the amount of runoff from the property. The project is required to comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) C.3 requirements, which include minimization of impervious surfaces, measures to detain or infiltrate runoff from peak flows to match pre‐development conditions, and agreements to ensure that the stormwater treatment and flow control facilities are maintained in perpetuity. Additionally, the project must comply with Municipal Code Chapter 9.18 described above in Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning, which is intended to provide regulations and give legal effect to certain requirements of the NPDES permit issued to the City of Cupertino in 2011. As shown on Figures 3‐23 and 3‐24, the proposed project would connect to the existing storm drain line in Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue, and would provide nineteen bioretention water treatment areas throughout the project site. 515 Figure 3-19 Tree Removal and Protection Plan A Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016. PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 516 Figure 3-20 Tree Removal and Protection Plan B Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016. PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 517 Figure 3-21 Conceptual Utility Plan A Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016. 0 Scale (Feet) 120 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 518 Figure 3-22 Conceptual Utility Plan B Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016. 0 Scale (Feet) 120 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 519 Figure 3-23 Conceptual Stormwater Control Plan A Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016. 0 Scale (Feet) 120 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 520 Figure 3-24 Conceptual Stormwater Control Plan B Source: ARQUITECTONICA International, 2016. 0 Scale (Feet) 120 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO 521 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-43 SOLID WASTE SERVICES 3.2.7.4 Recology South Bay (Recology) would provide curbside recycling, garbage, and compost and yard waste service to the residents of Cupertino.26 All non‐hazardous solid waste collected under the Recology franchise agreement is taken to Newby Island Sanitary Landfill for processing. Under the agreement between the City and Recology, recyclable materials are also handled (at no cost to customers) by Recology. The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary Landfill until 2023. The proposed waste management for the project site would focus on waste, recycling, and composting. OTHER UTILITIES (GAS, ELECTRIC, AND CABLE) 3.2.7.5 Gas and electricity would be supplied to the project site by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). The project is targeting to exceed current Title 24 energy requirements by 10 percent. A Cal Green rating of “Certified” is anticipated. Telephone service would be provided by AT&T and other providers. Cable television service would be available from a number of providers, including Comcast. 3.2.8 PUBLIC SERVICES The following public service providers would serve the proposed project:  The City of Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Fire District (SCCFD) for fire protection, emergency, medical, and hazardous materials services.  The City of Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) and West Valley Patrol Division for police protection services.  The project site is within the boundaries of the Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD). Specifically, the project site is in the Laurelwood Elementary School attendance area approximately 1.5 miles away. Middle school age students would attend Peterson Middle School and high school age students would attend Wilcox High School.  The Santa Clara County Library District (SCCLD) governs and administers seven community libraries, one branch library, two bookmobiles, the Home Service Library, and the 24‐7 online library for all library users. The closest library to the project site is the Cupertino Library located at 10800 Torre Avenue in Cupertino.  The City of Cupertino Recreation and Community Services is responsible for the maintenance of the City’s 14 parks and seven community and recreational facilities within the city boundary. The parks nearest to the project site are Portal Park, located approximately one mile to the southwest, Jenny 26 City of Cupertino, garbage and Recycling Services Fact Sheet, http://www.recyclestuff.org/Guides/CityGuideCupertino.pdf, accessed May 13, 2014. 522 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-44 APRIL 15, 2016 Strand Park, located approximately three‐quarters of a mile to the southeast, and Westwood Oaks Park, located approximately one‐half mile to the east of the site. 3.3 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS Following approval of this Initial Study, adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and the approval of the proposed project by the City of Cupertino, the following discretionary permits and approvals from the City would be required for the proposed project:  Development Permit DP‐2015‐04  Development Agreement DA‐2015‐01  Architectural and Site Approval Permit ASA‐2015‐13  Use Permit U‐2015‐05  Tree Removal Permit TR ‐2015‐21  Lot line adjustment may be required In addition, permits for demolition, grading and building, and the certificate of occupancy would also be required from the City. Other agency approvals, such as the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for permits related to water quality, and the Santa Clara Water District for the recycled water line extension, may also be required. 3.4 REQUIRED FEES AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS Table 3 ‐3 shows the estimated fees, excluding property taxes, that the project applicant is required to pay. Table 3 ‐3 also shows the estimated voluntary community benefits that the applicant proposes to pay. Final fees and voluntary community benefits will be determined upon approval of the project. TABLE 3‐3 REQUIRED FEES AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS One Time Fee Annually Fees Housing Impact Feea, b $12,900,000 Park Fees $12,960,000 Santa Clara Unified School District School Feesa $2,416,912 $579,000 Public Artc $100,000 Gateway Sign $25,000 523 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-45 TABLE 3‐3 REQUIRED FEES AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS One Time Fee Annually Voluntary Community Benefits Community Meeting Space at Civic Center and Library Complex $7,000,000 Extend Reclaimed Water Line for Potable Water Conservation $1,800,000 Other Contributions Wolfe Interchange Assessment District Pro Rata "Fair Share"d $7,000,000 Affordable Housing Unit for 34 Below Market Rate Continuing Obligation term $17,000,000 Annual City Property Tax Proceeds TBD Estimated Totals $61,201,921 $579,000 Notes: a. Final dollar amount paid will be based on square footages annotated in the City approved plan set. b. Housing impact fee is based on 600 units at $25.00 per square foot per unit with an average of 860 square feet per unit. c. Public art will also be included on the project site. d. Wolfe Interchange estimate to be revised following further study, dollar amount based on preliminary City estimate of 10 percent of $70 million interchange cost. Source: City of Cupertino, March 22, 2016 524 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-46 APRIL 15, 2016 This page intentionally left blank. 525 PLACEWORKS 4-1 General Plan EIR Consistency Analysis 4. On December 4, 2014, the City certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project1 and adopted “Community Vision 2040.” Community Vision 2040 accomplished the following:  updated the goals, policies, and strategies of the General Plan (2000 – 2020) adopted in 2005 (2005 General Plan);  updated the Housing Element to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014 – 2022 planning period and meet its fair ‐share housing obligation; and,  amended the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning map for internal consistency as a result of changes to General Plan policies. On May 19, 2015, the City Council directed staff to prepare a comparison of the goals, policies and strategies of the 2005 General Plan and Community Vision 2040, and work with community members and interested community groups. This resulted in revisions to Community Vision 2040 including text edits and corrections, reorganization of strategies, clarification of existing policies, adding new figures and renaming Community Vision 2040 to “General Plan (Community Vision 2015 – 2040),” referred to in this Initial Study as “General Plan.” Accordingly, prior to the approval of these changes, the City Council approved an Addendum to the 2014 General Plan EIR in October 2015.2 The certified EIR for the City’s General Plan consists of the 2014 General Plan EIR and the 2015 General Plan EIR Addendum, together hereinafter “General Plan EIR.” 4.1 GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY In order to determine if the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and whether the proposed project was part of the development that was examined in the General Plan EIR, the following questions must be answered:  Is the proposed project included in the scope of the development projected in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR?  Is the project site in an area designated for residential land uses in the General Plan? 1 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 4, 2014. 2 City of Cupertino, approved General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR Final Addendum, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. 526 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 4-2 APRIL 15, 2016  Are the changes to population associated with the proposed project included within the scope of the General Plan’s population projections?  Is the proposed project within the scope of the cumulative analysis in the General Plan EIR? The following discussion describes the proposed project‘s relationship to and consistency with the scope of development, land use designations, population projections, and cumulative impacts analyses contained in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR. 4.1.1 SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT In the General Plan EIR, an increase of 820 units for a total of 1,162 units3 was assumed and analyzed as the maximum development potential for the project site. The proposed project would increase the number of units by 600 for a total of 942 units,4 which is consistent with the General Plan projections for the project site.5 Therefore, the proposed project, with a total of 942 units, would not increase residential development to levels that would exceed those assumed in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. In addition, a maximum height of 85 feet was assessed in the General Plan EIR; however, the maximum height of the proposed project is 75 feet tall at its highest point. Accordingly, the proposed project is well within the General Plan’s scope of residential development and building height limits and the scope analyzed in the General Plan EIR for the project site. 4.1.2 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS The General Plan land use designation is High Density, which allows greater than 35 dwelling units per acre (High Density (greater than 35 du/ac)). The project site is located in the North Vallco Gateway, which is within the North Vallco Park Special Area. As described in Chapter 2, Planning Areas, of the General Plan, the North Vallco Park Special Area is an important employment center for Cupertino and the region. The North Vallco Gateway includes two hotels and the Cupertino Village Shopping Center west of Wolfe Road. The North Vallco Park Special Area is envisioned to become a sustainable office and campus environment surrounded by a mix of connected, high‐quality and pedestrian‐oriented neighborhood center, hotels and residential uses. Taller buildings may be allowed in the North Vallco Gateway because it is close to Interstate 280.6 In addition, the project site is also one of the five Priority Housing Element sites in the City’s adopted Housing Element.7 3 342 existing units plus 820 net new units equals 1,162 total units. 4 342 existing units plus 600 net new units equals 942 total units. 5 City of Cupertino 2014‐2022 Housing Element, Table HE‐5: Summary of Priority Housing Element Sites to Meet the RHNA ‐ Scenario A, page HE‐18. 6 City of Cupertino General Plan, Land Use and Community Design Element, North Vallco Special Area, page LU‐58. 7 The City’s 2014‐2022 Housing Element was adopted on May 19, 2015. 527 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-3 The maximum density currently permitted on the project site is 85 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and, as described above and in the Housing Element, the realistic capacity is a net increase of 600 units above the existing 342 units.8 The maximum height of 75 feet or 60 feet for buildings located within 50 feet of property lines abutting Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue and the Apple Campus 2 (AC2) site, is allowed at the project site. The proposed project is a high‐density residential development that consists of six and seven‐story buildings, which is consistent with the types of development envisioned in the North Vallco Special Area and North Vallco Gateway. The proposed project would be 75 feet tall at its highest point, and would maintain a 60‐foot maximum (six stories) height within 50 feet of the adjacent property line along Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue, and the AC2 property. The maximum density under the proposed project would be 75 du/ac. Accordingly, the proposed project is consistent with the land use designations specified in the General Plan (Community Vision 2015‐2040). 4.1.3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS The General Plan would allow development that would bring approximately 12,9989 new residents and 16,855 new jobs10 to the city within the 2040 plan horizon. These new residents and jobs, combined with existing conditions, would result in 71,300 residents and 44,242 jobs at the General Plan 2040 buildout horizon. The proposed project is anticipated to be completed by 2020. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Cupertino is projected to have 62,500 residents and 30,110 jobs by 2020. Due to the proposed project, approximately 2,713 residents are projected to occupy the site and 800 temporary construction‐related jobs and 25 permanent jobs are projected to be created by the 2020 buildout year. As stated above, no new residential projects have been developed or approved for development in Cupertino since the adoption of the General Plan. Accordingly, the project’s proposed increase of 2,713 new residents and 800 temporary construction‐related jobs and 25 permanent jobs in combination with other future projects would not increase development projections over the year 2020 projections. Therefore, the project is within the population projections considered in the General Plan EIR. 8 City of Cupertino 2014‐2022 Housing Element, Table HE‐5: Summary of Priority Housing Element Sites to Meet the RHNA ‐ Scenario A, page HE‐18. 9 Population is calculated by 4,421 units times 2.94 persons per household, which is the ABAG 2040 estimated generation rate. 10 Jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates as follows; 4,040,231 square feet of office allocation divided by 300 square feet equals 13,467 jobs; 1,343,679 square feet of commercial allocation divided by 450 square feet equals 2,986 jobs; and 1,339 hotel rooms at .3 jobs per room equals 402 jobs for a total of 16,855 jobs. 528 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 4-4 APRIL 15, 2016 4.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS In addition to evaluating the environmental effects directly associated with projected General Plan development, the General Plan EIR evaluated the cumulative effects using the summary of projections approach provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(B). The General Plan EIR took into account growth from the General Plan within the Cupertino city boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in combination with projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecasted by ABAG. As provided for by CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 , the cumulative context considered in the General Plan EIR varies, depending on the nature of the issue being studied, to best assess each issue‘s geographic extent. For example, the cumulative impacts on water and air quality can be best analyzed within the boundaries of the affected resources, such as water bodies and air basins. For other cumulative impacts, such as hazard risks, traffic, and the need for new public service facilities, the cumulative impact is best analyzed within the context of the population growth and associated development that are expected to occur in the region or the public service providers’ jurisdiction. As discussed in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.4 above, the proposed project is within the scope of the proposed General Plan development examined in the General Plan EIR. In addition, no changes to local growth plans or other changes in the region have occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR that would substantially change the document‘s conclusions regarding cumulative impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would incrementally contribute to, but would not exceed, the cumulative impacts analyses included in the General Plan EIR. 529 PLACEWORKS 5-1 Environmental Analysis 5. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The General Plan EIR included an analysis of the project site with an increase of 820 units and a maximum height of 85 feet. The cumulative impacts, in conjunction with overall General Plan buildout, were evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR. The proposed project is anticipated to be complete in 2020; thus, this Initial Study presents a focused analysis to evaluate the near‐term impacts of the proposed project under existing and cumulative conditions. Consistent with the analysis presented in the General Plan EIR, and due to the proposed project’s location in an urbanized city setting, the project would not have a significant effect on Agriculture, Forestry or Mineral Resources. Maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency categorize land within Cupertino as Urban and Built‐Up Land.1 In addition, according to 2006 mapping data from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the city does not contain any woodland or forestland cover.2 Finally, the city does not contain land zoned for farmland or timberland production.3 Consequently, there would be no impacts with regard to agriculture and forestry resources. The project site is within an area designated as Mineral Resource Zone 3, which is an area containing mineral deposits for which the significance cannot be evaluated from available data.4 Consequently, because the site has been developed and is not considered suitable for protection or conservation, there would be no impacts to mineral resources. For these reasons, these topics are not discussed further in this Initial Study. Items identified in each section of the environmental checklist below are discussed following that section. Required mitigation measures are identified where necessary to reduce a projected impact to a level that is determined to be less than significant. All impacts were found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. 1 California Resources Agency, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010, accessed on March 1, 2016. 2 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Land Cover Map, accessed on March 1, 2016. 3 City of Cupertino, Zoning Map, http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=291, accessed on March 1, 2016. 4 City of Cupertino, General Plan (Community Vision 2015–2040, Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and Sustainability, Figure ES‐2, Mineral Resources. 530 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-2 APRIL 15, 2016 I. AESTHETICS Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?     b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?     c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?     d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?     GENERAL PLAN EIR Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to visual resources associated with a maximum building height of 85 feet permitted on the project site, and impacts were found to be less than significant. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site contains a large open space field, a swimming pool, and 10 3‐story, residential buildings housing containing a total of 342 apartment units over podium parking that are approximately 40 feet tall. These existing buildings are articulated and provide treatment to building massing and form. The site is immediately bordered by mature trees ranging in height from 15 to 80 feet, the Apple Campus 2 (AC2), currently under construction, to the north and east; Interstate 280 (I‐280) to the south; and North Wolfe Road with the mainly 1‐story (Cupertino Village), the 3‐story Arioso Apartment community, Marriot Courtyard Inn, and the 4‐story Hilton Garden Inn located across the street to the west. DISCUSSION a) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would have the potential to affect scenic vistas and/or scenic corridors if the new intensified development on the project site blocked views of areas that provide or contribute to such vistas. Potential effects could include blocking views of a scenic vista/corridor from specific publically accessible vantage points or the alteration of the overall scenic vista/corridor itself. Such alterations could be positive or negative, depending on the characteristics of the project site and the subjective perception of observers. 531 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-3 Public views of scenic corridors are views seen along a linear transportation route and public views of scenic vistas are views of specific scenic features. Scenic vistas are generally interpreted as long‐range views, while scenic corridors are comprised of short‐, middle‐, and long‐range views. The General Plan does not have designated scenic corridors or vistas. However, for purposes of this analysis, the westward views of the foothills and ridgelines of the Santa Cruz Mountains are considered scenic vistas, and the segment of I‐280 from Santa Clara County line on the west to I‐880 on the east also is considered a scenic corridor. The analysis in the General Plan EIR found that an increase of building height to 85 feet would result in a less‐than‐significant impact to the long‐range views of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range and foothills because the maximum heights of the existing on‐site and surrounding buildings and mature trees, which range from 15 to 80 feet, currently limit the opportunity for views of scenic vistas from street‐level public viewing and because the project location is not considered a destination public viewing point nor is it visible from scenic vistas. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the existing buildings would be removed and replaced by the proposed buildings that would consist of six and seven‐story buildings over two levels of below‐grade parking and 1.5 levels of at‐grade parking, and would be 75 feet tall at the highest point. All of the existing trees would be removed from the site with the exception of the redwood trees that surround the perimeter of the project site and range in height from 15 to 80 feet. Figure 5‐1 illustrates the relationship between the proposed project and these perimeter‐trees. Because the proposed project would involve height increases that are less than what was evaluated in then General Plan EIR, and because existing conditions currently limit views of scenic resources combined with the fact that the site and surrounding areas are not destination viewing locations, impacts would remain consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant. b) Would the proposed project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, the segment of I‐280 in Cupertino is not an officially designated State Scenic Highway, but is considered to be an eligible to be designated as a State Scenic Highway. Any views of the mountains are currently impeded by the existing tree canopy along North Wolfe Road as well as the three‐story Arioso Apartment complex from North Wolfe Road, but there would be no changes from the I‐280 viewshed since the freeway is located south of the site and the project site is not visible from that location. On the east side of North Wolfe Road, the taller heights of the proposed project may marginally impede views of the Santa Cruz mountains for the future users of AC2, but not from the I‐280 view shed because the freeway is located south of the site. Impacts to views of scenic resource from the I‐280 view corridor were determined to be less than significant in the General Plan EIR. 532 Existing Building Parapet Accessory Architectural Feature Existing Building Note: Existing trees to remain as part of the project. Figure 5-1 Simulated Height from the Street Level Perspective THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 533 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-5 Similar to the discussion above, because the project proposes height increases that would be less than what is evaluated in then General Plan EIR and existing conditions currently limit views of scenic resources, including those from the I‐280 viewshed, impacts would remain consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant. c) Would the proposed project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? As discussed in criteria (a) and (b) above, the proposed project would not result in a substantial change to the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings. The project would result in a change from the existing three story, multi‐family residences to a six‐ to seven‐story multi‐family residential; however, as stated above in criterion (a) and shown on Figure 5‐1, the redwood trees that surround the perimeter of the project site would remain as part of the project and would preserve the existing visual setting. The project site is separated from the surrounding one‐ to five‐story buildings to the west by North Wolfe Road, which is made up of four‐to‐six‐lanes with a landscaped median, from AC2 to the north by the four‐ lane Pruneridge Road, and to the east by AC2. These roadways and existing landscaping would remain intact and serve as a buffer between the project site and the surrounding land uses; thus, the existing visual setting of surrounding land uses would remain unaltered by the project. Furthermore, the project is subject to the City’s discretionary review processes, including the Development Permit and Architectural and Site Approval Review, in accordance with Sections 19.12 and 19.168 of the Zoning Ordinance, which would ensure the proposed project would harmonize with adjacent development and not degrade the existing visual quality of the site and surrounding land uses. Accordingly, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings, and impacts would remain less than significant. d) Would the proposed project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effects on adjoining uses and areas of a project’s exterior lighting. Light and glare impacts are determined through a comparison of the existing light sources with the proposed lighting plan or policies. As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, the project site and surrounding area contain many existing sources of nighttime illumination. These include street and parking area lights, security lighting, and exterior lighting on existing commercial buildings. Additional onsite light and glare is caused by surrounding land uses and traffic on surrounding roadways. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the source, intensity, and type of exterior lighting for the project site would be typical for orientation and safety needs. All on‐site lighting would be low‐level illumination and shielded to reduce light spill or glare. In landscaped and paved areas, light sources would be concealed and not visible from public views. All exterior surface and above‐ground mounted fixtures would be sympathetic and complementary to the architectural theme. The roadway and landscaping surrounding the project discussed in criterion (c), above, would act as buffer to prevent light spilling on to adjacent land uses. For these reasons, and because the project proposes less development 534 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-6 APRIL 15, 2016 than what was evaluated in then General Plan EIR, impacts would remain consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant. II. AIR QUALITY Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?     b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?     c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project area is in non‐attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative Standards for ozone precursors or other pollutants)?     d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?     e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?     GENERAL PLAN EIR Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the air quality impacts associated with intensified development of the project site. Air quality impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable in the General Plan EIR and requires the City to implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ‐2a, AQ‐2b and AQ‐4b, which are project‐specific mitigation measures that would reduce construction‐related impacts and to ensure that mobile sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) that are not covered under the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) permits are considered during subsequent project‐ level environmental review. While Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the General Plan EIR addresses the impacts associated with 820 new units compared to the proposed project’s 600 units, the analysis was performed at a program level. This section analyzes the types and quantities of air pollutant emissions that would be generated by the construction and operation of the proposed project. An update to the background discussion on the air quality regulatory setting, meteorological conditions, existing ambient air quality in the vicinity of the project site, and air quality modeling is in Appendix D, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, to this Initial Study. The health risk assessment (HRA) is in Appendix E, Health Risk Assessment, to this Initial Study. 535 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-7 EXISTING CONDITIONS Air Pollutants of Concern Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and State law under the National and California Clean Air Act, respectively. Air pollutants are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, all of them except for ROGs are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. The National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Toxic Air Contaminants In addition to criteria air pollutants, both the State and federal government regulate the release of TACs. The California Health and Safety Code define a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), acting through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Where available, the significance criteria established by the BAAQMD are relied upon to make the determinations discussed below. 536 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-8 APRIL 15, 2016 DISCUSSION a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the project site is one of the five Priority Housing Element sites in the City’s adopted Housing Element5 to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014 ‐ 2022 planning period and meet the City’s fair ‐share housing obligation of 1,064 units. As described in the Housing Element, the maximum density on the project site is 85 dwelling units per acre and the realistic capacity is a net increase of 600 units.6 An increase of 600 units is proposed. As discussed in Chapter 4, General Plan EIR Consistency Analysis, the proposed project would not exceed the level of population or housing projected in City or regional planning efforts, and it would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections within the region, which is the basis of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan projections. Furthermore, the net increase in regional emissions generated by the proposed project would be less than the BAAQMD’s emissions thresholds with mitigations (see criterion (b) below). These thresholds were established to identify projects that have the potential to generate a substantial amount of criteria air pollutants. Because the proposed project would not exceed these thresholds, the proposed project would not be considered by the BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and impacts would be considered less than significant. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? BAAQMD has identified thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions and criteria air pollutant precursors, including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Development projects below the significance thresholds are not expected to generate sufficient criteria pollutant emissions to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The following describes changes in regional impacts from short‐term construction activities and long‐term operation of the proposed project. Construction Impacts Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on‐site heavy‐duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) from demolition and soil‐disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. Air pollutant emissions from 5 The City’s 2014‐2022 Housing Element was adopted on May 19, 2015. 6 Cupertino 2014‐2022 Housing Element, Table HE‐5, Summary of Priority Housing Element Sites To Meet The RHNA‐ Scenario A. 537 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-9 construction activities on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction activities associated with the project would result in emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and fine PM2.5. The project site was developed in 1998 and does not contain any asbestos‐containing materials (ACM) or lead‐ based paint (LBP), which have been regulated in construction since the early 1970’s as explained below in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Fugitive Dust Ground disturbing activities during construction would generate fugitive dust. Fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) are considered to be significant unless the proposed project implements the BAAQMD’s Best Management Practices (BMPs) for fugitive dust control during construction. PM10 is typically the most significant source of air pollution from the dust generated from construction. The amount of dust generated during construction would be highly variable and is dependent on the amount of material being disturbed, the type of material, moisture content, and meteorological conditions. If uncontrolled, PM10 and PM2.5 levels downwind of actively disturbed areas could possibly exceed State standards. Consequently, impacts related to fugitive dust would be less than significant with the implementation Mitigation Measure AQ‐1a. Mitigation Measure AQ‐1a: The project’s construction contractor shall comply with the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing construction emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5):  Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.  Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non‐toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.  Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).  Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.  Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.  Hydroseed or apply non‐toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.  Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non‐toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).  Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph).  Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.  Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways. 538 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-10 APRIL 15, 2016 Adherence to the BAAQMD’s BMPs for reducing construction emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would ensure that ground‐disturbing activities would not generate a significant amount of fugitive dust. Fugitive dust impacts would be less than significant with implementation Mitigation Measure AQ‐1a. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐1a is required per General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ‐2a that was previously adopted by the City and incorporated into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure AQ‐ 1a will be made a condition of project approval. Construction Exhaust Emissions BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines identifies screening criteria for construction‐related criteria air pollutant emissions for an “apartment, mid‐rise” development with 240 dwelling units. Mid‐rise apartment developments with 240 dwelling units or more have the potential to generate a substantial increase in criteria air pollutant emissions and would need further analysis.7 The proposed project would also be adding underground parking to the apartment buildings. The proposed project would exceed the screening criteria for mid‐rise apartment development as it would construct 942 dwelling units, involve demolition activities, and require soil export for the underground parking. Therefore, a quantified analysis of the proposed project’s construction emissions was conducted. Construction emissions are based on the construction schedule and equipment list provided by the project applicant. The proposed project is estimated to take approximately 38 months. To determine potential construction‐related air quality impacts, the average daily criteria air pollutants emissions generated by the proposed project‐related construction activities are compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds in Table 5‐1. Average daily emissions are based on the annual construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days. As shown in Table 5‐1, except for NOx, criteria air pollutant emissions from construction equipment exhaust would not exceed the BAAQMD average daily thresholds. Mitigation Measure AQ‐1b: During construction, the construction contractor(s) shall use construction equipment fitted with engines that meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)‐Certified Tier 3 emissions standards for equipment of 50 horsepower or more. The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City of Cupertino Building Division official or their designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall properly service and maintain construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s 7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011 Revised, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 539 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-11 recommendations. The construction contractor shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with CARB Rule 2449. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Cupertino Planning Department and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement for US EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. TABLE 5‐1 CONSTRUCTION‐RELATED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Year Criteria Air Pollutants (tons/year)a VOC NOx Fugitive PM10 b Exhaust PM10 Fugitive PM2.5 b Exhaust PM2.5 b 2017 1 8 <1 <1 <1 <1 2018 1 8 2 <1 <1 <1 2019 1 5 1 <1 <1 <1 2020 15 4 1 <1 <1 <1 Total 18 24 4 1 1 1 Criteria Air Pollutants (average lbs/day)a Average Daily Emissionsc 43 57 10 2 3 2 BAAQMD Average Daily Project‐ Level Threshold 54 54 BMPs 82 BMPs 54 Exceeds Average Daily Threshold No Yes NA No NA No Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. BMP = Best Management Practices; NA = not applicable a. Construction phasing and equipment mix are based on the preliminary information provided by the project applicant. Where specific information regarding Project‐related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by South Coast Air Quality Management District of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. b. Includes implementation of BMPs for fugitive dust control required by BAAQMD as mitigation, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, and street sweeping. c. Average daily emissions are based on the total construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days. The total number of construction days is estimated to be 838. Source: CalEEMod 2013.2.2. Table 5‐2 shows the emissions that would be generated with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐1b. Mitigation Measure AQ‐1b requires using construction equipment with Tier 3 engine. As shown in Table 5‐2, the results indicate that with mitigation, emissions for NOx would be reduced to below the BAAQMD average daily thresholds. Therefore, impacts from project related construction activities to the regional air quality would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐1b. 540 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-12 APRIL 15, 2016 TABLE 5‐2 CONSTRUCTION‐RELATED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ESTIMATES ‐ MITIGATED Year Criteria Air Pollutants (tons/year)a,d VOC NOx Fugitive PM10 b Exhaust PM10 Fugitive PM2.5 b Exhaust PM2.5 b 2017 <1 5 <1 <1 <1 <1 2018 1 6 2 <1 <1 <1 2019 1 4 1 <1 <1 <1 2020 15 3 1 <1 <1 <1 Total 17 19 4 1 1 1 Criteria Air Pollutants (average lbs/day)a Average Daily Emissionsc 40 45 10 2 3 1 BAAQMD Average Daily Project‐ Level Threshold 54 54 BMPs 82 BMPs 54 Exceeds Average Daily Threshold No No NA No NA No Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. BMP: Best Management Practices; NA: not applicable a. Construction phasing and equipment mix are based on the preliminary information provided by the project applicant. Where specific information regarding project‐related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by South Coast Air Quality Management District of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. b. Includes implementation of BMPs for fugitive dust control required by BAAQMD as mitigation, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, and street sweeping. c. Average daily emissions are based on the total construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days. The total number of construction days is estimated to be 838. d. Incorporates Mitigation Measure AQ‐1b, which includes using construction equipment with Tier 3 engines. Source: CalEEMod 2013.2.2. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐1b is required per General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ‐2b that was previously adopted by the City and incorporated into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure AQ‐ 1b will be made a condition of project approval. Operation-Related Impacts Long‐term air pollutant emissions generated by a residential development are typically associated with the burning of fossil fuels in cars (mobile sources); energy use for cooling, heating, and cooking (energy); and landscape equipment use and household products (area sources). The primary source of long‐term criteria air pollutant emissions generated by the project would be emissions produced from project‐ generated vehicle trips. 541 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-13 BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines identifies screening criteria for operation‐related criteria air pollutant emissions for an “apartment, mid‐rise” development with 494 dwelling units. Mid‐rise apartment developments with 494 dwelling units or more have the potential to generate a substantial increase in criteria air pollutant emissions and would need further analysis.8 The proposed project would exceed the BAAQMD screening criteria for mid‐rise apartment development. Therefore, a quantified analysis of the proposed project’s operation emissions was conducted. The project would generate a net total of 4,020 average daily trips during a weekday. Table 5‐3 identifies the increase in criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project. As shown in Table 5‐ 3, the net increase in operational emissions generated by the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD daily or annual thresholds. Consequently, the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the Air Basin. Impacts from project related operation activities to the regional air quality would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. TABLE 5‐3 OPERATION‐RELATED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS EMISSIONS FORECAST Category Criteria Air Pollutants (average lbs/day) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Existing Average Daily Area 12 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 1 <1 <1 On‐Road Mobile Sources 3 3 7 2 Total 15 4 8 2 Project Average Daily Area 45 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 1 <1 <1 On‐Road Mobile Sources 11 10 25 7 Total 56 12 25 7 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011 Revised, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 542 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-14 APRIL 15, 2016 TABLE 5‐3 OPERATION‐RELATED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS EMISSIONS FORECAST Category Criteria Air Pollutants (average lbs/day) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Net Project Average Daily Area 33 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 On‐Road Mobile Sources 8 7 18 5 Total 41 8 18 5 BAAQMD Average Daily Project‐Level Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Average Daily Threshold No No No No Category Criteria Air Pollutants (tons/year) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Existing Tons per Year (tpy) 3 1 1 <1 Project Tons per Year (tpy) 10 2 5 1 Net Project Tons per Year (tpy) 8 1 3 1 BAAQMD Annual Project‐Level Threshold 10 tpy 10 tpy 15 tpy 10 tpy Exceeds Annual Threshold No No No No Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. New buildings would be constructed to the 2016 Building & Energy Efficiency lbs = pounds Standards (effective January 1, 2017). Average daily emissions are based on the annual operational emissions divided by 365 days. Source: CalEEMod 2013.2.2. Based on year 2020 emission rates. c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project area is in non‐attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative Standards for ozone precursors or other pollutants)? The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for California and National ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for ozone (O3) and for PM2.5, and a nonattainment area under the California AAQS for PM10.9 Any project that does not exceed or can be 9 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014, Area Designations: Activities and Maps, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, April 17. 543 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-15 mitigated to less than the BAAQMD significance levels, used as the threshold for determining major projects, does not add significantly to a cumulative impact.10 The proposed project would have less than significant construction impacts (with mitigation for fugitive dust, construction, and construction‐related off‐site community risk and hazards), operational impacts (including 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan consistency, odors, and CO hotspots), and on‐site community risk and hazards. Consequently, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Construction Off-Site Community Risk and Hazards The proposed project would elevate concentrations of TACs and PM2.5 in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during construction activities. The BAAQMD has developed Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction that evaluate construction‐related health risks associated with residential, commercial, and industrial projects.11 According to the screening tables, construction activities occurring within 450 feet (137 meters) of sensitive receptors would result in potential health risks and warrant a health risk analysis. The nearest sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the proposed project is the Arioso Apartment complex approximately 410 feet to the west of the project site. Thus, construction activities in relation to sensitive receptors could occur within the BAAQMD construction‐related health risks screening distance of 450 feet (137 meters). Consequently, a construction HRA of TACs and PM2.5 was prepared (see Appendix E of this Initial Study). A quantified analysis of the project’s construction emissions was conducted using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2013.2.2. Construction emissions were based on a 38‐month construction duration, construction schedule, and off‐road equipment list provided by the project applicant. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) AERMOD, Version 9.1, dispersion modeling program was used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risk, chronic non‐cancer hazard index for non‐carcinogenic risk, and the PM2.5 maximum annual concentrations at the nearest sensitive receptors. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 5‐4. 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011 Revised, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010, Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction, Version 1.0, May. 544 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-16 APRIL 15, 2016 TABLE 5‐4 CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY – UNMITIGATED Receptor Cancer Risk (per million) Chronic Hazards PM2.5 (µg/m3)a Maximum Exposed Receptor – Residences at Arioso Apartments 11.5 0.033 0.09 BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.3 Exceeds Threshold? Yes No No Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA guidance. a. From year 2017 which represents the highest maximum annual PM2.5 concentration. Source: Lakes AERMOD View, 9.1 (2015). The results of the HRA are based on the maximum receptor concentration over a 38‐month construction exposure duration for off‐site receptors, assuming 24‐hour outdoor exposure.12 Risk is based on the updated OEHHA Guidance:13  Cancer risk for the maximum exposed off‐site resident at the Arioso Apartments from only construction activities related to the proposed project were calculated to be 11.5 in a million and would exceed the 10 in a million significance threshold. Utilizing the 2015 OEHHA guidance, the calculated total cancer risk for the off‐site residents incorporates the individual risk for infant and childhood exposures into one risk value. Therefore, only one cancer risk value for the off‐site residents was determined using the 2015 OEHHA Guidance Manual.  For non‐carcinogenic effects, the hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint totaled less than one for off‐site sensitive receptors from the proposed project. Therefore, chronic non‐ carcinogenic hazards are within acceptable limits.  The highest PM2.5 annual concentrations at the maximum exposed off‐site sensitive resident would not exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 µg/m3. Cancer risk for the maximum exposed off‐site resident would exceed BAAQMD’s significance thresholds due to construction activities associated with the proposed project. However, Mitigation Measure AQ‐1b requires using construction equipment with Tier 3 engine and would reduce the project’s localized construction emissions. The mitigated health risk values were calculated and are summarized in Table 5‐5. 12 Under the 2015 OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual, the exposure duration has changed from 70 years to 30 years for operational risk to residents; however, the risk is still averaged over a 70‐year lifetime. 13 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. 545 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-17 TABLE 5‐5 CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY – MITIGATED Receptor Cancer Risk (per million) Chronic Hazards PM2.5 (µg/m3) Maximum Exposed Receptor – Residences at Arioso Apartments 6.9 0.019 0.05 BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.3 Exceeds Threshold? No No No Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA guidance. a. Incorporates Mitigation Measure AQ‐1b, which includes using construction equipment with Tier 3 engines. b. From year 2017 which represents the highest maximum annual PM2.5 concentration. Source: Lakes AERMOD View, 9.1 (2015). The results indicate that with mitigation, cancer risk impacts would be less than the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. Consequently, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure AQ‐2: Implement Mitigation Measure AQ‐1b. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐1b is required per General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ‐2b that was previously adopted by the City and incorporated into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure AQ‐ 1b will be made a condition of project approval. Operation On-Site Community Risk and Hazards The proposed project would not create new major sources of TACs. However, when siting new sensitive receptors, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend examining sources of TACs and PM2.5 emissions within 1,000 feet that would adversely affect individuals within the project. Although the project by itself would not be a major source of toxic air contaminants, vehicle traffic and other project emissions would contribute to existing sources of TACs. Under the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) (CBIA v. BAAQMD), where a project would exacerbate an existing environmental hazard, CEQA requires an analysis of the worsened condition on future project residents and the public at large. Therefore, this analysis has been incorporated into the environmental assessment in order for the City to consider potential health and welfare implications from siting new sensitive receptors. BAAQMD has developed screening tools to identify stationary and mobile sources of TACs and PM2.5 in the vicinity of sensitive land uses, and developed screening thresholds for assessing potential health risks from these sources. The site is adjacent to the future AC2 to the east and northeast and proximate to the following three high volume roadways with over 10,000 vehicles per day including, I‐280, Wolfe Road, and Pruneridge Avenue. 546 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-18 APRIL 15, 2016 An HRA was prepared to evaluate the health risk impacts to future project residents from the identified emission sources in compliance with Mitigation Measure AQ‐4b of the MMRP for the General Plan EIR. The US EPA AERMOD, Version 9.1, dispersion modeling program was used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risk, chronic and acute non‐carcinogenic hazard indexes, and PM2.5 concentrations for the on‐site nearest sensitive receptors from I‐280 and Wolfe Road. Health risk impacts from Pruneridge Avenue were identified utilizing BAAQMD’s Highway Screening Analysis Tools.14 Impacts identified for the AC2 were provided by the HRA previously prepared by LSA Associates, Inc.15 The results of the HRA are shown in Table 5‐6. TABLE 5‐6 ON‐SITE RISK SUMMARY Emissions Sources Cancer Risk (per million) Chronic Hazards Acute Hazards PM2.5 (µg/m3) Project Level Risk I‐ 280a 1.89 0.002 0.005 0.11 Wolfe Roada 3.98 0.004 0.006 0.11 Pruneridge Avenueb 6.16 0.030 0.030 0.16 Apple Campus 2c 1.15 0.302 0.302 0.17 BAAQMD Project‐Level Threshold 10 1.0 1.0 0.3 Exceeds Threshold No No No No Cumulative Level Risk Total Cumulative Risk from All Sources 13.2 0.34 0.34 0.54 BAAQMD Project‐Level Threshold 100 10.0 10.0 0.8 Exceeds Threshold No No No No Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA guidance. a. Lakes AERMOD View, 9.1 (2015). Residential cancer risks for I‐280 and Wolfe Road were determined using the high‐end residency exposure duration of 30‐years (OEHHA, 2015). b. BAAQMD Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator (2015). c. Apple Campus 2 Project EIR, L. Air Quality (LSA Associates, Inc., 2013). 14 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. Highway Screening Analysis Tool. Santa Clara County 6‐foot elevation. Link 288. 15 LSA Associates, Inc. 2013. Apple Campus 2 Draft EIR, L. Air Quality. 547 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-19 The results of the HRA are based on the maximum receptor concentration for on‐site receptors. Additionally, the calculated cancer risk is based on the updated OEHHA Guidance.16 Utilizing the 2015 OEHHA guidance, the calculated total cancer risk incorporates the individual risk for infant, childhood, and adult exposures into one risk value. Therefore, only one cancer risk value was determined using the 2015 OEHHA Guidance Manual. Additionally, a 24 hour outdoor exposure and an exposure duration of 30 years were assumed.17  The excess cancer risks for on‐site residents from each identified source range from 1.15 to 6.16 in one million and are less than the 10 in one million BAAQMD significance threshold for individual sources. Additionally, the combined excess cancer risk for on‐site residents from the identified sources are also less than the 100 in a million BAAQMD cumulative significance threshold.  For non‐carcinogenic effects, the chronic and acute non‐carcinogenic hazard indexes identified for each toxicological endpoint totaled less than one for on‐site residents. Therefore, chronic non‐ carcinogenic hazards are within acceptable limits.  The individual and cumulative PM2.5 annual concentrations for on‐site residents would also not exceed BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. Because the cancer risk, chronic and acute non‐carcinogenic hazard indexes, and PM2.5 concentrations for on‐site receptors would not exceed the respective BAAQMD significance thresholds, health risk impacts to future on‐site receptors are considered less than significant. CO Hotspot Analysis Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of carbon monoxide (CO) called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the State one‐hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight‐hour standard of 9 ppm. The proposed project would not conflict with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) because it would not hinder the capital improvements outlined in the CMP or alter regional travel patterns. VTA’s CMP must be consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commissions’ (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Plan Bay Area. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth in outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, vehicle miles traveled, and associated GHG emissions reductions. The proposed project is an infill residential development that is in close proximity to existing employment centers, roadways, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian routes (See Section XIV, Transportation and Circulation, below), and for these reasons would be consistent with the overall goals of the MTC’s/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area. Furthermore, 16 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. 17 Under the 2015 OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual, the exposure duration has changed from 70 years to 30 years for operational risk to residents; however, the averaging time remains at 70 years. 548 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-20 APRIL 15, 2016 implementation of the proposed project would result in a net generation of 4,020 peak hour trips on a weekday and would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited. Therefore, impacts associated with CO hotspots for the proposed project would be less than significant. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed project is a residential development. Construction and operation of residential developments would not generate substantial odors or be subject to odors that would affect a substantial number of people. The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Residential uses are not associated with foul odors that constitute a public nuisance. During operation, residences could generate odors from cooking. Odors from cooking are not substantial enough to be considered nuisance odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Furthermore, nuisance odors are regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which requires abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds.18 In addition, odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1‐301, Public Nuisance, which states that “no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction‐related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. Therefore, because existing sources of odors are required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 7, impacts to siting of new sensitive land uses would be less than significant. 18 It should be noted that while restaurants can generate odors, these sources are not identified by BAAQMD as nuisance odors since they typically do not generate significant odors that affect a substantial number of people. Larger restaurants that employ five or more people are subject to BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances. 549 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-21 III. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special‐ status species?     b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community type?     c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?     d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, their wildlife corridors or nursery sites?     e) Conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources?     f) Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?     GENERAL PLAN EIR Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to biological resources associated with intensified development of the project site. Impacts to biological resources are found to be less than significant and less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures to ensure impacts to birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) would not be significant. The project is required to comply with the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 to ensure the protection of nesting raptors and other birds when in active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Department of Fish and Game Code. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site and surrounding area has been urbanized and now supports roadways, structures, other impervious surfaces, areas of turf, and ornamental landscaping. Remnant native trees are scattered throughout these urbanized areas, together with non‐native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. Using data 550 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-22 APRIL 15, 2016 from the Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG)19 habitat mapping program, the site is classified as an “urban area” that tends to have low to poor wildlife habitat value due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation of remaining open space areas and parks, and intensive human disturbance. The diversity of urban wildlife depends on the extent and type of landscaping and remaining open space, as well as the proximity to natural habitat. Trees and shrubs used for landscaping provide nest sites and cover for wildlife adapted to developed areas. Typical native bird species include the mourning dove, scrub jay, northern mockingbird, American robin, brown towhee, American crow, and Anna’s hummingbird, among others. Introduced species include the rock dove, European starling, house finch, and house sparrow. Urban areas can also provide habitat for several species of native mammals such as the California ground squirrel and striped skunk, as well as the introduced eastern fox squirrel and eastern red fox. Introduced pest species such as the Norway rat, house mouse, and opossum are also abundant in developed areas. Wetlands and jurisdictional waters within the city boundary include creek corridors and associated riparian scrub and woodland, and areas of freshwater marsh around ponds, seeps, springs, and other waterbodies. Some remnant stands of riparian scrub and woodland occur along segments of the numerous creeks through the urbanized valley floor. The project site does not encompass these creek corridors or contain other regulated waters. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) has no record of special‐status plant or animal species on the project site or urbanized areas surrounding the project site. There is a possibility that birds could nest in trees and other landscaping on the project site. The nests of most bird species are protected under the MBTA when in active use and there is a remote possibility that one or more raptor species protected under the MBTA and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code could nest on the project site. These include both the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) and white‐tailed kite (Elanus leuocurus), which have reported CNDDB occurrences within the city boundary, together with more common raptors such as red‐tailed hawk, great horned owl, and American kestrel, all of which are protected by the MBTA and CDFG Code when their nests are in active use. A recent tree survey evaluated 433 trees on the site that represent 15 species.20 All trees appeared to have been planted as part of landscape development when the property was developed and no trees met the City of Cupertino’s criteria for protected status.21 While coast redwood is native to California, no trees of this species were indigenous to the project site. 19 The CALVEG system was initiated in January 1978 by the Region 5 Ecology Group of the US Forest Service to classify California’s existing vegetation communities for use in statewide resource planning. CALVEG maps use a hierarchical classification on the following categories: forest; woodland; chaparral; shrubs; and herbaceous. 20 Tree Survey, The Hamptons, prepared for the Irvine Company by HortScience, Inc. May 2015. See Appendix A, Tree Survey, of this Initial Study. 21 The City of Cupertino Municipal Code (Section 14.80.050) defines “Protected” trees. See Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning, of Chapter 3, Project Description, for a summary of the City’s tree protection ordinance. 551 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-23 DISCUSSION a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special‐status species? As stated above in the existing conditions discussion, there are no known occurrences of special‐status plant or animal species and no suitable habitat for such species on the project site, but there is a possibility that birds that are protected by the MBTA could nest in trees and other landscaping on the project site. The analysis in the General Plan EIR found that impacts to special‐status species, including nesting birds, would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Accordingly, the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 would also be required for the project to reduce impacts to a less‐than‐ significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO‐1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code. If construction activities and any required tree removal occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August 31), a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct surveys prior to tree removal or construction activities. Preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction activities outside the nesting period. If construction would occur during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or construction. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14‐day intervals until construction has been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped. Locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be documented and protective measures implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. Protective measures shall include establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by a qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active nest within an exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status. The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 is required per General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 that was previously adopted by the City and incorporated into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure BIO‐ 1 will be made a condition of project approval. 552 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-24 APRIL 15, 2016 b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community type? As discussed in the existing conditions above and determined in the General Plan EIR, development of the proposed project would occur in urbanized areas where sensitive natural communities are absent; therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? As discussed in the existing conditions above and determined in the General Plan EIR, development of the proposed project would occur in urbanized areas where no wetlands or jurisdictional waters occur on or near the project site; therefore, no impact would occur directly. Indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional other waters include: 1) an increase in the potential for sedimentation due to construction grading and ground disturbance, 2) an increase in the potential for erosion due to increased runoff volumes generated by impervious surfaces, and 3) an increase in the potential for water quality degradation due to increased levels in non‐point pollutants. However, indirect impacts would be largely avoided through effective implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) during construction and compliance with water quality controls. As discussed in Section VII, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study, water quality in stormwater runoff is regulated locally by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), which implements Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Adherence to these permit conditions requires the project to incorporate treatment measures, an agreement to maintain them, and other appropriate source control and site design features that reduce pollutants in runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Many of the requirements involve low impact development (LID) practices such as the use of onsite infiltration that reduce pollutant loading. Incorporation of these measures can even improve on existing conditions. In addition, future development would be required to comply with the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit (Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection) and implement a construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that require the incorporation of BMPs to control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction. The indirect water quality‐related issues are discussed further in Section VII, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study. As discussed in Impact HYDRO‐1, water quality impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional waters would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. 553 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-25 d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, their wildlife corridors or nursery sites? Development on the project site would occur in urbanized areas where sensitive wildlife resources and important wildlife movement corridors are no longer present because of the existing development. Wildlife species common to urban and suburban habitat could be displaced where existing structures are demolished and landscaping is removed as part of future development, but these species are relatively abundant, and adapted to human disturbance. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed project includes landscaping that would provide replacement habitat for wildlife species that may have adapted to the project site. Also discussed in Chapter 3, the project includes a Tr ee Demolition and Replacement Plan (see Figures 3‐19 and 3‐20). Consistent with General Plan Policies ES‐5.1, Urban Ecosystem, and Strategy, and ES‐5.1.2, Built Environment, the Tree Removal and Protection Plan includes native, drought tolerant trees that are beneficial to the environment. The project also includes water features, which would improve urban habitat linkages for migration of native and special‐status species. Therefore, project impacts on the movement of fish and wildlife, wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites would be considered less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. e) Would the project conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources? As discussed in criteria (a) through (d), above, development of the project site would occur in an urbanized area where sensitive biological and wetland resources are generally considered to be absent, and no major conflicts with the relevant policies or ordinances related to biological resources in the Cupertino General Plan and/or Municipal Code would occur. As discussed in the existing conditions above, the recent tree survey for the project site found that none of the existing on‐site trees meet the City of Cupertino’s criteria for protected status.22 Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. f) Would the project conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? As discussed in the General Plan EIR, no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plans include the city or the project site, and the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plan. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 22 The City of Cupertino Municipal Code (Section 14.80.050) defines “Protected” trees. See Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning, of Chapter 3, Project Description, for a summary of the City’s tree protection ordinance. 554 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-26 APRIL 15, 2016 IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?     b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?     c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?     d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?     e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074?     GENERAL PLAN EIR Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) associated with intensified development of the project site and impacts are less than significant. The following is a summary of Section, 4.4.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.4, which is based on the cultural resources analysis conducted by Tom Origer & Associates on July 24, 2013, included as Appendix D, Cultural Resources Data, of the General Plan EIR. The cultural resources study consists of archival research at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, examination of the library and files, field inspection, and contact with the Native American community. As shown in Table 4.4‐2, Cultural Resources in the Project Study Area and Vicinity, and on Figure 4.4‐1, Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR, there are no identified cultural resources on the project site. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site was developed in 1998 and no historical architectural resources are located on the project site. Accordingly, the buildings on the project site do not fall within the over 45‐year age limits established for historical resources that should be included in the California Department of Historic Preservation (OHP) filing system.23 A review of the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology’s (UCMP) fossil locality database was conducted for the City of Cupertino. No paleontological resources have been identified on the project 23 Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions For Recording Historical Resources, March 1995, page 2. 555 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-27 site; however, the presence of Pleistocene deposits that are known to contain fossils indicates that the overall the city could contain paleontological resources. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), which took effect on July 1, 2015, amends CEQA and adds new sections relating to Native American consultation and certain types of cultural resources. AB 52 requires the CEQA lead agency to begin consultation with a California Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. The consultation is required before the determination of whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR is required, if the Tribe requests in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of the proposed projects in the area, and the Tribe thereafter requests consultation. In addition, AB 52 includes time limits for certain responses regarding consultation. AB 52 also adds “tribal cultural resources” (TCR) to the specific cultural resources protected under CEQA.24 CEQA Section 21084.3 has been added, which states that “public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resources.” The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has until July 1, 2016, to develop guidelines, and the NAHC has until then to inform tribes which agencies are in their traditional area. In absence of the adopted guidelines, OPR suggests addressing whether the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR as defined in Public Resources Code 21074. The City has not received any request from any Tribes in the geographic area with which it is traditionally and culturally affiliated with or otherwise to be notified about projects in the city of Cupertino. Nonetheless, the evaluation of potential impacts to TCRs is addressed under criterion (e) below. DISCUSSION a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Under CEQA, both prehistoric and historic‐period archaeological sites may qualify as historical resources.25 Archaeological resources are addressed in criterion (b), and human remains are addressed below in criterion (d), below. The project site currently includes a residential complex developed in 1998. As described in the existing conditions above, the existing buildings do not fall within the over 45‐year age limits established for historical resources that should be included in the OHP filing system the California Register of Historical Resources.26 Accordingly, no impact to historical architectural resources would occur as a result of project development and no mitigation measures would be required. 24 CEQA Section 21074. 25 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(c), Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archeological Resources. 26 Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions For Recording Historical Resources, March 1995, page 2. 556 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-28 APRIL 15, 2016 b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Historical and pre‐contact archaeological deposits that meet the definition of historical resource under CEQA Section 21084.1 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 could be present at the project site and could be damaged or destroyed by ground‐disturbing construction activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, excavation, and trenching for utilities) associated with development allowed under the proposed project. Should this occur, the ability of the deposits to convey their significance, either as containing information about prehistory or history, or as possessing traditional or cultural significance to Native American or other descendant communities, would be materially impaired. While the project site is currently developed and the cultural resources study prepared for the General Plan EIR did not identify any known archaeological deposits on the project site, the site could still contain subsurface archaeological deposits, including unrecorded Native American prehistoric archaeological materials. Therefore, any project‐related ground‐disturbing activities have the potential to affect subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT‐1 would reduce impacts to unknown archaeological deposits to a less‐than‐significant level. Mitigation Measure CULT‐1: If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground‐disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives from the City and the archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the City shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) would be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out. c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? As discussed above in existing conditions, while no paleontological resources have been identified within the project location, because the proposed project requires substantial excavation that could reach significant depths below the ground surface where no such excavation has previously occurred, there could be fossils of potential scientific significance and other unique geologic features that have not been recorded. Such ground‐disturbing construction associated with development under the proposed project 557 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-29 could cause damage to, or destruction of, paleontological resources or unique geologic features. Impacts to paleontological resource or site or unique geologic features would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT‐2. Mitigation Measure CULT‐2: In the event that fossils or fossil‐bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the project proponent determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project based on the qualities that make the resource important. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Similar to the discussions under criteria (b) and (c), there are no known human remains of the project site; however, the potential to unearth unknown remains during ground disturbing activities associated with the construction of the project could occur. Any human remains encountered during ground‐disturbing activities associated with the proposed project would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations to ensure no adverse impacts to human remains would occur in the unlikely event human remains are found. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) contain the mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains. According to the provisions in CEQA, if human remains are encountered at the site, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease and necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area shall be taken. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately. The Coroner shall then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, who would, in turn, notify the person the NAHC identifies as the Most Likely Descendants (MLD) of any human remains. Further actions shall be determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following notification from the NAHC of the discovery. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC. Therefore, with the mandatory regulatory procedures described above, potential impacts related to the potential discovery or disturbance of any human remains accidently unearthed during construction 558 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-30 APRIL 15, 2016 activities associated with the proposed project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. e) Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? A TCR is defined under AB 52 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope, sacred place, and object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or included in a local register of historical resources, or included in a local register of historical resources, or if the City of Cupertino, acting as the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a TCR. As discussed under criteria (b) and (d) no known archeological resources, ethnographic sites or Native American remains are located on the project site. As discussed under criterion (b) implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT‐1 would reduce impacts to unknown archaeological deposits, including TCRs, to a less‐than‐significant level. As discussed under criterion (d) compliance with State and federal regulations would reduce the likelihood of disturbing or discovering human remains, including those of Native Americans. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT‐1 and compliance with State and federal regulations related to the protection of human remains would reduce impacts to TCRs to a less‐ than‐significant level. Mitigation Measure CULT‐3: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT‐1. V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?     ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?     iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?     iv) Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards?     b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     559 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-31 Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?     d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property?     e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?     GENERAL PLAN EIR Chapter 4.5, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to geological and seismic‐related impacts associated with intensified development of the project site. In addition, a geotechnical investigation dated July 10, 2015 was prepared for the project by TRC.27 The geotechnical investigation report is included in Appendix B of this Initial Study. The following discussion is based on project site information available in Section, 4.5.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.5, and the project‐ specific geotechnical investigation. EXISTING CONDITIONS Geology The City of Cupertino lies in the west‐central part of the Santa Clara Valley, a broad, mostly flat alluvial plain that extends southward from San Francisco Bay. The surficial geology is described as young, unconsolidated Quaternary alluvium. The site is generally flat with elevation ranging from 160 to 205 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Soils Web ‐accessible soil mapping data compiled by the USDA’s Soil Conservation Survey and the California Soil Resource Laboratory hosted by University of California at Davis was used to identify the major soil types on the project site. The predominant soil types for the project site are soils of the Urban Land‐Flaskan, Urban‐Land Stevens Creek, and Urban Land‐Botella complexes generally formed on slopes of 0 to 2 27 TRC, 2015. Geotechnical Investigation, The Hamptons Apartments, Cupertino, California, dated July 10, 2015. 560 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-32 APRIL 15, 2016 percent. Exploratory borings logged by TRC in 1996 and 2015 encountered a pavement section consisting of 2.5 to 3 inches of asphalt concrete underlain by 5 to 5.5 inches of aggregate base. Below the pavement sections, the borings generally encountered interbedded clayey sand, poorly graded sand, poorly graded gravel, and lean clay to depths of 16.5 to 21.5 feet. Below depths of 16.5 to 21.5 feet, and extending to 40 feet (the maximum depth explored), the borings generally encountered lean clay with occasional thin interbedded layers composed of silty sand, clayey sand, and poorly graded sand. To better evaluate soil permeability, two field infiltration rate tests were performed during the 2015 geotechnical investigation. Based on the test results, the geotechnical investigation estimated a typical infiltration rate of less than 1.5 inches/hour for site soils. This value appears to coincide with hydrologic soil group A (i.e., sand, loamy sand, sandy loam) that are typically well drained with low runoff potential.28 Groundwater During the recent geotechnical investigation, groundwater was not encountered to the maximum explored depth of 40 feet. Based on the data published by the California Geological Survey (CGS), the depth to historically high groundwater is more than 50 feet in most of the Cupertino area.29 However, these depths may fluctuate somewhat in response to recent changes in rainfall, impervious cover, and other factors. Fault Rupture The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. The significant earthquakes that occur in the Bay Area are generally associated with crustal movement along well‐defined active fault zones such as the San Andreas Fault system. Many of these zones exhibit a regional trend to the northwest. The site is not located within a State‐designated Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (known formerly as a Special Studies Zone) or a Santa Clara County‐designated Fault Rupture Hazard Zone.30 No active fault traces are known to cross the site. Liquefaction The site is not located within a seismically inducted liquefaction hazard zone, as mapped by the State of California and Santa Clara County. During cyclic ground shaking, such as seismic shaking during an earthquake, cyclically‐induced stresses may cause increased pore water pressures within the soil matrix, resulting in liquefaction. Liquefied soil may lose shear strength that may lead to large shear deformations 28 USDA, 1955. How Much of the Rain Enters the Soil? in Water, The Yearbook of Agriculture, by G. W. Musgrave. 29 CGS, 2002. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Cupertino 7.5‐Minute Quadrangle, Santa Clara County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone report 068. 30 Santa Clara County, 2012. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones, Map 18, updated October 26, 2012. 561 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-33 and/or flow failure. Liquefied soil can also settle as pore pressures dissipate following an earthquake. Limited field data is available on this subject; however, settlement on the order of 2 to 3 percent of the thickness of the liquefied zone has been measured in some cases. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose to moderately dense, saturated, non‐cohesive soils with poor drainage, such as sands and silts with interbedded or capping layers of relatively low permeability soil. Dry Seismic Settlement If near‐surface soils vary in composition both vertically and laterally, strong earthquake shaking can cause non‐uniform densification of loose to medium dense cohesionless soils. Densification can result in the movement of the near‐surface soils. A recent geotechnical investigation of the site encountered medium dense clayey sand, silty sand, and poorly graded gravel layers at various depths. Based on the anticipated excavation depths for the proposed below‐grade parking at the site, dry seismic settlement of the medium dense soils is estimated at approximately 0.5 inch. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat‐lying alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. In soils, this movement is generally due to failure along a weak plane, and may often be associated with liquefaction. As cracks develop within the weakened material, blocks of soil are displaced laterally toward the open face. Cracking and lateral movement may gradually propagate away from the face as blocks continue to break free. Because of the low potential for liquefaction, the risk of lateral spreading at the site is also considered low. Corrosive Soils Many factors can affect the corrosion potential of soil including soil moisture content, resistivity, permeability, and pH, as well as chloride and sulfate concentration. Of these, soil resistivity is the most influential factor. Four site soil samples were recently tested for corrosivity and the measured resistivity values ranging from 1,528 to 8,824 ohm/cm.31 Based on the resistivity test results, two of the four samples were classified as “severely corrosive.” 31 The term ohms‐cm (“ohms centimeter”) refers to the measurement of the “volume” resistivity (also known as “bulk” resistivity) of a semiconductive material. The value in ohms‐cm is the inherent resistance of a given material regardless of the shape or size. 562 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-34 APRIL 15, 2016 DISCUSSION a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; (iii) Seismic‐ related ground failure, including liquefaction; (iv) Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards? Fault Rupture As discussed in the General Plan EIR, only one Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone has been mapped within the City of Cupertino, namely, the zone that flanks the San Andreas Fault in the southwestern most part of the city. Because the site is not located within a State‐designated Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or Santa Clara County‐designated Fault Rupture Hazard Zone, and no active faults are known to traverse the site, the risk of surface fault rupture is considered low. The impacts from project development as they relate to surface fault rupture are considered less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking The hazards posed by strong seismic ground shaking during a major earthquake, while variable, are nearly omnipresent in the San Francisco Bay Area. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, in the event of a large, magnitude 6.7 or greater seismic event, much of the city is projected to experience “strong” ground shaking, with the most intense shaking forecast for the northeast part of the city where the project is located. Adherence to applicable building code, including conformance to California Building Code (CBC) Site Class and Site Seismic Coefficients (as recommended in the recent 2015 geotechnical investigation), and the City’s building permit requirements would ensure that the impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The impacts of project development as they relate to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO‐1. Mitigation Measure GEO‐1: The project applicant shall adhere to the seismic design criteria for the maximum estimated ground shaking (i.e., peak ground acceleration of 0.58 gravity (g) as recommended in the recent 2015 geotechnical investigation for the proposed project. Liquefaction As described above in Existing Conditions, the project site is not located within an area mapped by the State of California and Santa Clara County as having a high potential for seismically induced liquefaction. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction in the vicinity appears low, limited to a very narrow strip of alluvial deposits that flank Calabazas Creek roughly 0.30 563 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-35 miles southeast of the project site. Accordingly, impacts associated with project development as they may relate to seismically induced liquefaction would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Landslides The site is generally flat with elevation ranging from 160 to 205 feet amsl. The project site is not located within an area mapped by the State of California or Santa Clara County as having a high potential for seismically induced landslides. Therefore, impacts associated with project development as they may relate to seismically induced landslides would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil during construction could, in theory, undermine structures and minor slopes during development of the project site. However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements, such as the implementation of grading erosion control measures specified in the CBC and the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code, would reduce impacts from erosion and the loss of topsoil. Examples of these control measures are BMPs such as hydroseeding or short‐term biodegradable erosion control blankets; vegetated swales, silt fences, or other forms of protection at storm drain inlets; post‐ construction inspection of drainage structures for accumulated sediment; and post‐construction clearing of debris and sediment from these structures. Section 16.08.110 of the Municipal Code requires the preparation and submittal of Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plans for all projects subject to City‐issued grading permits, which would minimize the removal of topsoil, avoid overly steep cut and/or fill slopes, and protect existing vegetation during grading operations. These requirements are broadly applicable to residential development projects. Adherence to these regulations would help ensure that the impacts of project development as they relate to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? As discussed in criterion (a), the project site is not located within an area mapped as having significant potential for seismically induced liquefaction. Because of the low potential for liquefaction, the risk of lateral spreading at the site would also be low. Therefore, the impacts of project development as they relate to liquefaction and lateral spreading would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. As previously discussed in Existing Conditions, the project site is generally flat with on‐site elevations ranging from 160 to 205 feet amsl. The properties surrounding the project site are also typified by low 564 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-36 APRIL 15, 2016 topographic relief. The impacts of project development as they relate to landslides would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. In this analysis, corrosive soils are interpreted as a type of (chemically) unstable soil. Based on a recent geotechnical investigation, some site soils were categorized as severely corrosive based on their measured resistivity, and could compromise building materials unless protective measures are implemented. The impacts of project development as they relate to corrosive soils would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO‐2. Mitigation Measure GEO‐2: Prior to issuing building permits, the City shall require the project applicant to consult with a corrosion protection engineer in order to develop specific recommendations regarding corrosion protection for buried metal pipe or buried metal pipe‐fittings. The project applicant shall implement the recommendations during construction to be verified by the City’s Building Department. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property? Expansive soils can undergo dramatic changes in volume in response to variations in soil moisture content. When wet, these soils can expand; conversely, when dry, they can contract or shrink. Sources of moisture that can trigger this shrink‐swell phenomenon can include seasonal rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, and/or perched groundwater. Expansive soil can develop wide cracks in the dry season, and changes in soil volume have the potential to damage concrete slabs, foundations, and pavement. Special building/structure design or soil treatment are often needed in areas with expansive soils. Expansive soils are typically very fine‐grained with a high to very high percentage of clay, typically montmorillonite, smectite, or bentonite clay. As discussed in the existing conditions, a recent geotechnical investigation of the project site described the representative soil samples as exhibiting low soil plasticity. Therefore, the impacts of project development as they relate to expansive soils are considered less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The development of the proposed project would not require the construction or use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be conveyed to the existing municipal sanitary sewer system in Cupertino, where multiple connections would be made in Pruneridge Avenue. Therefore, there would be no impact from the proposed project associated with soils that are inadequate for the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No mitigation measures would be required. 565 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-37 VI. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?     b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?     GENERAL PLAN EIR Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the cumulative impacts from greenhouse gas emissions associated with General Plan buildout, including intensified development of the project site. Greenhouse gas emission (GHG) impacts under the General Plan EIR are less than significant. EXISTING CONDITIONS The following impact discussions include and updated existing conditions summary from that presented in Section, 4.6.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.6. DISCUSSION a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? A project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change; therefore, this section measures the project’s contribution to the cumulative environmental impact. Development permitted under the proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from transportation sources, energy (natural gas and purchased energy), water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste generation. In addition, construction activities would generate a short‐term increase in GHG emissions. The total and net increase in GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 5‐7. 566 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-38 APRIL 15, 2016 TABLE 5‐7 PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS Category GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year) Project Percent of Total Construction Emissions Total Construction Emissions (Years 2017–2020)a 6,883 N/A 30‐Year Amortized Construction 229 N/A Operational Emissions Existing Area 19 1% Energy 599 28% On‐Road Mobile Sources 1,178 55% Waste 346 16% Water/Wastewater 15 1% Total 2,158 100% Proposed Project Area 57 1% Energy 2,267 34% On‐Road Mobile Sources 3,389 51% Waste 952 14% Water/Wastewater 34 1% Total 6,700 100% Net Change Area 38 1% Energy 1,668 37% On‐Road Mobile Sources 2,211 49% Waste 606 13% Water/Wastewater 19 <1% Total 4,542 100% Total without Waste Generation Emissionsb 3,936 N/A Service Population 1,723 N/A Per Capita Emissions Threshold 2.28 N/A Per Capita Threshold (MTCO2e/SP) 4.6 N/A Exceeds BAAQMD Thresholds? No N/A Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. New buildings would be constructed to the 2016 Building & Energy Efficiency Standards (effective January 1, 2017). a. Includes implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐1a, which requires complying with BAAQMD’s BMPs for reducing construction emissions. b. BAAQMD did not include solid waste emissions when developing the per capita significance thresholds. Therefore, total GHG emissions with and without the Waste Generation sector are included. If these emissions are included in the analysis for the proposed project, the per capita emissions would be 2.64 MTCO2e/SP/yr. Source: CalEEMod 2013.2.2. 567 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-39 BAAQMD does not have thresholds of significance for construction‐related GHG emissions, however, the BAAQMD advises that the lead agency should quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction and make a determination on the significance of these construction‐generated GHG emissions in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals. One‐time, short‐term emissions are converted to average annual emissions by amortizing them over the service life of a building. For buildings in general, it is reasonable to look at a 30‐year time frame, since this is a typical interval before a new building requires the first major renovation.32 As shown in Table 5‐7, when amortized over a 30‐year project lifetime, average annual construction emissions from the proposed project would represent a nominal source of GHG emissions and would not exceed BAAQMD’s threshold of 1,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/year). Construction emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. As shown in Table 5‐7, development of the proposed project would result in a net increase of GHG emissions of 3,936 MTCO2e/year as a result of an increase in density on the project site. Impacts are evaluated based on BAAQMD’s per capita significance threshold. BAAQMD’s per capita significance threshold is calculated based on the State’s land use sector emissions inventory prepared by CARB and the demographic forecasts for the 2008 Scoping Plan. The proposed project would not exceed the per capita significance threshold of 4.6 MTCO2e/SP. Therefore, project‐related GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan and the MTC’s/ ABAG’s) Plan Bay Area. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below. CARB’s Scoping Plan In accordance with Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed the 2008 Scoping Plan to outline the State’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected Statewide 2020 business as usual (BAU) GHG emissions (i.e., GHG emissions in the absence of statewide emission reduction measures). CARB identified that the State as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from year 2020 BAU to achieve the targets of AB 32.33 A revised BAU 2020 forecast conducted after publication of the 2008 Scoping Plan by CARB shows that the state would have to reduce GHG emissions by 21.6 percent from BAU (i.e., without the Pavley standards and the California Renewables Portfolio Standard) or 15.7 32 International Energy Agency, 2008, Energy Efficiency Requirements in Building Codes, Energy Efficiency Policies for New Buildings, March. 33 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change, October. 568 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-40 APRIL 15, 2016 percent from the adjusted baseline (i.e., with the Pavley standards and the California Renewable Portfolio Standard).34 Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations; California Building Standards (i.e., CALGreen and Building and Energy Efficiency Standards); California Renewable Portfolio Standard (33 percent RPS); changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley II); and other measures that would ensure the State is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. Statewide GHG emissions reduction measures that are being implemented over the next five years would reduce the proposed project’s GHG emissions. New structures would meet the current Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2016 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards become effective January 1, 2017. Multi‐family of four stories and higher are treated as non‐residential buildings for the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2016 Standards are 33.5 percent more energy efficient than the 2008 standards for non‐residential buildings. The new buildings would also be constructed in conformance with CALGreen, which requires high‐efficiency water fixtures for indoor plumbing and water efficient irrigation systems. The proposed project would not conflict with statewide programs adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. MTC’s/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area As described above under the subheading “CO2 Hotspots, an overarching goal of the Plan Bay Area is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth in outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, vehicle miles traveled, and associated GHG emissions reductions. The proposed project is an infill residential development that is in close proximity to existing employment centers, roadways, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian routes (See Section XIV, Transportation and Circulation, below), and for these reasons would be consistent with the overall goals of the MTC’s/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the land use concept plan for the City of Cupertino identified in the Plan Bay Area and impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. 34 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2012. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf. 569 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-41 City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan The Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a strategic planning document that identifies sources of GHG emissions within the City’s boundaries, presents current and future emissions estimates, identifies a GHG reduction target for future years, and presents strategic goals, measures, and actions to reduce emissions from the energy, transportation and land use, water, solid waste, and green infrastructure sectors. The emissions reduction strategies developed by the City follows the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (2011) and the corresponding criteria for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program as defined by the BAAQMD, which in turn were developed to comply with the requirements of AB 32 and achieve the goals of the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) AB 32 Scoping Plan. A qualified GHG emissions reduction strategy adopted by a local jurisdiction should include the elements below, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. The following BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (2011) provide the methodology to determine whether a GHG reduction program meets these requirements:  Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area.  Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.  Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area.  Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, which substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project‐by‐project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level.  Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels.  Be adopted in a public process following environmental review. The City’s CAP meets BAAQMD guidelines as follows:  The CAP quantifies citywide GHG emissions, both existing and projected over the specified time period, resulting from activities within the city as defined by the City’s General Plan.  The CAP establishes a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution of emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.  CAP policy provisions reduce emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.  CAP policy provisions reduce emissions to 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.  CAP policy provisions provide a foundation for the City to reach the goal of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.  The CAP identifies and analyzes the emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the city.  The CAP specifies measures or a group of measures, including performance standards.  The CAP establishes a mechanism to monitor its progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specific levels.  The reduction measures proposed in the CAP build on inventory results and key opportunities prioritized by City staff, members from the community, and elected officials. The strategies in the CAP 570 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-42 APRIL 15, 2016 consist of measures and actions that identify the steps the City will take to support reductions in GHG emissions. The City of Cupertino will achieve these reductions in GHG emissions through a mix of voluntary programs and new strategic standards. The standards presented in the CAP respond to the needs of development, avoiding unnecessary regulation, streamlining new development, and achieving more efficient use of resources. The project is consistent with the GHG inventory contained in the CAP. Both the existing and projected GHG inventory contained in the City’s CAP were derived based on the land use designations and associated densities defined in the City’s General Plan. The General Plan land use designation is High Density with greater than 35 dwelling units per acre (High Density (greater than 35 du/ac)). The proposed project is consistent with this land use designation. Therefore, since the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and does not propose an amendment to modify the type, intensity, or density of use, it is also consistent with the GHG inventory contained in the CAP. In addition, a specific project proposal is considered consistent with the Cupertino CAP if it complies with the “required” GHG reduction measures contained in the adopted CAP. The previously adopted GHG reduction measures applicable to the proposed project include the following:  Measure C‐E‐1 Energy Use Data and Analysis: Increase resident and building owner/tenant/operator knowledge about how, when, and where building energy is used.  Measure C‐W‐1 SB‐X7‐7: Implement water conservation policies contained within Cupertino’s Urban Water Management Plan to achieve 20 percent per capita water reduction by 2020.  Measure C‐SW‐1 Zero Waste Goal: Maximize solid waste diversion community‐wide through preparation of a zero‐waste strategic plan.  Measure C‐SW‐3 Construction & Demolition Waste Diversion Program: Continue to enforce diversion requirements in City’s Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion and Green Building Ordinances. The proposed project would not make any changes to current City standards. Development in the City of Cupertino, including the project, is required to adhere to City‐adopted policy provisions, including those contained in the adopted CAP. The City ensures that the provisions of the Cupertino CAP are incorporated into projects and their permits through development review and applications of conditions of approval as applicable. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. 571 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-43 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?     b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?     c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?     d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?     e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area?     f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area?     g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?     h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?     GENERAL PLAN EIR Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan EIR, addressees the hazards‐ and hazardous materials‐related impacts as a result of intensified development in Cupertino. Impacts are found to be less than significant and less than significant with mitigation measures to ensure that development on sites with known hazardous contamination would be less than significant. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures HAZ‐4a and HAZ‐4b are required to be implemented for sites with known contamination and potential residual contamination. As discussed in Chapter 4.7, the project site is not listed as a site with known contamination or potential residual contamination; therefore, the identified mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR do not apply to the proposed project. The following is a summary of Section, 4.7.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.7. 572 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-44 APRIL 15, 2016 EXISTING CONDITIONS As shown on Table 4.7‐2, Hazardous Materials and LUST [leaking underground storage tanks] Sites, of the General Plan EIR, the search of the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor Database and the GeoTracker database search did not reveal any hazardous materials or LUST sites on or within close proximity to the project site. The project site, developed in 1998, does not contain any asbestos‐ containing materials (ACM) or lead‐based paint (LBP), which have been regulated in construction since the early 1970’s. There are no known hazardous materials sites located on the project site. Cupertino High School and Sedgwick Elementary School in the Cupertino Union School District are approximately 1.5 miles to the south, while Laurelwood Elementary School in the Santa Clara Unified School District is located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast in the City of Santa Clara. There are no moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zones in the State Responsibility Areas in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest public airports are San Jose International Airport, approximately 5.1 miles to the northeast, and Palo Alto Airport, approximately 10.5 miles to the northwest. The nearest heliports are Mc Candless Towers Heliport, approximately 4.3 miles to the northeast, and County Medical Center Heliport, approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast. The nearest private airport is Moffett Federal Airfield, approximately 6.1 miles to the northwest. DISCUSSION a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Project Operation The proposed project, a residential development, would not involve the routine transport or disposing of hazardous materials. Project operation would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as cleansers, degreasers, pesticides, and fertilizers. These potentially hazardous materials would not be of a type or be present in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment. Furthermore, such substances would be used, transported, stored, and disposed of in in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, and regulations. Any businesses that transport, generate, use, and/or dispose of hazardous materials in Cupertino are subject to existing hazardous materials regulations, such as those implemented by Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (HMCD), and hazardous materials permits from the Santa Clara Fire Department (SCCFD). The SCCFD also conducts inspections for fire safety and hazardous materials management of businesses and multi‐family dwellings, in accordance with the City of Cupertino Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance in Title 9, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 9.12, Hazardous Materials Storage. Thus, associated impacts from the operational phase of the project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. 573 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-45 Project Construction Construction activities at the project site would involve the use of larger amounts of hazardous materials than would operation of the proposed project, such as petroleum‐based fuels for maintenance and construction equipment, and coatings used in construction, which would be transported to the site periodically by vehicle and would be present temporarily during construction. These potentially hazardous materials would not be of a type or occur in sufficient quantities on‐site to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment, and would their use during construction would be short‐ term. Additionally, as with proposed project operation, the use, transport, and disposal of construction‐ related hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner, and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. Consequently, associated impacts from construction of the proposed project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? As described under criterion (a) above, operation and construction of the proposed project would involve the storage and use of common cleaning substances, building maintenance products, paints, and solvents, as well as petroleum‐based fuels for maintenance and construction equipment, and coatings used in construction. Also, as described in the existing conditions, all of the existing buildings on the project site were developed in 1998; thus, the buildings would not contain ACM and LBP. An impact could occur if construction and operation of the proposed project creates conditions where hazardous materials could easily contaminate surrounding soil, water, or air. The most likely scenarios would be from rainwater runoff spreading contaminated waste. Stormwater runoff is discussed in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study and impacts were found to be less than significant. Project Operation The proposed project, a residential complex, is not considered the type of project that would create a hazardous materials threat to the users of the site or the surrounding land uses. The Santa Clara County HMCD is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for Santa Clara County including the City of Cupertino, and is responsible for enforcing Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. As the CUPA, Santa Clara County HMCD is required to regulate hazardous materials business plans (HMBP) and chemical inventory, hazardous waste and tiered permitting, underground storage tanks, and risk‐ management plans. The HMBP is required to contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of on development sites. The HMBP also contains an emergency‐response plan, which describes the procedures for mitigating a hazardous release, procedures, and equipment for minimizing the potential damage of a hazardous materials release, and 574 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-46 APRIL 15, 2016 provisions for immediate notification of the Cal EMA and other emergency‐response personnel, such as the SCCFD. Implementation of the emergency response plan facilitates rapid response in the event of an accidental spill or release, thereby reducing potential adverse impacts. Furthermore, Santa Clara County HMCD is required to conduct ongoing routine inspections to ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations; to identify safety hazards that could cause or contribute to an accidental spill or release; and to suggest preventative measures to minimize the risk of a spill or release of hazardous substances. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the risk of accidents and spills is minimized to the maximum extent practicable during the operation of the proposed project. Consequently, associated impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Project Construction Similar to the operation of the proposed project, the type of construction materials and equipment would be considered standard for this type of development. All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the Santa Clara County HMCD would be required through the duration of the construction of each individual development project. Therefore, substantial hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use of hazardous materials during project construction would not occur. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no schools within one‐quarter mile of the project site. Furthermore, the proposed project would not involve the storage, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials in sufficient quantities to pose a significant risk to the public. Thus, no impact related to hazardous emissions or hazardous material handling within one‐quarter mile of a school would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? As shown in the General Plan EIR (see Table 4.7‐2, Hazardous Materials and LUST [leaking underground storage tanks] and Figure 4.7‐1, Hazardous Material Sites) the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Accordingly, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 575 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-47 e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area? The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public use airport. Thus, there would be no impact related to public airport hazards and no mitigation measures would be required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area? There are no private use airstrips or airports within two miles of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact related to private airstrip hazards as a result of implementing the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services is responsible for coordinating agency response to disasters or other large‐scale emergencies in the City of Cupertino with assistance from the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services and the SCCFD. The Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)35 establishes policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation, response, and recovery activities within the city. The Cupertino EOP addresses interagency coordination, procedures to maintain communications with county and State emergency response teams, and methods to assess the extent of damage and management of volunteers. The proposed project would not block roads and would not impede emergency access to surrounding properties or neighborhoods. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, emergency vehicle access would be provided at two points; one located off of Wolfe Road and the other off of Pruneridge Avenue described above. The project’s circulation design includes a 0.5 mile fire Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) lane that connects to the cul‐de‐sac off of Pruneridge Avenue, forming a clockwise pattern around the site. Along the route, dedicated 26‐feet by 60‐feet fire truck access pads would be provided for firefighting equipment to access each building. Six designated fire aerial rig locations would be strategically located around the buildings on the EVA lane. The EVA lane would be made of different building materials along its length. In some locations the EVA lane would be made of asphalt and concrete, while in other locations the EVA land would be made of turf that can support the weight of a fire truck and would have the appearance of a linear park. Fire access would be maintained and provided to the AC2 gate at the southern portion of the property. 35 City of Cupertino, Office of Emergency Services. Emergency Operations Plan. September 2005. 576 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-48 APRIL 15, 2016 During demolition and construction, vehicles, equipment, and materials would be staged and stored on a portion of the project site. The construction site and staging areas would be clearly marked, and construction fencing would be installed to prevent disturbance and safety hazards. No staging would occur in the public right‐of‐way. A combination of on‐ and off‐site parking facilities for construction workers would be identified during demolition, grading, and construction. The proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan, or emergency evacuation plan; therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildland are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project site is fully developed and is surrounded by built‐out urban use. There are no very high fire hazard severity zones within the Local Responsibility Areas of Cupertino and there are no high or very high fire risk areas as shown on the City’s adopted Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area map. The proposed project would not subject people or structures to wildfire hazards, and no impact would occur. No mitigation measures would be required. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?     b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (the production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).     c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on‐ or off‐site.     d) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?     e) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?     577 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-49 Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact f) Place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map or place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100‐year flood hazard area?     g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?     h) Potentially be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?     GENERAL PLAN EIR Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the hydrology‐ and water quality‐related impacts as a result of intensified development of the project site. These impacts are identified as less than significant in the General Plan EIR. The following is a summary of Section, 4.8.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.8. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site lies within the Calabazas Creek watershed. No creeks are present on the project site. In addition to the natural drainage system, a network of storm drains collects runoff from city streets and carries it to the creeks and San Francisco Bay. The City of Cupertino Department of Public Works is responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of City‐owned facilities including public streets, sidewalks, curb, gutter, storm drains. The capacity of the storm drain facilities within the City of Cupertino were evaluated and documented in the 1993 Storm Drain Master Plan, which identifies the areas within the system that do not have the capacity to handle runoff during the 10‐year storm event, which is the City’s design standard. The project site is not located in an area where the storm drains are potentially deficient in conveying the 10‐year storm (see Table 4.8‐3, Under Capacity Storm Drainage Infrastructure, of the General Plan EIR). The project site, as does the entire city, lies within the Santa Clara Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. In 2012, approximately 40 percent of the water used in Santa Clara County was pumped from groundwater.36 The rest of the water used in the County is purchased from the Santa Clara 36 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. Annual Groundwater Report for Calendar Year 2012. 578 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-50 APRIL 15, 2016 Valley Water District (SCVWD), which receives surface water from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley Project (CVP). Additional details on water usage and local water purveyors are provided in Section XV, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Initial Study. Santa Clara Valley streams do not receive discharges from industrial or municipal wastewater.37 Industrial discharges are routed to municipal sanitary sewers and then to regional municipal wastewater treatment plants that discharge treated effluent to the tidal sloughs of San Francisco Bay. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States from their municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Municipal storm water discharges in the City of Cupertino is subject to the Waste Discharge Requirements of the new Municipal Regional Permit (MRP; Order Number R2‐2015‐0049) and NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, which became effective on January 1, 2016. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) monitors surface water quality through implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) and designates beneficial uses for surface water bodies and groundwater within the Santa Clara Valley. The Basin Plan also contains water quality criteria for groundwater. Groundwater quality in the Santa Clara subbasin is generally considered to be good and water quality objectives are met in at least 95 percent of the County water supply wells without the use of treatment methods.38 The project site is not located in a FEMA‐designated 100‐year floodplain or Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The project site is not within a dam inundation zone. The City of Cupertino is more than eight miles south of San Francisco Bay and is more than 100 feet amsl, which places the city at a distance that is considered too far to be affected by a tsunami.39 There are no large bodies of water within the City of Cupertino or near the project site; thus, the project site would not be impacted by a seiche. DISCUSSION a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Because the project would disturb one or more acres during construction, the project applicant would be required to comply with the NPDES Permit and submit Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) to the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a site‐specific 37 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Initiative, 2003. Volume 1, Watershed Characteristics Report, http://www.scbwmi.org/ accessed May 2, 2014. 38 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. 2012 Groundwater Management Plan. 39 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2014. Interactive Tsunami Inundation Map. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Tsunami/index.html accessed April 5, 2014. 579 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-51 construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP describes the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction. New requirements by the SWRCB would also require the project applicant to prepare a construction SWPPP that includes post construction treatment measures aimed at minimizing storm water runoff. With implementation of these measures, water quality impacts during construction would be less than significant. In addition, all new development or redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces would be required to incorporate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures into the project, pursuant to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) C.3 requirements. The requirements include minimization of impervious surfaces, measures to detain or infiltrate runoff from peak flows to match pre‐development conditions, and agreements to ensure that the stormwater treatment and flow control facilities are maintained in perpetuity. The proposed project would implement the following measures:  Site Design Measures – minimize amount of disturbed land, minimize impervious surfaces, minimum impact street and parking lot design, cluster structures/pavement, include self‐retaining areas  Source Control Measures – wash area/racks, drain to sanitary sewer; covered dumpster area, drain to sanitary sewer; sanitary sewer connection or accessible cleanout for swimming pool/spa; beneficial landscaping (minimize irrigation, runoff, pesticides and fertilizers); regular maintenance including pavement sweeping, catch basin cleaning, and good housekeeping  Treatment Systems –nineteen bioretention areas scattered throughout the property totaling 13,734 cubic feet Implementation of these measures and compliance with the C.3 requirements of the MRP would ensure that post‐development impacts to water quality would be less than significant. Adherence to applicable water quality regulations, preparation of a SWPPP, implementation of BMPs during construction, and compliance with the City of Cupertino Municipal Code would ensure that water quality standards are not violated during construction. Implementation of stormwater site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures and compliance with C.3 provisions of the MRP and the City of Cupertino’s stormwater requirements would result in less‐than‐significant impacts during operation of the project. Consequently, potential impacts associated with water quality during construction and operation would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (the production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The project would be connected to municipal water supplies and does not propose any groundwater wells on the property. The project site is supplied by California Water Service Company (Cal Water), which obtains its water from groundwater production (32 percent) and purchases of surface water from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for the Los Altos Suburban 580 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-52 APRIL 15, 2016 District, which includes the area for the project site, states that there is sufficient water for their customers for normal, single‐dry, and multiple‐dry years.40 If additional water is needed, Cal Water states that additional groundwater can be pumped to meet demand through 2040.41 Therefore, the project would not result in a depletion of groundwater supplies or result in a lowering of groundwater levels. Water supply is discussed in Section XV, Utilities and Service Systems, below. Furthermore, due to the project’s location, the development of the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge that takes place in the McClellan Ponds recharge facility located within the City of Cupertino or the creeks and streams that run through the city. Therefore, the project would have a less‐than‐significant impact to groundwater recharge. The proposed project would be located on a site that is already developed and currently has a high percentage of impervious surfaces. The proposed project would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces of 30,281 square feet as compared to existing conditions, which is approximately a 10 percent increase. As a result, the project would result in a slight increase in the amount of runoff from the property. However, the project would install nineteen bioretention areas, which would contribute to groundwater recharge by infiltration. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge and no mitigation measures are needed. c) Would the substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on‐ or off‐site? The proposed project would take place within the boundaries of a fully developed site that is currently connected to the City’s storm drain system. The proposed redevelopment does not involve the alteration of any natural drainage channels or any watercourse. As shown on Figures 3‐23 and 3‐24 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would provide nineteen bioretention water treatment areas throughout the project site. These would collect runoff from roof areas, parking lots, sidewalks and streets for treatment and flow control prior to discharge into the internal storm drain system, which connects to the City’s storm drain system in Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue. The project applicant would be required, pursuant to the C.3 provisions of the MRP, to implement construction phase BMPs, post‐construction design measures that encourage infiltration in pervious areas, and post‐construction source control measures to help keep pollutants out of stormwater. In addition, post‐construction stormwater treatment measures would be required since the project would create and/or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. These measures would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff from the project. 40 California Water Service Company, 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Los Altos Suburban District. 41 Water Supply Assessment page 23, prepared for CalWater by Yarne & Associates, Inc. included in Appendix C of this Initial Study. 581 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-53 During construction, project applicants are subject to the NPDES construction permit requirements, including preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP includes erosion and sediment control measures to stabilize the site, protect slopes and channels, control the perimeter of the site, minimize the area and duration of exposed soils, and protect receiving waters adjacent to the site. Once constructed, the requirements for new development or redevelopment projects include source control measures and site design measures that address stormwater runoff and would reduce the potential for erosion or siltation. In addition, Provision C.3 of the MRP would require the project to implement stormwater treatment measures to contain site runoff, using specific numeric sizing criteria based on volume and flow rate. With implementation of these erosion and sediment control measures and regulatory provisions to limit runoff for new development sites, the proposed project would not result in significant increases in erosion and sedimentation or contribute to flooding on‐site or off‐site and impacts would be less than significant. d) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? There are two potential impacts to stormwater runoff hydrology with urban development. Impervious surfaces, such as roads, sidewalks, and buildings prevent the natural infiltration of stormwater into the soil and thus create higher runoff volumes. In addition, more rapid transport of runoff over impermeable surfaces combined with higher runoff volumes result in elevated peak flows. This increase in flows could adversely impact stormwater drainage systems. As stated above in criterion (b), the proposed project involves construction of a residential development on an existing developed property that is currently connected to the City’s storm drain system. The proposed project would result in a small increase of 30,281 square feet of impervious surfaces over existing conditions, which in turn could result in a slight increase in the amount of runoff from the property. However, with the installation of nineteen bioretention areas scattered throughout the property, the 10 percent increase in impervious surfaces as compared to existing conditions would not result in a significant change in the volume of stormwater runoff in a manner that would exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. The bioretention areas would provide both treatment of site runoff, reduction in peak flow rates, and flow control prior to discharge to the City’s storm drain system. As stated above in the existing conditions section, the project site is not located in an area where the storm drains are potentially deficient in conveying the 10‐year storm. The existing storm drain system would be able to handle the stormwater flow from the site and the impact to stormwater drainage systems would be less than significant. In addition, with the implementation of stormwater treatment measures, the project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and the impact would be less than significant. 582 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-54 APRIL 15, 2016 e) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? As required by storm water management guidelines discussed under criterion (a), BMPs and LID measures would be implemented across the project site during both construction and operation of the proposed project. These measures would control and prevent the release of sediment, debris, and other pollutants into the storm drain system. Implementation of BMPs during construction would be in accordance with the provisions of the SWPPP, which would minimize the release of sediment, soil, and other pollutants. Operational BMPs would be required to meet the C.3 provisions of the MRP and these requirements include the incorporation of site design, source control, and treatment control measures to treat and control runoff before it enters the storm drain system. The proposed treatment measures would include the use of bioretention areas to treat and detain runoff prior to discharge to the City’s storm drain system. With implementation of these BMPs and LID measures in accordance with City and MRP requirements, the potential impact on water quality would be less than significant. f) Would the project place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map or place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100‐year flood hazard area? The project would not result in the development of residential structures in a FEMA‐designated 100‐year floodplain or Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. g) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The project site is not in a dam inundation zone or in close proximity to any levees; thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. h) Would the project potentially be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The project site is not located in close proximity to San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean, and is not within a mapped tsunami inundation zone.42 Because there are no large bodies of water, such as reservoirs or lakes, in the vicinity of the project site, there would be no potential for seiches to impact the project site. In addition, the site is in a relatively flat area of the City and is outside of the ABAG mapped 42 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2016. Interactive Tsunami Inundation Map. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=tsunami accessed on January 20, 2016. 583 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-55 zones for earthquake‐induced landslides or debris flow source areas.43 Therefore, no impact would occur with respect to these issues and no mitigation measures would be required. IX. LAND USE Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Physically divide an established community?     b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?     c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?     GENERAL PLAN EIR As discussed in Chapter 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the General Plan EIR, impacts are determined to be less than significant as a result of intensified development of the project site. The following is a summary of Section, 4.9.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.9. EXISTING CONDITIONS General Plan The General Plan land use designation is High Density with greater than 35 dwelling units per acre (High Density (greater than 35 du/ac)). The project is located in the North Vallco Gateway, which is within the North Vallco Park Special Area. As described in Chapter 2, Planning Areas, of the General Plan, the North Vallco Park Special Area is an important employment center for Cupertino and the region. The North Vallco Gateway includes two hotels and the Cupertino Village Shopping Center west of Wolfe Road. The North Vallco Park Special Area is envisioned to become a sustainable office and campus environment surrounded by a mix of connected, high‐quality and pedestrian‐oriented neighborhood center, hotels and residential uses. Taller building heights and additional density may be allowed in the North Vallco 43 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2016. Ranifall‐Induced Landslides, Debris Flow Source Areas and Earthquake Induced Landslides. Accessed at http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/landslides/ on January 20, 2016. 584 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-56 APRIL 15, 2016 Gateway. In addition, the project site is also one of the five Priority Housing Element sites in the City’s adopted Housing Element.44 The maximum density currently permitted on the site is 85 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and, as described in the Housing Element, the realistic capacity is a net increase of 600 units.45 The maximum height of 75 feet or 60 feet for buildings located within 50 feet of property lines abutting Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue and the AC2 site is allowed in the North Vallco Gateway. Zoning The project site is within the Planned Development with Residential (P(Res)) zoning district. As described in Municipal Code 19.80.010,46 the planned development zoning district is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the city that is uniquely suited for planned coordination of land uses. Development in this zoning district provides for a greater flexibility of land use intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical considerations, and community design objectives. This zoning district is intended to accomplish the following:  Encourage variety in the development pattern of the community.  Promote a more desirable living environment.  Encourage creative approaches in land development.  Provide a means of reducing the amount of improvements required in development through better design and land planning.  Conserve natural features.  Facilitate a more aesthetic and efficient use of open spaces.  Encourage the creation of public or private common open space. All planned development districts are identified on the zoning map with the letter coding "P" followed by a specific reference to the general type of use allowed in the particular planning development zoning district. The general type of use allowed on the project site is Residential (RES). Setbacks The required setbacks for the project site include a front setback of 1:1 slope from the edge of the existing curb and a rear yard setback of 20 feet. 44 The City’s 2014‐2022 Housing Element was adopted on May 19, 2015. 45 Cupertino 2014‐2022 Housing Element, Table HE‐5, Summary of Priority Housing Element Sites To Meet The RHNA‐ Scenario A. 46 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.80, Planed Development, Section 19.80.010, Purpose. 585 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-57 Parking Per Municipal Code Section 19.124.040, high‐density residential apartments are required to provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit for vehicular parking and 0.4 bicycle storage space per dwelling unit.47 DISCUSSION a) Would the project physically divide an established community? As discussed in the General Plan EIR, because the development of the proposed project would occur on a site that is currently developed, would retain the existing roadway patterns, and would not introduce any new major roadways or other physical features through existing residential neighborhoods or other communities that would create new barriers, the project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed project would develop a high‐density residential development that would consist of six and seven‐story buildings, which would be consistent with the types of development envisioned in the North Vallco Special Area and North Vallco Gateway. The proposed project would be 75 feet tall at its highest point, and would have a 60‐foot maximum (six stories) height that is within 50 feet of the adjacent property line along Wo lfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue and the AC2 property. The maximum density under the proposed project would be 75 du/ac. Accordingly, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use designations specified in the General Plan. As shown on Figure 3‐15 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, all of the project buildings would comply with the 1:1 front setback requirement as measured from the adjacent curb and existing topography and exceed the 20‐foot rear yard setback requirement. The proposed project would not require any amendments to the Cupertino General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Municipal Code Section 19.124.040 requires high‐density residential apartments are required to provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit for vehicular parking and 0.4 bicycle storage space per dwelling unit.48 The project would include more than the 377 Class I bike storage spaces in accordance with the 0.4 space per dwelling unit requirement; however, the project would provide 1,716 vehicle parking spaces, 47 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.124, Parking Regulations, Section 19.124.040, Regulations For Off‐ Street Parking, Table 19.124.040(A). 48 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.124, Parking Regulations, Section 19.124.040, Regulations For Off‐ Street Parking, Table 19.124.040(A). 586 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-58 APRIL 15, 2016 which represents approximately 9 percent fewer parking spaces (1,716 parking spaces compared to 1,884 parking spaces) and a parking supply rate of approximately 1.8 parking spaces per dwelling unit. In order to determine the adequate number of vehicle parking spaces for the proposed project, a Parking Ratio Analysis was prepared by the project applicant. The Parking Ratio Analysis was based on six high‐ density residential projects similar to the proposed project and included units ranging from 2,762 to 825 units located in the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara. The Parking Ratio Analysis is included in Appendix I, Parking and Transportation Data, of this Initial Study. Of the six residential projects surveyed, the parking demand per unit ratio ranged from 1.88 to 1.67 parked vehicles per room. The Parking Ratio Analysis research helps to demonstrate that the proposed parking ratio of 1.8 parking spaces per unit would provide adequate parking for the proposed project. Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project applicant prepared a draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to be implemented as part of the proposed project. The draft TDM Plan is included in Appendix H, Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan, of this Initial Study. The draft TDM Plan includes many design features and amenities that promote the use of alternative transportation and reduce vehicular parking needs. The draft TDM Plan outlines trip reduction measures and strategies in order to:  Reduce the amount of traffic generated by the proposed project.  Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities.  Maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage.  Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the desired alternative mode use is achieved. As discussed in the Hamptons Apartment Complex Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Fehr & Peers in December 2015 (see Appendix I of this Initial Study), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation 4th Edition shows weekday average peak‐period parking demand for low/midrise apartments to be 1.23 vehicle spaces per dwelling unit for suburban locations. Typical engineering practice for residential parking is to provide 10 to 15 percent more parking than demand to account for turn‐over and to avoid vehicles circulating for parking. With a 10 to 15 percent increase, the ITE Parking Generation would suggest a parking ratio of 1.35 to 1.42 spaces per dwelling unit. In addition, the high percentage of one bedroom and studio units (68 percent/639 units), the new bike hub, the high‐level of pedestrian connectivity, and increased use of rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft, are anticipated to reduce parking demand. The TIA prepared for the project recognizes that the future residents of the proposed project may work at the AC2 site and would choose alternative modes of transportation to the automobile, which would reduce projected AM and PM trips by 10 percent. The parking reduction proposed by the project represents similar reduction. For the reasons stated above, a parking ratio of 1.8 vehicle spaces per dwelling unit is justified for the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. 587 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-59 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the City of Cupertino is located outside the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. The city is not located within any other habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and would not conflict with any such plan. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. X. NOISE Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards?     b) Expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or ground borne noise levels?     c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?     d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?     e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?     f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?     GENERAL PLAN EIR Chapter 4.10, Noise, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the noise and vibration impacts associated with intensified development of the project site. The following is a summary of Section, 4.10.1.3, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.10. EXISTING CONDITIONS Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, State of California, and City of Cupertino have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. Noise‐related terminology/descriptors, pertinent existing regulations and Cupertino General 588 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-60 APRIL 15, 2016 Plan Health and Safety Element guidelines, calculations for traffic noise levels, and calculations for construction noise and vibration levels can be found in Appendix G, Noise Data, to this Initial Study. The principal noise sources affecting the project site are traffic noise from I‐280 and Wolfe Road. The nearest public airports are San Jose International Airport, approximately 5.1 miles to the northeast, and Palo Alto Airport, approximately 10.5 miles to the northwest. The nearest heliports are Mc Candless Towers Heliport, approximately 4.3 miles to the northeast, and County Medical Center Heliport, approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast. The nearest private airport is Moffett Federal Airfield, approximately 6.1 miles to the northwest. DISCUSSION a) Would the project expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards? Mobile-Source Noise Impacts The proposed project would generate noise associated with additional vehicles traveling to and from the project site on local roadways. The roadway noise modeling was based on average daily trips (ADT) on roadway segments in the vicinity; as analyzed in the project TIA (see Appendix I of this Initial Study). Traffic noise was evaluated for Existing, Existing plus Project, Background, and Background plus Project conditions. Noise modeling procedures involved the calculation of vehicular noise levels along individual roadway segments. This was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model. This model calculated the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site conditions. The proposed project’s impact is determined by analysis of off‐site traffic noise increases. Parameters and modeling results are included in Appendix G, Noise Data, of this Initial Study. The proposed project would be subject to traffic noise from I‐280 and Wolfe Road. The traffic on I‐280 would be the dominant roadway noise sources at the project site. Table 5‐8, compares the noise levels of each roadway segment for existing and background conditions. 589 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-61 TABLE 5‐8 PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Roadway Segment Existing, dBA CNEL Background + Project, dBA CNEL Overall Increase, dB Project Contribution, dB Significant Impact? Wolfe Road El Camino Real to Fremont 73.9 74.3 0.4 0.0 no Wolfe Road Fremont to Marion 69.9 70.5 0.7 0.1 no Wolfe Road Marion to Inverness 69.1 69.8 0.7 0.1 no Wolfe Road Inverness to Homestead 68.6 69.4 0.8 0.1 no Wolfe Road Homestead to AC2 70.8 72.1 1.2 0.2 no Wolfe Road AC2 to Pruneridge 70.8 73.4 2.6 0.2 no Wolfe Road Pruneridge to I‐280 NB 71.2 73.7 2.5 0.3 no Wolfe Road I‐280 NB to I‐280 SB 71.1 73.2 2.1 0.2 no Wolfe Road I‐280 SB to Vallco 74.3 75.9 1.6 0.1 no Wolfe Road Vallco to Stevens Creek 70.4 71.3 0.9 0.1 no Stevens Creek Blvd. De Anza to Miller 73.6 74.5 0.9 0.1 no Stevens Creek Blvd. Miller to Tantau 73.4 74.8 1.4 0.0 no Homestead Rd. Wolfe Road to Tantau 67.9 69.3 1.4 0.1 no Homestead Rd. Tantau to Lawrence 69.0 69.7 0.7 0.0 no Source: Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA‐RD77‐108). As shown in Table 5‐8, traffic noise increases due to project contributions range from 0.0 to 0.2 dBA. An increase of less than 3 dB CNEL is generally not noticeable and is not considered to be significant. Consequently, noise impacts generated by project‐related traffic would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Stationary-Source Noise Impacts Stationary sources of noise generated by the proposed project would comply with the noise standards of the City of Cupertino. Stationary (non‐transportation) noise sources associated with the proposed residential development would include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. The new HVAC units are expected to be located on the roofs of the multi‐family buildings with the HVAC units most likely grouped into clusters. The nearest receptors that could potentially be affected by HVAC units are the nearby hotel uses to the west (across Wolfe Road). However, ambient noise levels at the hotels are already elevated under existing conditions due to heavy traffic flows on both I‐280 and Wolfe Road. Therefore, the noise levels due to the proposed project’s HVAC units would be lower at the nearby hotels than ambient noise levels caused by the traffic‐related sources. Additionally, machinery and other stationary sources of noise are regulated by the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code. The City of Cupertino 590 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-62 APRIL 15, 2016 requires that noise generated on a residential property be prohibited from exceeding 50 dBA during the night time (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and 60 dBA during the day time (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) at receiving properties. Because the proposed project’s HVAC units would comply with noise standards contained within the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code, and because surrounding noise‐sensitive uses experience high ambient noise levels, the impacts to any existing noise‐sensitive uses in the project vicinity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Impacts to Residential Areas-Exterior The General Plan Health and Safety (HS) Element specifies guidelines for acceptable community noise levels according to type of land use. The proposed project is located within an area zoned as residential. Pursuant to Policy HS‐8.1, the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments chart, Future Noise Contour Map, and City Municipal Code should be used to evaluate land use decisions. According to the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments chart in the General Plan (i.e., Figure HS‐ 8), an outdoor noise standard of 65 dBA Ldn would be considered “normally acceptable” for multi‐family residential developments, while environments up to 70 dBA Ldn would be considered “Conditionally Acceptable.” In the case of Conditionally Acceptable noise levels, “New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise reduction features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning would normally sufﬁce.” Multi‐family residential developments in environments between 70 and 75 dBA Ldn would be considered as “Normally Unacceptable.” In the case of Normally Unacceptable noise levels, “New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.” Based on the General Plan EIR noise analysis, both existing (2014) and future (2040) noise levels on most portions of the project site would generally be between 65 and 70 dBA CNEL. Some portions of the project site would have noise levels greater than 70 dBA CNEL, however. Specifically, approximately 75 percent of the site would be between 65 and 70 dBA CNEL, and approximately 25 percent49 would be at or above 70 dBA CNEL, due to traffic flows on adjacent roadways. These exterior noise levels would fall within either the “Conditionally Acceptable” or “Normally Unacceptable” land use compatibility classifications. Therefore, the noise environment for the entire project site would not conform to the land use compatibility guidelines of the City’s Health and Safety Element policies (for exterior environments), a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be completed for plan check approvals, and 49 These greater‐than‐70 dBA CNEL would include the southern portions of proposed Buildings D and E that face the Wolfe Road exit ramp and the I‐280 freeway. 591 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-63 the needed noise insulation features must be included in the design. Although the project by itself would not be a major source of noise, vehicle traffic, construction equipment, and project mechanical equipment would contribute to existing sources of noise. Under the CBIA v. BAAQMD, where a project would exacerbate an existing environmental hazard, CEQA requires an analysis of the worsened condition on future project residents and the public at large. Impacts to Residential Areas-Interior For interior spaces, the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) specifies an interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL50 for single‐ and multi‐family residential land use. The interior habitable environment excludes bathrooms, closets, and corridors. The interior noise standard shall be satisfied with windows in the closed position and mechanical ventilation shall be provided per uniform building code (UBC) requirements. Noise levels at future facades of residential units that face and have a clear exposure to the I‐280 freeway are expected to be at or above 70 dBA CNEL. Typical wood frame construction techniques with standard thermal insulating glass in moderately sized (less than one‐third of the exterior wall area) closed windows would reduce traffic noise levels by approximately 24 to about 25 dB.51 This reduction can potentially be increased to upwards of 30 dB (for the ‘windows‐closed’ configuration) by using improved noise reduction methods. Based on these average exterior‐to‐interior noise attenuation factors (i.e., 24 to 25 dB), interior levels in residences which face and have a clear exposure to the I‐280 freeway can be expected to be above the state interior requirement of 45 dBA CNEL when standard thermal insulating windows are closed (for the purpose of noise control). Additionally, with such a windows‐closed configuration, adequate ventilation must be provided according to the 2013 California Building and Mechanical Code as well as the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air‐Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Additionally, such ventilation systems and the associated HVAC units must be selected and installed to comply with the noise standards contained within the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code. Further, the ventilation system selected should not compromise the outdoor‐to‐indoor noise attenuation of the structure. These projected interior noise levels – even with closed windows – would not comply with the requirements of the State of California Building Code and would, thus, require noise reduction measures to pass the plan check approval process. It should be noted that the windows‐open configuration would be even more problematic when residential windows are open. This is because traffic noise attenuation from the exterior to interior 50 Taken to be equivalent to 45 dBA Ldn. 51 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE). 1971, October. House Noise – Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of Aircraft Flyover Noise. AIR 1081. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2009, November. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”). Prepared by ICF International. 592 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-64 APRIL 15, 2016 spaces is reduced to between 15 to 17 dB in a best‐case scenario and, more typically, to between 12 to 14 dB.52 Since the entire site has existing and future noise environment above 65 dBA CNEL – due to traffic flows on I‐280, Wolfe Road, and Pruneridge Avenue – essentially the entire proposed project can also be expected to experience an interior level exceeding 45 dBA CNEL when the windows are open.53 Therefore, there is a high probability that interior noise levels for most, if not all, residential areas would be in excess of the State standards for residential interiors when windows are in the open configuration. As such, these window‐open interior noise levels would expand both the severity and breadth of the non‐ compliance with the requirements of the State of California Building Code (relative to the windows‐closed plus active ventilation configuration). Although the project by itself would not be a major source of noise, vehicle traffic, construction equipment, and project mechanical equipment would contribute to existing sources of noise. Under the CBIA v. BAAQMD, where a project would exacerbate an existing environmental hazard, CEQA requires an analysis of the worsened condition on future project residents and the public at large. Impacts to Outdoor Common Areas The proposed project includes several outdoor areas that would be considered as ‘common’ and available to all the residents. These outdoor areas include two pools, as well as lawn, paseo, and plaza areas. The City’s Health and Safety Element does not contain guidelines for noise environments in common‐use areas for multi‐family developments so there are no thresholds for evaluating acceptability. All of these outdoor common areas are near the center of the development and are relatively well shielded from traffic flow noise on I‐280, Wolfe Road, and Pruneridge Avenue. The future noise environments in these common areas would be evaluated as part of the aforementioned exterior noise study, which would be mandated by conformance to the City’s Health and Safety Element policies and to the conditions of the land use compatibility conditions therein. 52 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1978, November. Protective Noise Levels (Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document…see immediately below). EPA 550/9‐79‐100. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974, March. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. U.S. EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE). 1971, October. House Noise – Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of Aircraft Flyover Noise. AIR 1081. 53 For brevity in this evaluation, benefits to northernmost and easternmost portions of the project due to intervening buildings (i.e., proposed Buildings D, E, and F) were neglected. 593 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-65 Construction Noise Section 10.48.053 of the City’s Municipal Code prescribes allowable hours and noise emissions levels for construction activities within the city limits. The assessment of potential noise impacts due to project construction are discussed below in criterion (d). b) Would the project expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Operations Vibration The operation of the proposed project would not include any long‐term vibration sources. Thus, vibration effects or impacts from operations sources would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Construction Vibration Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, the equipment used, and the proximity to vibration‐sensitive uses. Construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings near a construction site varies depending on the type and depth of the source, soil type, ground strata, and receptor building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, or to slight damage at the highest levels. Vibration is typically noticed nearby when objects in a building generate noise from rattling windows or jangling picture frames. It is typically not perceptible outdoors and, therefore, impacts are normally based on the distance to the nearest building.54 Table 5‐9 lists vibration levels for different types of construction equipment. 54 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation. FTA‐VA‐90‐1003‐06. 594 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-66 APRIL 15, 2016 TABLE 5‐9 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS Equipment Approximate RMSa Velocity Level at 25 Feet (VdB) Approximate PPV Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec) Vibratory Roller 94 0.210 Large Bulldozer 87 0.089 Caisson Drilling 87 0.089 Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 Jackhammer 79 0.035 Small Bulldozer 58 0.003 Note: a. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of 1 microinch/second and a crest factor of 4. Source: FTA 2006. Construction Vibration-Induced Architectural Damage The City does not have specific, vibration‐related standards. Thus, project‐related construction vibration was evaluated for its potential to cause minor architectural damage55 based on FTA’s architectural damage criteria. According to guidelines from the FTA for assessing damage from vibration caused by construction equipment, the threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage for non‐engineered timber and masonry buildings is 0.200 peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second. According to Caltrans’s research and measurements, earthmovers and haul trucks have never exceeded PPV of 0.100 inches per second (in/sec) at 10 feet.56 Likewise, ground vibration from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can achieve levels in buildings close to a construction site that are in the perceptible ranges.57 Groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving and rock blasting. No pile driving and rock blasting activities are anticipated to be required during project construction. The nearest off‐site structures are the hotels to the west across Wolfe Road, approximately 175 feet from the project site boundary. Table 5‐10 shows the vibration levels from typical earthmoving construction equipment at a distance of 175 feet. 55 The term architectural damage is typically used to describe effects such as cracked plaster, cracks in drywall seams, sticking doors or windows, loosened baseboard/crown moldings, and the like. 56 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002, February. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration (Caltrans Experiences). Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV‐02‐01‐R9601. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks. 57 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation. FTA‐VA‐90‐1003‐06. 595 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-67 TABLE 5‐10 MAXIMUM VIBRATION LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment Vibration Levels (PPV) at 175 Feet Vibratory Roller 0.011 Large Bulldozer 0.005 Caisson Drilling 0.005 Loaded Trucks 0.004 Jackhammer 0.002 Small Bulldozer 0.000 Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. As shown in Table 5‐10, construction activities associated with the project would not exceed 0.011 PPV in/sec at the nearest structures in the vicinity of the project site. This value is well below the FTA’s criteria for vibration‐induced structural damage of 0.200 PPV in/sec. Therefore, impacts from vibration‐induced architectural damage at off‐site structures would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Construction Vibration Annoyance While not presenting potential impacts relative to architectural damage, some construction activities may be perceptible at the nearest off‐site receptors due to of proximity to the activities. However, vibration‐ related construction activities would occur in the daytime when people are least sensitive to vibration levels (as many people would be away from their residences during the day). The level where vibration becomes annoying is 78 VdB for residential uses, and 84 VdB for office uses. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Construction activities are typically distributed throughout the project site and would only occur for a very limited duration when equipment would be working in close proximity. Therefore, distances to the nearest receptors are measured from the center of the construction site, to represent the average vibration level. The nearest sensitive receptors are the hotels to the west across Wolfe Road, approximately 600 feet from the center of the project site. Table 5‐11 shows the vibration levels from typical earthmoving construction equipment at a distance of 600 feet. 596 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-68 APRIL 15, 2016 TABLE 5‐11 AVERAGE VIBRATION LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment Vibration Levels (VdB) at 600 Feet Vibratory Roller 66 Large Bulldozer 59 Caisson Drilling 59 Loaded Trucks 58 Jackhammer 51 Small Bulldozer 30 Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. On average, construction‐generated vibration levels would not exceed 66 VdB, and therefore would not exceed the threshold for human annoyance at nearby sensitive receptors. Heavy equipment would only operate at the project boundary for brief periods, if at all. As heavy construction equipment moves around the project site, the average vibration levels at the nearest structures would diminish with increasing distance between structures and the equipment, and would generally not be perceptible. Vibration during construction would not exceed the FTA’s annoyance threshold at the nearest structures, and therefore the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. In summary, the generation of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels due to operations at the proposed project or during construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. c) Would the project create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? As described in criterion (a) above, increases in noise levels related to stationary noise sources for the proposed project would not substantially elevate the existing ambient noise environment. Similarly, noise from project‐related traffic along local roadways would not significantly increase noise levels in the project area. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Would the project create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potential temporary increases in ambient noise levels would be associated with construction activities. Sensitivity to noise is based on the location of the equipment relative to sensitive receptors, the time of day, and the duration of the noise‐generating activities. Two types of short‐term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile‐source noise from the transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris/soil hauling and (2) on‐site noise from use of construction equipment. Construction activities are 597 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-69 anticipated to last approximately three years. The following discusses construction noise impacts to the off‐site sensitive receptors. Construction Vehicles The transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. The primary access routes for construction vehicles to the project site would be Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Ave. Project‐related construction worker vehicles, haul trucks, and vendor trucks could pass by existing hotel uses along Wolfe Road west of the project site. Construction‐ related activities would generate worker, vendor, and soil haul trips. The demolition and grading phases would generate the most trips due to soil haul. Regardless, the 325 construction‐related daily trips58 would result in negligible noise level increases when compared to the traffic flow noise currently generated on the roadways (31,305 Average Daily Trips [ADT]). In addition, these truck trips would be spread throughout the workday and would primarily occur during non‐peak traffic periods. Therefore, noise impacts from construction‐related truck traffic would be less than significant at noise‐sensitive receptors along the construction routes and no mitigation measures would be required. Construction Equipment According to Section 10.48.053 of the City’s Municipal Code, construction is allowed during “daytime hours” (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends), provided that such construction activities do not exceed 80 dBA at the nearest affected property or individual equipment items do not exceed 87 dBA at 25 feet.59 Construction is prohibited on holidays and within 750 feet of residential areas on weekends, unless a special exception has been granted, and during nighttime hours unless it meets the nighttime noise level standards. Even with these restrictions, project construction would temporarily increase ambient noise. However, noise levels would subside again after construction. Typically, demolition and grading activities generate the loudest noise because they involve the largest and most powerful equipment. However, the project site is generally level, and only a nominal amount of heavy earthwork would be required. Therefore, construction activities for the project would utilize relatively small‐ to medium‐sized equipment such as delivery/dump trucks, loaders/backhoes, dozers, excavators, scrapers, a grader, forklifts, a crane, rollers, and pavers. The total duration for construction 58 This evaluation conservatively considered the overlapping phases of building demolition hauling plus asphalt demolition hauling plus soil hauling. 59 These 80 and 87 dBA sound levels are taken to be the maximum continuous or repeated peak value measured by the use of a sound level meter and the “A” weighting network and the “SLOW” metering response, per Municipal Code Section 10.48.010. 598 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-70 APRIL 15, 2016 would be approximately three years. As shown in Table 5‐12 operational noise levels of most construction equipment range between 80 and 88 dBA at 50 feet.60 TABLE 5‐12 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL Type of Equipment Range of Maximum Sound Levels Measured (dBA at 50 ft.) Suggested Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 ft.) Jack Hammers 75–85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78–88 85 Pumps 74–84 80 Dozers 77–90 85 Scrapers 83–91 87 Haul Trucks 83–94 88 Cranes 79–86 82 Portable Generators 71–87 80 Rollers 75–82 80 Tractors 77–82 80 Front‐End Loaders 77–90 86 Hydraulic Backhoe 81–90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81–90 86 Graders 79–89 86 Air Compressors 76–89 86 Trucks 81–87 86 Source: Bolt, Beranek & Newman; Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, 1987. Construction equipment typically moves around on the project site and uses various power levels. Noise from localized point sources (such as construction equipment) decreases by approximately 6 to 7.5 dB 60 Neglecting detailed sound propagation considerations for the near‐field/transition‐zone/far‐field environs, these reference sound levels would simplistically be adjusted to 86 to 94 dBA at 25 feet. Thus, several equipment items could potentially have typical sound emissions that would be higher than the Section 10.48.053 standards. 599 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-71 with each doubling of distance between the source and receptor.61 For example, the noise levels from a dozer that generates 85 dBA at 50 feet would measure 79 dBA at 100 feet, 73 dBA at 200 feet, 67 dBA at 400 feet, and 61 dBA at 800 feet (conservatively use a 6 dB per doubling of distance attenuation factor). The nearest offsite receptors are the hotels and apartments to the west of the site, across Wolfe Road. The hotels are approximately 600 feet from the center of construction; Arioso Apartments are 800 feet from the main construction zone. Equipment operates intermittently and at varying power settings, as well as moving around the site. Therefore, noise would also be intermittent as well as temporary during the construction period. The heaviest and loudest equipment would be used during the demolition and grading phases. Assuming a worst‐case situation of combined demolition and grading phases, with two pieces of earthmoving equipment (e.g., backhoes, loaders), a concrete saw, three excavators, two scrapers, a grader, and two dozers, and assuming that all equipment operates simultaneously in the center of the site, the noise levels would be 68 dBA Leq at the hotels, and 65 dBA Leq at the Arioso Apartments. Subsequent phases would mostly use lighter equipment, such as forklifts, cranes, welders, and compressors, so the noise levels would be expected to be less than for demolition and grading. Therefore, construction activity would not be expected to exceed the noise ordinance’s limit of 80 dBA (Lmax). Because the hotels and apartments lie within 750 feet of the construction boundary, project construction would not be allowed on weekends pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.48.053. Due to the distances to sensitive receptors, the limitation on construction hours to the least noise‐sensitive portion of the day (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.), and the construction activity noise level limit, impacts at offsite receptors would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. The nearest public airports are San Jose International Airport, approximately 5.1 miles to the northeast, and Palo Alto Airport, approximately 10.5 miles to the northwest. At these distances from the aircraft facilities, the proposed project would not expose residents or patrons to excessive noise levels from aircraft noise. No impacts related to noise from public airport would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project is not located within the immediate vicinity of a private airstrip or heliport. The nearest heliports are Mc Candless Towers Heliport, approximately 4.3 miles to the northeast, and County 61 As sound energy travels outward from the source, spreading loss accounts for a 6 dB decrease in noise level. Soft ground and atmospheric absorption effects can decrease this by an additional 1.5 dB. 600 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-72 APRIL 15, 2016 Medical Center Heliport, approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast. The nearest private airport is Moffett Federal Airfield, approximately 6.1 miles to the northwest. At these relatively long distances from the aircraft facilities, the proposed project would not expose residents to excessive noise levels from private airstrip or heliport noise. No impacts related to noise from private airstrip would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. XI. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Induce substantial unexpected population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?     b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     GENERAL PLAN EIR As discussed in Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, of the General Plan EIR, impacts were determined to be less than significant as a result of intensified development of the project site. As discussed in Chapter 4, Consistency with the General Plan EIR, of this Initial Study, the General Plan would introduce approximately 12,998 new residents62 and 16,855 new jobs63 to Cupertino. These new residents and jobs combined with existing conditions would result in 71,300 residents and 44,242 jobs at the 2040 buildout horizon. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project is anticipated to be complete by 2020. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Cupertino would have 62,500 residents and 30,110 jobs by 2020. 62 Population is calculated by 4,421 units times 2.94 persons per household, which is the ABAG 2040 estimated generation rate. 63 Jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates as follows; 4,040,231 square feet of office allocation divided by 300 square feet equals 13,467 jobs; 1,343,679 square feet of commercial allocation divided by 450 square feet equals 2,986 jobs; and 1,339 hotel rooms at .3 jobs per room equals 402 jobs for a total of 16,855 jobs. 601 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-73 No new residential projects have been developed or approved for development in Cupertino since the adoption of the General Plan. The site is currently developed with ten residential buildings totaling 342 multi‐family units. The existing residential development includes 308 market rate units and 34 below market rate units. DISCUSSION a) Would the project induce substantial unexpected population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Based on a projected average household size of 2.88 persons,64 it is assumed the proposed project would introduce 1,728 new residents65 to the project site, which would increase the number of residents on the site from the existing 985 residents66 to approximately 2,713 residents at project buildout in 2020. Because the majority of the proposed apartment units would be studio and one‐bedroom units, it is likely that the projected total resident population of 2,713 is high, thereby allowing for a conservative analysis of potential environmental impacts. Under the proposed project approximately 800 temporary construction‐related jobs and 25 permanent jobs are anticipated by the 2020 buildout year. As stated above, no new residential projects have been developed or approved for development since the adoption of the General Plan. Accordingly, an increase of 2,713 residents and 800 temporary construction‐related jobs and 25 permanent jobs in combination with other future projects would not increase the overall city buildout to the year 2020 projections. Therefore, the proposed project is well within the population projections considered in the General Plan EIR and projected by ABAG. The growth occurring as a result of the project would be limited to the project site, and the project does not include infrastructure to allow indirect off‐site development. As discussed in Section IX, Land Use and Planning, the project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations, and would not require any amendments to the General Plan or Zoning Code. Accordingly, there would be no impacts related to substantial unexpected population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred. 64 This analysis is based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2013 projections of the average household size of 2.88 persons for Cupertino in 2020. This is the standard approach for population and housing analysis in Cupertino. 65 600 new units multiplied by 2.88 persons per unit equals 1,728 new residents. 66 342 existing units multiplied by 2.88 persons per unit equals 985 existing residents. 602 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-74 APRIL 15, 2016 b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project would involve the removal of all existing uses on the project site, including a total temporary loss of 342 residential units consisting of 308 market‐rate units and 34 below market‐rate units over a three‐year construction period. The proposed apartment units would replace the existing residential development with 242 studios, 272 one‐bedroom, 141 one‐bedroom plus dens, and 287 two‐ bedroom units. Apartment units would range in size between 1,464 square feet (penthouse) and 575 square feet (studio). Of the proposed 942 units, 34 units would continue to be available to rent to very low and low‐income residents (3.7 percent), which is consistent with the remainder of the original Hamptons’ Residence Agreement. As discussed in the Project Description, of this Initial Study, the project applicant, a diversified, privately held real‐estate investment company and master‐planning firm since 1864,67 which maintains a portfolio of over 6,000 apartments located in San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara, has prepared a draft Tenant Relocation Plan for the existing 308 market rate units, and 34 below market rate units (see Appendix F, Draft Tenant Relocation Plan, of this Initial Study). The project applicant’s portfolio of 6,000 apartments in the cities surrounding Cupertino would be available to temporarily displaced tenants throughout the three‐year construction period. Under the draft Tenant Relocation Plan, a relocation agency would be hired six months prior to the demolition and remain under contract until all of the existing tenants, both renters of market rate units and below market rate units, have moved out of the project and found new housing. Together the project applicant and the relocation agency would keep all tenants apprised of the schedule, which is subject to change, and would be given updates regularly on the date demolition would commence that would determine the date each household would need to vacate their unit. The precise details of the Tenant Relocation Plan, which is required per Housing Element Strategy 18, Housing Preservation Program, would be finalized during the project approval process. Therefore, because the project would result in a net increase in housing units in Cupertino, which includes 34 units that would continue to be available to very low and low income residents, and because assistance in finding temporary replacement housing would be provided, no housing would be permanently displaced either directly or indirectly, and the construction of replacement housing elsewhere would not be required that could result in a physical impact to the environment. This conclusion is consistent with the findings in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, project impacts on the both temporary and permanent displacement of housing would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. 67 Irvine Company website, https://www.irvinecompany.com/about‐us/, accessed March 1, 2016. 603 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-75 c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? As discussed above, a total of 342 units with approximately 985 residents currently exist on the project site. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the development of the proposed project would necessitate that all the units be vacated and demolished; therefore, the project would result in the temporary displacement of approximately 985 people for a period of approximately three years. The project would result in a net increase of 600 dwelling units on the project site, which could accommodate up to 1,728 more residents than under existing conditions. Therefore, because the project results in a net increase in housing units, and because assistance in finding temporary replacement housing would be provided, no people would be permanently displaced either directly or indirectly that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere that could result in a physical impact to the environment. This conclusion is consistent with the findings in the General Plan EIR. As discussed above, the draft Tenant Relocation Plan includes over 6,000 apartment homes located in San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara that would be available for displaced residents and procedures for relocating tenants. Therefore, project impacts on both temporary and permanent displacement of people would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. XII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection?     Police protection?     Schools?     Libraries?     GENERAL PLAN EIR As discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR, impacts were determined to be less than significant as a result of intensified development of the project site. The General Plan EIR evaluates a project that is greater than that of the proposed project (820 new units compared to 600 new units). 604 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-76 APRIL 15, 2016 EXISTING CONDITIONS The public service providers for the project site are as follows:  The City of Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Fire District (SCCFD) for fire protection, emergency, medical, and hazardous material services.  The City of Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) and West Valley Patrol Division for police protection services.  The project site is within the boundaries of the Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD). Specifically, the project site is in the Laurelwood Elementary School attendance area approximately 1.5 miles away. Middle school age students would attend Peterson Middle School and high school age students would attend Wilcox High School.  The Santa Clara County Library District (SCCLD) governs and administers seven community libraries, one branch library, two bookmobiles, the Home Service Library, and the 24‐7 online library for all library users. The closest library to the project site is the Cupertino Library located at 10800 Torre Avenue in Cupertino. A recent discussion of the existing conditions for each of these service providers is provided in Chapter 4.12. DISCUSSION a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: fire protection, police protection, schools, and libraries? The primary purpose of the public services impact analysis is to examine the impacts associated with physical improvements to public service facilities required to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. Public service facilities need improvements (i.e., construction, renovation or expansion) as demand for services increase. Increased demand is typically driven by increases in population. The proposed project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed the ability of public service providers to adequately serve residents, thereby requiring construction of new facilities or modification of existing facilities. As discussed in Section XII, Population and Housing, above, the proposed project would result in a net increase of 600 dwelling units and 1,728 new residents at the project site, which represents 27 percent less new development (600 new units compared to 820 new units) than what was considered in the General Plan EIR. As described in the General Plan EIR, the project applicant is required to pay developer impact fees that provide support to public services to offset the project’s fair share of impacts to public service providers. Because impacts to public service providers were determined to be less than significant in the General Plan EIR and the proposed project represents less development than what was considered 605 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-77 in the General Plan EIR, impacts to public services providers as a result of the proposed project would also be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. XIII. PARKS AND RECREATION Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?     b) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park and recreational facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered park and recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts?     GENERAL PLAN EIR As discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR, impacts were determined to be less than significant as a result of intensified development of the project site. The General Plan EIR evaluates a project that is greater than that of the proposed project (820 new units compared to 600 new units). EXISTING CONDITIONS The City of Cupertino Recreation and Community Services is responsible for the maintenance of the City’s 14 parks and seven community and recreational facilities. The City of Cupertino has an adopted parkland dedication standard of three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. There is a total of approximately 156 acres of parkland in Cupertino, or approximately 2.7 acres per 1,000 residents, based on an existing population of 58,302. The City parks nearest to the project site are Portal Park, located approximately one mile to the southwest, Jenny Strand Park, located approximately three‐quarters of a mile to the southeast, and Westwood Oaks Park, located approximately one‐half mile to the east of the site. Regional park facilities operated by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) and the Santa Clara County Parks could be used by residents of the project site. The closest MROSD parks to Cupertino are the Fremont Older, Picchetti Ranch, and Rancho San Antonia, which are located just southwest and west of the city boundaries, respectively. Santa Clara County Park facilities that serve Cupertino include Rancho San Antonio County Park, south of I‐280 and west of Foothill Boulevard, and the Stevens Creek County Park. 606 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-78 APRIL 15, 2016 DISCUSSION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the project includes recreational amenities available to residents and members of the general public. The proposed project’s open space and balcony area totals 326,127 square feet (7.46 acres), of which approximately 32,000 square feet (0.43 acres) would be for recreational amenities. The proposed project includes an on‐grade public bike hub and outdoor common‐use seating area on the northern section of the project site at the corner of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue for use by residents, visitors and members of the public. As discussed in Section XII, Population and Housing, above, the proposed project would result in a net increase of 600 new units and 1,728 new residents at the project site, which represents 27 percent less new development (600 new units compared to 820 new units) than what was considered in the General Plan EIR. To meet the City’s parkland‐to‐resident ratio of three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, the proposed project would be required to provide 5.2 acres of parkland.68 Although the proposed project would not provide on‐site parkland, the proposed project’s payment of City‐required impact fees would contribute to the City’s parks and recreation fund. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would be required to comply with Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.05, Park Maintenance Fee, and Chapter 18.24, Dedications and Reservations, which require the payment of impact fees to maintain existing parks and recreation facilities and offset their fair share of impacts to parklands. Therefore, considering the proposed project’s provision of 7.46 acres of residential open space and amenities, and public recreational amenities in conjunction with the collection of impact fees that support the City’s parks and recreation fund, the project’s impacts on the City’s recreational facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Additionally, new residents of the project site would also be expected to occasionally use the regional park facilities operated by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) and the Santa Clara County Parks from time to time; however, given the vast size of the regional park facilities and the relatively infrequent usage that future residents would make of them, the proposed project would not result in their substantial deterioration. The modest increase in usage that could potentially result from the proposed project is not likely to trigger the construction of new built facilities over and above that already foreseen in the long‐range planning completed for these regional park facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, a less‐than‐significant impact to regional parks would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 68 1,728 residents x 0.003 (3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents) = 5.184 acres 607 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-79 b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park and recreational facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered park and recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts? As discussed in criterion (a) above, the proposed project’s recreational and open space features combined with the impact fees that support the City’s parks and recreation fund would render the project’s impact on the City’s recreational facilities less than significant. The project does not propose the construction of a park or any physical alterations to an existing park or recreational facilities; however, the payment of impact fees would go toward supporting the City’s park fund that could be applied to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. It is not known at what time or location such facilities would be required or what the exact nature of these facilities would be, so it cannot be determined what specific environmental impacts would occur from their construction and operation. Because the payment of impact fees is City‐requirement to offset the project’s fair share of impacts to parklands, the City would be responsible for any review in accordance with CEQA, as necessary, which would ensure that any environmental impacts are disclosed and mitigated to the extent possible for any future City project related to the expansion of or improvement to a City recreational facility. Accordingly, impacts to park and recreational facilities as a result of the proposed project would be would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. XIV. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?     b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?     c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?     d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?     608 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-80 APRIL 15, 2016 Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access?     f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?     GENERAL PLAN EIR The General Plan EIR included an analysis of 820 additional units for the site; however, the proposed project would have only 600 additional units on the project site. Traffic impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable in the General Plan EIR. Implementation of General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF‐1 requires the City to commit to preparing and implementing a Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (TMFP) to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF‐1, which was previously adopted by the City and incorporated into the General Plan, will be implemented by the City. EXISTING CONDITIONS The following is based on the TIA prepared for the proposed project. The TIA is included in Appendix I, Parking and Transportation Data, of this Initial Study. The cumulative impacts, in conjunction with overall General Plan buildout were evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR; thus, the project’s TIA presents a focused analysis to evaluate the near‐term impacts of the project under Existing and Background Conditions. Methodology The TIA was prepared following the guidelines of the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. The VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) TIA Guidelines (last updated in October 2014) present guidelines for assessing the transportation impacts of development projects and identifying whether improvements are needed to adjacent roadways, bike facilities, sidewalks, and transit services affected by the proposed project. The TIA guidelines have been adopted by local agencies within Santa Clara County, and are applied to analyze the regional transportation system. Intersections The method described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM) was used to prepare the level of service calculations for the study intersections. This method is approved by the City of 609 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-81 Cupertino, City of Sunnyvale, and VTA. The average control delay for signalized intersections is calculated using TRAFFIX analysis software and is correlated to a level of service designation as shown in Table 5‐13. TABLE 5‐13 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS DEFINITIONS Level of Service Description Average Control Delay (seconds per vehicle) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable traffic signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. < 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. > 10.0 to 20.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 to 35.0 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35.0 to 55.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. > 55.0 to 80.0 F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over‐ saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 Source: Fehr & Peers, December 2015. Freeways Freeway segments were evaluated using VTA’s analysis procedure, which is based on the density of the traffic flow using methods described in the 2000 HCM. Density is expressed in passenger cars per mile per lane. The CMP ranges of densities for each freeway segment level of service designation are shown in Ta ble 5‐14. TABLE 5‐14 FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Service Density (passenger cars per mile per lane) A < 11 B > 11.1 to 18.0 C > 18.1 to 26.0 D > 26.1 to 46.0 E > 46.1 to 58.0 F > 58.0 Source: Fehr & Peers, December 2015. 610 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-82 APRIL 15, 2016 Existing Conditions Scenario The study area generally extends along Wolfe Road between El Camino Real (State Route (SR) 82) and Stevens Creek Boulevard and along Tantau Avenue between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The roadway impacts of the proposed project were evaluated for the intersections and freeway segments discussed below. Existing Intersection Operations Study intersections shown on Figure 5‐2 were selected in consultation with the City of Cupertino and generally determined based on VTA’s 10 trips per lane guideline, which indicates that intersections should be included if the proposed project adds 10 or more peak hour vehicles per lane to any intersection movement. The Existing Conditions of the study intersections were evaluated during weekday AM and PM peak periods. The results of the level of service analysis for Existing Conditions are presented in Table 5‐ 15, that all study intersections operate at acceptable service levels (LOS D or better for City intersections and LOS E or better for regionally significant and CMP intersections). Existing Freeway Operations Freeway segments were selected in consultation with the City following VTA guidelines. The following segments on I‐280 were selected for analysis because: a) the project site is adjacent to I‐280, b) project access is provided with the Wolfe Road interchange at I‐280, and c) the project is anticipated to add peak‐ hour traffic volumes in amounts greater than one percent of the segment’s capacity. I-280 (Northbound and Southbound)  Saratoga Avenue to Lawrence Expressway  Lawrence Expressway to Wolfe Road  Wolfe Road to De Anza Boulevard  De Anza Boulevard to SR 85 Table 5‐16 shows the existing freeway segment levels of service for the mixed‐flow and HOV lanes based on the segment densities. During the AM peak hour, all of the mixed‐flow freeway segments exceed LOS E in the northbound direction. During the PM peak hour, all of the mixed‐flow freeway segments exceed the VTA’s LOS E standard in the southbound direction. Additionally, only the northbound direction of Saratoga Avenue to Lawrence Expressway exceeds the VTA’s LOS E standard in during the AM peak hour. 611 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-83 TABLE 5‐15 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ID # Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Threshold Peak Hourb Delayc LOSd 1 Wolfe Road / El Camino Real Sunnyvale (CMP) E AM PM 35.4 38.4 D D 2 Wolfe Road / Fremont Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 34.0 36.4 C D 3 Wolfe Road / Marion Way Sunnyvale D AM PM 15.0 21.5 B C 4 Wolfe Road / Inverness Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 17.9 17.8 B B 5 Wolfe Road / Homestead Road Cupertino D AM PM 34.0 36.4 C D 6 Wolfe Road / Apple Campus 2 Cupertino D AM PM Future Intersection 7 Wolfe Road / Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino D AM PM 19.7 19.6 B B 8 Wolfe Road / I‐280 NB Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 20.8 22.7 C C 9 Wolfe Road / I‐280 SB Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 17.9 12.0 B B 10 Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway Cupertino D AM PM 21.7 28.5 C C 11 Wolfe Road / Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 42.0 42.8 D D 12 De Anza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino (CMP) E+ AM PM 33.2 44.6 C D 13 Tantau Avenue / Homestead Road Cupertino D AM PM 28.5 36.8 C D 14 Tantau Avenue / Vallco Parkway Cupertino D AM PM 18.6 24.0 B C 15 Tantau Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino D AM PM 39.7 38.2 D D 16 Lawrence Expressway / Homestead Road Santa Clara County (CMP) E AM PM 43.3 48.3 D D Notes: All of the study intersections are signalized. a. Intersection jurisdiction and identification of CMP (Congestion Management Program) intersections. b. AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour. c. Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle calculated using methods described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions for signalized intersections. d. LOS = Level of Service. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX analysis software packages, which apply the methods described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Source: Fehr & Peers, December 2015, Table 2‐2 of TIA. 612 !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( M ic h ela n geloDr Alberta Ave CrescentAve Ma n e t D r Flora Vista AveCarlisleWay Inverness Way Henderson Ave Benton St E Remingto n D rWRemingtonDr Qu a i l A v e Mill e r A v e Inverness Way S W o l f e R d N B laney Ave N T a n t a u A v e Pruneridge Ave W Homestead Rd W Fremont Ave S D e A n z a B l v d L awrence Expy E e l C a m i n o R e a l Su n n y v a l e S a r a t o g a R Homestead Rd E Fremont Ave N D e A n z a B l v d El Camino Real La w r e n c e E x p y Stevens Creek Blvd ·|}82 §¨¦280 §¨¦280 Wilson Park M i s e Ortega Park Ra y n o r Pa r k 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1112 13 14 15 16 10 Study Area Project Site !(Study Intersections Figure 1-1 !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( Michela n geloDr Alberta Ave CrescentAve Ma n e t D r Flora Vista AveCarlisleWay Inverness Way HendersonAve Benton St E Remingto n D rWRemingtonDr Qu a i l A v e Mill e r A v e Inverness Way S W o l f e R d N B laney Ave N T a n t a u A v e Pruneridge Ave W Homestead Rd W Fremont Ave S D e A n z a B l v d L awrence Expy E el C a m i n o R e a l Su n n y v a l e S a r a t o g a R Homestead Rd E Fremont Ave N D e A n z a B l v d El Camino Real La w r e n c e E x p y Stevens Creek Blvd ·|}82 §¨¦280 §¨¦280 Wilson Park M i s e Ortega Park Ra y n o r Pa r k 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1112 13 14 15 16 10 Study Area Project Site !(Study Intersections Figure 1-1 Figure 5-2 Study Area Intersections Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2015. THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 613 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-85 TABLE 5‐16 EXISTING FREEWAY (I‐280) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS Freeway Segment Peak Hour Number of Lanes Density LOS Mixed HOV Mixed HOV Mixed HOV Southbound SR 85 to De Anza Boulevard AM PM 3 1 24 103 9 19 C F A E De Anza Boulevard to Wolfe Road AM PM 3 1 36 77 10 30 D F A E Wolfe Road to Lawrence Expressway AM PM 3 1 35 81 16 19 D F B E Lawrence Expressway to Saratoga Avenue AM PM 3 1 37 85 10 37 D F A D Northbound Saratoga Avenue to Lawrence Expressway AM PM 3 1 89 37 78 15 F D F B Lawrence Expressway to Wolfe Road AM PM 3 1 81 23 46 10 F C D A Wolfe Road to De Anza Boulevard AM PM 3 1 62 25 57 7 F C E A De Anza Boulevard to SR 85 AM PM 3 1 73 23 45 7 F C D A Notes: Bold font indicates unacceptable operations based on VTA’s LOS E Standard. Source: Fehr & Peers, December 2015, Table 2‐3 of TIA. Existing Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Pedestrian connectivity immediately surrounding the project site is provided by a mostly complete network of sidewalks and crosswalks. Sidewalks are provided along the frontage of the project site along Wolfe Road and north of the project site. The sidewalks along Wolfe Road have park strips, which act as an additional buffer between vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian signals and high visibility crosswalks are provided at the adjacent intersection on Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue. Pedestrians are able to cross the street in both the north‐south and east‐west directions at this location. Within approximately 1,000 feet of the project site, crosswalks and pedestrian signals are provided at the Wolfe Road intersections at Homestead Road, AC2, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. These intersections have pedestrian crosswalks for all four approaches. Pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian signals are also present at the Wolfe Road and I‐280 NB off‐ramp and Wolfe Road and I‐280 SB off‐ramp. 614 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-86 APRIL 15, 2016 Pedestrian crosswalks at the ramp locations only provide access in north‐south direction. Crosswalks are not provided to cross Wolfe Road at these locations. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities in the study area are comprised of Class II bicycle lanes, and Class III bicycle routes, as described below: Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes) are lanes for bicyclists generally adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. These lanes have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bicycle lanes are generally five (5) feet wide. Adjacent vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross‐flow are permitted. Near the project site, bicycle lanes (Class II) are provided on Wolfe Road, Homestead Road, Tantau Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. There is a discontinuity in the Class II facility along Wolfe Road at the I‐280 overcrossing. South of Stevens Creek Boulevard, Tantau Avenue transitions from a Class II to a Class III bicycle facility. Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) are designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles, but have no separated bike right‐of‐way or lane striping. Bike routes serve either to: a) provide continuity to other bicycle facilities, or b) designate preferred routes through high demand corridors. Class III bike route exists Tantau Avenue south of Stevens Creek Boulevard to Barnhart Avenue. Miller Avenue is also a Class III facility that transitions to a Class II facility with bike lanes south of Calle De Barcelona. Bicycle facilities comprising bicycle lanes (Class II) and bicycle routes (Class III) connect the project site to the Lawrence Caltrain station. In 2011, the City of Cupertino adopted its Bicycle Transportation Plan, which illustrates Cupertino’s current bicycle network, identifies gaps in the network, and proposes improvement projects to address the identified gaps. In addition, the City has prepared a Draft 2016 Bicycle Transportation Master Plan (Draft Bike Plan).69 This Draft Bike Plan includes a feasibility study of buffered bike lanes of Wolfe Road in the vicinity of the project site. Based on the outcome of the 2016 bike plan and any other applicable recommendations the project applicant would be required to contribute to implementing the recommended pedestrian and bike striping improvements in the project area. The VTA adopted the Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (CBP). The CBP guides the development of major bicycle facilities in the County by identifying Cross County Bicycle Corridors and other bicycle projects of countywide or intercity significance. Several of the Cross County Bicycle Corridors travel through the study area, including routes along Vallco Parkway, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue, and Tantau Avenue. 69 The Draft 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan is now available for public review on the City’s website at http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=26&recordid=1498&returnURL=%2Findex.aspx 615 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-87 Transit Facilities Nearby transit services are described below and Table 5‐17 summarizes the destinations, closest stop to the project site, hours/days of operation, and service frequencies for transit services within a 2,000‐foot walking distance. TABLE 5‐17 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE Route From To Distance to Nearest Stopa Weekdays Saturdays Average Peak Load Factorb Operating Hoursd Peak Headwayc Operating Hoursd Peak Headwayc VTA Bus Service 26 Sunnyvale / Lockheed Martin Transit Center Eastridge Transit Center 0.15 0.27 5:52 am – 11:31 pm 30 6:46 am – 10:40 pm 30 81 San Jose State University Vallco 0.10 0.07 6:17 am – 8:19 pm 30 9:30 am – 4:30 pm 60 101 Camden & Highway 85 Palo Alto 0.55 0.23 6:51 am – 7:48 am 4:52 pm – 5:55 pm 2 NB Runs – AM 2 SB Runs – PM No Service 182 Palo Alto IBM/Bailey Avenue 0.60 0.07 7:27 am – 8:34 am 5:05 pm – 6:14 pm 1 SB Run – AM 1 NB Run – PM No Service Commuter Rail Service Caltrain San Francisco San Jose Diridon 3.00 N/A 4:40 am – 1:20 pm 30 (local) / 15 (express) 7:10 am – 1:26 pm 60 Notes: AM = morning commuter period; PM = evening commute period. a. Approximate distance in miles from nearest stop to Hamptons Apartment Complex driveway. b. Average peak load factor is the ratio of the average peak number of on‐board passengers aboard during the peak period to supply of seats. c. Headways are defined as the time interval between two transit vehicles traveling in the same direction over the same route. d. Operating hours consider earliest and latest stop at each bus lines closest stop to the Hamptons Apartment Complex. Source: Fehr & Peers, December 2015, Table 7‐1 of TIA. VTA Bus Service  Bus Route 26 provides service between Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin Transit Center and the Eastridge Transit Center. Route 26 follows major arterials and travels through Sunnyvale, Cupertino, San Jose, and Campbell on Fair Oaks Avenue, Wolfe Road, Campbell Avenue, and Tully Road. Bus stops for Route 26 are provided immediately north of the project site along Wolfe Road.  Bus Route 81 provides service between San Jose State University and Vallco via the Santa Clara Transit Center and Downtown San Jose. This route operates on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Benton Street, West 616 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-88 APRIL 15, 2016 San Carlos Street, and San Fernando Street with nearby stops at Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue.  Bus Route 101 is an express bus route that operates on I‐280, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Lawrence Expressway; it connects a Park & Ride lot at the Camden Avenue interchange along SR 85 to Palo Alto. This route passes through the Winchester Transit Center and has a bus stop south of the project site at Wolfe Road/Vallco Mall which provides connections to Routes 26, 23, and 323.  Bus Route 182 is an express bus route that operates on I‐280, Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard; it connects the Park & Ride lot at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road in Palo Alto with the IBM Santa Teresa Facility at Bailey Avenue. One Route 182 run departs Palo Alto in the morning. In the evening, one Route 182 run travels northbound. Route 182 has stops at the Vallco shopping plaza. Commuter Rail Service Caltrain is a commuter heavy rail service that runs from downtown San Francisco (4th and King Streets) to downtown San Jose (Diridon Station), with a limited number of commute period trains running farther south to Gilroy. During commute periods, Caltrain offers express service (“Baby Bullet”) between downtown San Jose and San Francisco. Currently, Baby Bullet service is provided both in the northbound and southbound direction during the morning and evening commute periods at the Mountain View Caltrain station. Baby Bullet trains serve the Sunnyvale Caltrain station in the northbound direction during the morning peak and in the southbound direction during the evening peak. The nearest station to the project site is the Lawrence Station, which is located on Lawrence Expressway approximately three miles northwest of the project site. During the weekdays, service in the northbound direction begins at 4:40 a.m. and ends at 10:40 p.m. In the southbound direction, service at this station begins at 6:14 a.m. and ends at 1:20 a.m. During the weekends, northbound service begins at 7:10 a.m. and ends at 10:40 p.m. Southbound service begins at 9:40 a.m. and ends at 1:26 a.m. For passengers arriving by bicycle, there are 18 bike racks and 24 bicycle lockers. Vehicle parking at this location includes 122 parking spaces. Vehicles Miles Traveled As discussed in the Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the General Plan EIR, Senate Bill (SB) 743 will eventually alter how transportation and traffic impacts are analyzed under State CEQA Guidelines. SB 743 requires the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to level of service (LOS) as the metric for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. Particularly within areas served by transit, the alternative criteria must promote the reduction of GHG emissions, development of multimodal transportation networks, and diversity of land uses. Measurements of transportation impacts may include vehicle miles travelled (VMT), VMT per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. Once alternative criteria are incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines, auto delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA. SB 743 also amended State congestion management law to allow cities and counties to opt out of 617 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-89 level of service standards in certain infill areas. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, under the General Plan as amended in 2014, the VMT per capita is projected to increase from 10.5 to 10.9. However, because the CEQA Guidelines amendments required by AB 743 have not yet been adopted, this Initial Study was prepared based on the current existing State CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, relies on the existing level of service criteria to evaluate potential transportation impacts. DISCUSSION a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? The project would increase the number of residential apartment units on the project site from 342 to 942. Trip generation estimates were determined using ITE’s rates for apartments. A detailed discussion of the methodology to calculate the project’s trip generation is included in Chapter 3.1 of the TIA. The project is estimated to generate 272 net new AM peak hour vehicle trips (48 inbound and 224 outbound) and 421 net new PM peak hour vehicle trips (268 inbound and 153 outbound). Project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the estimated trip distribution patterns presented in Figure 3‐1 of the TIA. The distribution of the traffic generated by the project onto the roadway system was based on the locations of complementary land uses, prevailing travel patterns, surrounding population densities, and recent TIAs completed in the area. Input from the City of Cupertino staff was used to refine the trip distribution patterns. The following analysis was performed to evaluate traffic conditions during the weekday morning (AM) and weekday evening (PM) peak hours for the following scenarios:  Existing Conditions – In addition to the Existing Conditions without the project discussed previously, the Existing Plus Project Conditions were evaluated by adding traffic from the proposed project.  Background Conditions – Existing volumes plus traffic from “approved but not yet built” and “not occupied” developments in the area. Background conditions were evaluated without the project, and with the project. Existing Plus Project Conditions Scenario Intersection levels of service were calculated with the new traffic added by the project to evaluate the operating conditions of the intersections and identify potential impacts to the roadway system. The results of the intersection level of service calculations for Existing Plus Project Conditions are presented in Table 5‐18. 618 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-90 APRIL 15, 2016 TABLE 5‐18 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ID Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMP LOS Thresholda Peak Hourb Existing Existing Plus Project Delayc LOSd Delayc LOSd Δ in Crit. V/Ce Δ in Crit. Delayf 1 Wolfe Road / El Camino Real Sunnyvale (CMP) E AM PM 35.4 38.4 D D 35.4 38.6 D D 0.002 0.006 0.0 0.3 2 Wolfe Road / Fremont Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 34.0 36.4 C D 34.2 36.7 C D 0.006 0.008 0.0 0.2 3 Wolfe Road / Marion Way Sunnyvale D AM PM 15.0 21.5 B C 14.9 21.4 B C 0.010 0.007 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 4 Wolfe Road / Inverness Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 17.9 17.8 B B 17.7 17.6 B B 0.010 0.012 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 5 Wolfe Road / Homestead Road Cupertino D AM PM 34.0 36.4 C D 34.2 37.4 C D 0.010 0.033 0.0 1.3 6 Wolfe Road / Apple Campus 2 Cupertino D Future Intersection 7 Wolfe Road / Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino D AM PM 19.7 19.6 B B 27.8 24.5 C C 0.093 0.075 8.1 4.1 8 Wolfe Road / I‐280 NB Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 20.8 22.7 C C 20.9 23.3 C C 0.007 0.036 0.1 0.8 9 Wolfe Road / I‐280 SB Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 17.9 12 B B 17.8 12.4 B B 0.007 0.015 0.2 ‐0.3 10 Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway Cupertino D AM PM 21.7 28.5 C C 21.6 28.5 C C 0.004 0.008 0.2 0.0 11 Wolfe Road / Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 42.0 42.8 D D 42.2 43.1 D D 0.006 0.013 0.3 0.6 12 De Anza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino (CMP) E+ AM PM 33.2 44.6 C D 33.4 44.7 C D 0.004 0.000 0.3 0.0 13 Tantau Avenue / Homestead Road Cupertino D AM PM 28.5 36.8 C D 28.5 37 C D 0.007 0.005 0.1 0.4 14 Tantau Avenue / Vallco Parkway Cupertino D AM PM 18.6 24.0 B C 18.7 24.4 B C 0.000 0.007 0.0 0.6 15 Tantau Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino D AM PM 39.7 38.2 D D 39.7 38.1 D D 0.000 0.002 0.0 0.1 16 Lawrence Expressway / Homestead Road Santa Clara County (CMP) E AM PM 43.3 48.3 D D 43.9 48.9 D D 0.004 0.004 1.5 0.5 Notes: All of the study intersections are signalized. a. LOS Threshold is the lowest acceptable LOS (the threshold between acceptable and unacceptable level of service). b. AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour. c. Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle calculated using methods described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions for signalized intersections. d. LOS = Level of Service. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX analysis software packages, which apply the methods described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. e. Change in critical volume to capacity ratio between Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions f. Change in average critical movement delay between Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions. Source: Fehr & Peers, December 2015, Table 4‐1 of the TIA. 619 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-91 The determination of significance for project impacts is based on applicable policies, regulations, goals, and guidelines defined by the City of Cupertino, City of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara County, and the VTA. The impact criteria presented below focuses on elements of the CEQA checklist pertaining to roadway system operations and its effects on users, including drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit passengers, and first responders in emergency access vehicles. As shown on Table 5‐18, the study area intersections are under the jurisdiction of the Cities of Cupertino and Sunnyvale, and a few are part of the CMP network. Signalized intersection operations and impacts are evaluated based on the appropriate jurisdiction’s LOS standards (i.e., minimum threshold for acceptable operations) as discussed below for the Cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and per CMP requirements.  City of Cupertino: Significant impacts at signalized City of Cupertino intersections would occur when the addition of project traffic causes one of the following:  Intersection operations to degrade from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F); or  Exacerbates unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) by increasing the critical delay by more than four seconds and increasing the volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more; or  An increase in the V/C ratio of 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change.  City of Sunnyvale: Significant impacts at signalized City of Sunnyvale intersections would occur when the addition of project traffic causes one of the following:  Intersection (except those on designated regionally significant roads) operations degrade from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or LOS F); or  Operations for regionally significant designated intersections deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS E or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS F);  Exacerbates unacceptable operations by increasing the critical delay more than four seconds and increasing the volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more; or  An increase in the V/C ratio of 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change.  Santa Clara County and Congestion Management Program (CMP): The LOS standard for Santa Clara County expressway and CMP intersections is LOS E. Traffic impacts at these intersections would occur when the addition of traffic associated with a project causes:  Intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS E or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS F); or  Exacerbates unacceptable operations by increasing the average critical delay more than four seconds and increasing the critical volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more at an intersection operating at LOS F; or 620 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-92 APRIL 15, 2016  The V/C ratio increases by 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations (LOS F) when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change. The results of the LOS calculations shown in Table 5‐18 indicate that all study intersection operate at acceptable service levels (LOS D or better for signalized City intersection and LOS E or better for regionally significant and unsignalized intersections) during the AM and PM peak hours under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Based on the identified appropriate impact criteria, the project has less‐than‐significant impacts at all study intersections under the Existing Plus Project Conditions and no mitigation measures would be required. Background Conditions Scenario Level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate signalized intersection operations under Background Conditions and Background Plus Project Conditions. The level of service analysis results are summarized in Table 5‐19. The results presented in Table 5‐19 show that three study intersections would operate unacceptably during the AM peak hour or both peak hours under Background Conditions and Background Plus Project Conditions. However, based on the impact criteria previously identified, the proposed project would not exacerbate unacceptable operations; thus, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. TABLE 5‐19 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ID Intersection Jurisdiction / CMP LOS Thresholda Peak Hourb Background Background Plus Project Delayc LOSd Delayc LOSd Δ in Crit. V/Ce Δ in Crit. Delayf 1 Wolfe Road / El Camino Real Sunnyvale (CMP) E AM PM 35.7 40.0 D D 35.7 40.1 D D 0.002 0.006 0.0 0.3 2 Wolfe Road / Fremont Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 35.0 38.5 C D 35.2 38.9 D D 0.006 0.008 0.1 0.3 3 Wolfe Road / Marion Way Sunnyvale D AM PM 14.3 20.7 B C 14.2 20.7 B C 0.010 0.007 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 4 Wolfe Road / Inverness Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 24.5 24.5 C C 24.2 24.3 C C 0.010 0.012 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 5 Wolfe Road / Homestead Road Cupertino D AM PM 31.5 31.3 C C 31.5 31.6 C C 0.007 0.013 ‐0.3 0.2 6 Wolfe Road / Apple Campus 2 Cupertino D AM PM 15.6 28.2 B C 15.6 28.5 B C 0.000 0.018 0.0 0.5 7 Wolfe Road / Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino D AM PM 14.3 25.3 B C 22.4 29.9 C C 0.107 0.063 8.7 5.9 8 Wolfe Road / I‐280 NB Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 26.0 29.7 C C 26.3 33.7 C C 0.008 0.036 0.3 7.1 9 Wolfe Road / I‐280 SB Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 29.6 17.0 C B 29.8 17.5 C B 0.007 0.015 0.6 0.1 621 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-93 TABLE 5‐19 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ID Intersection Jurisdiction / CMP LOS Thresholda Peak Hourb Background Background Plus Project Delayc LOSd Delayc LOSd Δ in Crit. V/Ce Δ in Crit. Delayf 10 Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway Cupertino D AM PM 28.5 29.2 C C 28.5 29.3 C C 0.004 0.012 0.2 0.3 11 Wolfe Road / Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 48.3 51.4 D D 48.9 52.8 D D 0.006 0.016 0.8 2.6 12 De Anza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino (CMP) E+ AM PM 37.7 54.1 D D 37.8 54.2 D D 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0 13 Tantau Avenue / Homestead Road Cupertino D AM PM 39.4 75.6 D E 40.2 76.4 D E 0.007 0.005 1.5 1.7 14 Tantau Avenue / Vallco Parkway Cupertino D AM PM 27.5 29.7 C C 27.5 30.1 C C 0.000 0.007 0.0 0.8 15 Tantau Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino D AM PM 82.8 58.3 F E 83.0 58.7 F E 0.001 0.002 0.3 0.6 16 Lawrence Expressway / Homestead Road Santa Clara County (CMP) E AM PM 110.7 83.4 F F 110.7 86.1 F F 0.002 ‐0.033 ‐0.1 1.6 Notes: Bold text indicates intersection operates at unacceptable level of service. All of the intersections are signalized. a. Level of service threshold is the lowest acceptable level of service (the threshold between acceptable and unacceptable level of service). b. AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour. c. Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle calculated using methods described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions for signalized intersections. d. LOS = Level of Service. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX analysis software packages, which apply the methods described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. e. Change in critical volume to capacity ratio between Background and Background Plus Project Conditions f. Change in average critical movement delay between Background and Background Plus Project Conditions. Source: Fehr & Peers, December 2015, Table 5‐1 of the TIA. Construction Traffic During construction, the project would generate changes to the existing transportation conditions. New traffic would be generated by construction employees and construction activities. Based on the construction schedule provided by the applicant, the busiest construction period is expected to be from December 2017 to July 2018. The construction activities occurring this period include dry wall and framing. Table 5‐20 presents the construction traffic trip generation which includes trips generated by general activity, construction employees and haul trucks. Trip generation assumes an average of 4 daily trips per employee (1 trip to work, 1 trip to lunch or a meeting, 1 trip from lunch or a meeting, and 1 trip home). General activity employees include the project manager, superintendent, field engineer, and project secretary. Trip generation for construction workers are presented for the busiest construction period, which is during the dry wall and framing portion. It is estimated that a maximum of 600 employees would be on site during this activity. These construction workers however would be shuttled from an off‐site location. The analysis below assumes that each of the shuttles to the project site would have at least six construction workers which equates to 100 daily trips. 622 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-94 APRIL 15, 2016 Ten haul trucks were also estimated during the AM and PM peak hour (5 trucks in and 5 trucks out). Total construction trip generation estimates include 64 trips during the AM peak hour and 64 trips during the PM peak hour. As discussed above, the project is estimated to generate 272 net new AM peak hour vehicle trips and 421 net new PM peak hour vehicle trips, which is more than the number of trips that the project would generate during construction. As discussed above, the project would not result in a significant impact at any study intersection. The number of construction trips would be substantially less than the projected trips during project operation, which would be less than significant; therefore, traffic impacts during project construction would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. TABLE 5‐20 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Activity Daily AM PM Total In Out Total In Out General Activity 16 4 4 0 4 0 4 Construction Worker 100 50 50 0 50 0 50 Haul Trucks 120 10 5 5 10 5 5 Total 236 64 59 5 64 5 59 Source: Fehr & Peers, December 2015, Table 6‐1 of the TIA. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The VTA Congestion Management Program TIA Guidelines (last updated in October 2014) present guidelines for assessing the transportation impacts of development projects and identifying whether improvements are needed to adjacent roadways, bike facilities, sidewalks, and transit services affected by the project. The TIA guidelines have been adopted by local agencies within Santa Clara County, and are applied to analyze the regional transportation system. The CMP requires that its facilities operate at LOS E or better. The following evaluates intersections and freeway segments per CMP criteria. CMP Intersection Analysis The level of service standard for Santa Clara County expressway and CMP intersections is LOS E. Traffic impacts at these intersections would occur when the addition of traffic associated with a project causes:  Intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS E or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS F); or  Exacerbates unacceptable operations by increasing the average critical delay more than four seconds and increasing the critical volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more at an intersection operating at LOS F; or 623 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-95  The V/C ratio increases by 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations (LOS F) when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change. Criterion (a) above includes an evaluation of study intersections including intersections in the CMP network (intersections 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16). Tables 5‐18 and 5‐19 present the results of the intersection level of service under Existing and Background Conditions without and with the project. The analysis in criterion (a) concluded that the proposed project would result in less‐than‐significant impacts per CMP criteria. CMP Freeway Segments Analysis Traffic impacts on CMP freeway segments would occur when the addition of project traffic causes the freeway segment operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS E or better) under Existing Conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS F) or an increase in traffic of more than one percent of the capacity of the segments that operate at LOS F under Existing Conditions. Caltrans has authority over the State highway system including freeways, interchanges, and arterial State Routes. Caltrans operates and maintains the State Highways in Santa Clara. The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans, 2001) includes the information needed for Caltrans to review the impact on State highway facilities, including freeway segments. However, as the Congestion Management Agency, VTA is responsible for monitoring operations on Caltrans facilities within Santa Clara County. Significant impacts on freeway segments in Santa Clara County are determined according to VTA criteria and would occur when the addition of project traffic causes under Existing Conditions:  Freeway segment operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS E or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS F); or  An increase in traffic of more than one percent of the capacity of the segments that operate at LOS F. As shown in Table 5‐21, the proposed project would not cause freeway segments to deteriorate to an unacceptable level and would not add trips greater than one percent of the freeway segment capacity to the freeway study segments during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant freeway impact at the identified freeway study segments under Existing Plus Project Conditions and no mitigation measures would be required. 624 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-96 APRIL 15, 2016 TABLE 5‐21 EXISTING FREEWAY (I‐280) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS I‐280 Freeway Segment Capacitya Peak Hourb Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions Densityc LOSd Tripse Densityc LOSd % Impactf Southbound SR 85 to De Anza Boulevard 6,900 AM PM 24 103 C F 12 67 24 105 C F <0.01 <0.01 De Anza Boulevard to Wolfe Road 6,900 AM PM 36 77 D F 12 67 36 78 D F <0.01 <0.01 Wolfe Road to Lawrence Expressway 6,900 AM PM 35 81 D F 45 31 35 82 D F <0.01 <0.01 Lawrence Expressway to Saratoga Avenue 6,900 AM PM 37 85 D F 45 31 37 86 D F <0.01 <0.01 Northbound Saratoga Avenue to Lawrence Expressway 6,900 AM PM 89 37 F D 10 54 89 37 F D <0.01 <0.01 Lawrence Expressway to Wolfe Road 6,900 AM PM 81 23 F C 10 54 81 23 F C <0.01 <0.01 Wolfe Road to De Anza Boulevard 6,900 AM PM 62 25 F C 56 38 63 26 F C <0.01 <0.01 De Anza Boulevard to SR 85 6,900 AM PM 73 23 F C 56 38 74 23 F C <0.01 <0.01 Note: Bold text indicates intersection operates at unacceptable level of service. a. Measured in vehicles per hour per lane. b. AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour. c. Measured in passenger cars per mile per lane. d. LOS = level of service e. Project trips added to individual freeway segments. f. Percent Contribution determined by dividing the number of project trips by the freeway segment’s capacity. Source: Fehr & Peers, December 2015, Table 4‐2 of the TIA. In summary, according to CMP guidelines for assessing the transportation impacts of development projects, impacts related to the project’s trip to the transportation network would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The project is a low rise apartment building complex that would not be in an airport influence area or within an airport land use plan. The nearest public use airport is Mineta San Jose International airport, 10 625 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-97 miles to the northeast, in the City of San Jose. Given the distance from the nearest public use airport, the project would not be subject to any airport safety hazards. The project would also not have an adverse effect on aviation safety or flight patterns. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The primary access to the proposed project would be located off of Pruneridge Avenue, which would provide immediate access to the project parking structure. Pruneridge Avenue would be modified to provide exclusive access to the project, and a cul‐de‐sac would provide an end to the eastern portion of the road. The secondary access off of Wolfe Road would be for emergency vehicles only in the event of an emergency. This is discussed below in criterion (e). The proposed project would not modify any design features to a public road or introduce a potentially unsafe feature that would increase hazards. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Access to the proposed project would be from Pruneridge Avenue. The driveway would have two access lanes for entry in the garage, one for residents and one for visitors. Exit lanes would be provided adjacent to the entry lanes. Vehicle circulation around the perimeter would be designated exclusively for use by emergency vehicles, moving trucks, and garbage trucks. The SCCFD and City of Cupertino Building Division coordinate the review of building permits. All access driveways would be designed in accordance with City of Cupertino standards and would have to be reviewed and approved by SCCFD. Project plans include approved fire and emergency access through all phases of construction and operation. Compliance with the provisions of the CFC and the CBC (described above), would ensure that adequate access would be provided. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Pedestrian access to the project site is provided by a mostly complete network of sidewalks and crosswalks. Sidewalks are provided along the frontage of the project site along Wo lfe Road and north of the project site allowing pedestrians to enter the apartment complex from the west and the north. The sidewalks along Wolfe Road have park strips which act as an additional buffer between vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian signals and high visibility crosswalks are provided at the adjacent intersection on allowing pedestrian travel to and from the project site in both the north‐south and east‐west directions. Bicycle access to the project site is accommodated by bicycle lanes (Class II) on surround roadways such as Wolfe Road, Homestead Road, Tantau Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. A discontinuity in the Class II facility does exist along Wolfe Road at the I‐280 Ramps. Bicyclists would need 626 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-98 APRIL 15, 2016 to travel with motor vehicles for a short distance when approaching the I‐280 overcrossing. Furthermore, the proposed project includes additional off‐site improvements at the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection that would enhance and complement the improvements required under the AC2 project. These improvements are as follows:  Add new directional curb ramps70 at the northwest corner.  Relocate the southbound, left‐turn bike box71 so that it is outside of the path of southbound bike traffic  Relocate the crosswalk at crossing the western leg of the intersection to accommodate the relocation of the southbound left‐turn bike box and relocate the associated southwest corner curb ramp to align with the relocated crosswalk  Paint green dashed lines72 on the Class II bike lanes on Wolfe Road. Transit stops are available immediately north of the project site. Transit routes near the project site have low peak load factors. Average peak load factors for transit routes near the project site range from 0.07 to 0.25, which indicate that the seats on these transit routes are only about 25 percent or less occupied. Because of the limited amount of transit stops available in the area, it is unlikely that the project would generate transit demand that would exceed to the transit vehicle capacity. In summary, there would be adequate availability of alternative modes of travel including pedestrian, bicycle and transit. The proposed project would not displace modify or interfere with any transit stop, sidewalk, or bicycle lanes. In addition, the project would not generate a demand for transit that would exceed the capacity of the system. Therefore, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 70 A curb ramp is a transition between the sidewalk and the street to bring the curb to the level of the street; thus, eliminating the curb as an obstacle. 71 A bike box is an area of safety for bicyclist while they wait for their turn to proceed through the intersection. The bike box is located in an area that makes the bicyclist more visible to drivers. 72 The dashed lines are indicators that create awareness to the intersection’s common space shared by bikes and vehicles. 627 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-99 XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?     b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     d) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing and identified entitlements and resources?     e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?     f) Not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the buildout of the project’s solid waste disposal needs?     g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?     h) Result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands requiring new energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities?     GENERAL PLAN EIR Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the General Plan EIR, includes an analysis of impacts related to water supply, wastewater, solid waste, and energy conservation. Impacts were found to be less than significant and less than significant with mitigation. The City is required to implement General Plan Mitigation Measures UTIL‐6a through UTIL‐6c, and UTIL‐8 to ensure impacts related to wastewater and solid waste are less than significant. General Plan Mitigation Measures UTIL‐6a through UTIL‐6c require the City to work with the Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) to increase the available citywide treatment and transmission capacity, identify appropriate and current wastewater generation rates that are approved by CSD and establish a monitoring and tracking system for wastewater generation to better understand the City’s need for potential capacity upgrades from CSD. General Plan Mitigation Measure UTIL‐8 requires the City to continue current recycling and zero‐waste practices, monitor solid waste 628 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-100 APRIL 15, 2016 generation and seek new landfill sites to replace the Altamont and Newby Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are closed. These mitigation measures, which were previously adopted by the City and incorporated into the General Plan, will be implemented by the City. EXISTING CONDITIONS Chapter 4.14 includes a recent discussion of the existing conditions for each of the utility providers listed below:  The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is the primary water resources agency for Santa Clara County. The project site is located within the California Water Service (Cal Water) Los Altos Suburban District (LASD) service area, and Cal Water would supply water for the project. Water supply for the LAS District is a combination of groundwater from wells in the LASD and treated water purchased from SCVWD.  Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) provides sanitary sewer services for the project site. Wastewater would be treated at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP).  Recology South Bay (Recology) would provide curbside recycling, garbage, and compost and yard waste service to the residents of the project. The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary Landfill until 2023, which, according to CalRecycle, had a remaining capacity of 21,200,000 cubic yards and daily disposal capacity is 4,000 tons per day as of October 31, 2014.73  Gas and electricity would be supplied to the project site by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). A water supply assessment (WSA) was prepared for the project pursuant to Senate Bill 610 (SB 610). SB 610 requires the preparation of a WSA for certain types of projects, as defined by Water Code Section 10912, which are subject to the CEQA. The SB 610 WSA dated March 1, 2016 was prepared for CalWater by Yarne & Associates, Inc. and is included in Appendix C of this Initial Study. DISCUSSION a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The CSD sewer collection system directs wastewater to the SJ/SCWPCP, which is jointly owned by the cities of San José and Santa Clara. The San Francisco RWQCB established wastewater treatment requirements for the SJ/SCWPCP in an NPDES Permit (Order No. R2‐2009‐0038), adopted April 8, 2009 and effective June 1, 2009.74 The NPDES Order sets out a framework for compliance and enforcement applicable to operation of the SJ/SCWPCP and its effluent, as well as those contributing influent to the 73 Calrecycle website, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/43‐AN‐0003/Detail/, accessed March 1, 2016. 74 San Francisco RWQCB NPDES Permit (Order No. R2‐2009‐0038) for SJ/SCWPCP. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_info/agendas/2009/april/SJSC_FinalOrder%20‐%204‐09.pdf 629 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-101 SJ/SCWPCP. This NPDES Order currently allows dry weather discharges of up to 167 million gallons per day (mgd) with full tertiary treatment, and wet weather discharges of up to 271 mgd with full tertiary treatment. The proposed project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in a violation of the sanitary wastewater treatment requirements established in the NPDES Permit issued by the RWQCB. The SJ/SCWPCP, serving as the Discharger, has an approved pretreatment program, which includes approved local limits as required by prior permits. The previous permit required the Discharger to evaluate its local limits—such as those established by the CSD—to ensure compliance with updated effluent limits. These local limits are approved as part of the pretreatment program required by this permit. The SJ/SCWPCP is required to monitor the permitted discharges in order to evaluate compliance with permit conditions. The proposed residential project does not involve industrial uses likely to substantially increase pollutant loading levels in the sanitary sewer system. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to exceed treatment standards established by the RWQCB. Impacts to sanitary wastewater quality would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposed project would result in a significant impact if it would result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would have a significant effect on the environment. As discussed above in criterion (a) above and criterion (e) below, future demands from the proposed project would not exceed the design or permitted capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP that serves the project site. Future water treatment demand was assessed in consultation with the City of Cupertino and includes consideration of development in the City through the 2040 buildout horizon of the General Plan. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not include any improvements not already considered and the impact of the proposed project on SJ/SCWPCP would be less than significant. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? As discussed under criterion (d) in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, above, the proposed project is would not require the expansion of existing storm drain facilities. The project would involve the redevelopment of a previously developed site and a 10 percent increase in impervious surface is expected. All new development that, like the proposed project, creates or replaces 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface would be subject to Provision C.3 guidelines for stormwater control, as described above. Through C.3 compliance, the proposed project would involve actions to minimize runoff from the project site as described in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, above. Consequently, the proposed project would not require the expansion of existing stormwater facilities or the construction of 630 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-102 APRIL 15, 2016 new facilities, the construction of which could otherwise have significant impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Would the project have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing and identified entitlements and resources? As shown in the General Plan EIR in Chapter 4.14, the water supply at project buildout year 2020 would be 13,078 acre feet 75 per year (afy) and at General Plan buildout year 2040 would be 16,984 afy. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan would not result in insufficient water supplies from Cal Water under normal year conditions or during single‐dry year and multiple‐dry years, with the proposed and existing water conservation regulations and measures in place. The water supply evaluation prepared for the General Plan EIR included new development on the project site at a greater number of units than proposed under the project (820 net new units compared to 600 net new units); therefore, water supply impacts were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. However, as described above, consistent with SB 610, a Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the proposed project. According to Cal Water, the applicable water use generation rate for multi‐family dwelling units, such as the proposed project, would be 68.7 gallons per day per unit (gpd/unit) or 0.077 acre feet per year.76 As shown in Table 5‐22, and discussed in detail in the Water Supply Assessment under the Supply Adequacy and Reliability Assessment section, there would be adequate supply to meet the project’s demand under normal, single‐, and multiple‐dry years. TABLE 5‐22 WATER SUPPLY PROJECTIONS AND DEMAND IN NORMAL, SINGLE‐DRY YEAR AND MULTI‐DRY YEARS Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Normal Hydrologic Years SCVWD Purchased Water 8,887 10,500 10,850 11,200 11,550 11,900 12,250 Groundwater Wells 3,892 3,940 4,034 3,961 3,901 3,855 3,822 Recycled Water 0 0 175 175 175 175 175 Total Supply 11,648 14,440 15,059 15,336 15,626 15,930 16,247 Total Demand 11,648 14,440 15,059 15,336 15,626 15,930 16,247 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 One acre‐foot equals about 326,000 gallons, or enough water to cover an acre of land, about the size of a football field, one foot deep. 76 Wilson, Christopher, Superintendent II, Cal Water, email to Jeff Yarne, November 19, 2015 and the SB 610 Water Supply Assessment, prepared for CalWater by Yarne & Associates, Inc., March 1, 2016, page 4 (see Appendix C of this Initial Study). 631 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-103 TABLE 5‐22 WATER SUPPLY PROJECTIONS AND DEMAND IN NORMAL, SINGLE‐DRY YEAR AND MULTI‐DRY YEARS Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Single‐Dry Hydrologic Yeara SCVWD Purchased Water 8,887 10,500 10,850 11,200 11,550 11,900 12,250 Groundwater Wells 3,892 3,940 4,034 3,961 3,901 3,855 3,822 Recycled Water 0 0 175 175 175 175 175 Total Supply 11,648 14,440 15,059 15,336 15,626 15,930 16,247 Total Demand 11,648 14,440 15,059 15,336 15,626 15,930 16,247 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple‐Dry Hydrologic Years: Years 1 – 3 SCVWD Purchased n/a 10,500 10,850 11,200 11,550 11,900 12,250 Recycled Water n/a 0 175 175 175 175 175 Cal Water Wells n/a 3,940 4,034 3,961 3,901 3,855 3,822 Total Supply n/a 14,440 15,059 15,336 15,626 15,930 16,247 Total Demand: Years 1 ‐ 3 n/a 14,440 15,059 15,336 15,626 15,930 16,247 Difference n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple‐Dry Hydrologic Years: Year 4b SCVWD Purchased n/a n/a 8,680 8,960 9,240 9,520 9,800 Recycled Water n/a n/a 175 175 175 175 175 Cal Water Wells n/a n/a 3,192 3,158 3,086 3,049 3,023 Total Supply n/a n/a 15,059 15,336 15,626 15,930 16,247 Total Demand: Year 4 n/a n/a 12,047 12,293 12,501 12,744 12,998 Difference n/a n/a 3,012 3,043 3,125 3,086 3,249 Notes: a. Note that supply always equals demand due to the fact that Cal Water can vary its groundwater production in response to the availability of SCVWD purchased water. Water Supply Assessment, Supply Adequacy and Reliability Assessment, 2016, page 23. b. Year 4 represents a 20 percent decrease in demand and the delivery of SCWVD Contract Water. Source: SB 610 Water Supply Assessment, prepared for CalWater by Yarne & Associates, Inc., March 1, 2016, Tables 12, 13 and 14, (see Appendix C of this Initial Study.. Accordingly, the proposed project’s water demand would not exceed the available water supply in 2020 at project buildout, or General Plan buildout by year 2040 horizon of the General Plan. Accordingly, impacts to water supply under the proposed project would be less than significant. 632 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-104 APRIL 15, 2016 e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The proposed project would have a significant impact if project demand exceeds the wastewater service capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP or the CSD collection systems. Wastewater generation is determined by estimating the flow per unit for residential uses. Using a demand factor of 263.2 gpd per multi‐family unit for the 600 new residential units, the estimated wastewater generation based on buildout of the project would be 157,920 gpd (or approximately 0.16 mgd). Added to existing average demand of 105 mgd, the proposed project’s demand would not exceed the SJ/SCWPCP treatment plant’s current total capacity of 450 mgd. The CSD has a contractual treatment allocation with the SJ/SC WPCP of 7.85 million gallon per day (mgd), on average. Current CSD wastewater flow to the SJ/SCWPCP is 5.3 mgd.77 Added to this existing demand, the wastewater flow form the proposed project of 0.16 mgd would not exceed the City’s contractual allocation limits. As a result, impacts related to wastewater service capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. The CSD’s primary trunk lines that serve the project site are 12‐ and 15‐inch facilities on Wolfe Road, and a 27‐inch line on Pruneridge Avenue that was recently replaced and relocated as part of the AC2 project. As shown on Figures 3‐21 and 3‐22 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would connect to these existing sewer lines. According to the CSD, the CSD can provide sanitary sewer service to the proposed project subject to entering into an “installer’s agreement” once the project is approved by the City and the payment of all fees identified in the installer’s agreement to address the project’s fair‐share of costs for the CSD’s planned improvements and ongoing maintenance of the sewer lines that would serve the project site.78 f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the buildout of the project’s solid waste disposal needs? As discussed in the existing conditions, above, the City contracts with Recology South Bay (Recology) to provide solid waste collection services to residents and businesses in the city. The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary Landfill until 2023. In addition to the Newby Island Landfill, solid waste generated in Cupertino can also be disposed of at the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery facility, the Corinda Los Trancos Landfill, Forward Landfill Inc., Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill, Kirby Canyon Recycling and Disposal Facility, the Monterey Peninsula Landfill, Recology Hay Road, the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill, the Zanker Material Processing Facility, and the Zanker Road Class III Landfill. 77 Tanaka, Richard. District Manager‐Engineer. Letter to Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager. 23 May 2014. 78 Tanaka, Richard. District Manager‐Engineer. Letter to Ms. Catarina S. Kidd, Senior Planner, 10 March 2016. 633 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-105 The proposed waste management for the proposed project would focus on waste, recycling, and composting. Solid waste generated by construction of the proposed project would largely consist of demolition waste from the existing buildings as well as construction debris. The project would be required to comply with Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, which requires the recycling or diversion at least 60 percent of all generated construction and demolition (C&D) waste by salvage or by transfer to an approved facility. Prior to the permit issuance, the applicant is required to submit a properly completed Waste Management Plan, which includes the estimated maximum amount of C&D waste that can feasibly be diverted, which facility would handle the waste, and the total amount of C&D waste that would be landfilled. Compliance with the Chapter 16.72 would reduce solid waste and construction‐related impacts on the landfill capacity would be less than significant. Based on an average household size of 2.88 persons,79 it is assumed the proposed project would introduce 1,728 new residents.80 The project would also include 25 employees. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, in 2012, the city of Cupertino’s actual disposal rate for residents was 2.6 pounds per person per day (PPD) with the target of 4.3 PPD. For employees, the disposal rate was 4.3 PPD with the target rate of 8.1 PPD.81 The city of Cupertino’s disposal rates for both residents and employees have been below target rates and steadily decreasing since 2007.82 Applying these disposal rates, the project would generate approximately 4,600 pounds per day or 2 tons per day of new waste, which is well within the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill permitted daily disposal capacity of 4,000 tons per day. Anticipated rates of solid waste disposal would have a less‐than‐significant impact in regard to target disposal rates, and the project would comply with the City’s current recycling ordinances and zero‐waste policies, which would further reduce solid waste disposed of in the landfill. Thus, operation‐related impacts on landfill capacity would be less than significant. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project would have a significant environmental impact if it would conflict with standards relating to solid waste or litter control. The City’s per capita disposal rate is below the target rate established by CalRecycle. Cupertino adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and a Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) in compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act. The City has gone beyond the SRRE by implementing several programs, including the City’s and Recology’s organics or food waste collection program and Environmental Recycling Day events 79 This analysis is based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2013 projections of the average household size of 2.88 persons for Cupertino in 2020. This is the standard approach for population and housing analysis in Cupertino. 80 600 new units multiplied by 2.88 persons per unit equals 1,728 new residents. 81 CalRecycle, “Jurisdiction per Capita Disposal Trends: Cupertino,” http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/, accessed May 15, 2014. 82 CalRecycle, “Jurisdiction per Capita Disposal Trends: Cupertino,” http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/, accessed May 15, 2014. 634 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-106 APRIL 15, 2016 offered to residents 3 times per year by Recology. Implementation of the referenced strategies, programs and plans, as well as the Climate Action Plan that launched in May 2014, will enable the city to meet the 75 percent solid waste diversion rate by the year 2020. These programs will be sufficient to ensure that future development in Cupertino, including the proposed project, would not compromise the ability to meet or perform better than the State mandated target. Additionally, construction and any demolition debris associated with the project would be subject to the Municipal Code Chapter 16.72, requiring that a minimum of 50 percent of C&D debris be diverted from landfill. Compliance with applicable statutes and regulations would ensure that the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. h) Would the project result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands requiring new energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities? The proposed project would demolish the existing residential buildings and replace them with new structures that would meet the current Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards became effective July 1, 2014. The 2013 Standards are 25 percent more energy efficient than the 2008 standards for residential buildings and 30 percent more energy efficient for non‐residential buildings. The project provides connectivity to existing transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and locates a high‐density housing development in close proximity to existing residential‐serving land uses and employment centers. The project site is currently served by existing PG&E distribution systems that would provide natural gas and electricity. As described in Section IX, Land Use, above, the proposed project complies with the General Plan land use designation requirements as well as the Zoning district requirements and would not result in new growth potential from what was considered in the General Plan. The project would include appropriate on‐site infrastructure to connect to the existing PG&E systems and would not require new off‐ site energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. 635 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 5-107 XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐ sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?     b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?     c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?     DISCUSSION a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As described above, the project site is in an urbanized, extensively developed area of Cupertino. Almost entirely built out with residential development and associated surface parking, the project site has few green spaces and trees within and surrounding the on‐site buildings. There are no sensitive natural communities, no areas of sensitive habitat, and no areas of critical habitat occurring at the project site. Additionally, there are no buildings currently listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), no recorded archaeological sites, and no known paleontological resources located on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less‐than‐ significant impact to the environment and wildlife on the project site. 636 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5-108 APRIL 15, 2016 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As described in the environmental checklist, the impacts of the proposed project would be mitigated to less‐than‐significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to contribute to significant cumulative impacts when considered along with other impacts under the General Plan. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact that could not be mitigated to a less‐than‐significant level, thus the proposed project’s environmental effects would be less than significant. 637 PLACEWORKS 6-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 6. Program This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Hamptons Redevelopment Project. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure the implementation of project‐specific mitigation measures identified as part of the environmental review for the proposed project. The MMRP includes the following information:  The full text of the mitigation measures;  The party responsible for implementing the mitigation measures;  The timing for implementation of the mitigation measure;  The agency responsible for monitoring the implementation; and  The monitoring action and frequency. The City of Cupertino must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it approves the proposed project with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval. 638 TH E H A M P T O N S R E D E V E L O P M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y CI T Y O F C U P E R T I N O MI T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M 6- 2 APRIL 15, 2016 TAB L E 6‐1 M IT I G A T I O N MON I T O R I N G A N D REP O R T I N G PRO G R A M Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s Pa r t y R e s p o n s i b l e fo r I m p l e m e n t a t i o n Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ti m i n g Ag e n c y R e s p o n s i b l e fo r M o n i t o r i n g Mo n i t o r i n g Ac t i o n Monitoring Frequency AI R Q U A L I T Y Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e A Q ‐1a : T h e p r o j e c t ’ s c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r sh a l l c o m p l y w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g B a y A r e a A i r Q u a l i t y M a n a g e m e n t Di s t r i c t ( B A A Q M D ) B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e s ( B M P s ) f o r r e d u c i n g co n s t r u c t i o n e m i s s i o n s o f f u g i t i v e d u s t ( P M 10 a n d P M 2. 5 ): Wa t e r a l l a c t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n a r e a s a t l e a s t t w i c e d a i l y , o r a s o f t e n a s ne e d e d t o c o n t r o l d u s t e m i s s i o n s . W a t e r i n g s h o u l d b e s u f f i c i e n t t o pr e v e n t a i r b o r n e d u s t f r o m l e a v i n g t h e s i t e . I n c r e a s e d w a t e r i n g fr e q u e n c y m a y b e n e c e s s a r y w h e n e v e r w i n d s p e e d s e x c e e d 1 5 m i l e s pe r h o u r . R e c l a i m e d w a t e r s h o u l d b e u s e d w h e n e v e r p o s s i b l e . Pa v e , a p p l y w a t e r t w i c e d a i l y o r a s o f t e n a s n e c e s s a r y t o c o n t r o l du s t , o r a p p l y ( n o n ‐to x i c ) s o i l s t a b i l i z e r s o n a l l u n p a v e d a c c e s s r o a d s , pa r k i n g a r e a s , a n d s t a g i n g a r e a s a t c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e s . Co v e r a l l t r u c k s h a u l i n g s o i l , s a n d , a n d o t h e r l o o s e m a t e r i a l s o r re q u i r e a l l t r u c k s t o m a i n t a i n a t l e as t t w o f e e t o f f r e e b o a r d ( i . e . , t h e mi n i m u m r e q u i r e d s p a c e b e t w e e n t h e t o p o f t h e l o a d a n d t h e t o p o f th e t r a i l e r ) .  Sw e e p d a i l y ( w i t h w a t e r s w e e p e r s u s i n g r e c l a i m e d w a t e r i f po s s i b l e ) o r a s o f t e n a s n e e d e d a l l p a v e d a c c e s s r o a d s , p a r k i n g ar e a s a n d s t a g i n g a r e a s a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e t o c o n t r o l d u s t .  Sw e e p p u b l i c s t r e e t s d a i l y ( w i t h w a t e r s w e e p e r s u s i n g r e c l a i m e d wa t e r i f p o s s i b l e ) i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e p r o j e c t s i t e , o r a s o f t e n a s ne e d e d , t o k e e p s t r e e t s f r e e o f v i s i b l e s o i l m a t e r i a l .  Hy d r o s e e d o r a p p l y n o n ‐to x i c s o i l s t a b i l i z e r s t o i n a c t i v e co n s t r u c t i o n a r e a s .  En c l o s e , c o v e r , w a t e r t w i c e d a i l y , o r a p p l y n o n ‐to x i c s o i l b i n d e r s to e x p o s e d s t o c k p i l e s ( d i r t , s a n d , e t c . ) .  Li m i t v e h i c l e t r a f f i c s p e e d s o n u n p a v e d r o a d s t o 1 5 m i l e s p e r h o u r (m p h ) .  Re p l a n t v e g e t a t i o n i n d i s t u r b e d a r e a s a s q u i c k l y a s p o s s i b l e .  In s t a l l s a n d b a g s o r o t h e r e r o s i o n c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s t o p r e v e n t s i l t ru n o f f f r o m p u b l i c r o a d w a y s Ap p l i c a n t D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n C i t y o f C u p e r t i n o Pu b l i c W o r k s De p a r t m e n t Pl a n R e v i e w a n d Ap p r o v a l During scheduled construction site inspections 63 9 TH E H A M P T O N S R E D E V E L O P M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y CITY OF CUPERTINO MI T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M PL A C E W O R K S 6-3 TAB L E 6‐1 M IT I G A T I O N MON I T O R I N G A N D REP O R T I N G PRO G R A M Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s Pa r t y R e s p o n s i b l e fo r I m p l e m e n t a t i o n Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ti m i n g Ag e n c y R e s p o n s i b l e fo r M o n i t o r i n g Mo n i t o r i n g Ac t i o n Monitoring Frequency Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e A Q ‐1b : D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n co n t r a c t o r ( s ) s h a l l u s e c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t f i t t e d w i t h e n g i n e s th a t m e e t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y ( U S EP A ) ‐Ce r t i f i e d T i e r 3 e m i s s i o n s s t a n d a r d s f o r e q u i p m e n t o f 5 0 ho r s e p o w e r o r m o r e . T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l m a i n t a i n a li s t o f a l l o p e r a t i n g e q u i p m e n t i n u s e o n t h e p r o j e c t s i t e f o r ve r i f i c a t i o n b y t h e C i t y o f C u p e r t i n o B u i l d i n g D i v i s i o n o f f i c i a l o r t h e i r de s i g n e e . T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t l i s t s h a l l s t a t e t h e m a k e s , mo d e l s , a n d n u m b e r o f c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t o n s i t e . E q u i p m e n t sh a l l p r o p e r l y s e r v i c e a n d m a i n t a in c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t i n ac c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r ’ s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . T h e co n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l a l s o e n s u r e t h a t a l l n o n e s s e n t i a l i d l i n g of c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t i s r e s t r i c t e d t o f i v e m i n u t e s o r l e s s i n co m p l i a n c e w i t h C A R B R u l e 2 4 4 9 . P r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f a n y co n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t , t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l e n s u r e t h a t a l l co n s t r u c t i o n p l a n s s u b m i t t e d t o t h e C i t y o f C u p e r t i n o P l a n n i n g De p a r t m e n t a n d / o r B u i l d i n g D i v i s i o n c l e a r l y s h o w t h e r e q u i r e m e n t fo r U S E P A T i e r 3 o r h i g h e r e m i s s i o n s s t a n d a r d s f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n eq u i p m e n t o v e r 5 0 h o r s e p o w e r . Ap p l i c a n t D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n C i t y o f C u p e r t i n o Pu b l i c W o r k s De p a r t m e n t Pl a n R e v i e w a n d Ap p r o v a l During scheduled construction site inspections Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e A Q ‐2: I m p l e m e n t M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e A Q ‐1b . A p p l i c a n t D u r i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n C i t y o f C u p e r t i n o Pu b l i c W o r k s De p a r t m e n t Pl a n R e v i e w Ap p r o v a l During scheduled construction site inspections BI O L O G I C A L R E S O U R C E S Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e B I O ‐1: N e s t s o f r a p t o r s a n d o t h e r b i r d s s h a l l b e pr o t e c t e d w h e n i n a c t i v e u s e , a s r e q u i r e d b y t h e f e d e r a l M i g r a t o r y Bi r d T r e a t y A c t a n d t h e C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f F i s h a n d G a m e Co d e . I f c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s a n d a n y r e q u i r e d t r e e r e m o v a l o c c u r du r i n g t h e b r e e d i n g s e a s o n ( F e b r u a r y 1 a n d A u g u s t 3 1 ) , a q u a l i f i e d bi o l o g i s t s h a l l b e r e q u i r e d t o c o n d u c t s u r v e y s p r i o r t o t r e e r e m o v a l or c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . P r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s u r v e y s a r e n o t r e q u i r e d fo r t r e e r e m o v a l o r c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e t h e n e s t i n g pe r i o d . I f c o n s t r u c t i o n w o u l d o c c u r d u r i n g t h e n e s t i n g s e a s o n (F e b r u a r y 1 t o A u g u s t 3 1 ) , p r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s u r v e y s s h a l l b e co n d u c t e d n o m o r e t h a n 1 4 d a y s p r i o r t o t h e s t a r t o f t r e e r e m o v a l or c o n s t r u c t i o n . P r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s u r v e y s s h a l l b e r e p e a t e d a t 1 4 ‐da y Ap p l i c a n t Pr i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n Du r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n Qu a l i f y i n g b i o l o g i s t in c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h Ca l i f o r n i a De p a r t m e n t o f F i s h an d W i l d l i f e a s ne e d e d Pr e c o n s t r u c t i o n Su r v e y Once for survey; ongoing if nesting birds identified and until they have left the nest 64 0 TH E H A M P T O N S R E D E V E L O P M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y CI T Y O F C U P E R T I N O MI T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M 6- 4 APRIL 15, 2016 TAB L E 6‐1 M IT I G A T I O N MON I T O R I N G A N D REP O R T I N G PRO G R A M Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s Pa r t y R e s p o n s i b l e fo r I m p l e m e n t a t i o n Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ti m i n g Ag e n c y R e s p o n s i b l e fo r M o n i t o r i n g Mo n i t o r i n g Ac t i o n Monitoring Frequency in t e r v a l s u n t i l c o n s t r u c t i o n h a s b e e n i n i t i a t e d i n t h e a r e a a f t e r w h i c h su r v e y s c a n b e s t o p p e d . L o c a t i o n s o f a c t i v e n e s t s c o n t a i n i n g v i a b l e eg g s o r y o u n g b i r d s s h a l l b e d o c u m e n t e d a n d p r o t e c t i v e m e a s u r e s im p l e m e n t e d u n d e r t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e q u a l i f i e d b i o l o g i s t u n t i l t h e ne s t s n o l o n g e r c o n t a i n e g g s o r y o u n g b i r d s . P r o t e c t i v e m e a s u r e s sh a l l i n c l u d e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f c l e a r l y d e l i n e a t e d e x c l u s i o n z o n e s (i . e . , d e m a r c a t e d b y i d e n t i f i a b l e f e n c i n g , s u c h a s o r a n g e co n s t r u c t i o n f e n c i n g o r e q u i v a l e n t ) a r o u n d e a c h n e s t l o c a t i o n a s de t e r m i n e d b y a q u a l i f i e d b i o l o g i s t , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e s p e c i e s of b i r d s n e s t i n g , t h e i r t o l e r a n c e f o r d i s t u r b a n c e a n d p r o x i m i t y t o ex i s t i n g d e v e l o p m e n t . I n g e n e r a l , e x c l u s i o n z o n e s s h a l l b e a mi n i m u m o f 3 0 0 f e e t f o r r a p t o r s a n d 7 5 f e e t f o r p a s s e r i n e s a n d ot h e r b i r d s . T h e a c t i v e n e s t w i t h i n a n e x c l u s i o n z o n e s h a l l b e mo n i t o r e d o n a w e e k l y b a s i s t h r o u g h o u t t h e n e s t i n g s e a s o n t o id e n t i f y s i g n s o f d i s t u r b a n c e a n d c o n f i r m n e s t i n g s t a t u s . T h e r a d i u s of a n e x c l u s i o n z o n e m a y b e i n c r e a s e d b y t h e q u a l i f i e d b i o l o g i s t i f pr o j e c t a c t i v i t i e s a r e d e t e r m i n e d t o b e a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t i n g t h e ne s t i n g b i r d s . E x c l u s i o n z o n e s m a y b e r e d u c e d b y t h e q u a l i f i e d bi o l o g i s t o n l y i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f F i s h a n d Wi l d l i f e . T h e p r o t e c t i o n m e a s u r e s s h a l l r e m a i n i n e f f e c t u n t i l t h e yo u n g h a v e l e f t t h e n e s t a n d a r e f o r a g i n g i n d e p e n d e n t l y o r t h e n e s t is n o l o n g e r a c t i v e . CU L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e C U L T ‐1: I f a n y p r e h i s t o r i c o r h i s t o r i c s u b s u r f a c e cu l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s a r e d i s c o v e r e d d u r i n g g r o u n d ‐di s t u r b i n g a c t i v i t i e s , al l w o r k w i t h i n 5 0 f e e t o f t h e r e s o u r c e s s h a l l b e h a l t e d a n d a qu a l i f i e d a r c h a e o l o g i s t s h a l l b e c o n s u l t e d t o a s s e s s t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e f i n d a c c o r d i n g t o C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 1 5 0 6 4 . 5 . I f a n y f i n d is d e t e r m i n e d t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t , re p r e s e n t a t i v e s f r o m t h e C i t y a n d th e a r c h a e o l o g i s t w o u l d m e e t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e av o i d a n c e m e a s u r e s o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e m i t i g a t i o n . A l l s i g n i f i c a n t cu l t u r a l m a t e r i a l s r e c o v e r e d s h a l l b e , a s n e c e s s a r y a n d a t t h e di s c r e t i o n o f t h e c o n s u l t i n g a r c h a e o l o g i s t , s u b j e c t t o s c i e n t i f i c an a l y s i s , p r o f e s s i o n a l m u s e u m c u r a t i o n , a n d d o c u m e n t a t i o n ac c o r d i n g t o c u r r e n t p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a n d a r d s . I n c o n s i d e r i n g a n y su g g e s t e d m i t i g a t i o n p r o p o s e d b y t h e c o n s u l t i n g a r c h a e o l o g i s t t o Ap p l i c a n t D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n C o n s u l t i n g ar c h e o l o g i s t a n d Ci t y o f C u p e r t i n o Pu b l i c W o r k s De p a r t m e n t Pl a n R e v i e w a n d Ap p r o v a l As needed if resources are unearthed 64 1 TH E H A M P T O N S R E D E V E L O P M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y CITY OF CUPERTINO MI T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M PL A C E W O R K S 6-5 TAB L E 6‐1 M IT I G A T I O N MON I T O R I N G A N D REP O R T I N G PRO G R A M Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s Pa r t y R e s p o n s i b l e fo r I m p l e m e n t a t i o n Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ti m i n g Ag e n c y R e s p o n s i b l e fo r M o n i t o r i n g Mo n i t o r i n g Ac t i o n Monitoring Frequency mi t i g a t e i m p a c t s t o h i s t o r i c a l r e so u r c e s o r u n i q u e a r c h a e o l o g i c a l re s o u r c e s , t h e C i t y s h a l l d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a v o i d a n c e i s n e c e s s a r y an d f e a s i b l e i n l i g h t o f f a c t o r s s u c h a s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e f i n d , pr o p o s e d p r o j e c t d e s i g n , c o s t s , a n d o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . I f av o i d a n c e i s i n f e a s i b l e , o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e m e a s u r e s ( e . g . , d a t a re c o v e r y ) w o u l d b e i n s t i t u t e d . W o r k m a y p r o c e e d o n o t h e r p a r t s o f th e p r o j e c t s i t e w h i l e m i t i g a t i o n f o r h i s t o r i c a l r e s o u r c e s o r u n i q u e ar c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s i s b e i n g c a r r i e d o u t . Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e C U L T ‐2: I n t h e e v e n t t h a t f o s s i l s o r f o s s i l ‐be a r i n g de p o s i t s a r e d i s c o v e r e d d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , e x c a v a t i o n s w i t h i n 5 0 fe e t o f t h e f i n d s h a l l b e t e m p o r a r i l y h a l t e d o r d i v e r t e d . T h e co n t r a c t o r s h a l l n o t i f y a q u a l i f i e d p a l e o n t o l o g i s t t o e x a m i n e t h e di s c o v e r y . T h e p a l e o n t o l o g i s t s h a l l d o c u m e n t t h e d i s c o v e r y a s ne e d e d , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h S o c i e t y o f V e r t e b r a t e P a l e o n t o l o g y st a n d a r d s ( S o c i e t y o f V e r t e b r a t e P a l e o n t o l o g y 1 9 9 5 ) , e v a l u a t e t h e po t e n t i a l r e s o u r c e , a n d a s s e s s t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e f i n d i n g u n d e r th e c r i t e r i a s e t f o r t h i n C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 1 5 0 6 4 . 5 . T h e pa l e o n t o l o g i s t s h a l l n o t i f y t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a g e n c i e s t o d e t e r m i n e pr o c e d u r e s t h a t w o u l d b e f o l l o w e d b e f o r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s a l l o w e d t o re s u m e a t t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e f i n d . I f t h e p r o j e c t p r o p o n e n t de t e r m i n e s t h a t a v o i d a n c e i s n o t f e a s i b l e , t h e p a l e o n t o l o g i s t s h a l l pr e p a r e a n e x c a v a t i o n p l a n f o r m i t i g a t i n g t h e e f f e c t o f t h e p r o j e c t ba s e d o n t h e q u a l i t i e s t h a t m a k e t h e r e s o u r c e i m p o r t a n t . T h e ex c a v a t i o n p l a n s h a l l b e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e C i t y f o r r e v i e w a n d ap p r o v a l p r i o r t o i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . Ap p l i c a n t D u r i n g co n s t r u c t i o n Co n s u l t i n g pa l e o n t o l o g i s t a n d Ci t y o f C u p e r t i n o Pu b l i c W o r k s De p a r t m e n t Pl a n R e v i e w a n d Ap p r o v a l As needed if resources are unearthed Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e C U L T ‐3: I m p l e m e n t M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e C U L T ‐1. A p p l i c a n t D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n C o n s u l t i n g ar c h e o l o g i s t a n d Ci t y o f C u p e r t i n o Pu b l i c W o r k s De p a r t m e n t Pl a n R e v i e w a n d Ap p r o v a l As needed if resources are unearthed GE O L O G Y A N D S O I L S Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e G E O ‐1: T h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t s h a l l a d h e r e t o t h e se i s m i c d e s i g n c r i t e r i a f o r t h e m a x i m u m e s t i m a t e d g r o u n d s h a k i n g (i . e . , p e a k g r o u n d a c c e l e r a t i o n o f 0 . 5 8 g r a v i t y ( g ) a s r e c o m m e n d e d i n th e r e c e n t 2 0 1 5 g e o t e c h n i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t . Ap p l i c a n t D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n C i t y o f C u p e r t i n o Pu b l i c W o r k s De p a r t m e n t Pl a n R e v i e w a n d Ap p r o v a l During scheduled construction site inspections 64 2 TH E H A M P T O N S R E D E V E L O P M E N T P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y CI T Y O F C U P E R T I N O MI T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M 6- 6 APRIL 15, 2016 TAB L E 6‐1 M IT I G A T I O N MON I T O R I N G A N D REP O R T I N G PRO G R A M Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s Pa r t y R e s p o n s i b l e fo r I m p l e m e n t a t i o n Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ti m i n g Ag e n c y R e s p o n s i b l e fo r M o n i t o r i n g Mo n i t o r i n g Ac t i o n Monitoring Frequency Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e G E O ‐2: P r i o r t o i s s u i n g b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s , t h e C i t y sh a l l r e q u i r e t h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t t o c o n s u l t w i t h a c o r r o s i o n pr o t e c t i o n e n g i n e e r i n o r d e r t o d e v e l o p s p e c i f i c r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s re g a r d i n g c o r r o s i o n p r o t e c t i o n f o r b u r i e d m e t a l p i p e o r b u r i e d m e t a l pi p e ‐fi t t i n g s . T h e p r o j e c t a p p li c a n t s h a l l i m p l e m e n t t h e re c o m m e n d a t i o n s d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n t o b e v e r i f i e d b y t h e C i t y ’ s Bu i l d i n g D e p a r t m e n t . Ap p l i c a n t P r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n Du r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n Ci t y o f C u p e r t i n o Pu b l i c W o r k s De p a r t m e n t Pl a n R e v i e w a n d Ap p r o v a l During scheduled construction site inspections 64 3 PLACEWORKS 7-1 Organizations and Persons Consulted 7. This Initial Study was prepared by the following consultants and individuals: LEAD AGENCY CITY OF CUPERTINO Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director/Assistant City Manager Catarina Kidd, Senior Planner David Stillman, Senior Civil Engineer Albert Salvador, Building Official OTHER AGENCIES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE Christopher Wilson, Superintendent II CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT Richard K. Tanaka, District Manager‐Engineer REPORT PREPARERS LEAD EIR CONSULTANT PlaceWorks Steve Noack, AICP, Principal, Principal‐in‐Charge Terri McCracken, Senior Associate, Project Manager Cathy Fitzgerald, DEnv, PE, qsd/qsp, Senior Engineer Stephanie Chen, Planner, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Specialist Natalie Foley, Project Planner, Noise Specialist Stuart Michener, Senior Geologist Fernando Sotelo, Senior Planner, Transportation Engineer Claudia Garcia, Project Planner 644 THE HAMPTONS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 7-2 APRIL .15, 2016 Emilie Wolfson, Planner Yiu Kam, Associate Urban Designer/Associate Visualizations Manager Grant Reddy, Graphic Design Specialist TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants Franziska Church, AICP, PTP, Associate Henry Choi, Transportation Engineer 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 Attachment 5 – Project Plans Due to the large size of the plan sets, please Ctrl+Click to follow the links or copy the below listed links into your web browser for viewing: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2976 8425/5%20- %20Hamptons%20Project%20Plans.pdf or on the City’s website at : http://cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1306 Depending on your computer’s processing speed, the documents may take several minutes to load 687 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1691 Name: Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready File created:In control:5/3/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of the April 19, 2016 City Council decision to deny appeals of a Planning Commission decision to deny an appeal of a Director’s approval of a Two-Story Permit (R- 2015-08) to allow the construction of a new 5,140-square-foot single-family residence and a Minor Residential Permit (RM-2015-08) to allow a second story balcony on the new residence. (Application No. R-2015-08 and RM-2015-08; Applicant: WEC & Assoc. (Kingkay Capital, LLC); Petitioner(s): Jan Kucera Jr., and Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller; Location: 21900 Oakview Lane; APN: 326-19- 105). Council adopted Resolution No. 16-040, Denying the Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision per Planning Commission Resolution No. 6798 and 6799 (Paul abstaining) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Two-Story and Minor Residential Permits Action Letter C - Planning Commission Staff Report D - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes E - Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6798 and 6799 F - City Council Staff Report G - City Council Meeting Minutes H - City Council Action Letter and Resolution No. 16-040 I - Petition for Reconsideration Miller J - Petition for Reconsideration Kucera K - Plan Set L - Flowchart for Agenda Items Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:PetitionforReconsiderationoftheApril19,2016CityCouncildecisiontodeny appealsofaPlanningCommissiondecisiontodenyanappealofaDirector’sapprovalofa Two-StoryPermit(R-2015-08)toallowtheconstructionofanew5,140-square-footsingle- familyresidenceandaMinorResidentialPermit(RM-2015-08)toallowasecondstory balconyonthenewresidence.(ApplicationNo.R-2015-08andRM-2015-08;Applicant:WEC &Assoc.(KingkayCapital,LLC);Petitioner(s):JanKuceraJr.,andMatthewR.andAngela M.D.Miller;Location:21900OakviewLane;APN:326-19-105).CounciladoptedResolution No.16-040,DenyingtheAppealandupholdingthePlanningCommission'sdecisionper Planning Commission Resolution No. 6798 and 6799 (Paul abstaining) 1.AdoptResolutionNo.16-069denyingthepetition,whichdoesnotmeettherequirementsof CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™688 File #:16-1691,Version:1 1.AdoptResolutionNo.16-069denyingthepetition,whichdoesnotmeettherequirementsof Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Section 2.08.09 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™689 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 21, 2016 Subject Petitions for Reconsideration of the April 19, 2016 City Council decision to deny appeals of a Planning Commission decision to deny an appeal of a Director’s approval of a Two-Story Permit (R-2015-08) to allow the construction of a new 5,140-square-foot single-family residence and a Minor Residential Permit (RM-2015-08) to allow a second story balcony on the new residence. (Application No. R-2015- 08 and RM-2015-08; Applicant: WEC & Assoc. (Kingkay Capital, LLC); Petitioners: Jan Kucera Jr., and Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller; Location: 21900 Oakview Lane; APN: 326-19-105). Council adopted Resolution No. 16-040; Denying the Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision per Planning Commission Resolution No. 6798 and 6799 (Paul abstaining) Recommended Action 1. Adopt Resolution No. 16-XX (Attachment A) denying the petition, which does not meet the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Section 2.08.096. Discussion Background The following is a summary of the events that occurred regarding this project leading up to the reconsideration request: January 8, 2016 R-2015-08 and RM-2015-08 administratively approved (Attachment B). January 21, 2016 Administrative decision appealed by Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller, property owners of 21884 Oakview Lane. February 23, 2016 Planning Commission denies appeal and upholds administrative decision on a 5-0 vote to approve R-2015-08 and RM-2015-08 (Attachment C, D & E). February 24, 2016 Planning Commission decision appealed by Jan Kucera Jr., property owner of 21917 Oakview Lane. March 1, 2016 Planning Commission decision appealed by Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller, property owners of 21884 Oakview Lane. 690 April 19, 2016 City Council denies appeals and upholds decision on a 4-0 vote (Paul abstaining) to approve R-2015-08 and RM-2015-08 (Attachment F, G & H). April 29, 2016 Petitioned by Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller, property owners of 21884 Oakview Lane (Attachment I). May 2, 2016 Petitioned by Jan Kucera Jr., property owner of 21917 Oakview Lane (Attachment J). Basis for Reconsideration The City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code, Section 2.08.096, provides procedures for interested parties to petition the City Council to reconsider its decisions. A petition for reconsideration shall specify in detail each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction. 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Not preceding in a manner required by law; and/or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Reconsideration Petition The petitions for reconsideration submitted by Jan Kucera Jr., and Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller (Attachments I & J) consists of three pages each contesting the project approval and lists claims for reconsideration of the Council’s April 19th decision on the grounds of criteria #1-#5. Each of the grounds for the reconsideration as submitted by the petitioners and the City’s findings of fact and responses to each of the grounds are listed below. If the reconsideration is granted, the Council may conduct a hearing and reconsider its decision in light of the new evidence presented. Reconsideration of this item constitutes the third full hearing conducted by the City. 691 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. City finding: The petitioners have offered no new relevant evidence that could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. Petition Response A. The petitioners (Millers) state that they have new evidence that the house should not be built on this site. B. The petitioner (Kucera) states that advice from an attorney validated that his property is on a slope (more than 10 ft. drop across his property) and that the Planning Department never visited his property to see the natural slope drop- off. Therefore, he claims that the 28 ft. height limit (CMC Section 19.28.070 (J)) is clearly being violated in reference to his property at 21917 Oakview Lane. A. The petitioners did not provide any new relevant evidence in their petition for City review and failed to specify the particular ground(s) for reconsideration. B. Building height was discussed at both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings and is highlighted in both staff reports. Total building height is a vertical measurement of the highest point of exterior construction of the proposed building to the natural grade of the subject site, and not a measurement of the proposed building to the natural grade of any other property. Furthermore, the proposed building height is 25 feet 4 inches and therefore, within the maximum 28 feet total building height regulation for properties, such as this one, that are located within the R-1 Zone. 692 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. City finding: The petitioners have offered no relevant evidence that was improperly excluded at any prior City meeting, nor have the petitioners proven that any evidence was previously excluded by the City Council. Petition Response A. The petitioners (Millers) state that their computer malfunctioned and was not allowed to show evidence later in the meeting when the computer worked. B. The petitioner (Kucera) states that he ran out of time in his 10 minute presentation to show that the proposed building was violating the 28 ft. height limit with respect to his property. A. The petitioners did not provide the evidence they claim were improperly excluded at previous city hearings in this petition, nor have the petitioners proven that any evidence was previously excluded by the City Council. Additionally, although the media for conveying the Millers’ information may not be in proper order or in the form they envisioned, the petitioners were not prevented from presenting any evidence that they wished to convey to the Council in other forms. B. The petitioner did not provide relevant evidence that was excluded from any hearing as building height regulations were discussed at Planning Commission and City Council hearings and the project was found to be within the allowance as permitted by Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC 19.28.070 (J)). Furthermore, per the Flowchart for Agenda Items (Attachment L), included as part of the Planning Commission and City Council agenda cover sheets, applicants are permitted 10 minutes for their presentation; accordingly, the petitioner was given 10 minutes for his appellant statement, consistent with established time limits that apply to all appellants. 693 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction. City finding: The petitioners have not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council proceeded without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction. Petition Response A. The petitioners (Millers) state that City staff was researching online in real time during City Council meeting to advise City Council members regarding applicable solar ordinances, and has yet to show how they do or do not apply. B. The petitioner (Kucera) states that the facts show that the proposed house is not harmonious in scale and design with the neighborhood. He states that the original homes were 1,100 sq. ft. and 13 ft. high and that the proposed home is 5,140 sq. ft. and 25½ ft. high. He claims that this clearly violates the code and that a jury of peers will agree with these facts. A. The City Council responded to and requested information from the applicant, the petitioners, Planning staff, and the City Attorney prior to rendering their decision which is within their authority and jurisdiction. B. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council considered and discussed the findings for both the Two-Story and Minor Residential permit and acted upon the project accordingly and within their jurisdiction. 694 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. City finding: The petitioners have not provided any proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. Petition Response A. The petitioners (Millers) state that the City Council did not allow them to present all of their computer data that supported their appeal. B. The petitioner (Kucera) states that with the exception of Mr. Darcy Paul and Mr. Rod Sinks, the City Council ignored the fact that the developer maximized the proposed building size within one sq. ft. of the allowed square footage. A. The petitioners were given 10 minutes for their appellant statement, consistent with established time limits that apply to all appellants. Furthermore, the petitioners were invited to the podium to respond to questions and provide additional clarification on multiple occasions during the hearing. The petitioners do not provide facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. B. The petitioner acknowledges that the project is within the square footage allowance as set forth in the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC 19.28.070 (B)) and opinions regarding square footage of homes do not demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 695 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Not preceding in a manner required by law; and/or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. City finding: The petitioners have not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council abused its discretion by not preceding in a manner required by law, rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact, or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Petition Response A. The petitioners (Millers) state that City staff was not 100% sure that certain solar ordinances applied or did not apply, and all but one council member voted based on flawed advice. B. The petitioner (Kucera) states that the City Council is elected by the citizens of Cupertino to serve the Cupertino community and is not supposed to rubber stamp buildings by millionaire developers with no voting rights in the City of Cupertino. He states that sixteen citizens who vote, signed a petition that they “do not want” the proposed project in their neighborhood and that the Council is ignoring the concerns of these and favoring a non-voting developer. A. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law and rendered a decision supported by findings and facts including information from prepared written material and testimony as brought up at the hearing. As stated by staff at the public hearing, there is no solar-related ordinance or law that applies to this project. B. The City Council conducted the hearing in a manner required by law and rendered a decision based on the established regulations in the Cupertino Municipal Code and the findings and evidence brought forth in written material and testimony by staff and members of the public. Based on the above findings the petitioners do not provide relevant grounds/evidence for the reconsideration, staff recommends that the City Council deny the petitions for reconsideration and uphold the April 19, 2016 City Council decision. _________________ Prepared by: Ellen Yau, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Catarina Kidd, Senior Planner 696 Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A. City Council Resolution No. 16-XX B. Two-Story and Minor Residential Permits (R-2015-08 and RM-2015-08) Action Letter, 1/8/2016 C. Planning Commission Staff Report D. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 2/23/2016 E. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6798 and 6799 F. City Council Staff Report G. City Council Meeting Minutes of 4/19/2016 H. City Council Action Letter and Resolution No. 16-040 I. Petition for Reconsideration filed by Matthew R. Miller and Angela M.D. Miller received 4/29/2016 J. Petition for Reconsideration filed by Jan Kucera Jr. received 5/2/2016 K. Plan Set L. Flowchart for Agenda Items 697 RESOLUTION NO. XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITIONS OF JAN KUCERA JR., AND MATTHEW R. AND ANGELA M.D. MILLER SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION TO APPROVE A TWO-STORY PERMIT (R-2015-08) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 5,140- SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT (RM-2015-08) TO ALLOW A SECOND STORY BALCONY ON THE NEW RESIDENCE AT 21900 OAKVIEW LANE. WHEREAS, on April 19, 2016, the Cupertino City Council held a public hearing and at the conclusion of the hearing approved on a 4-0 vote (Paul abstaining) applications R-2015-08 and RM-2015-08 for a new 5,140-square-foot two-story residence and a new second story balcony on the residence located at 21900 Oakview Lane. WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council's decision was within its discretion and made at a properly noticed public meeting; WHEREAS, Jan Kucera Jr., and Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's municipal code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the June 21, 2016 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096. 2. The petitioners did not provide new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing (Municipal Code § 2.08.096 (B) (1)). 3. The petitioners did not provide relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing (Municipal Code § 2.08.096 (B) (2)). 4. The petitioners have failed to provide proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction (Municipal Code § 2.08.096 (B) (3)). ATTACHMENT A 698 5. The petitioners have failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing (Municipal Code § 2.08.096 (B) (4)). 6. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by not proceeding in a manner required by law; rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence (Municipal Code § 2.08.096 (B) (5)). 7. Specifically, the City Council determines that: a. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact attached as Exhibit A. b. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 8. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision of April 19, 2016 on item #16 is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 21st day of June 2016, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: ____________________ _______________________ City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 699 EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states: “A petition for reconsideration shall specify, in detail, each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration, precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence.” The petitions for reconsideration submitted by Jan Kucera Jr., and Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller (Attachments B & C) consists of three pages each contesting the project approval and lists claims for reconsideration of the Council’s April 19th decision on the grounds of criteria #1-#5. Each of the grounds for the reconsideration as submitted by the petitioners and the City’s findings of fact and responses to each of the grounds are listed below. If the reconsideration is granted, the Council may conduct a hearing and reconsider its decision in light of the new evidence presented. Reconsideration of this item constitutes the third full hearing conducted by the City. 700 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. City finding: The petitioners have offered no new relevant evidence that could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. Petition Response A. The petitioners (Millers) state that they have new evidence that the house should not be built on this site. B. The petitioner (Kucera) states that advice from an attorney validated that his property is on a slope (more than 10 ft. drop across his property) and that the Planning Department never visited his property to see the natural slope drop-off. Therefore, he claims that the 28 ft. height limit (CMC Section 19.28.070 (J)) is clearly being violated in reference to his property at 21917 Oakview Lane. A. The petitioners did not provide any new relevant evidence in their petition for City review and failed to specify the particular ground(s) for reconsideration. B. Building height was discussed at both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings and is highlighted in both staff reports. Total building height is a vertical measurement of the highest point of exterior construction of the proposed building to the natural grade of the subject site, and not a measurement of the proposed building to the natural grade of any other property. Furthermore, the proposed building height is 25 feet 4 inches and therefore, within the maximum 28 feet total building height regulation for properties, such as this one, that are located within the R-1 Zone. 701 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. City finding: The petitioners have offered no relevant evidence that was improperly excluded at any prior City meeting, nor have the petitioners proven that any evidence was previously excluded by the City Council. Petition Response A. The petitioners (Millers) state that their computer malfunctioned and was not allowed to show evidence later in the meeting when the computer worked. B. The petitioner (Kucera) states that he ran out of time in his 10 minute presentation to show that the proposed building was violating the 28 ft. height limit with respect to his property. A. The petitioners did not provide the evidence they claim were improperly excluded at previous city hearings in this petition, nor have the petitioners proven that any evidence was previously excluded by the City Council. Additionally, although the media for conveying the Millers’ information may not be in proper order or in the form they envisioned, the petitioners were not prevented from presenting any evidence that they wished to convey to the Council in other forms. B. The petitioner did not provide relevant evidence that was excluded from any hearing as building height regulations were discussed at Planning Commission and City Council hearings and the project was found to be within the allowance as permitted by Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC 19.28.070 (J)). Furthermore, per the Flowchart for Agenda Items (Attachment L), included as part of the Planning Commission and City Council agenda cover sheets, applicants are permitted 10 minutes for their presentation; accordingly, the petitioner was given 10 minutes for his appellant statement, consistent with established time limits that apply to all appellants. 702 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction. City finding: The petitioners have not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council proceeded without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction. Petition Response A. The petitioners (Millers) state that City staff was researching online in real time during City Council meeting to advise City Council members regarding applicable solar ordinances, and has yet to show how they do or do not apply. B. The petitioner (Kucera) states that the facts show that the proposed house is not harmonious in scale and design with the neighborhood. He states that the original homes were 1,100 sq. ft. and 13 ft. high and that the proposed home is 5,140 sq. ft. and 25½ ft. high. He claims that this clearly violates the code and that a jury of peers will agree with these facts. A. The City Council responded to and requested information from the applicant, the petitioners, Planning staff, and the City Attorney prior to rendering their decision which is within their authority and jurisdiction. B. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council considered and discussed the findings for both the Two-Story and Minor Residential permit and acted upon the project accordingly and within their jurisdiction. 703 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. City finding: The petitioners have not provided any proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. Petition Response A. The petitioners (Millers) state that the City Council did not allow them to present all of their computer data that supported their appeal. B. The petitioner (Kucera) states that with the exception of Mr. Darcy Paul and Mr. Rod Sinks, the City Council ignored the fact that the developer maximized the proposed building size within one sq. ft. of the allowed square footage. A. The petitioners were given 10 minutes for their appellant statement, consistent with established time limits that apply to all appellants. Furthermore, the petitioners were invited to the podium to respond to questions and provide additional clarification on multiple occasions during the hearing. The petitioners do not provide facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. B. The petitioner acknowledges that the project is within the square footage allowance as set forth in the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC 19.28.070 (B)) and opinions regarding square footage of homes do not demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 704 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Not preceding in a manner required by law; and/or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. City finding: The petitioners have not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council abused its discretion by not preceding in a manner required by law, rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact, or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Petition Response A. The petitioners (Millers) state that City staff was not 100% sure that certain solar ordinances applied or did not apply, and all but one council member voted based on flawed advice. B. The petitioner (Kucera) states that the City Council is elected by the citizens of Cupertino to serve the Cupertino community and is not supposed to rubber stamp buildings by millionaire developers with no voting rights in the City of Cupertino. He states that sixteen citizens who vote, signed a petition that they “do not want” the proposed project in their neighborhood and that the Council is ignoring the concerns of these and favoring a non-voting developer. A. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law and rendered a decision supported by findings and facts including information from prepared written material and testimony as brought up at the hearing. As stated by staff at the public hearing, there is no solar-related ordinance or law that applies to this project. B. The City Council conducted the hearing in a manner required by law and rendered a decision based on the established regulations in the Cupertino Municipal Code and the findings and evidence brought forth in written material and testimony by staff and members of the public. 705 706 707 708 709 710 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Consider an appeal of Two-Story Permit (R-2015-08) to allow the construction of a new 5,140-square-foot single-family residence and a Minor Residential Permit (RM-2015-08) to allow a second story balcony on the new residence. (Application No. R-2015-08 and RM- 2015-08; Applicant: WEC & Assoc. (Kingkay Capital, LLC)); Appellant: Matthew and Angela Miller; Location: 21900 Oakview Lane; APN: 326-19-105) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director’s decision to approve the project in accordance with the draft resolutions (see Attachment 1 and 2). PROJECT DATA: General Plan designation Low Density (1-5 DU/Ac.) Zoning designation R1-10 Environmental review Categorically Exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 Net lot area 11,425 square feet Project consistency with: General Plan Yes Zoning Yes Allowed Proposed Lot coverage 5,713 square feet (45% + 5% for eaves/roof overhangs and covered patios) 3,557 square feet (31.13%) FAR 5,141 square feet (45%) 5,140 square feet (44.98%) Height 28’ 25’ – 4” OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org 711 R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit Allowed Proposed Setbacks: First Floor Second Floor First Floor Second Floor Side Combined 15’ (no side less than 5’) Combined 25’ (no side less than 10’) 10’-9” (west) and 5’ (east) 15’-7” (west) and 20’-1” (east) Front 20’ 25’ 25’ 29’ – 5” Rear 20’ 25’ 32’ – 11” 36’ – 7” BACKGROUND: On March 20, 2015 the applicant, WEC & Assoc. (Kingkay Capital, LLC), applied for a Two-Story Permit to allow a new 5,140-square-foot single-family residence and a Minor Residential Permit to allow a second story balcony on the new residence located at 21900 Oakview Lane (see Attachment 3). The project property is located in the R1-10 zoning district that permits two-story homes with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 45%, up to 28 feet in height. The applicant is not proposing to have any outdoor sheds etc., which would increase the FAR beyond 45%. Additionally, the project is not subject to design review since the proposed second floor is less than 66% of the square footage of the first floor and provides at least 15-foot side yard setbacks on the second floor. The project is consistent with all aspects of the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Ordinance and other pertinent City ordinances. Prior to the public comment period for the project, three property owners within the cul- de-sac expressed concerns to staff about privacy impacts, reduced daylight exposure, possible existing ground contamination, increased noise impacts due to construction in the cul-de-sac, and overall project design and massing. With subsequent project submittals, aside from meeting the prescriptive development requirements as established in the Single-Family Residential Ordinance, the applicant incorporated architectural trims to the western wall to provide relief on the portion of the western elevation where the first and second floor walls are not offset. Additionally, during the comment period, the applicant separately met with the east and west property owners to discuss lingering concerns which resulted in the applicant:  Providing obscured and non-openable windows to the master bathroom and one of the second story bedrooms on the western elevation;  Agreeing to remove the eight Italian Cypress trees on the subject site and removing new privacy plantings proposed as requested by the eastern property owners; and  Offering monthly pool cleaning to the eastern property owners during construction. 712 R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit The project was approved by the Community Development Director on January 8, 2016 with an increase in the front yard setback due to the property owner’s decision to meet the recorded covenant against the properties within the original subdivision entitled “Declaration of Restrictions” section (b) which states that “No dwelling shall be erected on any building plot nearer than twenty-five (25) feet to the front property line.” The last day to appeal the project was January 22, 2016; Matthew and Angela Miller, the property owners to the east, appealed the approval of the Two Story Permit and Minor Residential Permit on January 21, 2016 (see Attachment 4). DISCUSSION: Basis of the Appeal The appellant's basis of appeal is summarized below. Where appropriate, staff's responses are in italics. 1. Oakview Lane is a culdesac with 13 houses, only one of which has a complete second story. That house was built years ago without the culdesac residents knowledge of its two story size until it was too late to appeal. One of the purposes of the R-1 Ordinance is to ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods. There are three other two-story homes on the street and several other newer and older two story homes in the general neighborhood. While the appellant indicates that a majority of the homes on this street are single-story structures, there are several two-story old and new homes in the residential neighborhood that this project is proposed in. This is a neighborhood in transition and most new homes proposed within the neighborhood are two-story. Prior to 2005, the R-1 Ordinance allowed the construction of two story homes with a second to first floor ratio of 35% or under to be built with a building permit and no noticing, comment period or a public hearing. The house in reference was constructed in 1999. 2. “This is not a Minor Residential Permit in the scale of this project or zoning ordinances since will affect in many aspects the four direct neighbors and others near by since the size of this construction it is not harmonious with the other houses near by on this street.” Per the R-1 Ordinance, applications for second story balconies which may have privacy impacts on neighbors’ side or rear yards are processed with a Minor Residential Permit as stipulated by Section 19.28.040 (Permits Required for Development) per the procedures outlined in Chapter 19.12, Administration. The proposed plans included a rear facing second floor balcony; therefore, a Minor Residential Permit was required and processed. 713 R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit 3. “The project can’t be granted since it will result in a condition that is detrimental to the the quality of the outdoor life of the owners of the houses around this new project and their insurance of privacy, sunlight in their back yards, swimming pool, solar panels, garden sun light, vegetable garden sunlight, a pollution view from the size of this construction plan.” One of the principal purposes of the R-1 Ordinance is to ensure provisions of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels. These are implemented through the setbacks, daylight plane and privacy planting requirements, and other prescriptive requirements incorporated within the R-1 Ordinance. The daylight plane established for the single story portion of the project ensures light and air at the single story level while increased setback requirements on the second level ensure that a reasonable level of sunlight and air is available for neighbors. In addition, all second story windows that are not exempt from privacy plantings are required to provide trees or shrubs in an area bounded by a thirty-degree angle measured from the edges on each side window jamb. The applicant proposes such plantings on all applicable windows, but pursuant to a request by the property owner to the east, eliminated the proposed privacy plantings on the eastern property line. The size of the home is based on the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In the case of property zoned R-1, the allowable FAR is 45% of the net lot area with no maximum house size limitations. This means that a larger lot could have a larger home developed on the site while a smaller lot would have a smaller home. The proposed FAR maximizes the amount of development on the property, but does not exceed the allowable FAR. 4. “The proposed project is not harmonious in scale on adjoining properties or the other neighbors in front of this project or the many houses in the cul-de-sac street.” See response #1 and #3 regarding the size and scale of the home. The proposed project conforms to the requirements of the R-1 Ordinance and does not seek any exceptions from it. 5. “The granting of the permit for this project will result in a condition that is detrimental and injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity because we won’t have sun on our swimming pool around 3:30 PM during summer time. We won’t be able in the future to stall solar voltaic on our house according to our plans because the shadow this project will create on our roof and backyard. Then neighbor on the other side will have no sun light on his side yard at least until 1:00 PM and look which will have an impact in his garden and property. He also will a have massive wall with windows against his property. This will be a visual impact on his side.” See response #3. 714 R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit 6. “Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties can’t be reasonably mitigated because the damages, I mention above, this new project will cause in the neighborhood. We want to clarify here the word neighborhood also means – ‘Quality or condition of being neighbors.’ The size of this project is not harmonious on this street.” The R-1 Ordinance requires mitigation of views from the proposed project in to side and rear yards of other existing residential properties. It does not require mitigation of the visual impacts of the proposed project from neighboring properties. In compliance with the R-1 Ordinance, the applicant will be required to plant a 24-inch box front yard tree to mitigate the second story mass from the street. The applicant has also complied with the R-1 Ordinance by proposing to plant all the required privacy planting to ensure that visual impacts in to the neighbor’s side and rear yards are mitigated. During the comment period, the appellant (eastern property owner at 21884 Oakview Lane) voiced their concerns to the applicant regarding the existing trees and the proposed privacy trees limiting sun exposure and the potential increase in yard maintenance. In response the applicant agreed to remove eight Italian Cypresses and the appellant agreed to waive any additional privacy protection measures that the applicant would have had to plant. 7. “Many inconsistencies have been found in this project because there was no study done by the owner or by the city for this project about the future consequences, which I mentioned before. The City Code mention. (sunlight, the damage in receiving the sun light on the pool of 21884 Oakview Lane and solar panels efficiency, the future lost of vegetable garden this neighbor have, the visual impact from neighbors both sides, back and in front of this project, not harmonious construction, the wrong design for this part of the neighborhood, privacy issues because windows and balcony from this project, the second floor height will impact our quality of life in using our swimming pool, backyard, etc.).” The R-1 Ordinance does not require the applicant to furnish studies on light impacts to adjacent properties or to existing thermal panels if all prescriptive regulations regarding the first-floor building envelope, overall building height, and first and second story setbacks are met. These prescriptive requirements are deemed adequate to address light, and privacy issues. See response #3. 8. “It will have a significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from all four adjoining properties and in front the neighbors’s house which can’t be mitigated to the maximum extent possible because the height of the second floor construction, windows and balcony taking out our privacy and other issues I already mention above.” See previous response #3 and #6 regarding visual and privacy impacts. In addition, the R-1 Ordinance allows a maximum height of 28 feet (no more than two stories) for principal 715 R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit dwellings on the site. The proposed building is 25 feet 4 inches in height and therefore, under the maximum allowed height in this zoning district. 9. “I already explain in the beginning this letter this project will injurious to the neighbors in different matters.” Refer to response #3 through #8. 10. “The exception to be granted is one that will require a modification in the design to a one story house.” Since the subject property is not located in a Single Family Residential District Restricted to One Story (indicated with the “i” suffix), a proposed project on the site cannot be required to be limited to a single story. The subject property’s zoning (R1-10) permits the applicant to construct up to a two-story home provided that all development regulations regarding two-story developments (floor area ratios, setbacks, second-to-first floor ratio, etc.) are met. 11. “The proposed design will result in significant impacts as viewed from four abutting properties and front neighbors. The size of the house, the privacy with the window s and balcony in the second floor, the intrusive design of the chimney in the side of the house will have an impact on our view and architectural in the neighbor backyard of 21884 Oakview Lane, the enormous wall on the side of the neighbor at 21917 Oakview Lane. The windows and balcony also with clear view of the sides and back neighbors. The neighbors don’t want trees to be plant because they will shade more their house, the roots will cause future problems on the fences, the leaves during winter in their backyards, swimming pool, gutters and roofs.” See response #3 regarding the size of the home. See response #3 and #6 regarding privacy and visual impacts. The proposed fireplace and chimney, adjacent to the eastern property line, encroaches less than one foot into the required five-foot side yard setback. Architectural features, such as fireplaces, cornices and eaves, are permitted to encroach up to three (3) feet into a required yard setback and are exempt from daylight plane restrictions per the R-1 Ordinance. The applicant addressed staff concerns about unarticulated walls (in particular the wall facing 21917 Oakview Lane) by adding architectural trims to denote the separation of first and second floors. 12. “This project violates all the Municipal Code 19.28.140 (A), (B), (C), (D), which we have been seen over and approved by the planning commission is this neighborhood. This project must be modify to a one store house. This project is not harmonious with this part of the street. We are sure, anyone that visits the site will see that.” 716 R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit The project meets the findings listed in Sections 19.28.140 (A) and (B). However, Sections 19.28.140 (C) and (D) do not apply to the proposed project. The requested permits were approved at an administrative level in compliance with the requirements of the Municipal Code. See response #2 regarding the size and scale of the home. 13. “People who have lived here for decades have been discuss with the action of the city plan commission in transforming this city in a polluted vision of construction, traffic, more air pollution, less water and loose the quality of life. The planning commission continue ignore complaints and our inputs from the tax payers. We need to pay a high cost city appeal when this is our rights to have it without no cost. In many of the cases we have been seen the abuse of the power from planning commission and the city council to approve this high density constructions.” The proposed project is an allowed use within the zoning district that it is proposed in and meets all the prescriptive requirements outlined in the R-1 Ordinance as adopted by the City Council. The City Council set the appeal fee at $182, much below the actual costs of processing and taking an application through the appeal process, recognizing that appellants should not be priced out of appealing a project, and that this would only cover a small portion of administrative, staff, and processing time associated with appeals. 14. “This land for this project is big enough to built a one store house for a family of six people.” See response #10. 15. “The owner from this new project have many cypress pine trees in his property. These kind of trees attract rats, garden snakes, damage the paint of our cars, fill the gutters from our houses with pines, damage our plants, the yellow powder came from the trees cause a lot allergies to the neighbors during spring time, dust in our houses. These trees must be cut in both sides of this property as soon as possible before construction start. These trees are detrimental for the neighbors. These cypruss trees hidden the real impact of this construction in adjoining properties and already make shade in our solar panels.” See response #3 regarding privacy protection trees. Although the appellant stresses that these trees be cut on both sides of the property, the western property owner (21917 Oakview Lane) has stated his concerns regarding privacy, therefore no trees are proposed to be removed along the western property line. 16. “We need to know the time of duration for this construction will be in any case of the projects be approved or modify because in three occasions in this street we have 717 R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit neighbors built or remodel their houses and took more time than the normal period necessary for it. A lot problems of dust, noise, traffic of big trucks, construction people which we don’t know looking over our house, damage our front yard and healthy issues because the dust. What kind the fence will be add around construction and hight to protect us from all these factors. The neighbors would have a communication when the house will be demolish and how long will take it.” The timeline of construction will be determined by the applicant, but construction will need to be initiated prior to the expiration dates of the two planning permits. The applicant has one year from the date of final decision on the project (i.e., from the date of decision on all appeals) to apply for building permits. Once a building permit is issued, the applicant must have inspections every 180 days in order to ensure that the building permit does not expire. The Building Department requires a temporary construction fence at least five feet in height at the front of the property. The building permit will also be subject to all Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for construction to minimize dust, runoff, and other construction impacts. 17. “We need to know all measurements the owner this project will take to protect, clean, avoid the dust in the swimming pool, solar panel at the neighbor’s house of 21884 Oakview Lane and other neighbors.” See response #16 regarding Best Management Practices. In addition, the applicant has offered to provide monthly pool cleaning to the appellant (eastern property owner at 21884 Oakview Lane), which was acceptable to them prior to appealing the project. 18. “Our neighbor Jan Kucera was inform this project was going to have the decision from the planning commission on February/2016. He has the intent to have a CAD design to show better the impact this project. Mr. Jan Kusera was surprise when we send an e- mail to him with the short time to appeal. He is traveling and the planning department new about it. This action from the planning commission it is not fair because he don’t have the chance to appeal the way he was planning to do it. The city action is not fair with the ones already have been express their opinion against this project and deny time for appeal which can be discuss in court because wrong informations. We feel it is not time the year this project can be approved or not since many of the neighbors which call the city didn’t received the letter of the appeal rights. ” Staff met with Mr. Jan Kucera and spoke with him on the phone on several occasions to clarify and provide supplemental information. In addition, the comment period letter dated December 8, 2015 and the notice of decision letter dated January 8, 2016 were mailed to him. Staff has been available during both the comment and appeal periods to receive comments and provide assistance. Aside from the comments received prior to the comment period by concerned adjacent neighbors, staff received two additional letters from Mr. Kucera (the western property 718 R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit owner) during the comment period. No other communication was received from any other concerned parties. 19. “We want to make clear we are not against some two floor constructions but this must happen when have harmony of size of project with side, front neighbors and street house constructions, the law is respected, privacy between neighbors, don’t damage the quality of outdoor life or healthy.” Please see previous responses #1, #3, #4, #6 and #10. 20. “The sign for this project is very far from the street and very clear. The neighbors feel uncomfortable to go and see the project plan because is too much inside the property and have renters is this property. The desin from this project must be more in front the house and the period for analyses from the neighbors be extended.” The original sign was located in a bare planting area adjacent to a paved walkway deemed appropriate by staff for the notice board notifying the public of the comment period. The comment period noticing letter included a site plan and elevation drawings of the proposed project in compliance with the requirements of the Municipal Code. In addition, the letter also indicated that a full set of plans of the proposed project would be available for review upon request, also in conformance with the requirements of the Municipal Code. 21. “We also want some studies to be done by the owner or by the city from the soil erosion and contamination from this property, since the septic tank has been liking for many years and the suspicious previous owner this property has dump some kind of products not identify in the soil and had a not permit construction in the side the house where he uses to stuck many chemical products.” The applicant will remove the existing septic tank and connect to existing sewer systems. The removal of septic tanks is under the authority of the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department which will review the proposed removal for compliance with their requirements. As with any building permit, the applicant will be required to provide documentation of having received these permits to Cupertino’s Building Division prior to permit issuance. 22. “We also want alert the city and the new owner this new project in the pass this land was an old indian cemetery. Many years ago when the house at 21901 Oakview Lane (in front of this new project) was remodel the construction was stopped for many days because was found indian bones in this site. The indian tribe needs to give permission for these bones be removed from that site. Delay the remodel for many days.” Building records do not indicate stopped work due to Native American remains found on site for any remodel projects at 21901 Oakview Lane. 719 R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit As a matter of course, should Native American remains be found, the City has to be notified and there are special procedures for handling any remains or burial sites found. These are implemented through the Building Department during the construction period. 23. “It is not fair we spent $182.00 to appeal this decision when we had a miss information from the planning department about the way this is done. The date this project was going to be decided, the appeal process be charged never was explain ton us. We didn’t even knew until we received a e-mail from the assistant from this project our concerns will be not consider before the appeal since the planning commission didn’t see the plan before appeal.” See response #13. The appeal process and requirements are codified in the Municipal Code. Aside from staff voluntarily notifying the concerned neighbors and appellant with the status of the project prior to a decision on the project, the comment period letter dated December 8, 2015 states that the project would receive “approval by the Director of Community Development” and that “any interested party may appeal the decision of the Director within fourteen (14) days of the mailing of the notice of decision.” The notice of the decision letter dated January 6, 2016 was also sent to all persons who commented on the project as required by the Municipal Code and the same language was reiterated. 24. “In this time of water short supply we don’t need big constructions where will spend more water in trees, gardens which don’t produce anything and more space to clean with water.” The City has established restrictions on water usage around the city in Chapter 15.32 and landscaping water usage in Chapter 14.15 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. In addition, the California Building Code has codified requirements about the types of fixtures and other such requirements to limit the amount of water used within the project. The applicant will be required to comply with all current California Building Code requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. 720 R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project: Notice of Public Hearing, Site Signage & Legal Ad Agenda  9 public hearing notices mailed to property owners adjacent to the project site (19 days prior to hearing)  Legal ad placed in newspaper (at least 10 days prior to hearing)  Site Signage (City-provided appeal signage placed on site 12 days prior to hearing)  Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board (one week prior to hearing)  Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site (one week prior to hearing) PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT The appeal is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 – 65964). The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act. Project Received: March 20, 2015; Deemed Incomplete: April 16, 2015 Project Resubmittal: July 1, 2015; Deemed Incomplete: July 23, 2015 Project Resubmittal: September 20, 2015; Deemed Incomplete: September 21, 2015 Project Resubmittal: October 26, 2015; Deemed Complete: October 30, 2015 NEXT STEPS AND CONCLUSION The Planning Commission’s decision on this project is final unless appealed within 14 days of the decision. If appealed, the City Council will hear the final appeal on this project. Since the proposed project complies with all aspects of the R-1 Ordinance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director's decision to approve the Two-Story and Minor Residential Permits. Prepared by: Ellen Yau, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: /s/Piu Ghosh /s/Aarti Shrivastava Piu Ghosh Aarti Shrivastava Principal Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Draft Resolution for R-2015-08 2 – Draft Resolution for RM-2015-08 3 – Plan Set 721 R-2015-08 & Appeal of a Two-Story Permit and February 23, 2016 RM-2015-08 a Minor Residential Permit 4 – Two-Story and Minor Residential Permits (R-2015-08 and RM-2015-08) action letter dated January 8, 2016 5 – Appellant’s letter and images 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 R-2015-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6798 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT’S DECISION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 5,140 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 21900 OAKVIEW LANE SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: R-2015-08 Applicant: WEC & Assoc. (Kingkay Capital, LLC) Appellant: Matthew and Angela Miller, 21884 Oakview Lane Location: 21900 Oakview Lane. (APN 326-19-105) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A TWO STORY PERMIT: WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for a Two-Story Permit as described in Section I of this Resolution; WHEREAS, the necessary notices were given and the comment period for the application was provided as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino; WHEREAS, the City was able to make the findings required under Section 19.28.140 (B) and the application was approved with conditions on January 8, 2016; and WHEREAS, the notice of decision was mailed to the appropriate parties, including the applicant and any person who contacted City staff with comments during the comment period, notifying them about the possibility of appealing a project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal for the Community Development Director’s approval of the Two-Story Permit; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the appeal; and 733 Resolution No. 6798 R-2015-08 February 23, 2016 WHEREAS, the appellant has not met the burden of proof required to support said appeal; and WHEREAS, the project is determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: a) The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. The project is consistent with the regulations and intent of the Cupertino General Plan and Single-Family Residential (R-1) Ordinance. The project complies with all established and required setbacks, floor area ratio limitations, privacy protection planting requirements and other Municipal Code requirements. In addition, the proposed development meets all prescriptive development requirements of the Parking, Landscape, and Fence ordinances; and the two-story non-discretionary permit procedural requirements in the R-1 ordinance. b) The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as the projects is located within the R1-10 (Single Family Residential) zoning district, and will be compatible with the surrounding uses of the neighborhood. The purpose of the R-1 ordinance is to provide light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels, ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within the neighborhood and reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community through setbacks, daylight plane and privacy planting requirements, and other prescriptive requirements incorporated within the R-1 Ordinance. The neighborhood is in transition and there is a healthy mix of single-story and two-story homes in the general area making the proposed project compatible with the neighborhood. c) The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. The proposed project is located in a residential area consisting of single-family homes with a mix of single-story and two-story homes. There are three other two-story homes on the street and several other newer and older two-story homes in the general neighborhood. Overall, the proposed project maintains the single-family home scale found compatible with the general neighborhood. 734 Resolution No. 6798 R-2015-08 February 23, 2016 d) Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. Any potential adverse impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated through the privacy protection plantings and installation of a front-yard tree as required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof, the appeal of an application for a Two-Story Permit, Application no. R-2015-08 is hereby denied and the Director of Community Development’s approval of the Two-Story Permit is upheld; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. R-2015-08 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of February 23, 2016, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROJECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, “New Residence 21900 Oakview Lane, Cupertino CA” consisting of eleven sheets labeled “A.1 to A.10 and a topographic survey”, dated “Received January 6, 2016” except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the building plans. 3. ACCURACY OF THE PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 4. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file no. RM-2015-08 shall be applicable to this approval. 735 Resolution No. 6798 R-2015-08 February 23, 2016 5. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC WORKS CONFIRMATION FORM The project shall comply with the requirements indicated on the Public Works Confirmation form, including, but not limited to, dedications, easements, off-site improvements, undergrounding of utilities, all necessary agreements, and utility installations/relocations as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works and required for public health and safety. The Public Works Confirmation is a preliminary review, and is not an exhaustive review of the subject development. Additional requirements may be established and implemented during the construction permitting process. The project construction plans shall address these requirements with the construction permit submittal, and all required improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to final occupancy. 6. GEOTECHNICAL PLAN REVIEW The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test, and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans to ensure that their recommendations have been incorporated. The Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the City for review by the City staff prior to issuance of permits. 7. GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The following shall specifically be performed: The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect all foundation excavations to ensure that the subsurface conditions are as anticipated, and that footings are embedded sufficiently into competent earth materials. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final project approval. 8. PRIVACY PLANTING The neighbors on the east side stated they will waive the privacy tree requirement in order to gain sun exposure to their property, therefore those privacy plantings are not indicated on the plans. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit the waiver and the final privacy-planting plan (of all required privacy planting) for review and approval from the Planning Division. The variety, size, and planting distance shall be consistent with the City’s requirements. Should a waiver not be obtained, the 736 Resolution No. 6798 R-2015-08 February 23, 2016 applicant shall plant all required privacy planting in compliance with the R-1 Ordinance. 9. PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance, for all windows with views into neighboring yards and a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 10. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL: The applicant shall submit a full landscape project submittal, per sections 490.1, 492.1, and 492.3 of the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, for projects with landscape area more than 500 square feet; the applicant shall submit either a full landscape project submittal or submit the Prescriptive Compliance Checklist per Appendix D of the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for projects with landscape area more than 500 square feet and less than 2,500 square feet. The Landscape Documentation Package or Prescriptive Compliance Checklist shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 11. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 12. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material, architectural treatments and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a minor modification approval with neighborhood input. 13. INDEMNIFICATION Except as otherwise prohibited by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees and agents (collectively, the 737 Resolution No. 6798 R-2015-08 February 23, 2016 “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The applicant shall pay such attorneys’ fees and costs within 30 days following receipt of invoices from City. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. 14. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of February, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Takahashi, Vice Chair Gong, Sun, Paulsen, Lee NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Piu Ghosh ________ /s/Alan Takahashi________ Piu Ghosh Alan Takahashi Principal Planner Chair, Planning Commission 738 RM-2015-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6799 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT’S DECISION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND- STORY BALCONY ON THE NEW RESIDENCE AT 21900 OAKVIEW LANE SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: RM-2015-08 Applicant: WEC & Assoc. (Kingkay Capital, LLC) Appellant: Matthew and Angela Miller, 21884 Oakview Lane Location: 21900 Oakview Lane. (APN 326-19-105) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT: WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for a Minor Residential Permit as described in Section I of this Resolution; WHEREAS, the necessary notices were given and the comment period for the application was provided as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino; WHEREAS, the City was able to make the findings required under Section 19.28.140 (A) and the application was approved with conditions on January 8, 2016; and WHEREAS, the notice of decision was mailed to the appropriate parties, including the applicant and any person who contacted City staff with comments during the comment period, notifying them about the possibility of appealing a project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal for the Community Development Director’s approval of the Minor Residential Permit; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the appeal; and 739 Resolution No. 6799 RM-2015-08 February 23, 2016 WHEREAS, the appellant has not met the burden of proof required to support said appeal; and WHEREAS, the project is determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: a) The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. The project is consistent with the regulations and intent of the Cupertino General Plan and Single-Family Residential (R-1) Ordinance. The project complies with all established and required setbacks, privacy protection planting requirements and other Municipal Code requirements. In addition, the second story balcony and privacy protection requirements of the R-1 Ordinance are met. b) The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as the projects is located within the R1-10 (Single Family Residential) zoning district, and will be compatible with the surrounding uses of the neighborhood. The purpose of the R-1 ordinance is to provide light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels, ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within the neighborhood and reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community through prescriptive requirements incorporated in the R-1 ordinance. The neighborhood is in transition and there is a healthy mix of single story and two story homes in the general area making the proposed project compatible with the neighborhood. c) The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. The proposed project is located in a residential area consisting of single-family homes with a mix of single-story and two-story homes. The proposed project maintains the single-family home scale found compatible with the general neighborhood. 740 Resolution No. 6799 RM-2015-08 February 23, 2016 d) Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. Any potential adverse impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated through the privacy protection plantings required to reasonably obscure the viewsheds of the second story balcony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof, the appeal of an application for a Minor Residential Permit, Application no. RM-2015-08 is hereby denied and the Director of Community Development’s approval of the Minor Residential Permit is upheld; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. RM-2015-08 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of February 23, 2016, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROJECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, “New Residence 21900 Oakview Lane, Cupertino CA” consisting of eleven sheets labeled “A.1 to A.10 and a topographic survey”, dated “Received January 6, 2016” except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the building plans. 3. ACCURACY OF THE PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 4. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file no. R-2015-08 shall be applicable to this approval. 741 Resolution No. 6799 RM-2015-08 February 23, 2016 5. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC WORKS CONFIRMATION FORM The project shall comply with the requirements indicated on the Public Works Confirmation form, including, but not limited to, dedications, easements, off-site improvements, undergrounding of utilities, all necessary agreements, and utility installations/relocations as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works and required for public health and safety. The Public Works Confirmation is a preliminary review, and is not an exhaustive review of the subject development. Additional requirements may be established and implemented during the construction permitting process. The project construction plans shall address these requirements with the construction permit submittal, and all required improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to final occupancy. 6. GEOTECHNICAL PLAN REVIEW The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test, and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans to ensure that their recommendations have been incorporated. The Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the City for review by the City staff prior to issuance of permits. 7. GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The following shall specifically be performed: The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect all foundation excavations to ensure that the subsurface conditions are as anticipated, and that footings are embedded sufficiently into competent earth materials. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final project approval. 8. PRIVACY PLANTING The neighbors on the east side stated they will waive the privacy tree requirement in order to gain sun exposure to their property, therefore those privacy plantings are not indicated on the plans. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit the waiver and the final privacy-planting plan (of all required privacy planting) for review and approval from the Planning Division. The variety, size, and planting distance shall be consistent with the City’s requirements. Should a waiver not be obtained, the 742 Resolution No. 6799 RM-2015-08 February 23, 2016 applicant shall plant all required privacy planting in compliance with the R-1 Ordinance. 9. PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance, for all windows with views into neighboring yards and a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 10. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL: The applicant shall submit a full landscape project submittal, per sections 490.1, 492.1, and 492.3 of the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, for projects with landscape area more than 500 square feet; the applicant shall submit either a full landscape project submittal or submit the Prescriptive Compliance Checklist per Appendix D of the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for projects with landscape area more than 500 square feet and less than 2,500 square feet. The Landscape Documentation Package or Prescriptive Compliance Checklist shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 11. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 12. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material, architectural treatments and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a minor modification approval with neighborhood input. 743 Resolution No. 6799 RM-2015-08 February 23, 2016 13. INDEMNIFICATION Except as otherwise prohibited by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The applicant shall pay such attorneys’ fees and costs within 30 days following receipt of invoices from City. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. 14. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of February, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Takahashi, Vice Chair Gong, Sun, Paulsen, Lee NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Piu Ghosh ________ /s/Alan Takahashi________ Piu Ghosh Alan Takahashi Principal Planner Chair, Planning Commission 744 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: April 19, 2016 Subject Appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny an appeal of a Director’s approval of a Two-Story Permit (R-2015-08) to allow the construction of a new 5,140-square-foot single- family residence and a Minor Residential Permit (RM-2015-08) to allow a second story balcony on the new residence. (Application No. R-2015-08 and RM-2015-08; Applicant: WEC & Assoc. (Kingkay Capital, LLC); Appellant: Jan Kucera Jr., and Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller; Location: 21900 Oakview Lane; APN: 326-19-105) Recommended Action Adopt draft resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision (see Attachment A). Discussion Background On March 20, 2015 the applicant, WEC & Assoc. (Kingkay Capital, LLC), applied for a Two-Story Permit to construct a new 5,140-square-foot single-family residence and a Minor Residential Permit to construct a second story balcony on the new residence located at 21900 Oakview Lane (see Attachment B). The subject property is located in the R1-10 zoning district that permits two-story homes with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 45% and up to 28 feet in height. The applicant is not proposing to have any outdoor sheds etc., which would increase the FAR beyond 45%. The project is not subject to design review since the proposed second floor is less than 66% of the square footage of the first floor and provides at least 15-foot side yard setbacks on the second floor. Prior to the public comment period, the appellants and other property owners expressed their concerns regarding reduced daylight exposure, privacy impacts, potential existing ground contamination, noise impacts due to construction, and overall project design and massing to staff. Since staff and the applicant were made aware of these concerns prior to the completion of the application packet, the applicant adjusted the design through minor 745 architectural changes and proposed adequate mitigation plantings as required by the R-1 Ordinance in subsequent project submittals. Additionally, during the two-week public comment period, the applicant separately met with the east and west property owners to discuss lingering concerns that were raised and modified window treatments, privacy mitigation planting plan, and offered monthly pool cleaning to the eastern property owners during construction. The proposal meets the prescriptive requirements of the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Ordinance and other applicable City ordinances and was approved by the Community Development Director on January 8, 2016. The decision was appealed by Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller (eastern property owner at 21884 Oakview Lane) on January 21, 2016 and brought to the February 23, 2016 Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission was tasked to look at whether the proposed project met the criteria set forth in the Municipal Code and determined that there were no findings to grant the appeal (see Attachment H – Planning Commission staff report provides the discussion related to the appeal). Therefore, the Planning Commission upheld the Director’s approval and denied the appeal. The Planning Commission’s decision was subsequently appealed by Jan Kucera Jr. (western property owner at 21917 Oakview Lane) on February 24, 2016 and by Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller on March 1, 2016 (see Attachment C and D). Basis of Appeal The appellants’ basis of appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision is summarized below and categorized into the following topics. Where appropriate, staff's responses are in italics. Appellant Jan Kucera Jr.’s basis of appeal is on the “false findings of the Planning Department regarding privacy, windows, setbacks and detriments to my lifestyle” and that the project is “far from harmonious with anything we as neighbors call home.” Appellants Matthew R. and Angela M.D. Miller states that the Planning Commission “did not solve our privacy issues or solar shading issues on our swimming pool or our roof”; they “believe that this two story construction is not harmonious” is a “detrimental to our existing properties,” and want to see “only single story new construction on the cul-de-sac.” 1. Privacy impacts The intent of the R-1 Ordinance landscape requirements for two-story single-family construction is to provide a reasonable level of privacy to residential lots through tree and shrub plantings for all second story windows and balconies. Such privacy planting requirements do not apply to windows that measure more than five feet from finished floor to window sill, are obscured and inoperable, etc. The applicant has complied with the R-1 Ordinance by proposing to plant all the required privacy planting to ensure that visual impacts into the neighbors’ side 746 and rear yards are mitigated. During the comment period, the appellant (eastern property owner at 21884 Oakview Lane) voiced their concerns to the applicant regarding the existing trees and the proposed privacy trees limiting sun exposure and the potential increase in yard maintenance. In response, the applicant agreed to remove eight Italian Cypresses and the appellant agreed to waive any additional privacy protection measures that the applicant would have had to plant. Additionally, the applicant modified the western elevation by providing obscured and non- operable windows to the master bathroom and one of the second story bedrooms to address the privacy concerns of the other appellant (western property owner at 21917 Oakview Lane). 2. Windows The appellant (western property owner at 21917 Oakview Lane) states that false findings were made regarding windows. However, there are no findings in the R-1 Ordinance associated with second story windows. Although the R-1 Ordinance does not limit the number of windows on a project, it does address concerns about privacy impacts that may result from unlimited glazing. The R-1 Ordinance requires all second story windows that are not exempt from privacy plantings (listed in response #1) provide trees or shrubs in an area bounded by a thirty-degree angle measured from the side edge on each window jamb. The applicant proposes mitigation plantings on all applicable windows subject to the plantings. 3. Setbacks The property is located in the R-10 zoning district and is proposed to meet the required setbacks regulations as depicted in the chart below. Additionally, since the project proposed at least 15’ second floor side yard setbacks, the project is not subject to the Design Review process. First floor outline 30°  Privacy Planting Tree Width of second story window Second story outline 747 Required Proposed Setbacks: First Floor Second Floor First Floor Second Floor Side Combined 15’ (no side less than 5’) Combined 25’ (no side less than 10’) 10’-9” (west) and 5’ (east) 15’-7” (west) and 20’-1” (east) Front 20’ 25’ 25’ 29’ – 5” Rear 20’ 25’ 32’ – 11” 36’ – 7” 4. Detriments to lifestyle and existing properties and effect on quality of life The project is located within the R1-10 Single Family residential zoning district, reinforces the predominately low-intensity use settings, and deemed compatible with the residential uses in the surrounding residential neighborhood. The project is determined to be consistent with the regulations in the R-1 Ordinance, therefore not detrimental or injurious to property. 5. Solar shading on pool and roof In order to preserve and enhance residential lots, one of the guiding purposes of the R-1 Ordinance is to ensure provisions of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels. These purposes are addressed through the prescriptive requirements within the R-1 Ordinance for building setbacks and daylight plane. The daylight plane established for the single story portion of the project ensures light and air at the single story level while increased setback requirements on the second level ensure that a reasonable level of sunlight and air is available for neighbors. The proposed project meets and exceeds setbacks and the first floor portion of the two-story structure is within the daylight plane as required by the R-1 Ordinance. 6. Not harmonious at end of cul-de-sac One of the purposes of the R-1 Ordinance is to ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods. Although the adjacent properties are single-story homes, there are three other two-story homes on the street and several other newer and older two- story homes in the general neighborhood. This is a neighborhood in transition and most new homes proposed within the neighborhood are two-story. The size of the home is based on the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In the case of a property zoned R-1, the allowable FAR is 45% of the net lot area with no maximum house size limitations. This means that a larger lot could have a larger home developed on the site while a smaller lot would have a smaller home. The proposed FAR maximizes the development potential on the property, but does not exceed the allowable FAR. 7. Residents in cul-de-sac only want to see single story construction. Since the subject property is not located in a Single Family Residential District Restricted to One Story (indicated with the “i” suffix), a proposed project on the site cannot be required to be limited to a single story. The subject property’s zoning (R1-10) permits the applicant to 748 construct up to a two-story home provided that all development regulations regarding two-story developments (floor area ratios, setbacks, second-to-first floor ratio, etc.) are met. In addition, the R-1 Ordinance allows a maximum height of 28 feet (no more than two stories) for principal dwellings on the site. The proposed building is 25 feet 4 inches in height and therefore, under the maximum allowed height in this zoning district. The residents have been advised of the option and process of designating their neighborhood to a Single Family Residential District Restricted to One Story. While this would not apply to the current project, future projects could be limited to a single story if the neighborhood receives a One Story designation. Noticing and Public Outreach The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this appeal: Notice of Public Hearing, Site Signage & Legal Ad Agenda  13 public hearing notices mailed to interested parties and property owners adjacent to the project site (at least 14 days prior to hearing)  Newspaper posting (at least 10 days prior to hearing)  Site Signage (City-provided appeal signage placed on site at least 14 days prior to hearing)  Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board (one week prior to hearing)  Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site (one week prior to hearing) Staff received an e-mail from the appellant (Angela M.D. Miller) and an e-mail from a Cupertino resident regarding the Planning Commission meeting. This property owner did not provide an address but was e-mailed a Notice of Public Hearing for this City Council meeting (Attachment E). CEQA The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. Sustainability Impact None. Fiscal Impact None. _________________ Prepared by: Ellen Yau, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager 749 Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A. Draft Resolution B. Plan Set C. Appeal Filed by Jan Kucera Jr. D. Appeal Filed by Matthew R. Miller and Angela M.D. Miller E. Comment Letters F. Resolution No. 6798 G. Resolution No. 6799 H. Planning Commission Staff Report, 2/23/2016 I. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, 2/23/2016 J. Original Appeal of Director’s Decision filed by Matthew R. Miller and Angela M.D. Miller K. Two-Story and Minor Residential Permits (R-2015-08 and RM-2015-08) action letter, 1/8/2016 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 CONDUCT OF BUSINESS The Mayor is the presiding officer of the City Council. Any member of the public may speak on any item on the agenda for up to three minutes. All statements and questions must be addressed to the Mayor. City Council hearings serve as a venue for the discussion of sometimes divergent points of view. Please respect the opinions of others and refrain from outward expressions of emotions such as cheering or clapping. Such behavior delays the meeting and may intimidate other persons wishing to express alternate views. Loud, unruly outbursts will result in removal from the meeting. The proceedings of the meeting are recorded on audiotape and videotape; therefore, members of the audience who address the City Council must come to the lectern/microphone, and are requested to complete a Speaker Card and identify themselves. FLOWCHART FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Mayor introduces agenda item Council members report any site visits or outside communications Staff reports and makes recommendation Applicant or appellant makes presentation (up to 10 mins.) Speakers submit a Request to Speak card, and are allowed up to 3 minutes per individual. Council members may ask questions of speakers. Mayor invites members of the public to speak about the agenda item Council members ask questions City Council votes on the agenda item A Council member makes a motion and obtains a second. The City Council then discusses the motion(s) and votes. Mayor closes the hearing Council members ask questions PUBLIC HEARINGS The City Council is required by law to hold public hearings on certain matters prior to making its decision. Notice to interested parties is given by legal advertisement in the local newspaper of general circulation at least 10 calendar days preceding the hearing date. Applications requiring public hearings include change of zoning, variances, use permits, and tentative maps. COUNCIL MEETINGS The City Council regularly meets the first and third Tuesdays of each month. These meetings are held in the Council Chambers of the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, at 6:45 p.m. Closed sessions,when needed, are normally held at 6:00 p.m. Closed sessions cover items such as personnel, litigation, or the sale , purchase, or lease of property. Actions taken in closed sessions are not final until acted upon in public session. Urgent business , holidays, or election days may trigger special or adjourned meetings. These meetings will be noticed beforehand. AGENDAS, MINUTES, AND PACKETS AVAILABLE ON THE WEB Agendas, minutes, and packets for current and prior City Council and Planning Commission meetings are available at www.cupertino.org, or you can purchase the items on CD for $12. CITY COUNCIL DECISION IS FINAL 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 www. http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page =125 for a reconsideration petition form. 778 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:115-1287 Name: Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready File created:In control:12/16/2015 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Receive the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study, the recommendation from the Joint Cities Working Team and Commission input Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Joint Cities Coord Stevens Creek Trail Feas Study B - Stevens Creek Trail Process Map C - CWG Recommendations to JCWT D - JCWT Recommendations to Councils E - Joint Cupertino PRC-BPC Meeting Minutes 15.12.15 F - Los Altos Resolution No. 2015-39 G - Sunnyvale City Council Minutes, Excerpt, 16.02.09 Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:ReceivetheJointCitiesCoordinatedStevensCreekTrailFeasibilityStudy,the recommendation from the Joint Cities Working Team and Commission input AccepttheJointCitiesCoordinatedStevensCreekTrailFeasibilityStudy;reviewtheJoint CitiesWorkingTeamrecommendationsandCommissioninput;andprovidedirection regarding the recommendations and any desired actions CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™779 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 / (408) 777-3110 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 21, 2016 Subject Receive the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study, the recommendation from the Joint Cities Working Team, and Commission input. Recommended Action Accept the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study; review the Joint Cities Working Team recommendations and Commission input; and provide direction regarding the recommendations and any desired actions. Background The Stevens Creek Trail is a partially complete pedestrian and bicycle route along the Stevens Creek Corridor. An interconnected system of trails was proposed in 1961 that would connect parks and open space along Stevens Creek. Approximately five miles of the trail are now in place in Mountain View, from San Francisco Bay to Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way. Cupertino has completed another mile of Stevens Creek Trail from McClellan Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard. The gap between the Mountain View and Cupertino segments has been the focus of the current Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study). In 2009, policy representatives from Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Mountain View and Santa Clara Valley Water District formed a coordination committee to develop a mutually agreeable concept for completion of the Stevens Creek Trail, and to seek resources thereafter to construct the trail in a cooperative manner. In 2011, the four cities entered a funding agreement and created a Joint Cities Working Team (JCWT) with an elected official from each city, to oversee preparation of a Feasibility Study to identify feasible alignments that would close the gap between Cupertino and Mountain View. Funds for the study were also provided by the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail and by a grant from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. A consultant team was selected in 2012 to prepare the Feasibility Study, with Sunnyvale as the lead agency. A Citizens Working Group (CWG) composed of three volunteers from each city was formed in 2012. The CWG was tasked with reviewing the technical findings of the Feasibility Study and serving in an advisory role to the JCWT. The scope of the Feasibility Study was to identify alternatives for completion of a bicycle and pedestrian connection and to gather community input throughout the process. The Feasibility Study assessed a wide variety 780 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study June 21, 2016 Page 2 of 10 of possible routes and evaluated a range of possible improvements, including fully separated off-street bicycle/pedestrian trails, on-street bike lanes, and neighborhood greenways on lower volume residential streets. The Feasibility Study report presents routes that are considered feasible, and documents routes that were evaluated but considered infeasible. The analysis and findings are presented in the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study (Attachment A). Although the Feasibility Study itself does not make any recommendations on preferred routes, it provided a framework for the JCWT on feasible alignments. The JCWT was tasked with making preferred alignment recommendations upon the conclusion of public input in summer 2015. Study parameters were developed to help guide the consultant in conducting the Feasibility Study and evaluating alternatives for connecting completed portions of the trail in Cupertino and Mountain View. The study parameters included:  Investigate public lands and rights-of-way  Protect environmentally sensitive habitats  Seek routes that accommodate beginner bicyclists  Develop direct routes that close the gap  Connect to parks, schools, shopping and on-street pedestrian and bicycle systems The Feasibility Study area focuses on public lands that are bounded by the following:  South – Stevens Creek Boulevard  West – Grant Road and Rancho San Antonio County Park  North – Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way trail overcrossing in Mountain View  East – Mary Avenue Within these boundaries, four study segments were defined. The study segments are: 1. Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue 2. Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road 3. Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard 4. Trail connections to Rancho San Antonio County Park via Stevens Creek Boulevard From November 2012 to February 2013, public meetings were held to provide an overview of the Feasibility Study purpose and to obtain feedback regarding potential routes. The Feasibility Study team investigated potential crossing locations in late 2013 in the areas of Foothill Expressway at Highway 280, a new Highway 280 pedestrian bridge west of State Route 85, and Stevens Creek Boulevard at State Route 85. In 2014, the Feasibility Study team met to recap the findings of the additional site investigations and to complete potential trail routes for the study. The group reconvened in March 2015 and defined a process to wrap up the Feasibility Study and develop a recommendations report to be presented to each of the four cities for approval. 781 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study June 21, 2016 Page 3 of 10 Discussion The Feasibility Study team defined a process to collect public input on the Study and to develop recommendations for a preferred alignment for Stevens Creek Trail (Attachment B). The draft Feasibility Study was issued in March 2015 for public comment; 945 comments were received. (Comments are available as Appendix C to the Feasibility Study on the City of Sunnyvale website, http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/PublicWorks/StevensCreekTrailJointCitiesFeasibilityStud y.aspx). In addition to written comments, there were several opportunities after the study was released for the public to provide input on the Feasibility Study and potential trail alignments. Three public meetings were held in May and June 2015 and four CWG and JCWT meetings were held between June and August 2015. Technical comments related to the Feasibility Study were reviewed and incorporated as appropriate. Citizens Working Group (CWG) Recommendations On June 17, 2015, the CWG discussed public comments received, including from the public meetings in May and early June. The CWG developed general alignment themes at this meeting which helped guide its alignment recommendations. The CWG alignment themes include:  Extend the Stevens Creek Trail as a bike/pedestrian path as far south as possible to keep the trail separated from vehicular traffic to the greatest extent possible, in order to create a family-friendly and recreational route that enhances the bicycle and pedestrian networks of the four cities  Enhance the habitat along the creek corridor with development of the trail  For existing bike routes that are in the area but not part of the recommended alignment, modest safety improvements should be considered Based upon the alignment themes, the CWG recommended preferred alignments for each study segment. The CWG’s preferred alignments are:  Study Segment 1 o Extend the Stevens Creek Trail through the 22 acres of open space along Stevens Creek/State Route 85  Study Segment 2 o Extend the Stevens Creek Trail as a separated off-street bike/pedestrian path along the sound wall on Bernardo Avenue o If the Bernardo path is not feasible, the second choice is to incorporate modest enhancements to Bernardo, Belleville and Fallen Leaf for bicycle safety  Study Segment 3 o Add a new grade-separated crossing at Interstate 280 to provide access to the Stevens Creek Trail on a direct route along low-volume, low-speed streets  Crossings in order of preference were a trail underpass along the creek channel; an overcrossing connecting Peninsular Avenue to Madera Drive; and an overcrossing connecting Caroline Drive to Somerset Park 782 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study June 21, 2016 Page 4 of 10  Study Segment 4 o Extend a bike/pedestrian path along Stevens Creek Boulevard west from Stonebridge Street to undeveloped open space land behind the Gate of Heaven Cemetery to provide access to Rancho San Antonio County Park The CWG recommendations are provided in Attachment C, which includes greater detail regarding the CWG recommendations and a discussion of each study segment. The CWG’s recommendations were forwarded to the JCWT. Joint Cities Working Team (JCWT) Recommendations The JCWT met three times in July and August 2015 to discuss the Draft Feasibility Study, public feedback, written and oral comments, and the CWG recommendations. The JCWT developed its recommendations as a regional body and considered the alignments through all the cities (see Attachment D). Below is an overview of JCWT alignment recommendations. Additional discussion of the individual segments follows. JCWT Alignment Recommendations Summary  Study Segment 1 – Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue o The preferred route for Stevens Creek Trail in this segment is an off-street trail through an existing 22-acre open space along Stevens Creek/Highway 85  Study Segment 2 - Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road o The preferred alignment is an off-street bike/pedestrian pathway on Bernardo Avenue including a bike/pedestrian overpass of Fremont Avenue at Bernardo Avenue o Conduct a detailed study to determine parking and traffic impacts on Bernardo Avenue to determine alignment feasibility (by City of Sunnyvale). o Consider modest on-street bike/pedestrian enhancements on Belleville Way and Fallen Leaf Lane consistent with each city’s adopted pedestrian/bike plans. These improvements should be considered regardless of whether or not a path at Bernardo Avenue is feasible, and such improvements will not include specif ic signage relating to the Stevens Creek Trail  Study Segment 3 - Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Blvd. o No off-street facility was recommended in this segment. o Support widening the existing Homestead Road crossing at State Route 85 or building a separate parallel bike/pedestrian bridge to provide a connection to the existing off-street bike/pedestrian pathway on Homestead Road. o Undertake further studies to identify a feasible route if circumstances regarding land availability change in the area. o Reach out proactively to agencies such as Caltrans, VTA and Union Pacific Railroad to express that bike and pedestrian access though the I-280 interchanges vicinity is a community priority, and express interest in land availability for pedestrian/bike improvements and discourage any modifications that may limit 783 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study June 21, 2016 Page 5 of 10 future such improvements should those agencies make modifications to their facilities or changes to their land use. o Support improvements to Foothill Boulevard/Expressway. Although this segment would not be part of Stevens Creek Trail, bike/pedestrian improvements should be considered if there are improvements to the I-280/Foothill interchange, or as part of other city or county projects in the vicinity.  Study Segment 4 – Trail Connections to Rancho San Antonio County Park via Stevens Creek Blvd. o The preferred route to Rancho San Antonio from Cupertino’s Stevens Creek Trail and creek corridor is a spur alignment that uses Stevens Creek Boulevard on- street bike lanes, and then continues westward along the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard starting near Stonebridge and includes a bridge over the railroad tracks. Study Segment Descriptions Study Segment 1 – Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue This segment extends from the Permanente Creek bypass channel overpass at St. Giles Lane in Mountain View eastward to Mary Avenue in Sunnyvale; it encompasses Mountain View High School and Cherry Chase Elementary School. The study identifies an off-street bike/pedestrian path through 22 acres of existing open space along Stevens Creek between Mountain View and Sunnyvale. This is the only segment within the Feasibility Study boundaries where a trail along the creek was found to be feasible based on the availability of land and the space required for trail construction. However, implementation of a trail through this section is challenging due to limited creek bank space. Several creek bridges will be needed, and structures needed to span narrow areas between the Highway 85 soundwall and areas of limited creek bank. A thorough environmental review and permitting process will be needed prior to any construction. Study Segment 2 – Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road This study segment extends from Louise Lane in Los Altos to Mary Avenue in Sunnyvale, and includes West Valley Elementary School and Cupertino Middle School. The JCWT recommended alignment is an off-street bike/pedestrian path along the Bernardo Avenue sound wall between Fremont Avenue and Homestead Road, including a bike/pedestrian overpass at Fremont Avenue. Alternatives for implementing this path include either the conversion of Bernardo Avenue to a one-way street or significant reduction in parking. While the preliminary investigation determined that this option is feasible, further studies must be conducted to fully evaluate the impacts of a roadway change. The JCWT recommended that a detailed traffic and parking study be conducted for this segment, with the findings being considered by the City of Sunnyvale prior to any further trail master planning work in this segment. If based upon the findings of such a study the off-street bike/pedestrian path were 784 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study June 21, 2016 Page 6 of 10 found infeasible or if this option were not supported by the City of Sunnyvale, the JCWT recommended modest bike and pedestrian safety improvements and/or wayfinding on Belleville Way, Bernardo Avenue, and Bedford Avenue. Numerous concerns from area residents were expressed during the public outreach process. Potential changes to the roadway in this segment generated concerns about traffic diversion in the neighborhood, loss of parking, and degradation of already difficult traffic conditions around Cupertino Middle School during pick-up and drop-off times. The Feasibility Study was limited to evaluating roadway widths and physical constraints necessary for trail construction and did not evaluate potential traffic impacts from narrowing the roadway. Conversely, the Feasibility Study did not attempt to quantify possible benefits of a separated off-street bike/pedestrian trail that could potentially provide safer access to school for the area’s students. Study Segment 3 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Blvd. This segment extends from Grant Road/Foothill Boulevard in Los Altos and Cupertino to Mary Avenue, and includes the area contiguous to Homestead High School and near Stevens Creek Elementary School. In this segment, the Feasibility Study concluded that no feasible routes exist that could accommodate an off-street facility and connect to the existing trail that ends at Stevens Creek Boulevard and enters the Stocklmeir Ranch site. Although several on-street routes were considered feasible, the JCWT did not select one of these alternatives as a preferred route through this area. Feasible routes that were identified in the study had major drawbacks which included:  The route required on-street bike lanes on heavily travelled streets such as Stevens Creek Boulevard or Foothill Boulevard, which was considered incompatible with the goal of a system that is suitable for bike riders of all skill levels  The route required a new crossing of Interstate 280 and relied on the use of quiet residential streets to make connections, which was opposed by local residents  A new crossing of Interstate 280 could be changed by the planned reconfiguration of the Interstate 280/State Route 85 interchange Neighbor concerns regarding potential trail routes in this study segment were expressed throughout the process. For example, in April 2013 a petition signed by 78 residents of the Mann/Madera/Phar Lap area was submitted, requesting that trail alignments avoid their neighborhood and noting concerns about graffiti and crime. Residents of Homestead Villa submitted a petition signed by over 140 neighbors asking the City Council to not route the Stevens Creek Trail through the Homestead Villas subdivision due to a variety of concerns, instead recommending a Foothill Boulevard or Mary Avenue route. Citizens For Responsible Trails also consistently supported use of Mary Avenue or Foothill for a trail alignment, rather than a new highway crossing and neighborhood streets alignment, for a variety of reasons. Alternatively, some of the public comments have been actively supportive of a trail route on neighborhood streets with a new Highway 280 crossing, as was the CWG recommendation. However, the JCWT did not recommend any of the alternatives identified in the Study. 785 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study June 21, 2016 Page 7 of 10 Instead, the JCWT articulated a long-term vision that trail routes continue to be evaluated as conditions change in the area or land availability changes. For example, new trail routes could become available if reconstruction of the I-280/State Route 85 interchange or Foothill Boulevard interchange occurs, or if Union Pacific Railroad right-of way becomes available for trail purposes. Improvements to Homestead Road at the Highway 85 crossing would consist of widening the existing bridge or constructing a new bike/pedestrian bridge to create a separated bike/pedestrian path on the north side of Homestead Road. Highway 85 on-/off-ramps would also be realigned to promote bike/pedestrian safety. Improvements in this area could be extended along Homestead Road to connect to an existing off-street bike/pedestrian trail in Los Altos. These improvements would be designed to improve safety for students walking and cycling to nearby Cupertino Middle School and Homestead High School. The JCWT expressed support for improvements to Foothill Boulevard/Foothill Expressway including the Interstate 280 interchange area. This segment was not recommended as a preferred alignment for Stevens Creek Trail due to its traffic conditions. However, bicycle and pedestrian improvements are recommended as part of any city or county project in that vicinity or if improvements to the Interstate 280/Foothill interchange are undertaken. Study Segment 4 – Trail Connections to Rancho San Antonio County Park via Stevens Creek Blvd. This segment is in Cupertino and connects east-west along Stevens Creek Boulevard to Rancho San Antonio County Park. This connection would not be considered part of the Stevens Creek Trail, but could provide an important connection from the existing trail through McClellan Ranch Preserve and Blackberry Farm to an extensive trail network in Rancho San Antonio County Park. The proposed alignment uses existing Stevens Creek Boulevard on-street bike lanes, and then continues westward along the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard on a new path starting near Stonebridge Street. A new bridge over the railroad tracks provides access into County-owned open space, Rancho San Antonio County Park and the associated trail system. Commission input On December 15, a special joint meeting of the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission and the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission was convened. The Commissions considered the Feasibility Study, the JCWT recommendation, and public input. Commissioners provided individual input for consideration by the City Council. Commissioners were overall supportive of the JCWT recommendation. Their comments also noted support for improvements to Stevens Creek Blvd., Foothill Blvd., the I-280/Foothill interchange, Segment 4 access to Rancho San Antonio, collaboration with Union Pacific Railroad, Caltrans and other agencies, preservation of existing public property, and preserving future opportunities. (See Attachment E for Commissioners’ input.) 786 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study June 21, 2016 Page 8 of 10 Actions by the three cities Now that JCWT has made their recommendations on preferred alignments to close the gap between Cupertino and Mountain View, they asked each of the four cities to support their mutually agreed-upon concept for the regional Stevens Creek Trail. The Feasibility Study is complete and has been reviewed by the other three cities. The City of Los Altos took action to support the findings of the Stevens Creek Trail alignment identified by the JCWT and to support the other three cities in their trail planning efforts, on November 24, 2015 via resolution of the City Council (Attachment F). On December 1, 2015 the Mountain View City Council accepted the Feasibility Study. Thereafter at a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) study session on March 29, 2016, the Mountain View Council directed staff to present a project next year to extend Stevens Creek Trail beyond the current southerly terminus at Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way, for consideration in Mountain View’s CIP for fiscal year 2017-18 through 2021-22. On Feb. 9, 2016 the Sunnyvale City Council considered the Feasibility Study. They voted in favor of the JCWT alignment and recommendations, however with some modifications (Attachment G). They supported the Segment 1 alignment, the Segment 3 alignment on Homestead Road, and the Segment 4 bike/pedestrian route connection to Rancho San Antonio. For Segment 2, the Sunnyvale Council approved pursuing next steps for the Bernardo Avenue off-street alignment after Segment 1 has completed environmental review and secured funding for potential construction. At such a time, next steps would include initiating a comprehensive parking and traffic study for an off-street trail along Bernardo Avenue. If the study indicates that an off-street alignment is desirable as determined by the Sunnyvale City Council, then grant funding would be sought. As with the other cities, Sunnyvale’s Council supported collaborating with other cities on pursuing grant funding, striving to improve habitat values in and around Stevens Creek, maintaining existing public lands near the creek to preserve habitat and future trail opportunities, and continuing collaboration with regional partners for extension of the Stevens Creek Trail. Summary Each city is limited in decision-making to its own jurisdiction. However, the JCWT asked the cities to support each other in a collaborative effort to continue implementation of the Stevens Creek Trail. Such collaboration would include coordination and sponsorship in seeking grant funding, coordination during planning and the environmental review process, and coordination of the construction of any improvements. The work of the entire Feasibility Study team was based on regional cooperation for regional benefit. The City Council may therefore wish to indicate support for the overall JCWT findings and recommendations, and endorse providing support to the cities of Mountain View, Los Altos and Sunnyvale in their Stevens Creek Trail planning efforts. Sample recommendations are provided below which are consistent with the Study, the JCWT recommendation, and actions by city councils in our neighboring cities. 787 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study June 21, 2016 Page 9 of 10 Sample Recommendations 1. Accept the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study 2. Accept the JCWT alignment recommendation including:  Support the City of Mountain View in the Stevens Creek Trail planning and implementation for Segment 1  Support improvements for Los Altos actions relating to Feasibility Study and JCWT recommendation, consistent with Nov. 2015 approval of such by the Los Altos City Council  Support the City of Sunnyvale for a Segment 2 alignment, and a future Bernardo Avenue parking and traffic study with associated actions, at such a time as Sunnyvale may pursue a Bernardo Avenue bike/pedestrian trail or other Segment 2 improvements  Support a Segment 3 connection from the existing off-street bike/pedestrian path on the north side of Homestead Road in Los Altos, to a Bernardo Avenue pathway alignment, via either widening the existing bridge or building a new separate bike/pedestrian bridge, and collaborate with Sunnyvale and Los Altos on such implementation  Support pursuing a spur trail on Stevens Creek Boulevard connecting to Rancho San Antonio, as described for Segment 4 3. Implement other JCWT recommendations including:  Support our regional partners as they pursue funding for closing the trail gap between Cupertino and Mountain View  Reach out proactively to agencies such as Caltrans, VTA, and Union Pacific Railroad to express that bicycle and pedestrian access to and across the highway and interchange area is a community priority, discourage any modifications that may limit future improvements, and raise awareness of the shared goal to close the gap in Stevens Creek Trail between Cupertino and Mountain View  Should circumstances change in the area, such as regarding land availability, further studies should be undertaken to identify a feasible route  Support improvements to Foothill Boulevard/Foothill Expressway including to the I- 280/Foothill underpass and I-280/Foothill interchange (see concept in the Feasibility Study, Figures 25-26); seek bike/pedestrian improvements if there are Caltrans improvements to the interchange or as part of any city or County projects in the vicinity  Support the following policies identified in the JCWT recommendation summary: o Trail projects should strive to improve habitat values in and around Stevens Creek o Existing public lands near Stevens Creek should be maintained as public land to preserve habitat and future trail opportunities o Continue collaborating with regional partners for extension of the Stevens Creek Trail Next Steps The JCWT plans to schedule a meeting after each of the four city councils has reviewed the Feasibility Study and the recommendations and provided any specific direction to staff. Based 788 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study June 21, 2016 Page 10 of 10 on this feedback, the JCWT will discuss the outcome and any next steps that could be followed up on in a collaborative nature. Sustainability Impact Support of a regional effort to extend the Stevens Creek Trail system and of the JCWT recommendation would be consistent with the City’s sustainability goals. Fiscal Impact No immediate impact. Identification of a preferred regional trail alignment and regional goals does not commit the City to provide funding for additional planning or implementation. However, it is expected that neighboring cities may request financial or other collaboration in future years, as implementation of a regional trail alignment proceeds within their jurisdictions. ____________________________________ Prepared by: Gail Seeds, Park Improvement Manager Reviewed by: David Stillman, Senior Civil Engineer Christine M. Hanel, Acting Director of Recreation & Community Services Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study, September 2015 B – Stevens Creek Trail Process Map C – Citizens Working Group Recommendations D – Joint Cities Working Team Recommendation E – Cupertino Parks & Recreation Commission and Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Special Joint Meeting, Amended Minutes, Dec. 15, 2015 F – City of Los Altos, Resolution No. 2015-39 G – City of Sunnyvale, City Council Minutes, Excerpt, Feb. 9, 2016 789 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Prepared for: Cities of Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Los Altos and Mountain View and Santa Clara Valley Water District In conjunction with: Joint Cities Working Team Citizens Working Group September 2015 790 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Prepared for: Cities of Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Los Altos and Mountain View and Santa Clara Valley Water District In conjunction with: Joint Cities Working Team Citizens Working Group Prepared by: Sokale Environmental Planning Hill Associates Mark Thomas & Company Fehr and Peers Cotton, Shires and Associates September 2015 791 792 A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page i Thank you to all who have participated in the preparation of the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study. The investigation was completed under the direction of the Joint Cities Working Team and guidance of the Citizens Working Group. Community members provided comments that helped shape the recommendations prepared by the Citizens Working Group and Joint Cities Working Team. Joint Cities Working Team Jeannie Bruins, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Los Altos Ronit Bryant, Councilmember, City of Mountain View* Nai Hsueh, Director, District 5, Santa Clara Valley Water District Patrick Kwok, Boardmember, District 5, Santa Clara Valley Water District* Orrin Mahoney, Councilmember, City of Cupertino* Tara Martin-Milius, Vice Mayor, City of Sunnyvale Tom Means, Councilmember, City of Mountain View* Chris Moylan, Councilmember, City of Sunnyvale* Darcy Paul, Councilmember, City of Cupertino Megan Satterlee, Mayor, City of Los Altos* Patricia Showalter, Vice Mayor, City of Mountain View Citizens Working Group LaNae Avra, City of Los Altos Judy Fulton, City of Los Altos Rocky Gunderson, City of Cupertino Camie Hackson, City of Sunnyvale Gary Hedden, City of Los Altos Ross Heitkamp, City of Mountain View Rodney Jenny, City of Cupertino* Larry Klein, City of Sunnyvale Jim Miller, City of Cupertino Anne Ng, City of Cupertino Tim Oey, City of Sunnyvale Jasneet Sharma, City of Mountain View Greg Unangst, City of Mountain View 793 A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS Page ii Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Public Agency Staff City of Sunnyvale Kent Steffens, Assistant City Manager Manuel Pineda, Director of Public Works Jack Witthaus, Transportation & Traffic Manager* Patricia Lord, Senior Management Analyst* Carla Ochoa, Traffic Engineer Christina Uribe, Administrative Aide - Confidential City of Cupertino Mark Linder, Director of Parks and Recreation* Gail Seeds, Park Improvement Manager City of Los Altos Cedric Novenario, Transportation Services Manager City of Mountain View J.P. de la Montaigne, Community Services Director Bob Kagiyama, Deputy Public Works Director* John Marchant, Recreation Manager Santa Clara Valley Water District Chris Elias, Lower Peninsula Watershed Deputy Operating Officer* Liang Lee, Hydraulics Unit Manager Pat Showalter, Senior Project Manager* County of Santa Clara, Parks and Recreation Department Jane Mark, Senior Park Planner* Will Fourt, Park Planner * Denotes Past Member 794 C ONSULTANT T EAM Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page iii Lead Consultant Sokale Environmental Planning Newark, California Jana Sokale, Principal Planner Subconsultants Hill Associates, Landscape Architecture Aptos, California Bruce Hill, Principal Landscape Architect Dominic Lopez, Landscape Architect Mark Thomas & Company, Civil and Structural Engineering San Jose, California Po Chen, Structure Division Manager Fehr & Peers, Traffic Engineering San Jose, California Nikki Nagaya, Senior Transportation Engineer Alexandra Sweet, Transportation Planner Ian Moore, Senior Associate Cotton, Shires and Associates, Consulting Engineers and Geologists Los Gatos, California Ted Sayre, Principal Engineering Geologist David Schrier, Principal Geotechnical Engineer 795 Page iv Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study This page is intentionally left blank. 796 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………..….. i Chapter 1 – Purpose and Benefits …………………………………………………… 1 Purpose ………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Regional Setting ………………………………………………………………………………... 2 Watershed Setting ……………………………………………………………………………… 2 History of the “Stevens Creek Park Chain” Concept ………………………………….…… 3 Stevens Creek: A Plan of Opportunities ……………………………………………..………. 4 Regional Trail Planning Efforts ………………………………………………………………. 4 Past City Trail Planning Efforts ………………………………………………………………. 5 Current Status of Trail Development ……………………………………………………...…. 5 Mountain View Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4, Segment 2 Final EIR ……………………… 5 Cupertino Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan and Restoration Plan…………………… 5 Los Altos Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Report ………………………………………..….. 6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Goals and Policies of the Four Cities ……………………………… 6 Sunnyvale General Plan …………………………………………………………………… 6 Los Altos General Plan ………………………………………………………. …………… 8 Cupertino General Plan …………………………………………………………………… 8 Mountain View General Plan …………………………………………………………….. 10 Feasibility Study Goals ………………………………………………………………………… 13 Study Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………. 14 Trail Planning Process …………………………………………………………………..… 14 Technical Evaluations …………………………………………………………………….. 15 Outreach to Agencies ……………………………………………………………………... 15 Community Meetings …………………………………………………………………….. 15 Benefits and Significance ……………………………………………………………………… 15 Inclusion in Regional Trail Plans ………………………………...………………………. 17 Connections to City Parks, Recreation Facilities and Attractions ………………..…... 17 Transportation Benefits …………………………………………………………………… 17 Safe Routes to Schools………………………..…………………………………..…… 18 Complete Streets Program …………………………………………………………… 18 Environmental Benefits …………………………………………………………………… 19 Enhancement of Natural Resources………………………..………………………… 19 Improved Air Quality ………………………………………………………………… 19 Health Benefits ………………………………………………………………………..…… 20 Chapter 2 – Feasibility Criteria and Existing Conditions ………………………. 21 Land Availability ……………………………………………………………………………… 22 Ownership…………………………………………………………………………..……… 22 Trail Design Guidelines ……………………………………………………………..…… 22 Top-of-Bank Width ……………………………………………………………………..… 27 Habitat Sensitivity ……………………………………………………………………….….… 28 Riparian Forest ……………………………………………………………………………. 28 Oak Woodland ……………………………………………………………………………. 29 Urban Open Space ………………………………………………………………………… 30 Special Status Species ……………………………………………………………….…… 31 Invasive Plant Species …………………………………………………………………… 32 Evaluation of Grade-Separations at Bridges along Stevens Creek ……………………… 33 Other Grade-Separation Investigations ……………………………………………………. 34 Design Criteria for On-Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities …………………………… 36 California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual: ……………… 37 Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle Technical Guidelines ………... 38 797 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities ……………………………. 38 AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Bicycle …… 38 Facilities Summary of Referenced Design Guidelines ………………………………………….... 39 Unique Traffic Conditions ………………………………………………………………. 40 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions ………………………………………………………. 40 On-Street Feasibility Summary ……………………………………………………………… 41 Feasibility Report Definitions ……………………………………………………………….. 41 Engineered Structures ……………………………………….……………………………….. 41 Chapter 3 – Alignment Options …………………………………….…………...…. 47 Creek Corridor and Bernardo Paths…….…………………………………………………… 48 Connecting to Foothill……………………………………….…………………….…….... 48 Connecting to I-280 Overpass ………………………………………………….…….….. 48 Creek Corridor Path and City Streets ………………...………………………………..….… 50 Fremont Ave/Grant Rd Option …………………...………………..………………..…. 50 Fallen Leaf Lane Option …………………...………………….……..………………..…. 50 Belleville Way Option ………………………..……...………………..………………..…. 50 Partial Creek Corridor Path to Mary Avenue ………………...……………………….….… 51 All City Streets ………………...…………………………………………………...……..….… 51 Chapter 4 – Pedestrian/Bicycle Paths …………………………………….………... 53 Creek Corridor Path…….……………………………………………………………………… 54 Location and Ownership ……………………………………….……………………….... 54 Site Analysis Summary ………………………………………………………….…….….. 54 Creek Character, Plant Communities and Wildlife ………………...…………….….… 54 Conceptual Alignments ……………………………...………………..………………..…. 55 Access to the Open Space from the North ……………………………..………….... 55 Option 1 – Relocate the Soundwall ………………………………………..……. 55 Option 2 – Extend Trail behind Parking Lot at Heatherstone Apartments…. 55 Option 3 – Use City Streets to Mockingbird Lane …………..…………………. 56 Crossing the Creek ………………………………………...……………………..……. 56 Access from the Open Space to Fremont Avenue ……………………..…………… 58 Option 1 – Trail Underpass beneath State Route 85 …………………………... 58 Option 2 – Pedestrian Overcrossing to Bernardo Avenue…………………….. 60 Option 3 – Pedestrian Overcrossing to Mountain View High School ………. 63 Option 4 – Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge to West Remington Drive……………. 63 Bernardo Avenue Path ………………………………………………………………………… 63 Roadway Conditions ………………………………………………….…………………... 63 Conceptual Alignment ……………………………………………..………….…………. 63 Crossing State Route 85 at Homestead Road…………………………………...………. 64 Fallen Leaf Lane Path …………………………………………………………………….…… 64 Fremont Avenue/Grant Road Path …………………………………………………………. 65 Foothill Expressway Path……………………………………………………..………………. 65 Interstate 280/Foothill Expressway Interchange Modifications…………………………… 66 Pedestrian Overcrossing at Interstate 280……………………………………………………. 69 Grade Separated Crossing at Stevens Creek Boulevard …………………………..…...…. 70 Connection to Rancho San Antonio County Park …………………………………..………. 70 Chapter 5 – On-Street Routes ………………………………………….……….……. 73 Study Segment 1 ………………………………………………………………………………… 75 Existing Facilities ……………………………………….………………………………….. 75 Feasible Facilities ………………………………………………………….………….….… 75 798 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Study Segment 2 ………………………………………………….…………………………… 77 Existing Facilities ……………………………………….………………………………….. 77 Feasible Facilities ………………………………………………………….………….….… 77 Study Segment 3………………………………………………….…………………………… 79 Existing Facilities ……………………………………….………………………………….. 79 Feasible Facilities ………………………………………………………….………….….… 79 Study Segment 4 ………………………………………………….…………………………… 82 Existing Facilities ……………………………………….………………………………….. 82 Feasible Facilities ………………………………………………………….………….….… 82 Chapter 6 – Development Challenge …………………………………….……..…. 83 Budget Assumptions ………………………………………...………………..…………. 83 Unit Cost Estimates for On-Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements…………… 85 Creek Corridor Path Construction Budget Estimate – Option 1…………………….… 86 Creek Corridor Path Construction Budget Estimate – Option 2…………………….… 87 Bernardo Avenue Path Construction Budget Estimate…………….………………..… 88 State Route 85 Crossing at Homestead Road Construction Budget Estimate…….… 89 Foothill Expressway Path Construction Budget Estimate…………….…………….… 90 Pedestrian Overcrossing at Interstate 280 Construction Budget Estimate………….. 91 Staging Area and Trail Access to Rancho San Antonio County Park ………….…… 92 Construction Budget Estimate Land Acquisitions and Easements ………………………………………...……………. 93 Chapter 7 – References Agencies Contacted ………………………………………...…………………………..… 95 Bibliography ………………………………………...………………..…………..….……. 97 Appendices Appendix A – Summary of Meetings Appendix B – Summary of Studied Routes Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Maps Map 1 – Study Area Map ………………………………………...……………………..…… 2 Map 2 – Study Segment 1: Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Ownership Map .. 23 Map 3 – Study Segment 2: Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road Ownership Map …. 24 Map 4 – Study Segment 3: Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard …………..... 26 Ownership Map Map 5 – Study Segment 1: Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Habitat and .......... 28 Land Availability Map Map 6 – Study Segment 2: Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road Habitat and ….......... 29 Land Availability Map Map 7 – Study Segment 3: Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard Habitat …… 30 and Land Availability Map Map 8 – Alignment Options Map………………………………………………………….... 49 Map 9 – Study Segment 1: Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Alignments Map… 61 Map 10 – Study Segment 2: Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road Alignments Map …. 62 Map 11 – Study Segment 3: Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard ……………... 67 Alignments Map Map 12 – Study Segment 4: Stevens Creek Boulevard Connection to Rancho ………….... 68 San Antonio County Park Alignments Map 799 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Illustrations Illustration 1 – Trail underpass beneath State Route 85 north of Fremont Avenue …….... 59 Illustration 2 – Astoria to The Dalles on Bernardo …………….…………………………...... 64 Illustration 3 – The Dalles to Helena on Bernardo …………….…………………………...... 64 Illustration 4 – Fallen Leaf Lane as a Signed Bike Route.…………………………………...... 79 Illustration 5 – Fallen Leaf Lane as a Neighborhood Greenway with Walking Space…….. 79 Figures Figure 1 – Sunnyvale General Plan goals and polices relating to pedestrian ………........... 7 and bicycle facilities. Figure 2 – Los Altos General Plan goals and polices relating to the movement of ………. 8 pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Figure 3 – Cupertino General Plan goals and polices relating to pedestrian ……...….…... 9 and bicycle facilities. Figure 4 – Cupertino General Plan goals and polices relating to trails and creeks. …… 10 Figure 5 – Mountain View General Plan goals and polices relating to pedestrian ……. 11 and bicycle facilities. Figure 6 – Mountain View General Plan goals and polices relating to parks, ……….... 12 open space and trails. Figure 7 – Trail planning process.……………………….………………………………….. 14 Figure 8 – Summary of parks, schools and attractions within the study area…………. 16 Figure 9 – 1995 Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan Definitions.…………....... 18 Figure 10 – Countywide Trails Master Plan Guideline G-2 – Shared Use Trail – ………. 25 Paved Tread Double Track. Figure 11 – Top-of-Bank Land Availability Criteria.………………………......................... 27 Figure 12 – Wildlife species with the potential to occur within the study area…………. 32 Figure 13 – Summary of grade-separated crossing feasibility at existing roadway ……. 34 bridges along Stevens Creek. Figure 14 – Summary of grade-separated crossing feasibility at other structures ……… 35 in the study area. Figure 15 – Caltrans Bikeway Designations. ………………………………………………..... 37 Figure 16 – Bicycle Lane Widths on Arterials/Collectors at a Range of Posted Speeds... 39 Figure 17 – Summary of 2008-2013 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions on Studied ….… 40 Roadways. Figure 18 – Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue feasibility of studied roadways to… 43 support pedestrian and bicycle facilities for linking the Stevens Creek Trail Figure 19 – Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road feasibility of studied roadways to … 44 support pedestrian and bicycle facilities for linking the Stevens Creek Trail Figure 20 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard feasibility of studied ………. 45 arterial roadways to support pedestrian and bicycle facilities for linking the Stevens Creek Trail Figure 21 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard feasibility of studied ……….. 46 residential streets to support pedestrian and bicycle facilities for linking the Stevens Creek Trail. Figure 22 – Trail behind Heatherstone Apartment with reconstructed soundwall …….. 56 Figure 23 – Engineering solutions for constrained areas along State Route 85 soundwall. 58 Figure 24 – Grade-separated options for connecting to Fremont Avenue……………….. 60 Figure 25 – Plan view of path parallel to Foothill Expressway…………………………….. 66 Figure 26 – Cross-section of reconfigured Foothill Expressway underpass ……………… 66 beneath Interstate 280 Figure 27 – Potentially feasible pedestrian overcrossings of Interstate 280 …………….... 70 Figure 28 – Staging Area and Trail Connection Concept Plan ……………………………. 71 800 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Figure 29 – Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue existing and feasible ……………..... 76 on-street bicycle facilities. Figure 30 – Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road existing and feasible ……………… 78 on-street bicycle facilities. Figure 31 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard existing and ………………. 80 feasible on-street bicycle facilities on collector and arterial streets. Figure 32 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard existing and ………………. 81 feasible on-street bicycle facilities on residential streets. Figure 33 – Unit Cost Estimates for On-Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements . 85 Figure 34 – Creek Corridor Path – Option 1 Trail Underpass beneath Highway 85…… 86 Construction Budget Estimate Figure 35 – Creek Corridor Path – Option 2 Trail Overcrossing Spanning Fremont…… 87 Avenue Construction Budget Estimate Figure 36 – Bernardo Avenue Path Construction Budget Estimate………………...……… 88 Figure 37 – State Route 85 Crossing at Homestead Road Construction Budget Estimate 89 Figure 38 – Foothill Expressway Path Construction Budget Estimate…………….……… 90 Figure 39 – Pedestrian Overcrossing at Interstate 280 Construction Budget Estimate….. 91 Figure 40 – Staging Area and Trail Access to Rancho San Antonio County Park …….… 92 801 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study This page is intentionally left blank. 802 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page i This feasibility report explores the potential for extending the Stevens Creek Trail through the cities of Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Los Altos and Mountain View. The study evaluated the technical feasibility of developing bicycle and pedestrian facilities along approximately four miles of creek corridor and surrounding city streets. The goal of the study was to assess the feasibility of a wide range of potential alignments that could close the gap in the trail between the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing in Mountain View and Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. The study area boundaries extend from Heatherstone Way to the north, Mary Avenue to the east, Grant Road to the west and to Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south. The study area also includes the open space lands along Stevens Creek Boulevard and adjacent to Rancho San Antonio County Park in Cupertino. The four cities initiated this study and have worked collaboratively to identify options to complete the Stevens Creek Trail. Goals and policies regarding the development of the Stevens Creek Trail have been integrated into the long-range planning documents of all the cities. The trail could provide access to eleven city parks, two regional parks and open space preserves, 16 K-12 schools and DeAnza College. The trail currently connects to the San Francisco Bay Trail and the Bay Area Ridge Trail providing access to other regional open space lands. The trail also provides access to Caltrain and Light Rail in downtown Mountain View providing opportunities for multi-modal commuting. The feasibility study determined that a variety of routes and facility types are feasible through the four cities, but challenges are associated with each alignment. This feasibility study assessed the potential for developing the routes against a variety of adopted design guidelines for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and by establishing criteria to measure land availability, habitat sensitivity and roadway and creek crossings. The report provides decision makers with an assessment of the technical feasibility for extending the trail by identifying potential alignments and conceptual engineering solutions. The feasibility study is the first step in a trail planning process. The feasible alignments provide a range of choices for decision makers to consider for completing the trail through the four cities. The next step would involve the development of a trail master plan, which would be evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). All future trail planning and environmental review will provide opportunities for public involvement. The study area was divided into four study segments to facilitate the presentation of the feasibility findings. The segments vary by length and begin and end at city streets. The four study segments include (See Maps 9-12 – Alignment Maps): ◆ Study Segment 1: Dale Avenue/ Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue ◆ Study Segment 2: Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road ◆ Study Segment 3: Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard ◆ Study Segment 4: Trail Connections to Rancho San Antonio County Park via Stevens Creek Boulevard The feasibility report consists of seven chapters. An introductory page precedes each chapter and describes the specific content. Chapter 1 – Purpose and Benefits describes the purpose, provides an overview of the study area, summarizes the history and current status of trail planning, introduces the adopted pedestrian and bicycle transportation goals and policies of the four cities, discusses the feasibility study methodology and details the significance and benefits of the trail to the community. 803 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY Page ii Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Chapter 2 – Feasibility Criteria and Existing Conditions describes criteria used to evaluate the feasibility for connecting the Stevens Creek Trail along city streets and through open space lands along the stream corridor. Land availability, habitat sensitivity, roadway and creek crossings were evaluated within the creek corridor. Roadway width, traffic volume and speed, roadway intersections and pedestrian and bicycle collision history were evaluated for on-street routes. This chapter also defines the types of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and engineered structures evaluated for the trail. Chapter 3 – Alignment Options provides an introduction to the feasible alignments for completing the trail through the four cities. These alignments represent complete routes through the four cities, but do not represent every feasible segment or type of facility studied (See Map 8 – Alignment Options Map). Chapter 4 – Pedestrian/Bicycle Paths details the feasible pedestrian/bicycle paths. These routes most closely approximate the trail user experience present in the constructed sections of the trail in Mountain View and Cupertino. The assessments of land availability, habitat sensitivity and roadway, creek and on- street crossing feasibilities are highlighted for each feasible alignment. These routes provide for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicyclists and minimize roadway crossings. Pedestrian/bicycle paths are feasible both in the open space parcels along the creek and within the public right- of-way of a few streets. This chapter also describes the engineered structures needed for the routes. Chapter 5 – On-Street Routes describes the feasible on-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Roadway width, traffic volume and speed, roadway intersections and pedestrian and bicycle collision history were evaluated for on-street routes to determine the opportunities and constraints. This feasibility study reviewed a wide range of on-street routes and identifies the types of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are feasible on each street. Chapter 6 – Development Challenge provides unit cost estimates for constructing on-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities and preliminary budget estimates for constructing pedestrian/bicycle path segments. This chapter also identifies six areas along the pedestrian/bicycle path alignments where acquisition of land or easements would facilitate construction. Chapter 7 – References identifies reports, plans, studies, databases, ordinances, maps and record drawings reviewed in the preparation of the feasibility report. This chapter also identifies all persons contacted during the study. 804 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY Page ii Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study 805 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 1 This feasibility study investigated the potential to develop bicycle and pedestrian facilities along approximately four miles of Stevens Creek and the city streets surrounding the stream corridor. The goal of the study was to assess the feasibility of a wide range of potential alignments that could link together existing segments of the Stevens Creek Trail. The cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos and Cupertino have worked collaboratively to identify options for closing the gap in the Stevens Creek Trail. Chapter 1 explains the purpose, provides an overview of the study area, summarizes the history and current status of trail planning, introduces the adopted pedestrian and bicycle transportation goals and policies of the four cities, discusses the feasibility study methodology and details the significance and benefits of the trail to the community. The study area reviewed in this feasibility report includes the open space and parklands along Stevens Creek from the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing, the current trail terminus in Mountain View, to Stevens Creek Boulevard where the trail ends in Cupertino. The study also includes the open space lands along Stevens Creek Boulevard and adjacent to Rancho San Antonio County Park. City streets located from Heatherstone Way to Stevens Creek Boulevard and Grant Road to Mary Avenue have also been evaluated as potential routes to link the trail. The Stevens Creek Trail serves residents and area employees who enjoy spending time in the open space corridor for recreation, alternative commuting and nature appreciation. The communities of Mountain View and Cupertino have celebrated the natural beauty of the stream corridor and invested in habitat restoration and interpretation of these resources concurrent with trail development. Opportunities for additional habitat enhancement are present within this study area. Eleven city parks, two regional open space facilities, 16 K-12 schools and DeAnza College are located within the study area and would be served by the Stevens Creek Trail. The trail currently connects to the San Francisco Bay Trail and the Bay Area Ridge Trail providing access to regional open space lands. The trail also provides access to Caltrain and Light Rail in downtown Mountain View providing opportunities for multi-modal commuting. Most users feel proximity to home, the natural scenery and wildlife and connectivity of the route are the best features of the trail. Residents enjoy relaxing walks, conversations with neighbors, fitness runs and time spent in the outdoors on the Stevens Creek Trail. The feasibility study is the first step in a trail planning process. The next step would involve the development of a trail master plan, which would be evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). All future trail planning and environmental review will provide opportunities for public involvement. Stevens Creek in Mountain View. 806 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Page 2 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study PURPOSE The purpose of the feasibility study is to provide a comprehensive report to the City Councils of Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Los Altos and Mountain View that will assist them in determining next steps in narrowing feasible trail alternatives, selecting a preferred route and coordinating completion of the Stevens Creek Trail. The study reviewed existing trail reports, plans and policies, solicited community opinions and evaluated physical opportunities and constraints to trail development. This report identifies a broad range of trail alternatives based on existing plans and policies, community input, property ownership and physical conditions including biological, geological and hydrological processes of the creek corridor and traffic and circulation patterns of the roadway system. Much of the work undertaken to assess potential routes focused on the technical engineering and environmental challenges presented by the constrained landscape. REGIONAL SETTING Stevens Creek is a spring-fed stream that flows northeast from the Santa Cruz Mountains to San Francisco Bay through the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Los Altos and Mountain View. The area evaluated in this feasibility report includes approximately four miles of the creek corridor from the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing in Mountain View south to Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. It also includes the open space lands along Stevens Creek Boulevard and adjacent to Rancho San Antonio County Park in Cupertino. Finally, the study evaluates on-street routes within the study area boundaries that extend from Heatherstone Way to the north, Mary Avenue to the east, Grant Road to the west and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south (See Map 1 - Regional Setting Map). The study area is approximately 3.25 miles north to south and 1.50 miles east to west as the crow flies. The study area was divided into four study segments to facilitate the presentation of the feasibility findings. The segments vary by length and begin and end at natural termini that are likely to be used in developing future construction phasing limits. The four study segments include: ◆ Study Segment 1: Dale Avenue/ Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue ◆ Study Segment 2: Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road ◆ Study Segment 3: Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard ◆ Study Segment 4: Trail Connections to Rancho San Antonio County Park via Stevens Creek Boulevard Map 1 - Regional Setting Map WATERSHED SETTING Stevens Creek is a primary stream originating in the Santa Cruz Mountains draining runoff from a 29-square-mile watershed into South San Francisco Bay. Most of the upper watershed is 807 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 3 undeveloped forest and rangeland that is managed by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department. Water is impounded on its 20-mile flow to the Bay at Stevens Creek Reservoir, which is operated by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The creek extends 12.5 miles below the dam. The creek corridor has been buffered from the full effects of urbanization through thoughtful land use planning and the result of development choices. Land use policies codified in the Cupertino General Plan promoted the acquisition of floodplain lands as open space. These policies minimized the amount of urban development immediately adjacent to the creek corridor in Cupertino. In the downstream communities of Los Altos, Sunnyvale and Mountain View much of the stream corridor was ultimately protected by the construction of State Route 85, which roughly parallels Stevens Creek from Fremont Avenue to US Highway 101 (US 101). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) purchased large swaths of right-of-way in the 1960s for the development of State Route 85. The excess land was eventually transferred to the City of Mountain View as open space. These land use decisions and policies limited the amount of development that could occur directly adjacent the stream corridor, preserved much of the integrity of the riparian habitat and may have helped to maintain the population of threatened Central California Coast steelhead in Stevens Creek. These land protections, suitable habitat and the year-round presence of steelhead led NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service to designate Stevens Creek as “critical habitat” for the recovery of Central California Coast steelhead. Stevens Creek Dam releases typically maintain surface flow in the channel northward from the reservoir during dry months through a 5.7-mile groundwater recharge area ending at approximately Fremont Avenue. In the two miles immediately below the reservoir, located in Stevens Creek County Park, the creek passes through two golf courses, McClellan Ranch Preserve and Blackberry Farm Park where incision and entrenchment are low and the inset valley is fairly wide. The dam has reduced gravel loads available to replenish the stream system thereby contributing to creek bed downcutting. Water from Permanente Creek is diverted to Stevens Creek six miles below the reservoir during winter storms. This diversion reduces flooding in the lower Permanente Creek watershed, but increases scour and erosion in lower Stevens Creek. The downstream segments of the creek are steeply incised from lack of upstream sediment as a result of the dam and high peak flows from urbanization, which exacerbate erosion and creek bank slumping. The feasibility of a streamside trail is constrained by these ongoing hydrogeomorphic processes. HISTORY OF THE “STEVENS CREEK PARK CHAIN” CONCEPT (1961) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PLANNING DEPARTMENT In 1961, the County of Santa Clara Planning Department prepared the first plan for the “Stevens Creek Park Chain.” This concept plan provided a framework for land preservation and public access along the creek. The plan envisioned that creeks be “preserved in their natural state and augmented by parks and other public open spaces, these creeks can be priceless possessions of the metropolitan area, emerald necklaces of parks and connecting trailways. Along these creek chains one can walk, cycle, or horse-back ride for long distances, protected from automobile traffic (Santa Clara County, 1961, p. 1).” In the 1960s and 1970s, land along the Valley floor and upper watershed was preserved in response to this concept plan. Santa Clara County acquired properties that have become Stevens Creek County Park and Upper Stevens Creek County Park. The City of Mountain View acquired the excess right-of-way from the construction of SR 85. 808 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Page 4 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study The original 1961 Stevens Creek Park Chain Plan (Courtesy of Don Weden). STEVENS CREEK: A PLAN OF OPPORTUNITIES (1980) SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AND CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW The 1980 Plan of Opportunities evaluated the creek corridor from Homestead Road north to San Francisco Bay. This comprehensive management plan addressed flooding and erosion, biological resources and urban recreational opportunities of the open space lands along Stevens Creek. This plan outlined concepts, goals and management guidelines for preserving and restoring the biological resources while integrating recreational activities at nodes along the park chain that complemented the natural setting of the creek corridor. The report stressed the importance of preserving the natural creek corridor while allowing recreational access to the open space land along the creek. Environmental restoration of the creek corridor was first proposed in this report. Only those recreational uses that would integrate with the natural environment of Stevens Creek were recommended. Walking, jogging, bicycling and nature exploration were defined as appropriate passive recreational uses of the creek corridor. REGIONAL TRAIL PLANNING EFFORTS Over the past several decades, Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District have acquired open space lands and developed much of the Stevens Creek Trail in the upper watershed. The Tony Look Stevens Creek Trail extends through Stevens Creek County Park connecting to the Canyon Trail in Upper Stevens Creek County Park. The trail is named for Claude A. “Tony” Look, the late County Parks and Recreation commissioner and executive director and board member of Sempervirens Fund who worked to expand land protection in the Santa Cruz Mountains and encouraged the development of the Stevens Creek Trail until his death in 2006. Excess lands from the construction of SR 85. The Stevens Creek Nature Trail begins in the headwaters in Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and links to the Canyon Trail that follows the drainage south toward Saratoga Gap. A segment of trail is missing from the Canyon Trail, although recent acquisitions are helping to close this gap. Eventually, trail users will be able to hike through the entire upper watershed and connect to the Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail via the Table Mountain Fire Road and Saratoga Gap Trail. The Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail extends 29 miles from Saratoga Gap to the Pacific 809 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 5 Ocean at Waddell Creek in Big Basin State Park. When the gaps in the Stevens Creek Trail are completed, trail users will be able to travel from San Francisco Bay to the Pacific Ocean. The passage by voters of 2014 Measure AA - Regional Open Space Access, Preservation and Restoration Bond specifically supports the completion of the Stevens Creek Trail across the valley floor and through the upper watershed as determined by city and neighborhood trail routing solutions. This bond also identifies stream corridor restoration and steelhead habitat enhancement below Stevens Creek Dam as a priority. PAST CITY TRAIL PLANNING EFFORTS The four cities have undertaken focused trail planning efforts subsequent to the early regional open space planning reports. These efforts have resulted in the preparation of local trail plans and the construction of approximately five miles in Mountain View and one mile in Cupertino of the Stevens Creek Trail. The focused trail plans include: ♦ 1991 Stevens Creek Trail and Wildlife Corridor – Mountain View ♦ 1994 Evaluation of Policy and Planning Issues Related to Proposed Stevens Creek Trail as Impacting Sunnyvale – Sunnyvale ♦ 2002 Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4, Segment 2 – Mountain View ♦ 2002 Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study – Cupertino ♦ 2006 Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan – Cupertino ♦ 2008 Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study – Los Altos CURRENT STATUS OF TRAIL DEVELOPMENT Today, the Stevens Creek Trail extends five miles from San Francisco Bay to the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing in Mountain View and one mile from Stevens Creek Boulevard upstream to McClellan Road. An approximately three- mile trail gap exists between the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The four cities have each independently adopted plans and integrated goals and policies regarding development of the Stevens Creek Trail into long-range planning documents. The trail plans and policy documents of each city are summarized to provide the context for this feasibility study focused on closing the trail gap across the valley floor. MOUNTAIN VIEW STEVENS CREEK TRAIL, REACH 4, SEGMENT 2 FINAL EIR (2004) The most recent trail planning effort by Mountain View culminated in 2004 with the release of the Final Environmental Impact Report for Reach 4, Segment 2. This work reexamined the trail alignment from Yuba Drive to the open space lands south of Dale Avenue and Heatherstone Way. Since 2004, Mountain View has successfully constructed the trail from Yuba Drive to the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing. The final phase is planned to extend from Dale/Heatherstone to Mountain View High School through open space land owned by Mountain View to the east of State Route 85. The trail would extend along the west side of the creek between the soundwall and the top-of-bank until reaching the large meadow. The trail would meander through the meadow to a pedestrian overcrossing spanning State Route 85 and touch down in a city-owned parcel adjacent to Mountain View High School. No funding is currently budgeted for design or construction of this final trail phase. Mountain View is collaborating on this trail feasibility study to identify a final trail alignment that will best serve area residents and users of the Stevens Creek Trail. CUPERTINO STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN AND RESTORATION PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (2006) In 2002, Cupertino studied the feasibility of extending the Stevens Creek Trail and the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic 810 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Page 6 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Trail from Rancho San Antonio County Park to Stevens Creek County Park. This trail feasibility study was followed in 2006 with master plan and restoration plan for the lands along Stevens Creek from McClellan Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard. The trail in this area was developed in two phases and is open to the public. Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department developed portion of the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail through Rancho San Antonio County Park. A trail connection along city streets from Rancho San Antonio County Park to the Stevens Creek Trail in Cupertino is evaluated in this study. LOS ALTOS STEVENS CREEK TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY (2008) In 2008, Los Altos studied the feasibility of developing the Stevens Creek Trail through the open space lands north of Fremont Avenue and along city streets through Los Altos. Los Altos selected a preferred route that extended along the creek corridor to Fremont Avenue and Grant Road, but did not adopt this alignment. The route is planned as a Class I multi-use path that parallels these collector streets and is constructed within the public right-of-way. The route jogs west on Fremont Avenue and then extends south and southeast on Grant Road for approximately two miles to connect to Foothill Expressway at Homestead Road/Vineyard Drive. The existing westbound bike lane on the north side of Fremont Avenue and southbound bike lane on the west side of Grant Road are integrated into the new multi-use path in an effort to preserve more oak trees and provide a landscape buffer between the trail and auto traffic. Twelve side streets, two cul de sacs and the driveways to the Woodland Branch Library and Lucky Supermarket intersect the proposed two- mile multi-use path. The 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan notes “The final alignment for this project has not yet confirmed. The Class I pathway is only recommended if it is confirmed to be part of the Stevens Creek Trail or serve as a connector trail (Los Altos, 2012, p. 5-16).” BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE FOUR CITIES The feasibility study is guided not only by the previous trail planning efforts, but also by the plans and policies of the four cities relative to pedestrian and bicyclist mobility. The adopted general plan, bicycle plan and pedestrian plan goals, policies and strategies that guided the development of the potential Stevens Creek Trail routes are highlighted. SUNNYVALE GENERAL PLAN (2011) The City of Sunnyvale recently updated its General Plan. Goals and policies regarding the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists are included in the Land Use and Transportation Chapter. It should be noted that in 2009, the Sunnyvale City Council revised the 1994 General Plan to strike Policy 2.2.C.5 which opposed development of the Stevens Creek Trail within the creek corridor open space parcels. This action has allowed for a wider range of trail alternatives to be considered between the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing and Fremont Avenue than would have previously been considered. The revised policy states: “Policy LT-9.4 Support a regional trail system by coordinating with adjacent jurisdictions to facilitate trail connections wherever possible (Sunnyvale, 2011, p. 3-43).” In 2006, Sunnyvale developed Key Initiatives to respond to demands for increased open space and the areas identified as having “service gaps” and being underserved by current open space offerings. These Key Initiatives were further evaluated in the 2009 Parks of the Future Study. The 2006 Key Initiatives and the 2009 Parks of the Future Study identified the goal to “explore the potential for new off-street trails and coordination of on-street bike connections (Sunnyvale, 2011, p. 3-38).” An additional policy direction incorporated into the 2011 General Plan gives precedence to the movement people over stationary uses (parking) of the roadway system. 811 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 7 Sunnyvale General Plan Land Use and Transportation Goals and Policies GOAL LT-5 Effective, Safe, Pleasant and Convenient TransportationC3 .5) Policy LT-5.5 Support a variety of transportation modes. LT-5.5a Promote alternate modes of travel to the automobile. LT-5.5d Maximize the provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. LT-5.5e Implement the City of Sunnyvale Bicycle Plan. LT-5.5g Ensure safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle connections to neighborhood transit stops. Policy LT-5.8 Provide a safe and comfortable system of pedestrian and bicycle pathways. 3–22 Policy LT-5.9 Appropriate accommodations for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians shall be determined for city streets to increase the use of bicycles for transportation and to enhance the safety and efficiency of the overall street network for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicles. Policy LT-5.10 All modes of transportation shall have safe access to city streets. Policy LT-5.12 City streets are public space dedicated to the movement of vehicles, bicycle and pedestrians. Providing safe accommodation for all transportation modes takes priority over non- transportation uses. Facilities that meet minimum appropriate safety standards for transportation uses shall be considered before non-transportation uses are considered. Policy LT-5.13 Parking is the storage of transportation vehicles and shall not be considered a transport use. Policy LT-5.14 Historical precedence for street space dedicated for parking shall be lesser consideration than providing street space for transportation uses when determining the appropriate future use of street space. GOAL LT-8 Adequate and Balanced Open Space Policy LT-8.8 Support the acquisition or joint use through agreements with partners of suitable sites to enhance Sunnyvale’s open spaces and recreation facilities based on community need and through such strategies as development of easements and right-of-ways for open space use, conversion of sites to open space from developed use of land and landbanking. Policy LT-8.10 Facilitate and encourage pedestrian traffic in public recreational open spaces and utilize the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s Authority Pedestrian Technical Design Guidelines whenever appropriate and feasible. GOAL LT-9 Regional Approach to Open Space Policy LT-9.2 Support public and private efforts in and around Sunnyvale to acquire, develop and maintain open space and recreation facilities and service for public use. Policy LT-9.4 Support a regional trail system by coordinating with adjacent jurisdictions to facilitate trail connections wherever possible (See also City of Sunnyvale Bicycle Plan). Figure 1 – Sunnyvale General Plan goals and polices relating to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 812 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Page 8 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study “Sunnyvale Policy LT-5.12 City streets are public space dedicated to the movement of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. Providing safe accommodation for all transportation modes takes priority over non-transportation uses. Facilities that meet minimum appropriate safety standards for transportation uses shall be considered before non-transportation uses are considered (Sunnyvale, 2011, p. 3-23).” Many of Sunnyvale’s General Plan goals and policies support human-powered modes of transportation (See Figure 1 – Sunnyvale General Plan goals and polices relating to pedestrian and bicycle facilities). Figure 2 – Los Altos General Plan goals and polices relating to the movement of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. LOS ALTOS GENERAL PLAN (2002) The Los Altos General Plan - Circulation Element includes a bikeways map with both existing and proposed Class I bike paths, Class II bike lanes and Class III bike routes. The General Plan includes language that relates to the Stevens Creek Trail. The Circulation Element states that where feasible, paths and trails should be added to City right-of-way to help separate pedestrians and vehicles (See Figure 2 – Los Altos General Plan goals and polices relating to the movement of pedestrian and bicycle facilities). CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN 2000-2020 (2000) The 1964, 1972, 1993 and 2000 Cupertino General Plans have supported the acquisition of the lands adjacent to Stevens Creek to preserve the floodplain as open space and to develop an urban trail along the creek corridor. In keeping with this long-range vision, the City of Cupertino purchased McClellan Ranch, Blackberry Farm and Golf Course, the Simms and Stocklmeir properties between 1972 and 1999. Cupertino purchased the final floodplain parcel between McClellan Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, a single- family residence, from a willing seller in 2014. The Stevens Creek Trail supports City Council goals for enhancing bicycling and walking throughout the community. The trail implements elements of the 2011 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan and 2002 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines. Goals and policies regarding the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists are included in the Circulation and Environmental Resources/Sustainability Elements of the Cupertino General Plan (See Figure 3 – Cupertino General Plan goals and polices relating to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and Figure 4 – Cupertino General Plan goals and polices relating to trails and creeks). Los Altos General Plan Circulation Goals and Policies Goal 4 of the Circulation Element states that Los Altos should provide for the convenient and safe movement of bicyclists and pedestrians throughout the City to meet the commuter and recreation needs of the community. Relevant policies to achieve this goal include (Los Altos, 2002, pp. 23-24): Policy 4.1: Develop and maintain a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycling riding for commuting and recreation. Policy 4.2: Provide for safe and convenient pedestrian connections to and between Downtown, other commercial districts, neighborhoods, and major activity centers within the City, as well as within surrounding jurisdictions. Policy 4.4: Provide trails, sidewalks or separated pathways in areas where needed to provide safe bicycle and pedestrian access to schools. Policy 4.5: Consider separated bicycle and pedestrian pathways along arterial and collector roadways. Policy 4.6: Pursue potential rights-of-way such as Santa Clara Valley Water District and other utility easements for bicycle and pedestrian trail development. 813 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 9 Cupertino General Plan Circulation Goals and Policies GOAL C - A Comprehensive Network of Pedestrian and Bicycle Routes and Facilities Policy 4-3: Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines and the Cupertino Bicycle (Cupertino, 2000, pp. 4.7-4.9). Transportation Plan. Implement the programs and projects recommended in the Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines and in the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan, as well as other programs that promote this goal. Strategies 1. The Pedestrian Guidelines. Implement the projects recommended in the Pedestrian Guidelines including: • After engineering review, and where found to be feasible, improve safety at selected intersections by one or more of the following: prohibit right turn-on-red, add time to the pedestrian signal phase, construct a median and/or reduce corner radii. • Where feasible provide missing sidewalks on arterial and collector streets and on neighborhood streets as desired by residents. 3. Safe Routes to School. Work with the School Districts to promote the Safe Route to Schools program. 4. Pedestrian Time on Traffic Signals. With engineering review, provide additional time for pedestrians to cross streets at appropriate intersections. Added time would be most appropriate near shopping districts, schools and senior citizen developments. This strategy should be considered even if it could reduce the Level of Service (LOS) for automobile traffic. 5. Pedestrian Improvements. To enhance walking, consider various improvements to roadways to make them more pedestrian friendly and less auto-centric. Where a median is provided, it should be wide enough to safely accommodate pedestrians. Streets such as Homestead, Bollinger, Rainbow, Prospect or Stelling should be evaluated for potential improvements for pedestrians. Working with the neighborhood, consider reducing residential street widths to promote slower traffic and less pervious surface 6. Crosswalk Marking, Medians, and “Chokers.” Following engineering review, mark crosswalks with pavement treatment scaled to the speed of traffic. Use medians and “chokers” to narrow the width of the street where feasible and appropriate. 8. Implementation of the Bicycle Plan. Implement the Bikeway Network as recommended in the Bicycle Plan. 9. Bicycle Facilities in New Developments. Encourage the developers of major new or remodeled buildings to include secure interior and/or fully weather protected bicycle parking. 10.Traffic Calming on Bicycle Routes. Where feasible and appropriate, implement traffic calming on those bicycle routes where automobile traffic volumes are low. Bicycle traffic flows best where automobile traffic volume and speeds are low and where there are no stop signs or traffic signals to hinder through traffic flow. Policy 4-4: Regional Trail Development Continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system of trails and pathways consistent with regional systems, including the Bay Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor and Ridge Trail. The General Alignment of the Bay Trail, as shown in the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail planning document, is incorporated in the General Plan by reference. Figure 3 – Cupertino General Plan goals and polices relating to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 814 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Page 10 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Cupertino General Plan Environmental Resources/Sustainability Goals and Policies GOAL E – Protection of Special Areas of Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Habitation as Integral Parts of a Sustainable Environment Policy 5-13: Recreation in Natural Areas (Cupertino, 2000, pp. 5.12-5.13). Limit recreation in natural areas to activities compatible with preserving natural vegetation, such as hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking and camping. Policy 5-14: Recreation and Wildlife Trails Provide open space linkages within and between properties for both recreational and wildlife activities, most specifically for the benefit of wildlife that is threatened, endangered or designated as species of special concern. Strategy Require identification of creeks and watercourses on site plans and require that they be protected from adjacent development. State that trail easements for trail linkages may be required if analysis determines that they are needed. Figure 4 – Cupertino General Plan goals and polices relating to trails and creeks. MOUNTAIN VIEW 2030 GENERAL PLAN (2012) The City of Mountain View recently updated its General Plan. Goals and policies regarding the mobility of pedestrians and bicyclists are included in the Mobility and Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities Elements. Enhancing the multi-modal transportation system was identified as a top priority to advance mobility in Mountain View (See Figure 5 – Mountain View General Plan goals and polices relating to pedestrian and bicycle facilities). Mobility improvements will target alternative travel modes including shared- use bicycle and pedestrian paths, transit services and corridors, shuttle buses and complete streets designed for all users (Mountain View, 2012, p. 109). A key strategy identified in the 2030 General Plan for addressing the opportunities and challenges of providing adequate parks, open spaces and community facilities with increasing urbanization as denser housing is built, is the continued expansion of the Mountain View’s trail system (See Figure 6 – Mountain View General Plan goals and polices relating to parks, open space and trails). The trail system, with emphasis on completion of several trails and links through entry points, pathways and bridges, is identified as a top priority for present and future decision makers (Mountain View, 2012, p. 148). 815 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 11 City of Mountain View Mobility Goals and Policies “Mountain View’s mobility needs are fulfilled by a range of travel modes–including driving, walking, bicycling and public transit. Streets, sidewalks and trails serve a variety of social, recreational, ecological and accessibility goals. This Mobility Element reinforces the City’s significant long-term strategy to improve access for all means of travel and streets designed for all users (Mountain View, 2012, p. 95).” Complete Streets Complete streets policies encourage efficient and attractive streets that consider the needs of diverse members of the community, balance the different modes of transportation, promote physical activity and support environmental sustainability. Goal MOB-1: Streets that safely accommodate all transportation modes and persons of all abilities. Policies MOB 1.1: Multi-modal planning. Adopt and maintain master plans and street design standards to optimize mobility for all transportation modes. MOB 1.2: Accommodating all modes. Plan, design and construct new transportation improvement projects to safely accommodate the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists and persons of all abilities. MOB 1.3: Pedestrian and bicycle placemaking. Promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve connectivity between neighborhoods, provide opportunities for distinctive neighborhood features and foster a greater sense of community. MOB 1.6: Traffic calming. Provide traffic calming, especially in neighborhoods and around schools, parks and gathering places (Mountain View, 2012, p. 110). Walkability Walkability policies encourage a livable, healthy, sustainable and connected city with a safe and comfortable pedestrian network among its various neighborhoods, parks, trails, employment centers, community facilities, village centers and commercial areas. Goal MOB-3: A safe and comfortable pedestrian network for people of all ages and abilities at all times. Policies MOB 3.1: Pedestrian network. Provide a safe and comfortable pedestrian network. MOB 3.2: Pedestrian connections. Increase connectivity through direct and safe pedestrian connections to public amenities, neighborhoods, village centers and other destinations throughout the city. MOB 3.3: Pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings at key locations across physical barriers. MOB 3.5: Walking and bicycling outreach. Actively engage the community in promoting walking and bicycling through education, encouragement and outreach on improvement projects and programs (Mountain View, 2012, p. 111). Bikeability Bikeability policies encourage a livable, healthy, sustainable and connected city with adequate bicycle parking and a safe and comfortable network to enhance bicycling as a convenient form of transportation for commute and leisure trips. Goal MOB-4: A comprehensive and well-used bicycle network that comfortably accommodates bicyclists of all ages and skill levels. 816 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Page 12 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Policies MOB 4.1: Bicycle network. Improve facilities and eliminate gaps along the bicycle network to connect destinations across the city. MOB 4.2: Planning for bicycles. Use planning processes to identify or carry out improved bicycle connections and bicycle parking. MOB 4.3: Public bicycle parking. Increase the amount of well-maintained, publicly accessible bicycle parking and storage throughout the city. MOB 4.4: Bicycle parking standards. Maintain bicycle parking standards and guidelines for bicycle parking and storage in convenient places in private development to enhance the bicycle network. MOB 4.5: Promoting safety. Educate bicyclists and motorists on bicycle safety (Mountain View, 2012, p. 111). Safe Routes to Schools Safe routes to schools policies protect the safety of schoolchildren and other vulnerable populations. They promote health, environmental sustainability and social interaction. They leverage local, regional and national Safe Routes to Schools Program resources to support increased walking and bicycling to schools. Goal MOB-6: Safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycling access to schools for all children. Policies MOB 6.1: Safe routes to schools. Promote Safe Routes to Schools programs for all schools serving the city. MOB 6.2: Prioritizing projects. Ensure that bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements include projects to enhance safe accessibility to schools. MOB 6.3: Connections to trails. Connect schools to the citywide trail systems (Mountain View, 2012, p. 112). Figure 5 – Mountain View General Plan goals and polices relating to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 817 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 13 Mountain View General Plan Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities Goals and Policies “Parks and open space, community facilities, recreational programs and the arts are all important to Mountain View. They enhance the city’s neighborhoods and Downtown and offer recreation, social interaction and community-building activities and programs. Parks, open space and natural areas benefit human health and the environment through opportunities for physical exercise and access to nature for people, and habitats for plants and animals (Mountain View, 2012, p. 141).” Parks and Open Space Parks and open space policies outline means of acquisition, distribution, design and protection of parks, open space and park facilities. Goal POS-3: Open space areas with natural characteristics that are protected and sustained. Policy POS 3.1: Preservation of natural areas. Preserve natural areas, creeks and Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park primarily for low-intensity uses. In special circumstances more active uses may be permitted if the overall natural character of the larger area is retained (Mountain View, 2012, p. 149). Trails Trails policies encourage recreation, improve health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing active transportation links to neighborhoods, parks, transit and other destinations throughout Mountain View. Goal POS-6: An integrated system of multi-use trails connecting to key local and regional destinations and amenities. Policies POS 6.1: Citywide network of pathways. Develop a citywide network of pedestrian and bicycle pathways to connect neighborhoods, employment centers, open space resources and major destinations within the city. POS 6.2: At-grade crossings. Minimize at-grade crossings of major roads when building new trails (Mountain View, 2012, p. 150). Figure 6 – Mountain View General Plan goals and polices relating to parks, open space and trails. FEASIBILITY STUDY GOALS The feasibility study goals were derived from the plans and policies of the four cities and served to guide the trail planning process and development of potential trail alignments. The existing Stevens Creek Trail provides a completely separated pathway for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians. The trail serves a wide range ability levels and is especially suited for younger and less experienced bicyclists. Any extension of the trail must strive to offer a similar experience whether within the creek corridor lands or along city streets. The feasibility study goals include identifying potential routes: ◆ On public or quasi-public lands and coordinated with all relevant jurisdictions. ◆ Complete the trail between Mountain View and Cupertino. ◆ Suitable for a wide range of pedestrian and bicyclist abilities. ◆ Separate from traffic where possible. ◆ Integrate with the natural environment. ◆ Provide recreation and alternative transportation benefits to residents, students and local employees. ◆ Offer an opportunity to enhance the creek corridor as habitat for wildlife and city streets as an inviting urban forest for residents and visitors. 818 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Page 14 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study STUDY METHODOLOGY This feasibility study has been guided by the Joint Cities Working Team and Citizens Working Group. The Joint Cities Working Team was formed as a result of discussions by policy makers and City staff following the completion of a 2008 Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study by the City of Los Altos. During the discussions facilitated by Mountain View Council Members and staff, the attendees agreed that coordination of trail planning between Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino and Los Altos can potentially maximize the regional recreational and bicycle commute benefits of the trail. The purpose of the Joint Cities Working Team is to coordinate inter- jurisdictional trail planning. The working team includes an elected official and staff member from each of the four cities along Stevens Creek. The Joint Cities Working Team secured funding and selected the consultant team. In the fall of 2012, a citizens committee was recruited by the Joint Cities Working Team to assist with the trail planning process. The Citizens Working Group was to provide input on the feasibility study, gather public comments on the trail alignment alternatives and review the draft trail feasibility report. The Citizens Working Group was comprised of residents, trail user group members and environmental organization leaders from the four cities. The Citizens Working Group began meeting in November 2012 and has worked directly with City staff and the consultant team. The Citizens Working Group has reviewed preliminary feasibility findings and assisted with gathering public comment on the potential trail routes through working sessions and series of community meetings. The analyses supplied by the consultants, reviewed first by the Citizens Working Group and then the Joint Cities Working Team and refined through comments made by community members are included in this report. A total of 18 working sessions and four community meetings have been held with the Joint Cities Working Team, Citizens Working Group and the community to gather feedback on the potential trail routes (See Appendix A – Summary of Meetings). In addition, numerous technical meetings were also held with regulatory agencies, adjacent landowners and individual stakeholders. TRAIL PLANNING PROCESS A feasibility study is the first step in the trail planning process. A trail master plan, with a narrower range of potential trail routes, is then undertaken to more fully develop the alignments. The trail feasibility findings will provide significant background documentation for a trail master plan. A trail master plan process would provide additional opportunities for public input. Ultimately, a trail master plan must be evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to adoption by governing agencies. All of these trail planning and environmental review efforts will provide opportunities for further public involvement in shaping the future of the Stevens Creek Trail (See Figure 7 – Trail Planning Process). Figure 7 – Trail Planning Process. 819 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 15 TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS The trail feasibility study began in 2012 with technical evaluations. These feasibility investigations included a review of property ownership, an assessment of the biological resources, on-street facilities inventory and identification of geotechnical and hydrological constraints associated with the streambanks and bridges spanning Stevens Creek. The results of these technical studies were used to develop engineering solutions at constrained sites and identify opportunities on the roadway system for extending the Stevens Creek Trail. The technical evaluations began with a review of background information pertinent to the study area to become familiar with the projects and processes that created the existing opportunities and constraints to trail development. Significant time was spent directly observing field conditions. Site visits were conducted to assess corridor feasibility and gather additional data needed to refine conceptual engineering solutions to constrained areas. During the fieldwork, information was gathered on opportunities and constraints to creek trail development including land availability, roadway and creek crossings, habitat sensitivity and institutional issues associated with land managing agencies. During the fieldwork, information was gathered on the connectivity to the on- street bicycle and pedestrian system and adjacent points of interest along the potential trail routes. OUTREACH TO AGENCIES Preliminary trail alignment alternatives were identified and presented to the agencies with jurisdiction along corridor and adjacent lands. Conceptual engineering solutions to constrained areas of the corridor were further evaluated and brought forward for preliminary discussions with impacted agencies including Santa Clara Valley Water District, Caltrans, Cupertino Union School District, Santa Clara County Park and Recreation Department and Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department as well as all of the participating cities, which included Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Cupertino and Mountain View. Continued outreach with these agencies will be necessary throughout the trail planning process. COMMUNITY MEETINGS Seven community meetings were held over a period of three years to gather input on the preliminary findings and potential trail alignments. The meetings were held in November 2012, January, February and June of 2013 and May and June of 2015 (See Appendix A – Summary of Public Meetings). Comments and suggestions from meeting participants were incorporated into this report as applicable. Any subsequent trail planning efforts and associated environmental review materials will come before the public. BENEFITS AND SIGNIFICANCE The Stevens Creek Trail is used by residents and area employees who enjoy spending time recreating, commuting and observing the flora and fauna of the creek corridor. Eleven city parks, two regional recreation facilities, 16 K-12 schools and DeAnza College are located within the study area and would be served by the Stevens Creek Trail. The trail connects to the San Francisco Bay Trail and the Bay Area Ridge Trail providing access to regional open space lands. The trail provides access to Caltrain and Light Rail in downtown Mountain View providing opportunities for multi- modal commuting (See Figure 8 – Summary of Parks, Schools and Attractions). Extension of the Stevens Creek Trail has the potential to open to the public 22 acres of open space land located between Stevens Creek and State Route 85. This site provides an opportunity to extend the trail south to Fremont Avenue and to enhance the habitat 820 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Page 16 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Summary of Parks, Schools and Attractions Sunnyvale Los Altos Cupertino Mountain View City Parks and Natural Areas DeAnza Park Mango Park San Antonio Park Grant Park Blackberry Farm Park Mary Avenue Dog Park Memorial Park Somerset Park Varian Park Cooper Park Cuesta Park Regional Parks and Trails Stevens Creek Trail to SF Bay Trail Rancho San Antonio County Park Rancho San Antonio OSP Rancho San Antonio County Park Rancho San Antonio OSP Stevens Creek Trail to SF Bay Trail Public and Private Schools Cherry Chase Elementary Cupertino Middle School South Peninsula Hebrew Day School Stratford School Sunnyvale Middle School West Valley Elementary Monarch Christian School Montclaire Elementary Oak Elementary St. Simon Elementary De Anza College Garden Gate Elementary Homestead High School Stevens Creek Elementary Alta Vista High School Mountain View High School Transit VTA Bus Route 53 VTA Bus Routes 51 and 55 VTA Bus Routes 23, 51 and 53 Caltrain VTA Light Rail VTA Bus Route 51 Other Attractions US Post Office Foothill Crossings Shopping Center Woodland Branch Library Woodland Plaza Commercial District Blackberry Farm Golf Course Cupertino Senior Center The Oaks Shopping Center US Post Office El Camino Hospital Figure 8 – Summary of parks, schools and attractions within the study area. 821 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 17 along the creek for wildlife. Public access to these lands would contribute parkland for passive recreation activities (walking, bicycling, jogging, photography and environmental education) that integrate with the creek corridor setting. These lands would provide a nearby amenity in the densely populated urban area. INCLUSION IN REGIONAL TRAIL PLANS Stevens Creek was first identified as a regional recreation asset more than 50 years ago and was included in the Regional Parks, Trails and Scenic Highways Element of the Santa Clara County General Plan. Today, the Stevens Creek corridor is identified as a sub-regional trail (Route S-2) in the 1995 Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan and significant portions of the trail have been developed by the City of Mountain View, City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The 1995 Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan defines three types of trails: regional, sub-regional and connector trails. These definitions specify the purposes served by the various trail types. The Stevens Creek Trail is a sub-regional trail identified as Route S-2 (See Figure 9 – 1995 Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan Definitions). The Stevens Creek Trail is recognized by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as a connector trail to the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan (ABAG, 1989). The inclusion of the Stevens Creek Trail in many regional and local plans further points to its significance as a recreation and alternative transportation corridor and as an open space resource in north Santa Clara County. The Stevens Creek Trail connects to the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail in Cupertino. The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail was placed on the National Trail System Map in 1996. This federally recognized historic trail commemorates the 1775-1776 expedition led by Juan Bautista de Anza, which established an overland route for the Spanish. The route extends through two states and today includes both bicycling and hiking trails and an auto route. Juan Bautista de Anza’s expedition camped in Cupertino and first sighted San Francisco Bay from a prominent knoll in Rancho San Antonio County Park (Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management and Use Plan, 1996). A 2.3-mile section of the Anza Trail is located within Rancho San Antonio County Park. The trail features the location in which Anza and his expedition first spotted the San Francisco Bay, a knoll between the Permanente Creek and Stevens Creek watersheds. CONNECTIONS TO CITY PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND ATTRACTIONS Locally, the Stevens Creek Trail will provide children and families with improved access to 11 city parks located within the study area. The trail could also provide improved bicycle and pedestrian access to Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve. The trail could facilitate bicycling and walking to local shops, restaurants, post offices and libraries along the route. TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS The Stevens Creek Trail will enhance walkability and expand the alternative transportation opportunities for residents, students and employees. Intermodal commute opportunities will be created through connections to Caltrain and Light Rail in downtown Mountain View and to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus routes. All VTA buses are equipped with bicycle racks. This will facilitate bus-bike trips to and from work and school. The Stevens Creek Trail will connect to three VTA bus routes. The bus lines that connect with the Stevens Creek Trail include Routes 23, 51 and 53, which run along Bernardo, Remington and Mary 822 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Page 18 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Santa Clara County Trail Definitions Regional Trail Routes are those trails of National, State or regional recreation significance. In all cases, Regional trail routes extend beyond the borders of Santa Clara County. Regional Trails are generally envisioned as shared-use trail routes in that they would accommodate a variety of trail users. In some instances, where topography and other physical constraints dictate, separate trails along the same general trail route may be needed to accommodate different users. Sub-Regional Trail Routes are those that in some way: ◆ Provide regional recreation and transportation benefits such as providing key links for accessing rail stations, bus routes or park-and-ride facilities; ◆ Provide for continuity between cities; generally crossing a city or passing through more than one city; or ◆ Provide convenient long-distance trail loop opportunities by directly linking two or more Regional Trail to create an urban trail network. Connector Trail Routes are those that: ◆ Form convenient means of access and linkages from urban areas, developed areas, and public lands within the county to the primary trail network of Regional and Sub-Regional Trails. Figure 9 – 1995 Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan Definitions (County of Santa Clara, 1995, pp. 40-46). in Sunnyvale, Fremont and Grant in Los Altos and Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS In 1999, California was the first state in the country to legislate a Safe Routes to School program (AB 1475), which requires that a portion of federal transportation funds be used to construct bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects that encourage increased walking and bicycling by students. Increasing the number of students walking and bicycling to school can reduce traffic congestion. Studies have shown that school travel accounts for 10-14 percent of autos on the road during the morning commute (McDonald, 2009). The study area evaluated in this feasibility report includes two public high school districts (Fremont Union and Mountain View-Los Altos) and four public K-8 school districts (Cupertino Union, Los Altos, Mountain View Whisman, and Sunnyvale). Most of the students attending public schools in the study area live within bicycling distance to school, but traffic conditions discourage them from doing so. Several Cupertino Union School District schools within the study area have active Safe Routes to School programs that encourage students to walk and bike to school. The Stevens Creek Trail will provide safer bicycling and walking routes for these students, which can reduce auto traffic in the neighborhoods in which the schools are located. COMPLETE STREETS PROGRAM In 2008, California enacted the Complete Streets Program (AB 1358), which requires that the planning of all improvements to the transportation system meet the needs of all users. A complete street is a transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, truckers and motorists. Complete street concepts apply to all roadways in all contexts including local roads and state highways in rural, suburban, and urban areas. Some of the benefits of complete streets include increased transportation choices, more livable communities, enhanced traveler 823 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 19 safety, improved public health with infrastructure that support walking and bicycling and enhanced air quality by encouraging vehicular trips to be replaced with non-motorized or public transit trips (California Department of Transportation, 2014). All pedestrian and bicycle improvements proposed on local roadways in this study support the goals of California’s Complete Streets Program. ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS The Stevens Creek corridor offers a rare setting where visitors can experience the natural world within a densely developed urban center. Environmental conditions along the creek corridor should be enhanced in conjunction with the development of the trail. Trail projects provide opportunities to restore habitat resources and decrease dependency on the automobile as a primary form of local transportation. The wetland, riparian and oak woodland habitats along Stevens Creek should be preserved and enhanced for wildlife. The addition of native flora would enhance the integrity and biodiversity of the habitat. All trail construction projects should include a habitat enhancement component that addresses both the stream and upland habitats. Projects should also include a maintenance and monitoring component to ensure that the goal of enhancing the creek corridor is being achieved simultaneously with development of the trail. ENHANCEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Construction of the trail should include geomorphic enhancements within the stream corridor to support passage of aquatic species and installation of locally native riparian and upland plants to increase habitat complexity for wildlife. These natural resource investments will create an inviting place in which to recreate and commute on foot and by bicycle and provide an opportunity to experience a little of the natural world within the heavily urbanized Bay Area. Stevens Creek Trail through Cupertino. IMPROVED AIR QUALITY The Stevens Creek corridor offers an opportunity to extend the trail through open space lands that are separated from the roadway system. These types of bicycling facilities support bicyclists of all ability levels and may therefore encourage an increase in bicycling and walking. As part of the 2010 Mountain View Pedestrian Master Plan process, a pedestrian and bicycle activity survey was conducted to clarify current usage and demand, establish a baseline in order to measure future progress, and apply for funding for infrastructure improvements. Trail use on the Stevens Creek Trail was assessed on two weekend days in May 2010. A total of 1,468 trail users (822 bicyclists and 646 pedestrians) passed by West Evelyn on May 1 and 1,220 trail users (681 bicyclists and 539 pedestrians) passed by Moffett Boulevard on May 8 (Mountain View, 2010, pp. 5-7). These figures provide one snapshot of trail use from the downstream end of the trail corridor near the North Bayshore high technology employment center. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) suggests that construction of an efficient bicycle and pedestrian circulation system can decrease dependence on the automobile by 2%. Development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities is often recommended as one strategy to mitigate the air quality impacts 824 C HAPTER 1 – P URPOSE AND B ENEFITS Page 20 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study of large-scale development projects (BAAQMD, 2005). BAAQMD, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), has established Transportation Control Measures (TCM) as part of a broad strategy to make progress toward meeting State ozone standards. These TCMs will also help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The TCM measure listed below will be implemented by closing the gap in the Stevens Creek Trail (BAAQMD, 2005, pp. D-15 – D-19, D-27 – D-32, D-64 – D-66). ♦ TCM 5 – Improve Access to Rail and Ferries ♦ TCM 9 – Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities ♦ TCM 10 – Youth Transport ♦ TCM 19 – Improve Pedestrian Access and Facilities HEALTH BENEFITS Studies in association with The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that 64% of the U.S. population is clinically overweight with over 31% obese. This condition is tied to lack of physical activity resulting in increased heart disease, cancer, diabetes, anxiety, depression, cognitive decline and other health problems. Providing nearby trails offers a convenient opportunity for regular physical activity that can lower rates of obesity and health care costs. Trails for Health is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initiative to help Americans of all ages achieve the health benefits of physical activity by increasing opportunities for fitness and exercise. Trails for Health supports the Department of Health and Human Services’ Steps to a HealthierUS initiative, which promotes behavior changes and encourages healthier lifestyle choices to help advance the President Obama’s goal of building a stronger, healthier nation. Trails for Health supports CDC’s Active Community Environments (ACES), an initiative to promote walking, bicycling, and the development of accessible recreation facilities. ACES was developed in response to data that suggest that characteristics of our communities such as proximity of facilities, street design, and availability of pedestrian and bicycle facilities such as trails play a significant role in promoting or discouraging physical activity. Scientific evidence from the Guide to Community Preventive Services shows that providing access to places for physical activity, such as trails, increases the level of physical activity in a community. Trails can provide a wide variety of opportunities for being physically active including walking, jogging, running, hiking, in-line skating and bicycling. All of the activities are supported by the Stevens Creek Trail. 825 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 21 This chapter describes criteria used to evaluate the feasibility for connecting the Stevens Creek Trail along city streets and through open space lands along the stream corridor. Land availability, habitat sensitivity, roadway and creek crossings were evaluated within the creek corridor. In areas where a streamside trail was not feasible, on-street alignments were evaluated to link together the existing segments of the regional trail. Roadway width, traffic volume and speed, roadway intersections and pedestrian and bicycle collision history were evaluated for on- street routes to determine opportunities and constraints to closing the gap in the Stevens Creek Trail. The trail feasibility was assessed by applying design guidelines and standards. Results of these site analyses were then used to develop a range of potential trail alignments described in Chapters 3 and 4. Land availability explored property ownership and land use and compared this information to the land needed to construct a trail. The amount of land necessary to develop a trail was based upon various trail design guidelines and the operations and maintenance requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The guidelines used to determine adequate trail width included the Caltrans Highway Design Manual: Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design (California Department of Transportation, 2012) and the Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan - Design and Management Guidelines (County of Santa Clara, 1995). The habitat sensitivity of the creek corridor was evaluated through field surveys and a review of federal and state-listed species that have the potential to occur in the area. Previous habitat enhancement efforts undertaken along the Stevens Creek were also evaluated for implications to trail development. The type and quality of the habitats along the creek corridor are summarized in this chapter. The five existing roadway bridges that span Stevens Creek (State Route 85, Fremont Avenue, Homestead Road, Interstate 280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard) were individually evaluated for the potential to create in-channel underpasses that would maintain the trail within the corridor. The single pedestrian/bicycle bridge spanning Stevens Creek at West Valley Elementary School Creek was evaluated for use in the potential trail alignments. In-channel underpasses allow the trail to be grade- separated from automobile traffic. The vehicular bridge structures were assessed for the ability to accommodate a trail underpass suitable for year-round pedestrian and bicycle passage excluding those periods of winter flood events. The potential to construct pedestrian/bicycle overcrossings were explored at Interstate 280 and State Route 85. Conceptual engineering solutions for retrofitting the bridges to support underpasses and developing overcrossings are described in Chapter 3. The guidelines used to determine adequate roadway width for bicycle and pedestrian facilities included Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle Technical Guidelines (VTA, 2012), California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual: Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design (California Department of Transportation, 2012), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO, 2012) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (AASHTO, 2004). This feasibility study reviewed a wide range of on-street routes and identifies the types of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are feasible on each street. 826 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Page 22 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study LAND AVAILABILITY Land availability addresses the amount of public and quasi-public land available for trail development. Stevens Creek has been modified by the upstream dam and in- channel water management structures, roadway crossings, utility infrastructure and adjacent urban development. All of these features of urbanization reduce the amount of land along the creek corridor and constrain trail development. The first step in assessing trail feasibility was to determine land availability throughout the study area. OWNERSHIP The intent of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of developing the Stevens Creek Trail on existing public lands or on lands that are subject to discretionary development approvals. Public land does not extend the full length of the study area. The majority of public land is located in the north of the study area between Dale Avenue to just south of Fremont Avenue. Public land along the creek corridor is primarily owned by the City of Mountain View, City of Sunnyvale and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Other public or quasi-public agencies control additional parcels of land along the corridor. These agencies include California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department (County Roads), City of Los Altos, Mountain View/Los Altos High School District, Sunnyvale School District, Los Altos School District and Cupertino Union School District. Some private companies providing public services or quasi-public agencies control additional parcels of land along the corridor and include California Water Service Company (Cal Water), Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). In general, the potential trail alignments are proposed within or spanning these lands (See Map 2 – Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Ownership Map, Map 3 – Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road Ownership Map and Map 4 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard Ownership Map). TRAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES Trail design guidelines were reviewed to determine if sufficient land existed to accommodate construction of the trail. Guidelines established by Caltrans and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) were used to determine the land availability requirements along the creek. Caltrans defines three types of bike facilities, each with specific dimensions. Class I Bike Paths are located off-street and Class II Bike Lanes and Class III Bike Routes are located within the roadway right-of-way. A Class I Bicycle Pathway serves the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicyclists and is defined as a right-of-way completely separated from motor vehicle street and highway traffic (Caltrans, Highway Design Manual: Chapter 1000, 2012). The minimum trail width for a Class I Bicycle Pathway is 8 feet (10 feet preferred) with minimum 2-foot shoulders on each side of the trail. Inadequate top-of-bank behind the soundwall along State Route 85 at a channel meander. 827 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 23 Map 2 – Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Ownership Map. 828 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Page 24 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Map 3 – Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road Ownership Map. 829 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 25 Trail Design Guidelines are included as an appendix to the 1995 Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan. These guidelines suggest "trail tread widths should be determined by the amount and intensity of trail use and field conditions such as topography, vegetation and sensitivity of environmental resources” (County of Santa Clara, 1995, Chapter 5, p. 70). Countywide Trails Master Plan Guideline G-2 – Shared-use Trail – Paved Tread Double Track has application for evaluating the feasibility of developing a trail in the Stevens Creek corridor (See Figure 10). This guideline recommends that a trail serving multiple uses meet an optimum width of 12 feet and provide a hard paved surface to accommodate multi- use. In situations where uses are limited, tread width is narrowed. Although these guidelines establish very specific tread width and surfacing types, they do not set a standard. They each represent one perspective for evaluating the feasibility of trail development. Ultimately, any trail must be designed to accommodate the intended trail use and intensity. Santa Clara County's Trail Easement Dedication Policies and Practices usually require a 25-foot wide easement to accommodate trail development in the urban service areas (County of Santa Clara, 1992). The 25-foot wide easement is intended to include the trail tread, shoulders, privacy setback and habitat enhancements or landscaping. This easement width would be necessary when designing for this type of a multi-use path. In addition to Caltrans and the Santa Clara County recommendations, SCVWD maintains guidelines for maintenance access through the creek corridors. These guidelines recommend a minimum 20 to 22 foot clearance for maintenance vehicle movement along the creek channels. These guidelines are important because in many areas both trail users and maintenance vehicles would likely travel the same pathway. Figure 10 – Countywide Trails Master Plan Guideline G-2 – Shared-use Trail – Paved Tread Double Track (County of Santa Clara, 1995, Chapter 5, p. 70). 830 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Page 26 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Map 4 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard Ownership Map. 831 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 27 TOP-OF-BANK WIDTH Top-of-Bank (TOB) distances were categorized into three conditions. They included Ideal TOB, Adequate TOB and Inadequate TOB for trail development (See Figure 11 – Top-of-Bank Land Availability Criteria). Ideal TOB is characterized by 15 to 25 feet of land available for trail development. This condition is most often found within the city-owned open space parcels adjacent to State Route 85 and at school or park sites adjacent to Stevens Creek. Many of these areas are multi-acre parcels that also provide opportunities as mitigation sites or for habitat enhancement. Adequate TOB conditions include areas that have between 10 to 15 feet of land available for trail development. These areas meet Caltrans and County minimum tread width requirements, but have little land for setbacks or habitat enhancement. Inadequate TOB is characterized by less than 10 feet of land. Segments of Adequate TOB and Inadequate TOB are present in areas where State Route 85 encroaches on the channel meanders in Stevens Creek. In these areas, minimal land remains between the highway soundwall and the edge of the creek bank. These constrained areas require engineering solutions to accommodate a trail (See Map 5 – Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Habitat and Land Availability Map). Inadequate TOB is also present from approximately Fremont Avenue to Stevens Creek Boulevard where very little land is in public ownership (See Map 6 – Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road Habitat and Land Availability Map and Map 7 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard Habitat and Land Availability Map). The available TOB is indicated on the maps in areas of public ownership only. Top-of-Bank (TOB) Land Availability Criteria Condition Width of Available Land General Locations Ideal TOB 15 to 25 feet or greater Open space parcels, schools and parks Adequate TOB 10 to 15 feet Pinch points between State Route 85 and meanders in Stevens Creek Inadequate TOB 10 feet or less Areas of no public ownership Figure 11 – Top-of-Bank Land Availability Criteria. Inadequate Top-of-Bank south of the SCVWD Fremont Drop Structure adjacent to State Route 85. 832 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Page 28 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Map 5 – Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Habitat and Land Availability Map. HABITAT SENSITIVITY An assessment of biological resources was conducted to evaluate habitat sensitivity and the presence of rare, threatened and endangered species throughout the study area with particular emphasis on the Stevens Creek corridor. The bioassessment included a review of species known to or having the potential to occur within the study area based on a search of the California Natural Diversity Database and the California Native Plant Society Inventory within the Cupertino (ID#: 37122C1) U.S. Geological Service 7.5- Minute Quadrangle. Field surveys were simultaneously conducted during the land availability assessment of the corridor. The field surveys were conducted to determine the location and extent of habitats. A variety of habitat types were found in the open space lands within the study area. Three general habitat categories are mapped. These included riparian forest, oak woodland and urban open space (See Map 5 – Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Habitat and Land Availability Map, Map 6 – Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road Habitat and Land Availability Map and Map 7 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard Habitat and Land Availability Map). RIPARIAN FOREST The riparian forest area includes freshwater wetlands, riverine habitat and California sycamore woodland. The California sycamore woodland plant community includes California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), red willow (Salix laevigata) and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepsis)(Sawyer, 2009). Stevens Creek is managed as a natural channel and receives storm flows, dam releases and urban 833 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 29 runoff. The creek bottom is gravel and contains patches of in-stream freshwater wetlands. SCVWD operates the Stevens Creek reservoir. Water is impounded behind the dam for purposes of groundwater recharge. Typically, summer releases from the dam maintain downstream flows to approximately Fremont Avenue. The area between the dam and Interstate 280 is considered a “cold water management area” intended to support the spawning and rearing of the federally threatened Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The California sycamore forest, freshwater wetlands and riverine habitat are considered sensitive by the resource agencies, either because they support rare species or because the habitats are protected by law. OAK WOODLAND The mapped oak woodland areas include Coast live oak woodland and ruderal grassland. The Coast live oak woodland extends from the edge of the stream bank across the alluvial terraces of the creek corridor. Along Stevens Creek this plant community includes box elders (Acer negundo), black walnut (Juglans californica), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata) and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepsis) (Sawyer, 2009). In disturbed areas the woodland is interspersed by ruderal grassland comprised of both native grasses and forbes and many non-native annual grasses. “California's oak woodlands provide habitat for nearly half Map 6 – Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road Habitat and Land Availability Map. 834 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Page 30 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study of the 632 terrestrial vertebrates found in the state but they are under threat from development and climate change. Acorns are a key resource for 40 different wildlife species such as deer, squirrels, turkeys, jays, quail and bear. Standing dead trees are an important habitat resource in oak woodlands for animals including raptors, bats, salamanders, and lizards. Coarse woody tree material lying on the ground, particularly large logs, are very important habitat element because they retain moisture in a relatively dry ecosystem. Oak woodlands near riparian resources like creeks, rivers or lakes support the greatest number of wildlife species (California Wildlife Foundation/California Oaks Project, 2010).” URBAN OPEN SPACE The urban open space lands include landscaped parks and schools. These lands offer both native and ornamental trees that provide roosting and nesting habitat. The majority of these areas are turfed lawns that provide minimal habitat value to wildlife. Map 7 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard Habitat and Land Availability Map. 835 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 31 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Based upon the field surveys and the review of the databases, 15 special-status animals have been documented within a five-mile radius of the creek corridor. Figure 12 identifies the species that are known to occur or may occur due to potentially suitable habitat for these species. Rare species documented or expected to occur in the area of the Stevens Creek corridor within the study boundaries include San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, white-tailed kite, Cooper’s hawk and other birds of prey, western pond turtle and steelhead trout. Species that have the potential to occur in Rancho San Antonio County Park and the surrounding open space lands include California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, Western burrowing owl, Vaux’s swift and loggerhead shrike. In landscaped park and school sites other raptors may be observed foraging or nesting in mature trees. Rare plant species may also occur within the study area boundaries. An assessment California sycamore in winter. of plant species by location should be undertaken in conjunction with the development of a trail master plan and environmental review documents. The most important biological constraints to trail development revolve around these rare species and protected habitats. The identified trail alignments are designed to avoid and minimize impacts to natural resources. Fremont cottonwood in winter. INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES The Stevens Creek corridor hosts numerous invasive plant species through the study area. Giant reed (Arundo donax), Cape ivy (Delairea odorata), English ivy (Hedera helix) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) are the most abundant non-native plants through the 22-acre open space adjacent to State Route 85. The majority of these plants are found in the riparian forest and are outcompeting native understory species. 836 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Page 32 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Status Central California Coast Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss FT California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense FT, ST, SSC California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii FT, SSC Western Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata SSC Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus SSC White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus FP Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus WL Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii WL Western Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia SSC Vaux’s Swift Chaetura vauxi SSC Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechial SSC Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus SSC Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus Townsendii SCT, SSC San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat Neotoma fuscipes annectens SSC Figure 12 – Wildlife species with the potential to occur within the study area (FT=Federally listed as Threatened, ST=State-listed as Threatened, SCT=State Candidate for listing as Threatened, SSC=California Species of Special Concern, FP=California Fully Protected, WL=California Watch List). Steelhead spawning in Stevens Creek – March 2013 (Photo courtesy of NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service). 837 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 33 EVALUATION OF GRADE SEPARATIONS AT BRIDGES ALONG STEVENS CREEK Five roadway bridges span Stevens Creek within the study area. Each of these bridges was individually investigated to determine the feasibility of providing a grade- separated trail underpass beneath the bridge that maintained an uninterrupted trail alignment adjacent to the stream corridor. The one pedestrian/bicycle bridge on Stevens Creek within the study area was evaluated for use in the trail alignments. Investigation of the bridges included fieldwork and measurements, evaluation of topographic information, review of as-built drawings and an assessment of 100-year water surface elevations to determine if the bridge structures could potentially be modified to accommodate in-channel trail underpasses. Only the State Route 85 bridge can be modified to provide trail access via an underpass beneath the highway. The approximately 275-foot long tunnels that extend beneath Interstate 280 and the UPRR line have some potential to carry the trail. However, inadequate public land exists to the south. A trail in this area would likely be subject to seasonal closures due to flooding. Any alignment beneath these transportation corridors would require coordination with SCVWD and concurrence with Caltrans and UPRR. The remaining bridges require different types of crossing solutions such as a separate tunnel or pedestrian overcrossing or the use of an at-grade street crossing to accommodate the trail alignments. A summary of the bridges and the potential engineering solutions that may support a grade-separated trail is provided in Figure 13. The concrete arch bridge that spans Stevens Creek at Fremont Avenue cannot be modified to accommodate a trail underpass. 838 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Page 34 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Summary of Grade-Separated Crossing Feasibility at Existing Roadway Bridges Bridge Location In-channel Underpass Feasibility Proposed Crossing Solution Comments State Route 85 Yes In-channel Underpass In-channel underpass appears feasible on southeast bank. Private ownership along the northwest bank precludes underpass on northwest bank. Fremont Avenue Maybe In-channel Underpass only possible with New Bridge In-channel underpass requires easement along east bank and replacement of Fremont Avenue bridge. Private ownership along the west bank precludes underpass on west bank. Homestead Road No At-grade Crossing Area lacks public land for trail underpass ramps and would require replacement of Homestead Road bridge. Interstate 280 No Pedestrian Overcrossing Two locations show promise for providing a pedestrian overcrossing using city and Caltrans owned properties. The potential locations include: Caroline to Madera and Peninsular to Somerset Square Park Stevens Creek Boulevard No Parallel Tunnel A tunnel parallel to the creek channel may be possible, but needs further investigation. Recent land acquisition by Cupertino may enhance feasibility. Figure 13 – Summary of grade-separated crossing feasibility at existing roadway bridges along Stevens Creek. See Maps 9-12 for crossing locations. OTHER GRADE SEPARATION INVESTIGATIONS The potential to provide grade-separated crossings of several roadways to extend the trail south was also undertaken as a part of this feasibility study. Other crossing investigations outside of the creek corridor were undertaken at Fremont Avenue, Homestead Road, State Route 85 and Interstate 280. Investigation at these locations included fieldwork and measurements, evaluation of topographic information and review of as-built drawings to determine if structures could potentially be developed to accommodate grade-separations of these roadways. A summary of the crossing feasibility and the potential engineering solutions at each location are provided in Figure 14. An overpass spanning Fremont Avenue may be feasible paralleling the northbound State Route 85 on-ramp to city-owned right-of-way along Bernardo Avenue. 839 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 35 Summary of Grade-Separated Crossings Feasibility at Other Structures Roadway and Location Proposed Crossing Solution Comments State Route 85 at Mountain View High School Pedestrian Overcrossing – Feasible The pedestrian overcrossing from the 22- acre open space to city-owned land adjacent to Mountain View High School was previously evaluated by the City of Mountain View and is carried forward into this study. Fremont Avenue at Bernardo Pedestrian Overcrossing – Likely Feasible A pedestrian overcrossing within Caltrans right-of-way parallel to northbound State Route 85 on-ramp from Fremont Ave. to city-owned roadway right-of way on Bernardo may be feasible to maintain a grade-separated trail above Fremont Ave. State Route 85 at Bernardo and Homestead Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge parallel to Homestead Road Bridge – Likely Feasible A pedestrian/bicycle bridge could span State Route 85 parallel to the existing Homestead Road bridge to provide a separated crossing of State Route 85 for the trail. State Route 85 at Bernardo and Homestead Road Widening of Homestead Road Bridge – Likely Feasible It may be possible to widen the existing Homestead Road bridge to provide trail access over State Route 85. Interstate 280 from SCVWD lands to Groveland Drive Pedestrian Overcrossing – Not Feasible Difficult grades and two PG&E transmission towers near the potential landing site. Interstate 280 from SCVWD lands to Madera Drive Pedestrian Overcrossing – Not Feasible Difficult topography and challenging grades. PG&E transmission towers. Long angled span results in poor geometrics unlikely to receive Caltrans support. Interstate 280 from SCVWD lands through tunnels to Madera Drive Use of Existing Tunnels – Potentially Feasible Difficult topography and challenging grades. Long, remote stretch of corridor. Frequent flooding. Property needed to the south. Location uses SCVWD, county and city properties. Needs Caltrans support. Interstate 280 from Peninsular to Somerset Park Pedestrian Overcrossing – Potentially Feasible Coordination with SR85/I280 Interchange Improvements to fully assess future feasibility. Interstate 280 from Caroline to Madera Pedestrian Overcrossing – Potentially Feasible Coordination with SR85/I280 Interchange Improvements to fully assess future feasibility. UPRR at Rancho San Antonio County Park Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge - Feasible A pedestrian/bicycle bridge is feasible above UPRR line serving Lehigh Quarry. The bridge would require an easement from UPRR for the access ramp and bridge. Figure 14 – Summary of grade-separated crossing feasibility at other structures in the study area. 840 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Page 36 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ON-STREET BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES In areas where the trail could not be aligned along the creek corridor due to lack of land availability, sensitive habitats, constrained roadway crossings or other factors, on- street alignments were evaluated to link together segments of the trail that extend through the open space lands. The criteria used for evaluating on-street routes are described below. This study draws upon four guidelines as the primary sources of criteria for assessing the feasibility of developing bicycle and pedestrian facilities on roadways to close the gap in the Stevens Creek Trail. Guidelines addressing on-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities were reviewed to determine if sufficient roadway right-of- way existed to accommodate potential trail connections. These local, state and federal guidelines establish minimum through optimal criteria for developing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the roadway right-of-way. These four guidelines apply to various elements of the on-street facilities investigated during this study. The guidelines include: • 2012 California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual: Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design (See Figure 15). • 2012 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle Technical Guidelines • 2012 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities • 2004 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities Homestead Road was one of many streets assessed for closing the gap in the Stevens Creek Trail. 841 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 37 CALTRANS HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL – BIKEWAY DESIGNATIONS The Caltrans Highway Design Manual is the primary manual for bikeway design in California. Caltrans defines three types of bikeway facilities each with specific dimensions and geometries: Bike Path, Bike Lane and Bike Route. Bike Paths (Class I Bikeway) are located off-street and serves the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicyclists. A Bike Path is defined as an exclusive right-of-way with cross flows by vehicles minimized (Caltrans, Highway Design Manual: Chapter 1000, 2012). The minimum width for a Class I Bikeway is 8 feet, 10-feet preferred, with minimum 2-foot shoulders on each side of the trail. Generally, bike paths should be used to serve corridors not served by streets and highways or where wide right-of-way exists, permitting such facilities to be constructed away from the influence of parallel streets. Bike paths should offer opportunities not provided by the road system. They can either provide a recreational opportunity, or in some instances, can serve as direct high-speed commute routes if cross flow by motor vehicles and pedestrian conflicts can be minimized. Bike Lanes (Class II Bikeway) are established along streets in corridors where there is significant bicycle demand, and where there are distinct needs that can be served. The purpose should be to improve conditions for bicyclists in the corridors. Bike lanes are intended to delineate the right-of-way assigned to bicyclists and motorists and to provide for more predictable movements by each. A more important reason for constructing bike lanes is to better accommodate bicyclists through corridors where insufficient room exists for side-by-side sharing of existing streets by motorists and bicyclists. This can be accomplished by reducing the number of lanes, reducing lane width, or prohibiting or reconfiguring parking on given streets in order to delineate bike lanes. In addition, other things can be done on bike lane streets to improve the situation for bicyclists that might not be possible on all streets (e.g., improvements to the surface, augmented sweeping programs, special signal facilities, etc.). Generally, pavement markings alone will not measurably enhance bicycling. Bike Routes (Class III Bikeway) are intended to provide continuity to the bikeway system. Bike routes are established along through routes not served by Class I or Class II bikeways, or to connect discontinuous segments of bikeway (normally bike lanes). Class III facilities are shared with motor vehicles on the street and established by placing bike route signs along roadways. Class III facilities can be enhanced by adding shared roadway markings along the route. As with bike lanes, designation of bike routes should indicate to bicyclists that there are particular advantages to using these routes as compared with alternative routes. This means that responsible agencies have taken actions to assure that these routes are suitable as shared routes and will be maintained in a manner consistent with the needs of bicyclists. Normally, bike routes are shared with motor vehicles. It is emphasized that the designation of bikeways as Class I, II and III should not be construed as a hierarchy of bikeways; that one is better than the other. Each class of bikeway has its appropriate application. Figure 15 – Caltrans Bikeway Designations. 842 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Page 38 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BICYCLE TECHNICAL GUIDELINES “The VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines (BTG) present standards and guidance for planning, designing, operating, retrofitting and maintaining roadways and bikeways. They are intended to improve the quality of bicycle accommodation and to ensure countywide consistency in the design and construction of not only bicycle projects but all roadways (VTA, 2012, p. 1-1).” These guidelines apply and adapt federal and state guidance on bicycle facility design to local conditions. The VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines offered guidance for bike paths, bike lanes and signed bike routes. The recommendations for bike lanes and signed bike routes were applied in the evaluation of the roadways. Bike Lanes - The Bicycle Technical Guidelines indicate urban arterials and collectors carrying 2000 or more vehicles per day per lane (vpdpl) (e.g. 4000 vpd for a two-lane roadway) should have bike lanes. Optimally, the width of bike lanes should increase as motor vehicle travel speed increases and when roadway grades are greater than 5% (See Figure 16 - Bicycle Lane Widths Relative to Traffic Volume and Speed). In areas of steep grades (5% or greater), where pavement widening potential is limited, additional lane width should be provided in the uphill direction to accommodate cyclists pedaling at slower speeds. See Figure 16 for guidance for three ranges of posted speeds and bike lanes widths (VTA 2012, pp. 7-2 – 7-3). Signed Bike Routes - Residential roadways can make excellent bike routes particularly if they are designed and/or retrofitted for speeds of less than 25 mph. The street design should balance cyclists’ needs for wider lanes with the trend for narrower cross-sections to discourage speeding. For traffic volumes less than 2,000 vpd, a roadway width of 30 feet maximum will reinforce slow speeds while bicyclists can comfortably share the full lane due to the low traffic volumes. Curb radii should be 15 feet maximum to discourage fast right turns (VTA 2012, p. 8-1). AASHTO GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BICYCLE FACILITIES “This guide provides information on how to accommodate bicycle travel and operations in most riding environments. It is intended to present sound guidelines that result in facilities that meet the needs of bicyclists and other highway users. Sufficient flexibility is permitted to encourage designs that are sensitive to local context and incorporate the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. However, in some sections of this guide, suggested minimum dimensions are provided. These are recommended only where further deviation from desirable values could increase crash frequency or severity (AASHTO, 2012, p. 1-2).” AASHTO GUIDE FOR THE PLANNING, DESIGN AND OPERATION OF PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES The purpose of this guide is to provide guidance on the planning, design, and operation of pedestrian facilities along streets and highways. Specifically, the guide focuses on identifying effective measures for accommodating pedestrians on public rights-of-way. Appropriate methods for accommodating pedestrians, which vary among roadway and facility types, are described in this guide. AASHTO also recognizes the profound effect that land use planning and site design have on pedestrian mobility and addresses these topics in this guide (AASHTO, 2004). 843 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 39 Bicycle Lane Widths Relative to Traffic Volume and Speed With Posted Speeds Less Than or Equal to 30 mph The optimum width for a bike lane on an arterial/collector with no on-street parking with speeds of 30 mph or less is five feet. The optimal minimum width to the longitudinal joint with the gutter pan is four feet; (Caltrans HDM states that a minimum width of 3 feet shall be provided.) If there is on-street parallel parking, an additional eight feet should be provided. With Posted Speeds between 35 and 40 mph The optimal width for a bike lane on an arterial/collector with no on-street parking with posted speeds of 35 mph to 40 mph, is six feet. The optimal minimum width to the longitudinal joint with the gutter pan is five feet. If there is on-street parallel parking, an additional eight feet should be provided. With Posted Speeds of 45 mph or more The optimum width for a bike lane on an arterial/collector with no on-street parking with posted speeds of 45 mph or more is eight feet. The optimal minimum width to the longitudinal joint with the gutter pan is seven feet. If there is on-street parallel parking, an additional eight feet should be provided. Figure 16 – Bicycle Lane Widths on Arterials/Collectors at a Range of Posted Speeds (VTA 2012, pp. 7-2 – 7-3). SUMMARY OF REFERENCED DESIGN GUIDELINES A number of relevant documents have provided criteria for assessing trail feasibility and guidelines for developing trail design concepts. These documents include: 2012 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 2007 BNSF Railway/Union Pacific Railroad Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects 2012 California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual: Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design 1995 Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan 1999 Santa Clara County Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use and Management Guidelines 2005 Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department Trail Maintenance Manual 2012 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle Technical Guidelines: A Guide for Local Agencies in the Planning, Design and Maintenance of Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle-Friendly Roadways 2006 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Water Resources Protection Manual: Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams 844 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Page 40 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions on Studied Roadways Roadway Segments (North to South) Car/Bike Injury Car/Bike No Injury Car/Bike Fatality Car/Ped Injury Car/Ped No Injury Car/Ped Fatality Other Knickerbocker Drive Heatherstone to Mary 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 Mary Avenue Knickerbocker to Homestead 6 2 0 2 2 0 0 Belleville Way Fremont to Homestead 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Bernardo Road Fremont to Homestead 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Homestead Road Mary to Belleville 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 Fremont Avenue Mary to Belleville 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fremont Avenue Los Altos City Limit near State Route 85 to Grant Road 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant Road Fremont to Foothill Expressway 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Foothill Boulevard Cristo Rey Drive to Stevens Creek Boulevard 6 0 0 1 0 2 0 Homestead Road Homestead Court to Mary 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 Mary Avenue Homestead to Stevens Creek Blvd. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino western City Limit to Mary Avenue 5 4 1 3 1 0 0 Figure 17 – Summary of 2008-2013 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions on Studied Roadways. UNIQUE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The study also identified areas with unique traffic considerations. Unique traffic considerations included truck routes, uncontrolled freeway interchanges, schools that create short-term traffic congestion during student drop-off and pickup and areas of steep grades defined as greater than 5%. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS This study also reviewed bicycle and pedestrian collision data for the past five years (2008-2013) to identify areas that could benefit from bicycle and pedestrian facility enhancements. A summary of the collision data is provided in Figure 17. The data includes mid-block and intersection collisions. 845 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND D ESIGN G UIDELINES Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 41 ON-STREET FEASIBILITY SUMMARY An assessment of on-street alignments was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of linking isolated segments of the trail via city streets. These on-street routes also provide connections to the creek corridor. This feasibility study reviewed a wide range of on-street alternatives and identifies the types of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are feasible on each street (See Figures 18, 19, 20 and 21). The ability to provide a continuous and reasonably direct route between the existing segments of the trail was an important consideration. The number of directional movements and turns required to navigate the on-street alignment were considered to make the route simple to follow. Ease in returning to the creek corridor from city streets was viewed as an important criterion for encouraging the public to find and use the on-street facilities. The varying level of bicycle riding ability of those individuals attracted to trail facilities should be considered in the selection of a preferred alignment. Streets that accommodate beginner bicyclists are more consistent with the fully separated pathway experience offered by the existing Stevens Creek Trail. Finally, convenience and safety were evaluated at all intersections. Roads with rights of way that minimized the need to stop are preferred over those routes that were frequently interrupted by stop signs. Major intersections were evaluated for signal lights or the probability of installing new lights that might be required to accommodate the additional pedestrian and bicycle use are identified on the potential trail alignment maps in Chapter 3. FEASIBILITY REPORT DEFINITIONS This report uses the following terms to describe existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These terms are used in Figures 18, 19, 20 and 21 which summarize the feasibility of studied roadways to support pedestrian and bicycle facilities for linking the Stevens Creek Trail. Pedestrian/Bike Path is a trail or path separated from auto traffic. These facilities are proposed in open space lands and parallel to roadways. A pedestrian/bike path is considered to be 10-feet wide with 2-foot shoulders on each side of the facility. Pedestrian/Bike Paths are intended to serve a wide-range of trail users with varying skill levels. Bike Lanes are indicated on arterial and collector streets carrying average daily traffic of more than 4,000 vehicles per day. Bike lanes provide a striped lane in either direction on the roadway and are intended for one-way bike travel. Bike lanes are assumed to be 6-feet wide unless otherwise noted in this report. Signed Bike Routes are indicated on streets having low traffic volume as measured by average daily traffic of less than 2,000 vehicles per day and speeds less than 25 mph. Bike route signs and optional pavement markings are used to designate a street as a signed bike route. Bike routes are placed on streets with and without parallel parking. Neighborhood Greenway is a signed bike route that includes neighborhood enhancements to manage vehicle speed and volume and prioritize bicycle traffic. Neighborhood greenways are identified on streets where the addition of roadway markings, corner curb bulb-outs with landscaping and other amenities are feasible within the roadway right-of-way. Sidewalks are designated walking spaces along roadways. Sidewalks may be directly adjacent to the roadway curb or may include a planting strip that provides buffer to the roadway and an opportunity for street trees and landscaping. ENGINEERED STRUCTURES Engineered trail improvements include underpasses, overcrossings, tunnels, pedestrian bridges and at-grade street crossings. Several structures have been proposed throughout the trail alignments. In most cases, these engineered 846 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND D ESIGN G UIDELINES Page 42 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study improvements retrofit existing roadway bridges and provide an opportunity for human-scale transportation. Underpasses extend along the creek banks and cross beneath the roadways. The underpasses follow existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) maintenance access roads where feasible. The underpasses retrofit existing roadway bridges to provide grade-separated trail crossings. The in-channel underpasses are typically designed to handle bicyclists, pedestrians and light duty maintenance vehicles. Overcrossings span major roadways and exclusively serve bicyclists and pedestrians. The overcrossings are proposed when no opportunity exists to retrofit the existing roadway and where grade-separations are preferred for extending the grade-separated the Stevens Creek Trail. The overcrossings provide grade-separated trail crossings and are feasible at some highway and local streets locations. Pedestrian overcrossing at State Route 85 in Mountain View. A Tunnel is under consideration in one location to provide grade-separated crossings beneath Stevens Creek Boulevard. The tunnel is proposed when no opportunity exists to retrofit the existing roadway bridge spanning Stevens Creek. Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridges are proposed to provide connections across the creek corridor to extend the trail and over UPRR line to access Rancho San Antonio County Park from Stevens Creek Boulevard. Pedestrian/bicycle bridges are intended to be of equal width to the trail and to completely span the creek without need for in-channel support. This type of a structure is referred to as a clear span bridge. These bridges can also be designed to accommodate vehicle loading should an area of a trail require regular vehicle access. At-Grade Street Crossings are proposed at junctions where the trail meets a roadway and at the intersections along the routes. Several at-grade street crossings are proposed for modification. The at-grade street crossings are proposed at controlled intersections or require modifications to those intersections that do not meet these criteria. 847 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 43 Evaluated Roadway Existing Facilities Roadway Width (Curb to Curb) Posted Speed Limit (85th Percentile) Traffic Volume (ADT) Unique Traffic Conditions (Defined on Page 40) Proposed On-Street Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Feasibility by Roadway Segment Bike Route Bike Lanes Side- walks Parking Heatherstone Way (Dale to Bernardo) None None Both Directions Both Directions 40 feet 25 mph Low volume residential Cherry Chase Elementary School Neighborhood Greenway Proposed as a Bike Boulevard in the 2008 Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan Knickerbocker Drive (Heatherstone to Mango) None Yes Both Directions Both Directions 50 feet 25 mph (30 mph) 1,661 None Existing Bike Lanes Mockingbird Lane (Stevens Creek to Knickerbocker) None None Both Directions Both Directions 39 feet 25 mph Very low volume residential None Neighborhood Greenway Remington Drive (Bernardo to Mary) None Yes Both Directions Both Directions 62 feet 35 mph Low volume residential None Existing Bike Lanes Bernardo Avenue (Heatherstone to Remington) None Yes Both Directions Both Directions 50 feet 30 mph 10,084 Cherry Chase Elementary School Existing Bike Lanes Bernardo Avenue (Remington to Fremont) None None Both Directions Both Directions 40 feet 30 mph 10,084 None Bicycle Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking south of Remington Mary Avenue (Heatherstone to Fremont) None None Both Directions Both Directions 64 feet 35 mph (40 mph) 14,662 None Bike Lanes Approved with the Mary Avenue Street Space Allocation Project by eliminating one lane of auto travel in each direction and creating a single left hand turn lane Diericx Drive (Franklin to Lubich) None None Incomplete Sidewalks Both Directions 40 feet 25 mph Low volume residential Mountain View High School Neighborhood Greenway Franklin Avenue (Sleeper to Levin) None None Incomplete Sidewalks Both Directions 38 feet 25 mph Low volume residential Mountain View High School Neighborhood Greenway Bryant Avenue (Grant to Truman) None Yes Incomplete Sidewalks Limited 40-50 feet 30 mph Low volume residential Mountain View High School Existing Bicycle Lanes Truman Avenue (Bryant to Fremont) None None Incomplete Sidewalks Both Directions 44 feet 30 mph 4,500 Mountain View High School Bicycle Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking south of Oak Bike Lanes from Oak to Fremont proposed in 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan Fremont Avenue (State Route 85 N/B Off-ramp to Fallen Leaf) None Yes None None 62 feet 30 mph (38 mph) 16,300 Busy collector Pedestrian/Bike Path on north side Retain 4’ Bike Lane on south side Fremont Avenue (Fallen Leaf to Grant Road) None Bike Lanes None None 100 feet 30 mph (38 mph) 16,300 Commute traffic backs up at Belleville forcing residents living north of Fremont to turn west and U-turn to cross Fremont Avenue Existing Bike Lanes OR Pedestrian/Bike Path proposed along north side (no add’l bike lane) and bike lane on south side as identified in 2008 Los Altos Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study and 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan Figure 18 – Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue feasibility of studied roadways to support pedestrian and bicycle facilities for linking the Stevens Creek Trail. 848 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Page 44 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Evaluated Roadway Existing Facilities Roadway Width (Curb to Curb) Posted Speed Limit (85th Percentile) Traffic Volume (ADT) Unique Traffic Conditions (Defined on Page 40) Proposed On-Street Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Feasibility by Roadway Segment Bike Route Bike Lanes Sidewalks Parking Bernardo Avenue (Fremont to Homestead) None None East Side East Side 35-40 feet including right-of-way along soundwall 30 mph 2,532 Cupertino Middle School and South Peninsula Hebrew Day School Pedestrian/Bike Path along Soundwall - Requires either a 1-way street or loss of parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Belleville Way (Fremont to Homestead) None None Both Directions Both Directions 40 feet 25 mph 1,343 West Valley Elementary School Bicycle Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking Bedford Avenue (Belleville to Ecola) Ecola Lane (Bedford to Barton) None None Both Directions Both Directions 40 feet 25 mph Low volume residential West Valley Elementary School Neighborhood Greenway Fallen Leaf Lane (Fremont to Louise) None None None Both Directions 60 feet 25 mph 1,350 None Pedestrian/Bike Path along east side Requires use of entire city-owned right-of-way OR Neighborhood Greenway using existing pavement only OR Signed Bike Route using existing pavement only as identified in 2002 Los Altos General Plan and 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan Louise Lane (Fallen Leaf to Homestead) None None None Both Directions 36 feet 25 mph Low volume residential None Neighborhood Greenway using existing pavement only OR Signed Bike Route using existing pavement only Newcastle Drive (Fremont to Grant) None None Two short segments only Yes 40 feet 25 mph Low volume residential None Bike Route proposed in 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan Mary Avenue (Fremont to Homestead) None Yes Yes Yes 64 feet 35 mph 8,564 Homestead High School Existing Bike Lanes Homestead Road (Belleville to Grant) None Yes South side only None 56 feet 80 feet total ROW 35 mph (41 mph) 16,390 Busy collector Existing Bike Lanes and Existing Pedestrian/Bike Path along north side Figure 19 – Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road feasibility of studied roadways to support pedestrian and bicycle facilities for linking the Stevens Creek Trail. 849 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 45 Evaluated Roadway Existing Facilities Roadway Width (Curb to Curb) Posted Speed Limit (85th Percentile) Traffic Volume (ADT) Unique Traffic Conditions (Defined on Page 40) Proposed On-Street Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Feasibility by Roadway Segment Bike Route Bike Lanes Sidewalks Parking Grant Road (Fremont to Foothill Expressway) None Yes Incomplete Sidewalk on East Side None 90 feet varies 25 mph (37 mph) 10,700 Grant Road traffic heavy at commute hours, and during at school drop-off and pick-up Existing Bike Lanes Pedestrian/Bike Path proposed along east side in 2008 Los Altos Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Grant Road (Foothill Expressway to Homestead) Yes None Incomplete Sidewalk on North Side None 42 feet 25 mph unknown Grant Road traffic heavy at commute hours Existing Bike Route Bike Lanes proposed in 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan OR Pedestrian/Bike Path proposed along north side in 2008 Los Altos Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Foothill Expressway (Grant Road to Foothill Boulevard) None None None None 80-100 feet 45 mph 20,402 Must cross I-280 Interchange, Foothill Expressway serves as a Truck Route Pedestrian/Bike Path with an optimal 8-foot under I-280, Expressway has a delineated shoulder but no designated bicycle facilities as part of the Santa Clara County “Delineate but not Designate” policy. Foothill Boulevard (Cristo Rey to Stevens Creek Blvd.) None Yes Both Directions None 80-100 feet 40 mph (44 mph south and 45 mph north) 16,001 Must cross I-280 Interchange at Foothill, Serves as Truck Route Existing Bike Lanes Stevens Creek Boulevard (Foothill Blvd. to Stevens Creek Trail) None Yes Both Directions Both Directions 50-100 feet 35 mph (40 mph) 10,850 Serves as Truck Route, Very steep downgrade to creek corridor Existing Bicycle Lanes Mary Avenue (Don Burnett Bicycle- Pedestrian Bridge to Stevens Creek Blvd.) None Yes East Side Both Directions 70 feet 35 mph (34 mph) 3,850 None Existing Bicycle Lanes Stevens Creek Boulevard (Mary Avenue to Stevens Creek Trail) None Yes Both Directions Both Directions 50-100 feet 35 mph (40 mph) 34,980 Must cross SR85 interchange at SC Blvd., Serves as Truck Route, Steep downgrade to creek corridor Existing Bicycle Lanes Figure 20 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard feasibility of studied arterial roadways to support pedestrian and bicycle facilities for linking the Stevens Creek Trail. 850 C HAPTER 2 – F EASIBILITY C RITERIA AND S ITE A NALYSIS Page 46 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Evaluated Roadway Existing Facilities Roadway Width (Curb to Curb) Posted Speed Limit (85th Percentile) Traffic Volume (ADT) Unique Traffic Conditions (Defined on Page 40) Proposed On-Street Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Feasibility by Roadway Segment Bike Route Bike Lanes Sidewalks Parking Barranca Drive (Homestead to Peninsular) None None None Both Directions 40 feet 25 mph Very low volume residential None 5-foot Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Peninsular Avenue (Barranca to Caroline) None None None Both Directions 34 feet 25 mph Very low volume residential None 4-foot Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Caroline Drive (Peninsular to Maxine) None None None Both Directions 42 feet 25 mph Very low volume residential None Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Maxine Avenue (Caroline to Homestead) None None East Side only Both Directions 40 feet 25 mph Very low volume residential None 5-foot Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Stokes Avenue (Somerset Park to Demptster) None None Both Directions Both Directions 40 feet 25 mph Very low volume residential None 5-foot Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Dempster Avenue (Stokes to Peninsula) None None Both Directions Both Directions 40 feet 25 mph Very low volume residential None 5-foot Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Peninsula Avenue (Dempster to Stevens Creek Blvd.) None None East Side only Both Directions 38 feet 25 mph Very low volume residential None 5-foot Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Phar Lap (Madera to Stevens Creek Blvd.) None None Both Directions to Creekside Ct Both Directions 40 feet 25 mph Very low volume residential None Neighborhood Greenway Madera Drive (UPRR to Dos Palos Ct.) None None None None 35 feet 25 mph Very low volume residential None Neighborhood Greenway Mann Drive (Dos Palos Court to Stevens Creek Blvd.) None None None Both Directions 40 feet 25 mph Very low volume residential None Neighborhood Greenway Figure 21 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard feasibility of studied residential streets to support pedestrian and bicycle facilities for linking the Stevens Creek Trail. 851 C HAPTER 3 – A LIGNMENT O PTIONS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 47 Chapter 3 provides a summary of the feasible alignments for completing the trail through the four cities. These alignments have been developed to provide a range of choices for decision makers to consider. Each alignment offers different benefits to the communities. The routes range from a pedestrian/bicycle pathway separated from traffic that is nearly complete from the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing to the trail connection at Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, to an all city street alignment. Several alignments that combine the creek corridor path and city street facilities are also feasible. Each of these routes is introduced in this chapter. These alignments represent complete routes through the four cities, but do not represent every feasible segment or type of facility studied. Chapter 4 – Pedestrian/Bicycle Paths and Chapter 5 – On-street Routes provide greater detail about these feasible alignments and the associated engineering concepts and other feasible segments. Chapter 6 – Development Challenge provides unit costs and budget estimates for developing the feasible routes. Appendix B – Summary of Studied Routes provides a matrix of all the routes evaluated for the feasibility study including both feasible and infeasible alignments. The summary combines all the pedestrian/bike paths and on-street routes into a chart that presents the alignments from north to south. The study segments, routes and improvement options evaluated along each alignment and the opportunities and constraints associated with each site are highlighted in the matrix. A feasibility assessment is provided for all routes. The purpose of the feasibility study is to identify the potential alignments and costs associated with completing the Stevens Creek Trail through the study area. The identification of alignments in this feasibility study should not be interpreted as routes approved by the four cities or imply future actions by the four cities to develop the routes described in this study. This feasibility study is intended to provide decision makers with an assessment of the technical feasibility for extending the trail. The four cities may opt to give further consideration to any of these routes or portions of the routes contained in this report. Many of these routes have technical challenges similar to other successfully completed segments of the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View and Cupertino. Any of the routes or segments identified by decision makers for further consideration would require additional investigations that may include a trail master plan, traffic studies for selected areas, geotechnical investigations for engineered structures and hydraulic modeling for trail features within the floodplain. Any route or segment considered for development would also require environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The complete alignments identified for extending the trail through the four cities include (See Map 8 – Alignment Options Map): ♦ Creek Corridor/Bernardo Avenue Path • Connecting to Foothill Boulevard • Connecting to I-280 Overcrossing ♦ Creek Corridor Path to City Streets • Fremont Avenue/Grant Road Option • Fallen Leaf Lane Option • Belleville Way Option ♦ Partial Creek Corridor Path to Remington Drive and Mary Avenue ♦ All City Streets Route along Heatherstone Way, Knickerbocker Drive and Mary Avenue 852 C HAPTER 3 – A LIGNMENT O PTIONS Page 48 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study CREEK CORRIDOR/BERNARDO AVENUE PATH The Creek Corridor/Bernardo Avenue Path would extend along the west side of Stevens Creek between the State Route 85 soundwall and the stream corridor from the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing to Fremont Avenue and adjacent to the soundwall along Bernardo Avenue from Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road (See Map 8 – Alignment Options Map). The path would extend through 22 acres of open space that is currently inaccessible to the public. This study determined that a pedestrian/bicycle path would require a change in the allocation of street space on Bernardo Avenue. The roadway would either become a one-way street or be maintained as a two-way street with significantly less on-street parking to support a pedestrian/bicycle path separated from automobile traffic. This 2.45-mile pedestrian/bicycle path could be completely separated from traffic along this route with the addition of a pedestrian overcrossing at Fremont Avenue and a crossing of State Route 85 at Homestead Road. A pedestrian overcrossing at Fremont Avenue may be feasible using excess Caltrans right-of-way along the State Route 85 northbound on- ramp at Fremont Avenue. A pedestrian overcrossing supported by piers would extend along the property line of the northbound on-ramp, span Fremont Avenue and touch down in a Sunnyvale- owned parcel adjacent to Bernardo Avenue. At Homestead Road the existing bridge crossing State Route 85 could be widened to provide a separate path for pedestrians and bicyclists or a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge could be installed parallel to the Homestead Road bridge. Either crossing option would connect to the path extending along the soundwall on Bernardo Avenue to the new pedestrian/bicycle path on the north side of Homestead Road in Los Altos. This route provides a continuous grade- separated trail free from vehicular cross traffic from the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing to Homestead Road. The route could also be maintained at-grade through the Bernardo/Fremont intersection. Connecting to Foothill Boulevard The Creek Corridor/Bernardo Avenue Path could connect to Foothill Boulevard via the path on Homestead Road through Los Altos to a short pedestrian/bicycle path on the west side of Foothill Expressway. This path would parallel the expressway from the intersection of Homestead Road/Vineyard Road and Foothill Expressway to the intersection of Starling Drive/Cristo Rey Drive with Foothill Boulevard. The path would use Caltrans and Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department excess expressway right-of- way and pass beneath Interstate 280. The route would link the new pedestrian/bicycle path extending along the north side of Homestead Road to existing bicycle lanes and sidewalks on Foothill Boulevard. This trail concept requires squaring up the on- and off-ramps to eliminate all free right-turn lanes and control traffic at the Interstate 280/Foothill Interchange. It would also require widening and reconstructing the southbound travel lanes of Foothill Expressway through modifications to the Caltrans bridge and extending a pedestrian/bicycle path along the west side of Foothill Expressway. At Starling Drive/Cristo Rey Drive pedestrians and bicyclists would be guided to existing bicycle lanes and sidewalks on Foothill and Stevens Creek Boulevards. Foothill Expressway, Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard serve as truck routes, which also provide access to the quarry operations in the Santa Cruz Mountains above Cupertino. The Foothill Boulevard connection requires pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate these high traffic volume/speed streets and to traverse the very steep hill on Stevens Creek Boulevard to reach to the existing trail that extends through Blackberry Farm Park to Stevens Creek Boulevard. 853 C HAPTER 3 – A LIGNMENT O PTIONS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 49 Map 8 – Alignment Options Map. 854 C HAPTER 3 – A LIGNMENT O PTIONS Page 50 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Connecting to I-280 Overcrossing The Creek Corridor/Bernardo Avenue Path could connect to Cupertino via a new grade-separated crossing of Interstate 280. Two locations north of the I-280/SR85 Interchange may provide technically feasible options for a pedestrian overcrossing. These locations include Peninsular Avenue to Somerset Square Park and Caroline Drive to Madera Drive. These routes require use of very low- density residential streets in neighborhoods without any through traffic. These neighborhoods back up to Interstate 280. The Peninsular Avenue to Somerset Square Park route would connect to Stevens Creek Boulevard via Peninsula Avenue located just east of the Union Pacific Railroad line near the US Post Office in Cupertino. The Caroline Drive to Madera Drive route would span both Interstate 280 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line connecting to Stevens Creek Boulevard via Phar Lap Drive. The Interstate 280 overcrossing would provide a more direct connection to Blackberry Farm Park and eliminate the need to use the higher traffic volume/speed collector and arterial streets. CREEK CORRIDOR PATH TO CITY STREETS The Creek Corridor Path extends south approximately 1.35 miles through the 22 acres of open space land adjacent to creek from the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing to Fremont Avenue to connect to bicycle and pedestrian facilities extending along city streets. The pedestrian/bicycle path would connect to Fremont Avenue via a trail underpass on the south side of the State Route 85 bridge. The path would emerge from the trail underpass and parallel the State Route 85 Fremont Avenue southbound off-ramp. This option maintains a grade-separated path to Fremont Avenue and provides a connection to the Fremont Avenue/Grant Road pedestrian/bicycle path and other city street alignments. Fremont Avenue/Grant Road Option The Creek Corridor Path could link with a proposed 10-foot wide path that would be constructed within the existing right-of- way of Fremont Avenue and Grant Road. This pedestrian/bicycle path jogs west on Fremont Avenue and then extends south and southeast on Grant Road for approximately two miles to connect to Foothill Expressway at Homestead Road/Vineyard Drive. Twelve side streets, two cul de sacs and the driveways to the Woodland Branch Library and Lucky Supermarket intersect the proposed two- mile path. The route could then connect to Foothill Boulevard via the proposed pedestrian/bicycle path on the west side of Foothill Expressway from Homestead Road/Vineyard Drive to Starling Drive/Cristo Rey Drive. At Starling Drive/Cristo Rey Drive pedestrians and bicyclists would be guided to existing bicycle lanes and sidewalks on Foothill and Stevens Creek Boulevards. This route also requires pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate high traffic volume/speed streets that serve as truck routes and to traverse the steep hill on Stevens Creek Boulevard to reach to the existing trail that extends through Blackberry Farm Park to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Fallen Leaf Lane Option The Creek Corridor Path could also connect to Fallen Leaf Lane. The public right-of-way on Fallen Leaf Lane is 60 feet wide of which 42 feet is developed as a paved roadway. Fallen Leaf Lane has no sidewalks. A bike route or neighborhood greenway is feasible within the existing 42-foot paved roadway. On Fallen Leaf Lane there is adequate paved roadway width to develop a neighborhood greenway with or without a 6-foot walking space on the east side of the street. The 6-foot walking space would accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists would share the road with vehicular traffic. 855 C HAPTER 3 – A LIGNMENT O PTIONS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 51 Belleville Way Option Belleville Way is suitable for bike lanes, but this option would require a change in the allocation of street space to support these on-street bicycle facilities. This study determined that bike lanes would require the removal of parking from one side of the street. Removal of parking was a concern expressed by Cupertino Union School District representatives. West Valley Elementary School is located on Belleville Way and the roadway is very busy during school drop-off and pickup when parents queue and park to collect children. Belleville Way has sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians. The Fallen Leaf Lane and Belleville Way routes could link to either Foothill Boulevard or the Interstate 280 overcrossing via the pedestrian/bicycle path on Homestead Road. PARTIAL CREEK CORRIDOR PATH TO REMINGTON DRIVE AND MARY AVENUE The pedestrian/bicycle path could exit the creek corridor in Sunnyvale at West Remington Drive to connect to city streets. This partial creek corridor route would link with existing and planned bicycle lanes and sidewalks on West Remington Drive and Mary Avenue. A pedestrian/bicycle bridge would span the creek at the end of West Remington Drive to provide a connection to the city streets. This pedestrian/bicycle bridge could also serve as a trail access point for area residents. Sunnyvale will be reallocating street space to extend bike lanes on Mary Avenue. Bike lanes exist from Fremont Avenue south to Homestead Road and connect to Homestead High School and the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge at Mary Avenue. New bikes lanes will be added through the feasibility study area from El Camino Real south to Fremont Avenue by eliminating one vehicle travel lane in each direction and adding a two-way left turn lane. This will create street space for bike lanes. Parking and sidewalks will be retained on the street. The partial creek corridor route takes advantage of these planned on-street facilities. The Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge at Mary Avenue spans Interstate 280 providing access to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Bicyclists and pedestrians would use existing bike lanes and sidewalks on Stevens Creek Boulevard to link to the trail at Blackberry Farm Golf Course. Currently, bicyclists and pedestrians must navigate the free right- turn lane to northbound State Route 85. Stevens Creek Boulevard carries high volumes of traffic, serves as a busy interchange to State Route 85 and adjacent Interstate 280, provides access to DeAnza College and includes a steep hill to reach to the existing trail that extends through Blackberry Farm Park to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Facilities exist to support the movement of bicyclists and pedestrians, but the character of this heavily trafficked roadway is significantly different than the creek corridor trail in Mountain View and Cupertino. ALL CITY STREETS ROUTE ALONG HEATHERSTONE WAY, KNICKERBOCKER DRIVE AND MARY AVENUE The all city street route bypasses the creek corridor entirely and extends along city streets from the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing to Mary Avenue. A neighborhood greenway is feasible on Heatherstone Way. This would connect to existing and planned bicycle lanes and sidewalks on Knickerbocker Drive and Mary Avenue. The remainder of this route is identical to the partial creek corridor route. The all city street route would use the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge at Mary Avenue to reach Stevens Creek Boulevard and the existing trail in Cupertino. 856 C HAPTER 3 – A LIGNMENT O PTIONS Page 52 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study This page is intentionally left blank. 857 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/ B ICYCLE P ATHS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 53 Chapter 4 details the feasible pedestrian/bicycle paths throughout the study area. The assessments of land availability, habitat sensitivity and roadway, creek and on-street crossing feasibilities are highlighted for each route. The pedestrian/bicycle paths most closely approximate the trail user experience present in the constructed sections of the trail in Mountain View and Cupertino. These potential alignments provide for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicyclists and minimize roadway crossings. Pedestrian/bicycle paths are feasible both in the open space parcels along the creek and within the public right-of-way of a few roadways. A unique set of technical challenges is associated with each route. This chapter is devoted to individually describing each of the feasible pedestrian/ bicycle paths and associated conceptual engineering solutions identified to address these technical issues. Engineering solutions have been identified for specific sites along the routes. These solutions include the reconstruction of roadway features and new pedestrian/ bicycle bridges, trail underpasses and pedestrian overcrossings. The path alignments and conceptual crossing solutions meet the feasibility criteria described in Chapter 2. These routes and conceptual engineering solutions have also been preliminarily reviewed by agencies with jurisdiction over the creek corridor and roadway system. The potential alignments and engineered structures were presented to these agencies to obtain feedback sufficient for determining conceptual feasibility. Throughout the course of this trail feasibility investigation, information was gathered from north to south and divided into four study segments to facilitate presentation of the feasibility findings. The study segments vary by length and begin and end at natural termini that are likely to be used in developing future construction phasing limits. Maps, cross-sections and drawings are provided to illustrate the feasible pedestrian/bicycle paths and associated engineering concepts. The pedestrian/bicycle paths described in this chapter are listed beneath each of the four study segments noted below: ♦ Study Segment 1: Dale Avenue/ Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue • Creek Corridor Path ♦ Study Segment 2: Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road • Bernardo Avenue Path parallel to State Route 85 soundwall • Fremont Avenue and Grant Road Path parallel to the roadways ♦ Study Segment 3: Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard • Foothill Expressway Path parallel to the expressway from Homestead/ Vineyard to Cristo Rey/Starling ♦ Study Segment 4: Trail Connections to Rancho San Antonio County Park via Stevens Creek Boulevard • Stevens Creek Boulevard Path to Rancho San Antonio County Park The study identified many on-street routes where the conditions could be improved for bicyclists and pedestrians to access to the creek corridor thus closing the gap in this regional trail. The investigation also determined that many on-street routes and crossing locations were not suitable or feasible to support the extension of the Stevens Creek Trail. Many roadways lack adequate width to support new pedestrian and bicycle facilities. These on-street findings are the subject of Chapter 5. All of these feasible pedestrian/bicycle paths and conceptual engineering solutions will require further investigation through the development of a trail master plan. The engineered structures proposed with these pedestrian/bicycle paths are described in detail within this chapter. Cost estimates have been prepared for the pedestrian/bicycle path alternatives and are provided in Chapter 6. 858 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/BICYCLE P ATHS Page 54 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study CREEK CORRIDOR PATH This investigation determined that extending the Stevens Creek Trail south approximately 1.35 miles through the 22 acres of open space land adjacent to creek from the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing to Fremont Avenue is feasible. This pedestrian/bicycle path has a number of technical challenges that will require engineering solutions. The route offers several alternatives for connecting with city streets. LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP The open space land in Study Segment 1 connects the cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Los Altos. The majority of the 22 acres of open space is encircled by the steep banks of Stevens Creek and soundwalls of State Route 85. The site is currently inaccessible to the public. Study Segment 1 includes State Route 85, which is owned and operated by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and Fremont Avenue, which is jointly managed by the cities of Los Altos and Sunnyvale. These roadways span Stevens Creek and present constraints to developing the trail. Single-family residential neighborhoods are located across the creek from the open space lands. An industrial parcel is located on the corner of Fremont Avenue and State Route 85. The public land along the creek corridor is primarily owned by the City of Mountain View and the City of Sunnyvale. The Santa Clara Valley Water District, Caltrans, California Water Service Company (Cal Water) and Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) control additional parcels of land in this study segment. SITE ANALYSIS SUMMARY The land availability assessment determined that approximately 85% of the west bank provides adequate to ideal width to support the development of a path. Approximately 15% provides inadequate width to support the development of a trail along the creek corridor. There are several pinch points along the west bank where State Route 85 was constructed very close to the top-of-bank of Stevens Creek and inadequate width remains to support a trail without engineering structures to bridge these constrained sites. CREEK CHARACTER, PLANT COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE The land in Study Segment 1 includes riverine habitat and in-stream wetlands shaded by a California sycamore woodland (Sawyer, 2009). The upper banks host an oak woodland and ruderal grasslands. This riparian habitat includes a number of tree species including California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), red willow (Salix laevigata) and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepsis) which line the stream banks along this stretch of the creek. Water releases from Stevens Creek Dam typically maintain surface flow year-round through a 5.7-mile groundwater recharge area that ends at approximately Fremont Avenue. Flows often reach to the Fremont Drop Structure located just downstream of the State Route 85 bridge. The Fremont Drop Structure is intended to aid in groundwater recharge through this high percolation zone of Stevens Creek. A fish ladder runs along the east side of this concrete structure. Passage by federally threatened Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is limited to certain flow regimes. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service has designated Stevens Creek as “critical habitat” for the recovery of Central California Coast steelhead. More than 225 species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians rely on riparian habitat. Riparian habitat hosts the most diverse bird communities in the west. Less than 5% of California’s riparian habitat remains (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture, 2004). The Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Project states that in the South Bay, “Riparian restoration and enhancement of tributary streams would improve stream and riparian habitat and benefit anadromous fishes, amphibians, small 859 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/ B ICYCLE P ATHS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 55 mammals and birds (Baylands Project, 1999, p. 129). Mammals including raccoon, opossum, striped skunk, gray fox, Eastern gray squirrel, Eastern fox squirrel, ground squirrel and black-tailed deer frequent the creek corridor and open space lands. Two California species of special concern are also known to occur in the creek corridor including the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens). The creek supports four native fish species: three-spined stickleback, Sacramento sucker, California roach and Central California Coast steelhead. Western pond turtles persist in Stevens Creek. The mapped oak woodland areas include Coast live oak woodland and ruderal grassland. The Coast live oak woodland extends from the edge of the stream bank across the alluvial terraces of the creek corridor. Along Stevens Creek this plant community includes box elders (Acer negundo) black walnut (Juglans californica), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata) and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepsis) (Sawyer, 2009). In disturbed areas the woodland is interspersed by ruderal grassland comprised of both native grasses and forbes and many non-native annual grasses. CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENTS The proposed pedestrian/bicycle path between Dale/Heatherstone and Fremont Avenue would extend along the west side of Stevens Creek between the State Route 85 soundwall and the stream corridor (See Map 9 – Study Segment 1: Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Alignments Map). Access into the Open Space from the North The trail must pass by Heatherstone Apartments before entering the open space lands. Three alternatives to accessing the open space lands are retained for further review. Option 1 – Relocate the Soundwall The first alternative routes the path through existing Caltrans right-of-way and requires relocation of approximately 1,000 feet of the soundwall behind Heatherstone Apartments. Excess right-of-way, beyond that needed for future widening of State Route 85, exists on the highway side of the soundwall. The future widening of State Route 85 will include four 12-foot travel lanes and two 10-foot wide shoulders totaling 68 feet. Placement of the trail behind a reconstructed soundwall is preferred over placing the trail on the highway side of the soundwall. The footing design of the new soundwall would need to accommodate the future highway widening and grade changes in this area. Caltrans has expressed a potential interest in selling the right-of-way that would eventually be located behind the new soundwall (See Figure 22 – Trail behind Heatherstone Apartment with reconstructed soundwall). Option 2 – Extend Trail behind Parking Lot at Heatherstone Apartments The second alternative would extend the trail between the existing soundwall and the parking lot at Heatherstone Apartments. This option would require a trail easement from the property owner (See Chapter 6 – Development Challenge). The alignment would include some redesign of the parking lot and landscape strip between the parking lot and the soundwall. Placement of the trail behind the existing soundwall would buffer trail users from the noise of State Route 85. 860 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/BICYCLE P ATHS Page 56 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Option 3 – Use City Streets to Mockingbird Lane This option would route the trail on city streets from the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing to Mockingbird Lane. Bicyclists would share the street with automobiles on Heatherstone Way, Knickerbocker Drive and Mockingbird Lane through the combination of a new neighborhood greenway and existing bike lanes. An approximately 90-foot pedestrian/bicycle bridge would span the creek at the end of Mockingbird lane to provide access to the open space lands and continue the trail to the south. This route is less direct and requires trail users to navigate city streets, but does provide an alternate northern connection to the open space acreage (See Map 9 – Study Segment 1: Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Alignments Map). Crossing the Creek Stevens Creek crosses beneath State Route 85 twice within this study segment. In the north, the creek swings west at Heatherstone Apartments near Village Court and passes beneath State Route 85 as it flows to San Francisco Bay. The creek flows through a box culvert that provides no opportunity for a trail underpass. This constraint to providing trail access to Mountain View residents living to the east of State Route 85 was overcome with the construction of the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing, but must be tackled from the east bank to extend the trail south through the 22 acres of open space land. Option 3 above uses a pedestrian/bicycle bridge at the end of Mockingbird Lane to route the trail from the east bank to the west bank. In Option 1 and 2 the trail must span the bend in Stevens Creek near Village Court. An approximately 300-foot pedestrian/bicycle bridge (constructed of two spans 180 feet and 120 feet) is proposed to span the channel and narrow section of land located between the soundwall and the top-of-bank of Stevens Creek. This pedestrian/bicycle bridge would be designed as a clear span over the creek and freestanding structure unattached to any Caltrans structures. Adequate to ideal top-of-bank, with the exception of two pinch points, exists beyond this location to convey the trail south. The top-of-bank in the two constrained areas is too narrow to support a trail. One pinch point is located just downstream of Mockingbird Lane and another near the Permanente Creek Bypass Channel. State Route 85 was constructed very close to the edge of the creek bank at these bends in the stream. The proximity of State Route 85 combined with changes in the streambed have caused significant erosion to occur in these locations. Construction of Stevens Creek reservoir and dam has starved the lower reaches of the creek of sediment. The loss of upstream Figure 22 – Trail behind Heatherstone Apartment with reconstructed soundwall. 861 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/ B ICYCLE P ATHS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 57 sediment combined with increased peak storm flows from continued urbanization has resulted in downcutting of the streambed and subsequent bank erosion. These hydrogeomorphic changes have created the pinch points that are constraints to trail development. Engineering solutions are required at these sites. An approximately 100-foot structure slab trail on piles with curtain wall is proposed just north of Mockingbird Lane and an approximately 380-foot structure slab trail on piles is recommended from the Permanente Creek Bypass Channel south to the large meadow located across the creek from Remington Drive. These two structures would be built immediately adjacent to the soundwall (See Figure 23 – Engineering solutions for constrained areas along State Route 85 soundwall). The piles and curtain wall would help to protect the Caltrans soundwall and stabilize the channel embankment. Habitat restoration is proposed along the streambed to support Pinch point downstream of Mockingbird Lane. threatened Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). A hydrology study would be required to further assess the impact of the proposed engineered structures. All of the engineered trail structures that parallel the soundwall would be constructed from the freeway side of the soundwall. The costs estimates prepared for these structures included soundwall demolition and reconstruction (See Chapter 6 – Development Challenge). Pinch point near Permanente Creek Bypass. 862 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/BICYCLE P ATHS Page 58 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Figure 23 – Engineering solutions for constrained areas along State Route 85 soundwall. Access from the Open Space to Fremont Avenue The trail must exit the open space lands to the south. Four alternatives to accessing Fremont Avenue are retained for consideration. Option 1: Trail Underpass with Ramps beneath State Route 85 The trail could continue south meandering through the meadow past the Cal Water property. Stevens Creek flows beneath State Route 85 just downstream from Fremont Avenue. Public property between Fremont Avenue and this upstream crossing of State Route 85 is very limited. A trail underpass is feasible only on the south side of the State Route 85 bridge due to limited public ownership. A pedestrian/ bicycle bridge is proposed downstream of the Sana Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Fremont Drop Structure to convey the path across the creek to the east bank. The trail would extend along the east bank for a short distance through City of Sunnyvale and SCVWD lands to the State Route 85 bridge. The path must access the trail underpass from the east to take advantage of the public lands. The properties along the east side of the creek in this area are owned by the City of Sunnyvale, SCVWD and Caltrans. A concrete trail underpass and ramps are proposed to extend along the east bank and beneath State Route 85 to connect the path to Fremont Avenue. At State Route 85, the trail would be ramped below the roadway into the channel. Sufficient vertical clearance exists to create a trail underpass within the southern bent of the bridge and preserve the flood carrying capacity of the channel. The trail underpass would be subject to flooding during significant winter storms resulting in temporary trail closures. A hydrology study would be required to further assess the impact of the proposed trail underpass. The path would emerge from the trail underpass and parallel the State Route 85 Fremont Avenue southbound off-ramp (See Illustration 1 – Trail underpass beneath State Route 85 north of Fremont Avenue). The alignment must accommodate the future widening of the off-ramp to two lanes at full design standards. Sufficient right-of- 863 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/ B ICYCLE P ATHS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 59 way appears available to accommodate the trail to Fremont Avenue. A short wall along the highway side of the southbound off- ramp may be required to retain the slope to gain maximum right-of-way width (See Figure 24 – Grade-separated options for connecting to Fremont Avenue). The trail connection to Fremont Avenue would need to consider the design and signal timing of the intersections along Fremont Avenue with specific emphasis on where the trail would cross Fremont to extend the route south and to place bicyclists in the proper direction of travel in the eastbound bicycle lanes on Fremont Avenue. This option maintains a grade-separated trail to Fremont Avenue and may be an advantageous connection to the Fremont Avenue/Grant Road path. In 2008, Los Altos identified a pedestrian/bicycle path on the north side of Fremont Avenue and east side of Grant Road as the preferred alignment for the Stevens Creek Trail and as trail access for Los Altos residents (See Fremont Avenue/Grant Road Path discussion below). Fremont Avenue Bridge Traffic operations and pedestrian and bicycle circulation in this area could be enhanced with a new bridge over the Stevens Creek at Fremont Avenue. The existing bridge is approximately 55 feet wide with a 10-foot wide cantilevered wooden path attached to the north side of the bridge structure. This bridge conveys a single lane of traffic in each direction with a merge lane heading west into Los Altos. Traffic speeds are 9 mph faster than the posted 30 mph speed limit and the area is subject to significant traffic backups (Los Altos, 2011, pp. 63-64). A wider bridge would allow for improved traffic queuing and complete pedestrian and bicycle facilities. A new bridge would also provide an opportunity to construct a trail underpass that would safely convey trail users to both sides of the bridge and into the appropriate travel direction of the bicycle lanes and possible Fremont/Grant path alignment. A trail underpass is not feasible with the current concrete arch bridge built in 1911. Illustration 1 – Trail underpass beneath State Route 85 north of Fremont Avenue. 864 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/BICYCLE P ATHS Page 60 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study A trail underpass would require an easement through the industrial property on the corner of Fremont Avenue and State Route 85. The 5.88-acre privately-held parcel at 1195 W. Fremont Avenue is bordered by Stevens Creek, State Route 85 and Fremont Avenue. Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Santa Clara Valley Water District have easements over a portion of the site. Acquisition of a portion of the parcel or a trail easement along the creekside of the property would provide the opportunity to extend the trail to Fremont Avenue and assist with the development of a grade-separated trail underpass beneath Fremont Avenue (See Chapter 6 – Development Challenge for additional details). If this were feasible the path alignment along the State Route 85 southbound off-ramp would not be necessary. Option 2: Pedestrian Overcrossing to Bernardo Avenue A pedestrian overcrossing of Fremont Avenue may be feasible using excess Caltrans right-of-way along the Fremont Avenue northbound on-ramp. A pedestrian overcrossing supported by piers would extend along the property line of the northbound on-ramp, span Fremont Avenue and touch down in a Sunnyvale- owned parcel adjacent to Bernardo Avenue (See Figure 24 – Plan View of Options 1 and 2 for Connecting to Fremont Avenue). A retaining wall along the highway side of the northbound on-ramp may be required to gain additional width to support both the full design of the on-ramp and elevated trail structure. This potential structure requires additional study and consultation with Caltrans. In Option 2 the pedestrian/bicycle bridge conveying trail users from the west bank to the east bank is proposed immediately downstream and parallel to the State Route 85 bridge. This pedestrian bicycle bridge would convey the path across the creek to a short stretch of trail that would then enter the proposed pedestrian overcrossing (See Map 9 – Study Segment 1: Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Alignments Map). This option maintains a grade-separated trail beyond Fremont Avenue and may be advantageous if a grade-separated path was desired along the length of Bernardo Avenue (See Bernardo Avenue Path discussion below). Figure 24 – Grade-separated options for connecting to Fremont Avenue. 865 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/BICYCLE P ATHS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 61 Map 9 – Study Segment 1: Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Alignments Map. 866 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/BICYCLE P ATHS Page 62 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Map 10 – Study Segment 2: Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road Alignments Map 867 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/ B ICYCLE P ATHS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 63 Option 3: Pedestrian Overcrossing to Mountain View High School In 2004, Mountain View planned to extend the trail from Dale/Heatherstone to Mountain View High School. The route was to extend through the meadow and over State Route 85 on a pedestrian overcrossing similar to the existing Dale/Heatherstone trail facility. This structure would touch down in a Mountain View-owned parcel adjacent to Mountain View High School. This concept is retained for consideration. As with all structures spanning Caltrans facilities the pedestrian overcrossing would need to meet or exceed Caltrans design standards. More recently, Caltrans has been recommending 12-foot wide pedestrian overcrossings. The trail and engineered structures in Mountain View are typically 10 feet wide. Option 4: Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge to West Remington Drive This option would route the trail on city streets from the West Remington Drive to Fremont Avenue. Bicyclists would share the street with automobiles on a combination of West Remington Drive with either Bernardo Avenue or Mary Avenue to access Fremont Avenue. The route would use proposed and existing bike lanes. A pedestrian/bicycle bridge would span the creek at the end of West Remington Drive to provide a connection to the city streets. A pedestrian/bicycle bridge at West Remington Drive could also serve as a midpoint access for area residents (See Map 9 – Study Segment 1: Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Alignments Map). BERNARDO AVENUE PATH This study determined that a pedestrian/bicycle path adjacent to the soundwall along Bernardo Avenue from Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road is feasible if either the roadway becomes a one-way street or parking is reduced. The potential to reallocate street space to create a separated pedestrian/bicycle path is feasible, but would require additional traffic studies to fully evaluate the impacts of the roadway change (See Map 9 – Study Segment 2: Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road Alignments Map). ROADWAY CONDITIONS Bernardo Avenue between Fremont Avenue and Homestead Road is a two-lane street with low traffic volume (See Figure 19 – Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road feasibility of studied roadways to support pedestrian and bicycle facilities.). The State Route 85 soundwall lies to the west and single-family residences to the east of the roadway. A pedestrian/bicycle path along the soundwall would be fully separated from automobile traffic. The pavement section on Bernardo Avenue measures 32 feet wide. A sidewalk and planter strip measuring 10 ½ feet runs along the east side of the street. No changes to the east side of the street are envisioned. The width of the undeveloped street right-of-way from back of curb to the soundwall on the west side of the street varies from 3 to 8 feet. CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT Areas with a wider undeveloped street right-of-way (8 feet) would allow for a landscape buffer with street trees between the path and travel lane on Bernardo Avenue. The narrower condition (3 feet) would allow for a curb and fencing (See Illustration 2 – Astoria to The Dalles on Bernardo and Illustration 3 – The Dalles to Helena on Bernardo). The separated pedestrian/bike path would extend behind the gas station to Homestead Road in the location of the existing pathway. The path would connect at-grade to the signal lights on Fremont Avenue as well as selected residential streets such as Astoria Drive, The Dalles and Helena Drive. Path access would be guided by the results of traffic studies. However, the existing pedestrian overcrossing of State Route 85 at The Dalles would make this street a likely location for trail access. 868 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/BICYCLE P ATHS Page 64 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Illustration 2 – Astoria to The Dalles on Bernardo Illustration 3 – The Dalles to Helena on Bernardo The pedestrian/bicycle path could also connect to the grade-separated crossing of Fremont Avenue (See Option 2 – Access from Open Space to Fremont Avenue) and a proposed crossing of State Route 85 at Homestead Road. Two options for crossing State Route 85 have potential to link the Bernardo Avenue pathway to the new pedestrian/bicycle path on the north side of Homestead Road. This path was completed in 2013 and extends from the Los Altos city limit on west side of Stevens Creek to El Sereno Avenue, which is opposite the busy Foothill Crossings Shopping Center. Los Altos also plans an exclusive green bike track that will assist cyclists through the Grant/Homestead signal and into and out of Foothill Crossing Shopping Center. Crossing State Route 85 at Homestead Road The two options for crossing State Route 85 at Homestead Road include widening the existing roadway bridge to provide a separate path for pedestrians and bicyclists or installing a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge parallel to the Homestead Road bridge over the highway that would be directly accessed from the Bernardo path. Either bridge option would require extension of the pathway improvements on the north side of Homestead Road from the east side of Stevens Creek to the State Route 85 southbound off-ramp to close the gap in this alignment. These improvements would be located within Sunnyvale. FALLEN LEAF LANE PATH A pedestrian/bicycle path is also feasible along the east side of Fallen Leaf Lane from Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road, but would require use of the 60-foot wide public right-of-way of which 18 feet is currently undeveloped and integrated into the front yards of homes along the street. The pathway would be aligned along the east side of the street to minimize cross traffic as the streets to the east are all short cul de sacs that dead end at the creek. Development of a pedestrian/bicycle path would also address other needed street maintenance including pavement improvements. Other on-street routing solutions that could be implemented within the existing paved 42-foot right-of-way are also feasible on Fallen Leaf Lane. These on- street options, which include a bike route and neighborhood greenway, are described in Chapter 5. 869 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/ B ICYCLE P ATHS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 65 FREMONT AVENUE/GRANT ROAD PATH In 2008, Los Altos selected a preferred Stevens Creek Trail alignment that extended south through the creek corridor then turned west to parallel Fremont Avenue and Grant Road. Los Altos did not adopt this alignment and opted to work collaboratively with the four cities. However, the preferred alignment is identified in the 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan. The route is planned as a 10-foot wide Class I multi-use path that would be constructed within the existing right-of-way of these collector streets. The route jogs west on Fremont Avenue and then extends south and southeast on Grant Road for approximately two miles to connect to Foothill Expressway at Homestead Road/Vineyard Drive. The existing westbound bike lane on the north side of Fremont Avenue and southbound bike lane on the west side of Grant Road are integrated into the new multi-use path in an effort to preserve some oak trees in the undeveloped right-of-way. Twelve side streets, two cul de sacs and the driveways to the Woodland Branch Library and Lucky Supermarket intersect the proposed two- mile multi-use path. The 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan notes “The final alignment for this project has not yet confirmed. The Class I pathway is only recommended if it is confirmed to be part of the Stevens Creek Trail or serve as a connector trail (Los Altos, 2012, p. 5-16).” These pedestrian and bicycle improvements proposed for Fremont Avenue and Grant Road were considered a high priority to connect to the Stevens Creek Trail regardless of whether or not the trail is eventually routed through Los Altos. In particular, the safety improvements proposed for the intersection of Truman and Fremont and the bike path proposed for Grant Road would improve the school routes for Mountain View High School and Montclaire Elementary School, respectively (Los Altos, 2012, p. D-5). FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY PATH The potential to extend a short pedestrian/bicycle path from the intersection of Homestead Road and Vineyard Drive with Foothill Expressway to the intersection of Starling Drive and Cristo Rey Drive with Foothill Boulevard appears feasible. This path would parallel the expressway and require reconfiguration of the west side of the Interstate 280 bridge underpass (See Figure 25 – Plan view of path parallel to Foothill Expressway). The pathway would use Caltrans and Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department excess expressway right-of-way and pass beneath Interstate 280. The path would link the new pedestrian/bicycle path extending along the north side of Homestead Road to existing bicycle lanes on Foothill Boulevard. This trail concept requires squaring up and controlling traffic at the Interstate 280/Foothill Interchange, widening and reconstructing the southbound travel lanes of Foothill Expressway through modifications to the Caltrans bridge and extending a multi-use path along the west side of Foothill Expressway. This concept would also include improved shoulder width for bicyclists on the street (See Figure 26 – Cross-section of reconfigured Foothill Expressway underpass beneath Interstate 280). The modifications to the bicycle lanes at the underpass should attempt to meet Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle Technical Guidelines for steep grades and expressway speed (VTA, 2012, pp. 7-2 and 7-3). These guidelines suggest 8-foot wide bike lanes in the uphill and 2- foot wide lane in the downhill direction. The proposed path would be adjacent to the uphill bike lane separated by safety rail. The bicycle and pedestrian concepts incorporated into the path and on-street facilities improvements build upon the 2008 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Update - Pedestrian Route for Foothill Expressway, which is currently the subject of the Expressway Plan 2040 Study. It also moves forward the Caltrans and Santa Clara County goal of controlling interchange traffic. 870 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/BICYCLE P ATHS Page 66 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Figure 25 – Plan view of path parallel to Foothill Expressway. Interstate 280/Foothill Expressway Interchange Modifications A parallel path requires squaring up the on- and off-ramps to eliminate all free right-turn lanes and control traffic at the Interstate 280/Foothill Interchange. A traffic operations/queuing analysis would be required to assess these roadway changes. Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department traffic forecasts indicate that the northbound Interstate 280 off-ramp will be operating at LOS F (Level of Service F) by 2025 with queue spillbacks onto the freeway. Santa Clara County is studying adding an auxiliary lane between the off-ramp to Homestead Road to reduce backups. This study assumes maintaining the existing free right-turn at the off-ramp. Significant additional ramp storage would likely be needed if the free right-turn were removed (See Map 11 – Study Segment 3: Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard Alignments Map). Figure 26 – Cross-section of reconfigured Foothill Expressway underpass beneath Interstate 280. 871 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/BICYCLE P ATHS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 67 Map 11 – Study Segment 3: Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Alignments Map 872 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/BICYCLE P ATHS Page 68 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Map 12 – Study Segment 4: Stevens Creek Boulevard Connection to Rancho San Antonio County Park Alignments Map. 873 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/ B ICYCLE P ATHS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 69 PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING AT INTERSTATE 280 A grade-separated crossing of Interstate 280 was investigated to continue the trail south into Cupertino. There are two existing crossings of Interstate 280 that connect to Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge at Mary Avenue provides access over Interstate 280 connecting to Stevens Creek Boulevard at DeAnza College. Foothill Expressway passes beneath Interstate 280 becoming Foothill Boulevard to connect with Stevens Creek Boulevard. Pedestrians use a sidewalk on the east side of Foothill and bicyclists share the travel lane with vehicles. These two locations require pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate city streets, highway interchanges and the steep hill on Stevens Creek Boulevard to connect to Cupertino’s existing trail along the creek that extends through Blackberry Farm Park to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Five locations were evaluated for a pedestrian overcrossing that would eliminate the need to navigate highway interchanges and the steep grade on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The use of the existing tunnels that convey Stevens Creek flows beneath Interstate 280 and use of Santa Clara Valley Water District lands along the creek to either Groveland Drive or Madera Drive were deemed infeasible without the support of Caltrans (See Appendix B–Summary of Studied Routes). The other two locations may provide a technically feasible option for a pedestrian overcrossing north of the I-280/SR85 Interchange. These locations include Peninsular Avenue to Somerset Park and Caroline Drive to Madera Drive (See Figure 27–Potentially feasible pedestrian overcrossings of Interstate 280). Both of the routes require use of very low-density residential streets in neighborhoods without any through traffic. These neighborhoods back up to Interstate 280. The Peninsular Avenue to Somerset Park route would connect to Stevens Creek Boulevard via Peninsula Avenue located just east of the Union Pacific Railroad line near the US Post Office. The Caroline Drive to Madera Drive route would span both Interstate 280 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line connecting to Stevens Creek Boulevard via Phar Lap Drive located at the existing Stevens Creek Trail terminus. The two tunnels beneath I-280 and Union Pacific Railroad require further study with Caltrans. 874 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/BICYCLE P ATHS Page 70 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Figure 27 – Potentially feasible pedestrian overcrossings of Interstate 280. Caltrans has indicated that at some point in the future the connector ramp from southbound State Route 85 to northbound Interstate 280 might be redesigned to improve geometrics. The northbound Interstate 280 off-ramp at Foothill Expressway may also be improved. These potential highway improvements make it difficult to fully evaluate the pedestrian overcrossing feasibility at these locations. These improvements are not currently identified in any transportation plans, but could be added in the future. A new pedestrian overcrossing of Interstate 280 would likely be the last element of the Stevens Creek Trail to be completed on the valley floor. Feasibility of this potential overcrossing structure should continue to be assessed as Caltrans plans for the area develop. GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING AT STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD The City of Cupertino acquired an additional parcel of land along the creek in 2014. This parcel fronts Stevens Creek Boulevard and is situated between the Blackberry Farm Golf Course parking area and Stevens Creek. An in-channel trail underpass beneath Stevens Creek Boulevard is not feasible, but the recent land acquisition may provide an opportunity for a pedestrian tunnel beneath the roadway. There are two possible options to the east of the creek that take advantage of this new acquisition and one additional tunnel location to the west of the creek. The site to the west would require the acquisition of additional floodplain land on the northwest corner of the bridge that spans Stevens Creek (See Chapter 6 – Development Challenge). These three sites require additional study, but hold promise for providing a grade separated crossing of Stevens Creek Boulevard for pedestrians and bicyclists (See Appendix B – Summary of Studied Routes). CONNECTION TO RANCHO SAN ANTONIO COUNTY PARK A trail connection and staging area off Stevens Creek Boulevard to Rancho San Antonio County Park was first identified in the Cupertino 2002 Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study. This study identifies a location for a pedestrian and bicycle bridge spanning the UPRR line in the area off Stevens Creek Boulevard where the tracks 875 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/ B ICYCLE P ATHS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 71 slice through the hillside. The trail and bridge location is down slope from the Hammond-Snyder historical house and would require access through undeveloped land along Stevens Creek Boulevard owned by Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department and UPRR. The pedestrian and bicycle bridge would also require both ground and aerial rights along and over the UPRR line. The ramps to the bridge would be elevated approximately three feet above the existing hillside grade to the 485-foot contour to provide adequate clearance for train passage. The 485-foot elevation provides approximately 28 feet of clearance between the tracks and pedestrian/bike bridge. The staging area would require acquisition of undeveloped Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department land that parallels both the UPRR line and Stevens Creek Boulevard west of Stonebridge. Acquisition of a portion of the UPRR lands adjacent to the rail corridor may also benefit the staging area (See Map 12 – Study Segment 4: Stevens Creek Boulevard Connection to Rancho San Antonio County Park Alignments Map). The UPRR Rail line runs between Rancho San Antonio County Park and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Rancho San Antonio County Park is the second most heavily visited County Park and the parking areas are often full. A trail staging area would provide additional parking, restrooms, signage and a trail connection to the existing Hammond- Snyder Loop Trail in Rancho San Antonio County Park (See Figure 28 – Staging Area and Trail Connection Concept Plan). A trail connection from Stevens Creek Boulevard Figure 28 – Staging Area and Trail Connection Concept Plan. 876 C HAPTER 4 – P EDESTRIAN/BICYCLE P ATHS Page 72 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study could also enhance recreational opportunities between Cupertino and Los Altos. A trail extending through Rancho San Antonio County Park from St. Joseph Avenue in Los Altos to Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino was evaluated as a part of this study. The 1992 Rancho San Antonio County Park Master Plan also evaluated such a route. Some of the trails required to provide a route through the park do not support multiuse. The trails along Permanente Creek are designated for hiking only. Although a multiuse route supporting hiking and bicycling through the park from Los Altos to Cupertino is technically feasible, such a route would require a policy change to the master plan (County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department, 1992). Rancho San Antonio County Park is operated under a management agreement with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD). Any changes to the operation of the County Park would also require discussion and coordination with MROSD. No changes to the current park operation are proposed in this study. CONNECTION TO THE PREVIOUSLY STUDIED UNION PACIFIC RAIL TRAIL The trail connection and staging area off Stevens Creek Boulevard would also provide access to the Union Pacific Rail Trail, a proposed trail extending along the UPRR right-of-way from Cupertino to Los Gatos. This proposed pedestrian and bicyclist route is a long-range goal for area cities. A trail could be developed within the railroad right-of-way when the rail line is no longer in operation and the property has been acquired. Currently, the rail line serves Lehigh Quarry and Cement Plant. The preliminary trail routing and crossing concepts for the Union Pacific Rail Line were developed in 2001 (Alta, 2001). 877 C HAPTER 5 – O N -S TREET R OUTES Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 73 Chapter 5 details the existing and feasible on-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the study area. Roadway width, traffic volume and speed, roadway intersections and pedestrian and bicycle collision history were evaluated for on- street routes to determine the opportunities and constraints to closing the gap in the Stevens Creek Trail. The feasibility to implement bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the roadways was assessed by applying the established design guidelines and standards. This study draws upon four guidelines as the primary sources of criteria for assessing the feasibility of developing bicycle and pedestrian facilities on roadways. Guidelines addressing on-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities were reviewed to determine if sufficient roadway right-of- way existed to accommodate potential trail connections. These local, state and federal guidelines establish minimum through optimal criteria for developing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the roadway right-of-way. These four guidelines apply to various elements of the on-street facilities investigated during this study. The guidelines include (See Chapter 2 for details): • 2012 California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual: Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design (See Figure 15). • 2012 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle Technical Guidelines • 2012 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities • 2004 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities This feasibility study reviewed a wide range of on-street routes and identifies the types of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are feasible on each street. In instances where a roadway could support bicyclists and pedestrians only through reallocation of street space, it is assumed that traffic studies would need to be conducted to fully evaluate the impacts of any roadway change. Throughout the course of this trail feasibility investigation information was gathered from north to south and divided into four study segments to facilitate the presentation of the feasibility findings. Maps, charts and drawings are provided to illustrate the feasible on-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The study segment include: ♦ Study Segment 1: Dale Avenue/ Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue ♦ Study Segment 2: Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road ♦ Study Segment 3: Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard ♦ Study Segment 4: Trail Connections to Rancho San Antonio County Park via Stevens Creek Boulevard FACILITY DEFINITIONS This report uses the following terms to describe existing and feasible on-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These terms are used in Figures 29, 32, 33 and 34 which summarize the feasibility of studied roadways to support pedestrian and bicycle facilities for linking the Stevens Creek Trail. Pedestrian/Bike Path is a trail or path separated from auto traffic. These facilities are proposed in open space lands and parallel to roadways. A pedestrian/bike path is considered to be 10-feet wide with 2-foot shoulders on each side of the facility. Pedestrian/Bike Paths are intended to serve a wide-range of trail users with varying skill levels (See Chapter 4 for details of feasible pedestrian/bicycle paths). 878 C HAPTER 5 – O N -S TREET R OUTES Page 74 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Bike Lanes are indicated on arterial and collector streets carrying average daily traffic of more than 4,000 vehicles per day. Bike lanes provide a striped lane in either direction on the roadway and are intended for one-way bike travel. Bike lanes are assumed to be 6-feet wide unless otherwise noted in this report. Signed Bike Routes are indicated on streets having low traffic volume as measured by average daily traffic of less than 2,000 vehicles per day and speeds less than 25 mph. Bike route signs and optional pavement markings are used to designate a street as a signed bike route. Bike routes are placed on streets with and without parallel parking. Neighborhood Greenway is a signed bike route that includes neighborhood enhancements to manage vehicle speed and volume and prioritize bicycle traffic. Neighborhood greenways are identified on streets where the addition of roadway markings, corner curb bulb-outs with landscaping and other amenities are feasible within the roadway right-of-way. Sidewalks are designated walking spaces along roadways. Sidewalks may be directly adjacent to the roadway curb or may include a planting strip that provides buffer to the roadway and an opportunity for street trees and landscaping. Stevens Creek Boulevard looking west past the Oaks Shopping Center. 879 C HAPTER 5 – O N -S TREET R OUTES Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 75 STUDY SEGMENT 1: DALE AVENUE/HEATHERSTONE WAY TO FREMONT AVENUE Study Segment 1 extends from the Dale/Heatherstone Overpass to Fremont Avenue and from Grant Road to Mary Avenue. State Route 85 bisects the communities and limits pedestrian and bicycle movement east to west. The Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing is the only structure that provides passage across State Route 85 for walkers or bicyclists between El Camino Real and Fremont Avenue. The potential on-street routes for extending the trail south are located to the east in Sunnyvale and to the west in Mountain View and Los Altos on either side of the state highway. These communities have developed pedestrian and bicycle facilities on many of the local collector streets in these areas. These facilities serve the city limits and connect students to several schools located within the study area (See Figure 8 – Summary of parks, schools and attractions in the study area). EXISTING FACILITIES On the Sunnyvale side of the highway bike lanes exist on Knickerbocker Drive, West Remington Drive and Bernardo from Heatherstone to West Remington Drive. Bike lanes also extend along Fremont Avenue and passing through the interchange and under State Route 85. In Mountain View bike lanes exist on a short segment of Bryant between Shady Springs Lane and Truman Avenue. This route facilitates access to Mountain View High School. Mountain View has studied the streets around Mountain View High School on several occasions. These investigations have attempted to balance the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, area homeowners and students and faculty who commute to the school. These efforts have implemented a range of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs and parking restrictions in the neighborhood. FEASIBLE FACILITIES On the Mountain View/Los Altos side of the highway neighborhood greenways could be extended from existing Sleeper Avenue trailhead along residential streets including Franklin, Diericx, Levin, St. Giles, Shady Springs, Brower to Mountain View High School (See Figure 29 – Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue existing and feasible on-street bicycle facilities). These routes are circuitous and connect to a narrow segment of Truman Avenue that borders Mountain View High School. Los Altos has plans to add bike lanes to Truman south of Oak to Fremont Avenue within city limits to facilitate travel to the school (See Map 9 – Study Segment 1: Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue Alignments Map). In Sunnyvale neighborhood greenways could be extended along residential streets including Heatherstone Way, Mockingbird Lane and Robin Way. Bike lanes could be extended south on Bernardo from West Remington Drive to Fremont Avenue, but would require removal of the parking from one side of the street south of Remington. 880 C HAPTER 5 – O N -S TREET R OUTES Page 76 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Evaluated Roadway Existing Bicycle Facilities Feasible Bicycle Facilities Heatherstone Way (Dale to Bernardo) Undesignated Neighborhood Greenway OR Proposed as a Bike Boulevard in the 2008 Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan Knickerbocker Drive (Heatherstone to Mango) Existing Bike Lanes Mockingbird Lane (Stevens Creek to Knickerbocker) Undesignated Neighborhood Greenway Remington Drive (Bernardo to Mary) Existing Bike Lanes Bernardo Avenue (Heatherstone to Remington) Existing Bike Lanes Bernardo Avenue (Remington to Fremont) Undesignated Bike Lanes require removal of one side of on-street parking south of Remington Mary Avenue (Heatherstone to Fremont) Undesignated Bike Lanes approved with the Mary Avenue Street Space Allocation Project by eliminating one lane of auto travel in each direction and creating a single left hand turn lane Diericx Drive (Franklin to Lubich) Undesignated Neighborhood Greenway Franklin Avenue (Sleeper to Levin) Undesignated Neighborhood Greenway Bryant Avenue (Grant to Truman) Existing Bike Lanes Truman Avenue (Bryant to Fremont) Undesignated Bike Lanes require removal of one side of on-street parking south of Oak Bike Lanes from Oak to Fremont proposed in 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan Fremont Avenue (State Route 85 N/B Off-ramp to Fallen Leaf) Existing Bike Lanes Retain 4’ Bike Lane on south side Fremont Avenue (Fallen Leaf to Grant Road) Existing Bike Lanes Pedestrian/Bike Path proposed along north side as identified in 2008 Los Altos Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study and 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan, Westbound bike lane integrated into path Figure 29 – Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue existing and feasible on-street bicycle facilities. 881 C HAPTER 5 – O N -S TREET R OUTES Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 77 STUDY SEGMENT 2: FREMONT AVENUE TO HOMESTEAD ROAD Study Segment 2 extends from Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road and from Grant Road to Mary Avenue. State Route 85 bisects Sunnyvale and Los Altos in this study segment. The Dalles pedestrian overcrossing is the only structure that provides passage across State Route 85 for walkers or bicyclists between Fremont Avenue and Homestead Road. It serves students accessing local elementary, middle and high schools. The potential on-street routes for extending the trail south are located to the east in Sunnyvale and to the west in Los Altos on either side of the state highway. EXISTING FACILITIES Existing bicycle facilities in this study segment are limited to the collector and arterial roadways including Fremont Avenue, Grant Road, Mary Avenue and Homestead Road. These roadways support high traffic volumes and higher speed limits than the undesignated residential streets in the study segment. Most of the intersections on these streets are controlled with signal lights. Cross traffic also includes unsignalized residential side streets, single-family residences and business establishments. FEASIBLE FACILITIES In Sunnyvale, neighborhood greenways are suitable between Mary Avenue and Bernardo Avenue on The Dalles Avenue, Helena Drive and Samedra Street. A neighborhood greenway or a pedestrian/ bike path is feasible on Bernardo Avenue (See Chapter 4 for discussion of Bernardo Avenue Path). No changes to the allocation of street space on Bernardo would be needed to support a neighborhood greenway (See Figure 30 – Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road existing and feasible on-street bicycle facilities). A neighborhood greenway could also extend along Bedford Avenue. Belleville Way could support bike lanes, but this would require removal of parking from one side of the street. Removal of parking was a concern expressed by Cupertino Union School District representatives. West Valley Elementary School is located on Belleville and the through roadway is very busy during school drop-off and pickup (See Map 10 – Study Segment 2: Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road Alignments Map). In Los Altos, Fallen Leaf Lane has adequate right-of-way to support many types of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The public right-of-way is 60 feet wide. However, the developed pavement section is only 42 feet wide. The remaining 18 feet of the public right-of-way is currently undeveloped and integrated into the front yards of the homes along the roadway. Bike lanes or a pedestrian/bike path would each require use of the majority of the 60-foot right-of-way. A bike route or neighborhood greenway is feasible within the existing 42-foot paved roadway. The 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan proposes a signed bike routes on both Fallen Leaf Lane and on Newcastle Drive (Los Altos, 2012, pp. 5-5 and 5-11). On Fallen Leaf Lane there is adequate paved roadway width to develop a neighborhood greenway with or without a 6-foot walking space on the east side of the street (Illustration 4 – Fallen Leaf Lane as a signed bike route and Illustration 5 – Fallen Leaf Lane as a neighborhood greenway with walking space). The 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan proposes bike lanes on Grant Road along the Foothill Expressway frontage to Homestead Road (Los Altos, 2012, p. 2-10). A pedestrian/bike path along the north side of Fremont Avenue is identified in the 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan (See Chapter 4 for discussion of Fremont Avenue/Grant Road Path). The plan notes that the “pathway is only recommended if it is confirmed to be part of the Stevens Creek Trail or serve as a connector trail (Los Altos, 2012, p. 5-16).” 882 C HAPTER 5 – O N -S TREET R OUTES Page 78 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Evaluated Roadway Existing Designated Bicycle Facilities Feasible Bicycle Facilities Bernardo Avenue (Fremont to Homestead) Undesignated Pedestrian/Bike Path along Soundwall - Requires either a 1-way street or loss of parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Belleville Way (Fremont to Homestead) Undesignated Bike Lanes - Requires removal of one side of on-street parking Bedford Avenue (Belleville to Ecola) Ecola Lane (Bedford to Barton) Undesignated Neighborhood Greenway Fallen Leaf Lane (Fremont to Louise) Undesignated Pedestrian/Bike Path along east side or Bike Lanes Require use of entire city-owned right-of-way OR Neighborhood Greenway using existing pavement only OR Signed Bike Route using existing pavement only as identified in 2002 Los Altos General Plan and 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan Louise Lane (Fallen Leaf to Homestead) Undesignated Neighborhood Greenway using existing pavement only OR Signed Bike Route using existing pavement only Newcastle Drive (Fremont to Grant) Undesignated Bike Route proposed in 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan Mary Avenue (Fremont to Homestead) Existing Bike Lanes Homestead Road (Belleville to Grant) Existing Bike Lanes and Existing Pedestrian/Bike Path along north side Figure 30 – Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road existing and feasible on-street bicycle facilities. 883 C HAPTER 5 – O N -S TREET R OUTES Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 79 Illustration 4 – Fallen Leaf Lane as a signed bike route. Illustration 5 – Fallen Leaf Lane as a neighborhood greenway with walking space. STUDY SEGMENT 3: HOMESTEAD ROAD TO STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD Study Segment 3 extends from Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard and from Grant Road to Mary Avenue. This study segment is bisected east-west by State Route 85 and north-south by Interstate 280. The Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge at Mary Avenue spans Interstate 280 and Foothill Expressway passes beneath this freeway providing access for pedestrians and bicyclists. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Foothill Expressway serve as interchanges to these highways. The potential on-street routes for extending the trail south are located to the east in Sunnyvale and Cupertino and to the west in Los Altos and Cupertino. EXISTING FACILITIES Existing bicycle facilities in this study segment are limited to the collector and arterial roadways including Homestead Road, Grant Road, Mary Avenue, Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Los Altos recently completed a pedestrian/bicycle path along the north side of Homestead Road from Stevens Creek to Grant Road. Foothill Expressway is a well-used bicycle facility. The road shoulder is delineated but not designated for bicycle use (See Map 11 – Study Segment 3: Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard Alignments Map). These collector and arterial roadways support high traffic volumes and higher speed limits than the undesignated residential streets in the study segment. Foothill Expressway, Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard serve as truck routes, which also provide access to the quarry operations in the Santa Cruz Mountains above Cupertino. Most of the intersections on these streets are controlled with signal lights. Free right-hand turns exist at the Foothill/I-280 interchange. Cross traffic also includes unsignalized residential side streets, single-family residences and business establishments (See Figure 31 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard existing and feasible on-street bicycle facilities on collector and arterial streets). FEASIBLE FACILITIES In Cupertino, neighborhood greenways are feasible on Maxine Avenue, Caroline Drive, Peninsular Avenue, Barranca, Madera, Phar Lap, Mann, Stokes, Dempster and Peninsula (See Figure 32 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard existing and feasible on-street bicycle facilities on residential streets). These residential streets provide access to the two potentially feasible Interstate 280 pedestrian overcrossing locations (See Map 10 – Study Segment 2: Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road Alignments Map). 884 C HAPTER 5 – O N -S TREET R OUTES Page 80 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Evaluated Roadway Existing Designated Bicycle Facilities Feasible Bicycle Facilities Grant Road (Fremont to Foothill Expressway) Existing Bike Lanes Pedestrian/Bike Path proposed along east side in 2008 Los Altos Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Grant Road (Foothill Expressway to Homestead) Existing Bike Route Bike Lanes proposed in 2012 Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan OR Pedestrian/Bike Path proposed along north side in 2008 Los Altos Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Foothill Expressway (Grant Road to Foothill Boulevard) 2-foot delineated shoulder but no designated bicycle facilities as part of Santa Clara County “Delineate but not Designate” policy for Expressway shoulders Pedestrian/Bike Path with an optimal 8-foot “Delineate but not Designate” shoulder on the Expressway – May not be sufficient room to create optimal shoulder conditions Foothill Boulevard (Cristo Rey to Stevens Creek Blvd.) Existing Bike Lanes Mary Avenue (Don Burnett Bicycle- Pedestrian Bridge to Stevens Creek Blvd.) Existing Bicycle Lanes Stevens Creek Boulevard (Stonebridge to Foothill Blvd. to Stevens Creek Trail to Mary Avenue) Existing Bicycle Lanes Figure 31 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard existing and feasible on-street bicycle facilities on collector and arterial streets. 885 C HAPTER 5 – O N -S TREET R OUTES Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 81 Evaluated Roadway Existing Designated Bicycle Facilities Feasible Bicycle Facilities Barranca Drive (Homestead to Peninsular) Undesignated 5-foot Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Peninsular Avenue (Barranca to Caroline) Undesignated 4-foot Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Caroline Drive (Peninsular to Maxine) Undesignated Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Maxine Avenue (Caroline to Homestead) Undesignated 5-foot Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Stokes Avenue (Somerset Park to Dempster) Undesignated 5-foot Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Dempster Avenue (Stokes to Peninsula) Undesignated 5-foot Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Peninsula Avenue (Dempster to Stevens Creek Blvd.) Undesignated 5-foot Bike Lanes Requires removal of one side of on-street parking OR Neighborhood Greenway Phar Lap (Madera to Stevens Creek Blvd.) Undesignated Neighborhood Greenway Madera Drive (UPRR to Dos Palos Ct.) Undesignated Neighborhood Greenway Mann Drive (Dos Palos Court to Stevens Creek Blvd.) Undesignated Neighborhood Greenway Figure 32 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard existing and feasible on-street bicycle facilities on residential streets. 886 C HAPTER 5 – O N -S TREET R OUTES Page 82 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study STUDY SEGMENT 4: TRAIL CONNECTIONS TO RANCHO SAN ANTONIO COUNTY PARK STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD Study Segment 4 encompasses Stevens Creek Boulevard west of Foothill Boulevard and the open space lands west of Stonebridge, the last residential development along the roadway. This study segment is bisected east-west by State Route 85 and north-south by Interstate 280. Stevens Creek Boulevard west of Foothill Boulevard serves residences and Lehigh Quarry and Cement Plant. EXISTING FACILITIES Bike lanes extend on Foothill Boulevard from Cristo Rey Drive to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Bike lanes extend along Stevens Creek Boulevard from the Stevens Creek Trail at Blackberry Farm Golf Course to Stonebridge. FEASIBLE FACILITIES A trail connection and staging area off Stevens Creek Boulevard to Rancho San Antonio County Park is proposed to provide additional access and parking to the second most heavily visited regional park and open space preserve (See Chapter 4 for a discussion of the path to Rancho San Antonio County Park). A pedestrian/bicycle path is feasible within the roadway right- of-way on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The pedestrian/bicycle path would extend from Stonebridge to the proposed staging area located near the historic Hammond-Snyder house. The pedestrian/bicycle path would use Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department and UPRR property to reach the proposed staging area and pedestrian/bike bridge spanning the UPRR line (See Map 12 – Study Segment 4: Stevens Creek Boulevard Connection to Rancho San Antonio County Park Alignments Map). 887 C HAPTER 6 – D EVELOPMENT C HALLENGE Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 83 Chapter 6 provides unit cost estimates for developing on-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities and preliminary budget estimates for constructing the various pedestrian/bicycle path segments considered for closing the gap in the Stevens Creek Trail. This chapter also identifies six areas along the pedestrian/bicycle path alignments where acquisition of land or easements would facilitate construction. Numerous routes and types of facilities were investigated during this study. The budget estimates do not reflect the selection of any alignment. Unit cost estimates are provided for the on-street bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified as feasible on many roadways (See Figure 33). More detailed line item budget estimates are provided for the pedestrian/bicycle path segments, which require significantly more engineering, environmental review and permitting by regulatory and resource agencies (See Figures 34-40). The preliminary budget estimates for developing the pedestrian/bicycle path segments are based upon the various alignments and conceptual engineering options. The unit costs were developed by reviewing a range of recently awarded trail construction costs that included pedestrian overcrossings, concrete trail underpasses, clear span pedestrian/ bicycle bridges, trail paving in asphalt and concrete, native plant landscaping, habitat enhancement and typical trailside amenities. The construction subtotals are increased by 30% for design and engineering for trail segments along the creek or within Caltrans right-of-way. All other trail segment subtotals are increased by 20% for design and engineering. The estimates include costs for other services associated with delivering construction projects. These costs include technical studies, permitting, construction management and testing and inspections. The estimates do not include internal city project management and administration costs. The figures should be viewed as rough estimates to develop functional trails. These estimates would require review through the trail master plan and further refinement through construction plans and specifications. Due to the preliminary nature of a feasibility study a 20% project contingency is applied to the totals to capture the uncertainties associated with the conceptual alignments and engineering solutions. Annual cost escalations have not been included in the budget estimates. Trail development costs, like all other capital projects, vary with the bidding climate that has fluctuated significantly over the past decade. The cost estimates in this report reflect the 2014 bidding climate. Budget Assumptions The budget estimates reflect current trail design standards including Caltrans Highway Manual, ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Santa Clara County Uniform Inter-jurisdictional Trail Design, Use and Management Guidelines and Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle Technical Guidelines. The budget estimates are based on a 12-foot wide asphalt trail with 2-foot shoulders. Trail overcrossings, underpasses and pedestrian/bicycle bridges are based on a 10-foot wide trail. In many instances, the constrained areas that require these structures will support only the 10-foot width due to limited land availability or cross-sectional area of the creek channel needed to pass high storm flows. Ramps to these grade-separated structures are based upon 5% grade to meet access guidelines. Vertical clearance for trail underpasses is assumed to be a minimum of eight feet. Overcrossing clearance above roadways is assumed to be 18.5 feet and above rail lines to be 23.5 feet. Trail segments that are proposed below the top-of-bank are estimated as poured concrete structures. All engineered structure lengths are considered approximations and are based upon the topographic information available at each location. 888 C HAPTER 6 – D EVELOPMENT C HALLENGE Page 84 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study The budget estimates provided in this study do not include the cost for acquiring land or easements. The budget estimates do not address potential mitigation measures associated with trail development that may be determined in the course of conducting the environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The estimates do not include elements that may enhance the visual appeal or user experience that may include interpretive elements or specialty entry features. These estimates are for standard materials that fulfill the functional requirements of the design. Different construction materials may be selected during design. The selection of unique materials may alter budget estimates. 889 C HAPTER 6 – D EVELOPMENT C HALLENGE Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 85 PRELIMINARY UNIT COST ESTIMATES FOR ON-STREET BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Treatments ITEM UNIT COST/UNIT Traffic Signal Each $250,000-$350,000 Push Button Activated Pedestrian Signal Each $70,000-$90,000 Curb Extensions Each $20,000-$40,000 Signal Timing Change Each $3,000-$4,000 Bicycle Signal Each $6,000-$7,000 Neighborhood Crosswalk Each $2,000-$4,000 Bicycle Loop Detector Each $1,500-$2,000 Bicycle Loop Detector Pavement Legend SF $5-$6 Video Detection Each $20,000-$25,000 Push Buttons Each $2,000-$2,500 Signage ITEM UNIT COST/UNIT Trail Sign and Post Each $700-$800 Trail Sign on Existing Post Each $500-$550 Relocate Existing Sign and Post Each $400-$500 Remove and Salvage Sign and Post Each $150-$200 Stripping ITEM UNIT COST/UNIT Class II Bike Lanes LF $2-$3 Class II Buffered Bike Lanes LF $3-$4 Bicycle Lane Pavement Legend SF $5-$6 Sharrow Legend SF $5-$6 Integral Colored AC Paving SF $10-$15 Figure 33 – Unit Cost Estimates for On-Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 890 C HAPTER 6 – D EVELOPMENT C HALLENGE Page 86 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE CREEK CORRIDOR PATH – OPTION 1 TRAIL UNDERPASS BENEATH STATE ROUTE 85 Dale/Heatherstone Overpass to 500’ South of the Permanente Creek Bypass (3,000 feet) Two-Span Steel Truss Bridge over Stevens Creek (180 + 120 feet) $ 800,000 Pile with Curtain Wall at First Pinch Point – S. of Stevens Creek (100 feet) $ 275,000 Pile with Curtain Wall at Second Pinch Point – S. of Permanente Bypass (350 ft) $ 825,000 Remove and Reconstruct Soundwall and Retaining Wall (1,000 feet) $ 2,800,000 Asphalt Paving (1,200 feet) $ 180,000 Fencing and Railings (1,200 feet) $ 65,000 Native Plant Landscaping and Irrigation $ 200,000 Trail Amenities and Signage $ 50,000 Clear and Grub $ 50,000 Mobilization 10% $ 500,000 Subtotal $ 5,745,000 Option 1 – Permanente Creek Bypass to State Route 85 Underpass to Fremont Avenue State Route 85 Underpass and Ramps (480 feet) $ 750,000 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge downstream of Fish Ladder Structure (150 feet) $ 450,000 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge at Remington Court (180 feet) $ 600,000 Fremont Off Ramp Trail Improvements (275 feet) $ 350,000 Asphalt Paving (2,900 feet) $ 435,000 Native Plant Landscaping and Irrigation $ 275,000 Trail Amenities and Signage $ 50,000 Clear and Grub $ 35,000 Mobilization 10% $ 260,000 Subtotal $ 3,205,000 Construction Subtotal $ 8,950,000 Design and Engineering 30% $ 2,685,000 Construction Management 15% $ 1,345,000 Testing and Inspections 5% $ 445,000 Design and Construction Subtotal $ 13,425,000 Caltrans Review Fees $ 200,000 Technical Studies $ 180,000 Permitting $ 180,000 Project Contingency 20% $ 2,685,000 Project Total $ 16,670,000 Budget Note – The construction subtotal for a Pedestrian Overcrossing to Mountain View High School is estimated at $5,000,000. Figure 34 – Creek Corridor Path – Option 1 Trail Underpass beneath Highway 85 Construction Budget Estimates. 891 C HAPTER 6 – D EVELOPMENT C HALLENGE Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 87 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE CREEK CORRIDOR PATH – OPTION 2 TRAIL OVERCROSSING SPANNING FREMONT AVE Dale/Heatherstone Overpass to 500’ South of the Permanente Creek Bypass (3,000 feet) Two-Span Steel Truss Bridge over Stevens Creek (180 + 120 feet) $ 800,000 Pile with Curtain Wall at First Pinch Point – S. of Stevens Creek (100 feet) $ 275,000 Pile with Curtain Wall at Second Pinch Point – S. of Permanente Bypass (350 ft) $ 825,000 Remove and Reconstruct Soundwall and Retaining Wall (1,000 feet) $ 2,800,000 Asphalt Paving (1,200 feet) $ 180,000 Fencing and Railings (1,200 feet) $ 65,000 Native Plant Landscaping and Irrigation $ 200,000 Trail Amenities and Signage $ 50,000 Clear and Grub $ 50,000 Mobilization 10% $ 500,000 Subtotal $ 5,745,000 Option 2 – Permanente Creek Bypass to Fremont Avenue Pedestrian Overcrossing Fremont Avenue Pedestrian Overcrossing (1,100 feet) $ 2,500,000 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge adjacent to Highway 85 (135 feet) $ 425,000 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge at Remington Court (180 feet) $ 600,000 Pile with Curtain Wall at Third Pinch Point u/s of Fish Ladder (150 feet) $ 275,000 Asphalt Paving (3,700 feet) $ 555,000 Native Plant Landscaping and Irrigation $ 325,000 Trail Amenities and Signage $ 50,000 Clear and Grub $ 50,000 Mobilization 10% $ 475,000 Subtotal $ 5,255,000 Construction Subtotal $ 11,000,000 Design and Engineering 30% $ 3,300,000 Construction Management 15% $ 1,500,000 Testing and Inspections 5% $ 550,000 Design and Construction Subtotal $ 16,350,000 Technical Studies $ 180,000 Permitting $ 180,000 Project Contingency 20% $ 3,350,000 Project Total $ 20,060,000 Figure 35 – Creek Corridor Path – Option 2 Trail Overcrossing Spanning Fremont Avenue Construction Budget Estimates. 892 C HAPTER 6 – D EVELOPMENT C HALLENGE Page 88 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE BERNARDO AVENUE PATH Fremont Avenue to The Dalles (2,700 feet) Asphalt Paving (2,700 feet) $ 540,000 Rough Grading and Off-haul $ 80,000 Finish Grading $ 15,000 Split Rail Fence in Planting Strip (2,700 feet) $ 135,000 6” Concrete Curb (2,700 feet) $ 135,000 Irrigation $ 45,000 24” Box Trees (20 trees) $ 5,000 5 Gallon Shrubs (350 shrubs) $ 10,000 Bark Mulch and Soil Amendments (50 CY) $ 5,000 Trail Amenities and Signage $ 15,000 Demolition $ 40,000 Clear and Grub $ 20,000 Mobilization 10% $ 125,000 Subtotal $ 1,170,000 The Dalles to Homestead Road (2,900 feet) Asphalt Paving (2,900 feet) $ 580,000 Rough Grading and Off-haul $ 80,000 Finish Grading $ 15,000 Split Rail Fence in Planting Strip (2,900 feet) $ 145,000 6” Concrete Curb (2,900 feet) $ 145,000 Trail Amenities and Signage $ 15,000 Demolition $ 40,000 Clear and Grub $ 20,000 Mobilization 10% $ 125,000 Subtotal $ 1,165,000 Construction Subtotal $ 2,335,000 Design and Engineering 20% $ 465,000 Construction Management 15% $ 350,000 Testing and Inspections 5% $ 120,000 Design and Construction Subtotal $ 3,270,000 Project Contingency 20% $ 655,000 Project Total $ 3,925,000 Figure 36 – Bernardo Avenue Path Construction Budget Estimate. 893 C HAPTER 6 – D EVELOPMENT C HALLENGE Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 89 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES STATE ROUTE 85 CROSSING AT HOMESTEAD ROAD PROVIDING TRAIL CONNECTION TO BERNARDO AVENUE Alternative 1 – State Route 85 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge (325 feet) Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge adjacent to Homestead Road Bridge (325 feet) $ 1,200,000 Trail Amenities and Signage $ 10,000 Demolition $ 10,000 Clear and Grub $ 20,000 Mobilization 10% $ 125,000 Subtotal $ 1,365,000 Construction Subtotal $ 1,365,000 Design and Engineering 30% $ 275,000 Construction Management 15% $ 200,000 Testing and Inspections 5% $ 70,000 Design and Construction Subtotal $ 1,910,000 Caltrans Review Fees $ 80,000 Technical Studies $ 50,000 Project Contingency 20% $ 410,000 Project Total for Alternative 1 $ 2,450,000 Alternative 2 – Homestead Road Bridge Widening over State Route 85 (325 feet) Widening of Homestead Road Bridge – No new substructure (325 feet) $ 350,000 Trail Amenities and Signage $ 10,000 Demolition $ 40,000 Clear and Grub $ 20,000 Mobilization 10% $ 45,000 Subtotal $ 465,000 Construction Subtotal $ 465,000 Design and Engineering 30% $ 140,000 Construction Management 15% $ 70,000 Testing and Inspections 5% $ 25,000 Design and Construction Subtotal $ 700,000 Caltrans Review Fees $ 80,000 Technical Studies $ 50,000 Project Contingency 20% $ 170,000 Project Total for Alternative 2 $ 1,000,000 Figure 37 – State Route 85 Crossing at Homestead Road Construction Budget Estimates. 894 C HAPTER 6 – D EVELOPMENT C HALLENGE Page 90 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY PATH PASSING BENEATH INTERSTATE 280 Grant Road/Vineyard Drive to Cristo Rey Drive (2,400 feet) Reconfiguration of Interstate 280 Bridge – West Side Underpass (200 feet) $ 450,000 Interstate 280/Foothill Interchange Improvements - Square-up three intersections to eliminate free-right hand turns $ 800,000 - Add two signals and adjust signalization $ 400,000 Asphalt Paving (2,200 feet) $ 330,000 Trail Amenities and Signage $ 30,000 Demolition $ 80,000 Clear and Grub $ 40,000 Mobilization 10% $ 215,000 Construction Subtotal $ 2,345,000 Design and Engineering 30% $ 700,000 Construction Management 15% $ 350,000 Testing and Inspections 5% $ 115,000 Design and Construction Subtotal $ 3,510,000 Caltrans Review Fees $ 60,000 Technical Studies $ 30,000 Project Contingency 20% $ 700,000 Project Total $ 4,300,000 Figure 38 – Foothill Expressway Path Construction Budget Estimate Foothill Expressway beneath Interstate 280. 895 C HAPTER 6 – D EVELOPMENT C HALLENGE Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 91 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING AT INTERSTATE 280 Interstate 280 Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) – Estimate is for either POC location. Interstate 280 Pedestrian Overcrossing and Ramps (1,500 feet) $ 7,500,000 Paving (255 feet) $ 40,000 Native Plant Landscaping and Irrigation $ 30,000 Trail Amenities and Signage $ 10,000 Clear and Grub $ 60,000 Mobilization 10% $ 760,000 Construction Subtotal $ 8,400,000 Design and Engineering 30% $ 2,520,000 Construction Management 15% $ 1,250,000 Testing and Inspections 5% $ 420,000 Design and Construction Subtotal $ 12,590,000 Caltrans Review Fees $ 200,000 Technical Studies $ 180,000 Permitting $ 120,000 Project Contingency 20% $ 2,520,000 Project Total $ 15,615,000 Figure 39 – Pedestrian Overcrossing at Interstate 280 Construction Budget Estimate Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing spanning State Route 85 on the Stevens Creek Trail. 896 C HAPTER 6 – D EVELOPMENT C HALLENGE Page 92 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE STAGING AREA AND TRAIL ACCESS TO RANCHO SAN ANTONIO COUNTY PARK AND OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Stonebridge to Hammond-Snyder Loop Trail Asphalt Paving – SC Blvd. to Hammond-Snyder Loop Trail (1,670 feet) $ 425,000 Rough Grading and Limited Off-haul for Trail Ramps $ 165,000 Finish Grading – Entire Site $ 50,000 Steel Truss Ped/Bike Bridge spanning UPRR (130 feet x 10 feet) $ 150,000 Restroom $ 100,000 Utilities for Restroom $ 20,000 Gravel Parking Lot $ 380,000 Split Rail Fence around Parking Lot $ 30,000 Gathering Area and Kiosk $ 50,000 Native Plant Landscaping $ 25,000 Trail Amenities and Signage $ 15,000 Clear and Grub $ 30,000 Mobilization 10% $ 75,000 Construction Subtotal $ 1,515,000 Design and Engineering 30% $ 450,000 Construction Management 15% $ 225,000 Testing and Inspections 5% $ 75,000 Design and Construction Subtotal $ 2,265,000 UPRR Fees $ 40,000 Technical Studies $ 60,000 Permitting $ 40,000 Project Contingency 20% $ 450,000 Project Total* $ 2,855,000 Budget Note: This estimate does not include land acquisition costs associated with UPRR and Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department. Figure 40 – Staging Area and Trail Access to Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve Construction Budget Estimate 897 898 C HAPTER 6 – D EVELOPMENT C HALLENGE Page 92 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study LAND ACQUISITION The budget estimates provided in this study do not include the cost for acquiring land or easements. The trail alignments are primarily proposed on creek corridor parcels and city streets that are in public ownership. However, not all of the parcels reviewed as a part of this study are publicly held or held by the public agency that may develop and maintain the Stevens Creek Trail. It is likely the trail will be implemented by the individual cities with support and collaboration from neighboring cities and resource and regulatory agencies. Each city that develops a segment of the trail may be required to enter into a joint use agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and possibly other public and quasi-public agencies with ownership along the trail alignments. There are six areas along the trail alignments where acquisition of additional land or easements would facilitate trail construction. In other areas, property leases, transfers or joint use agreements must occur between different County departments and the cities or between cities. Encroachment agreements would be required where the trail enters or spans Caltrans property. The land acquisition or trail easement areas are detailed below and previously referenced in Chapter 4 in connection with the feasible trail alignments. HEATHERSTONE APARTMENTS 877 HEATHERSTONE WAY MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA The 5.11-acre privately held parcel at 877 Heatherstone Way is bordered by State Route 85, Village Court, Heatherstone Way and the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing on the Stevens Creek Trail. Pacific Gas & Electric Company has an easement over a portion of the site. Acquisition or a trail easement along the State Route 85 soundwall on the edge of the property would provide an opportunity to directly extend the trail from the Dale/Heatherstone pedestrian overcrossing to the Stevens Creek corridor. Various trail alignment options, some that include relocation of a segment of the soundwall, have been highlighted in this area. Acquisition or a trail easement through this property would facilitate trail development. 1195 W. FREMONT AVENUE SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA The 5.88-acre privately-held parcel at 1195 W. Fremont Avenue is bordered by Stevens Creek, State Route 85 and Fremont Avenue. Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Santa Clara Valley Water District have easements over a portion of the site. Acquisition or a trail easement along the edge of the property bordering the creek would provide the opportunity to extend the trail to Fremont Avenue and assist with development of a grade-separated trail underpass beneath the Fremont Avenue bridge spanning Stevens Creek. A trail underpass is not feasible with the current bridge. However, securing a portion of the property would immediately facilitate a trail connection to Fremont Avenue farther away from the State Route 85 on and off ramps. The trail underpass proposed beneath State Route 85 that connects to Fremont Avenue is currently proposed to extend between the southbound off ramp and 1195 W. Fremont Avenue on Caltrans property. Access through 1195 W. Fremont Avenue would facilitate a connection to Fremont Avenue and provide a future opportunity for developing a trail underpass along the creek when the Fremont Avenue bridge is replaced. SANTA CLARA COUNTY ROADS AND AIRPORTS DEPARTMENT PROPERTY ON FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department (County Roads) controls Foothill Expressway right-of-way between Vineyard Drive and Cristo Rey Drive. Excess right-of-way may be available to the west of the expressway. This potentially excess right-of-way could provide sufficient land to extend the trail from the intersection of Grant Road and Foothill 899 C HAPTER 6 – D EVELOPMENT C HALLENGE Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 93 Expressway in Los Altos under Interstate 280 to intersection of Cristo Rey Drive and Foothill Boulevard in Cupertino. The trail would then connect with existing bicycle lanes on Foothill Boulevard. This potentially feasible route would also require reconfiguration of the Interstate 280 on and off ramps to control traffic. The intersections would be squared up, eliminating free right-hands turns and requiring signalization. Acquisition or a trail easement through this County Roads property would facilitate development of a separate bicycle/pedestrian pathway. NORTHWEST CORNER OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD BRIDGE SPANNING STEVENS CREEK CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The 0.85-acre privately-held floodplain parcel off Crescent Court is bordered by Stevens Creek, Varian Park, Stevens Creek Boulevard and private residences on the hill above the stream corridor. Acquisition of this property bordering the creek may provide an opportunity for a grade separated crossing west of Stevens Creek connecting to the Stocklmeir Ranch in Cupertino. SANTA CLARA COUNTY ROADS AND AIRPORTS DEPARTMENT PROPERTY ON STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department (County Roads) controls a 2.83- acre parcel between Stevens Creek Boulevard and the Union Pacific Railroad line extending to the Lehigh Permanente Quarry and Cement Plant. Rancho San Antonio County Park is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad property. This site is proposed as a trail staging area to access Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve via the Hammond- Snyder Loop Trail. This long narrow parcel parallels Stevens Creek Boulevard and is bordered by Union Pacific Railroad, Lehigh Permanente Plant and the Stonebridge residential development. The site would provide an ideal location for parking, restrooms and other trail amenities. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD PROPERTY ON STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Union Pacific Railroad owns the land adjacent to the 2.83-acre County Roads parcel on Stevens Creek Boulevard. This parcel is approximately three times the size of County Roads property and the rail line runs along the northern edge of the site. Acquisition of a portion of this property would further facilitate development of the trail staging area. In addition, an easement over the rail line would be required for the proposed pedestrian and bicycle bridge, which would provide a grade-separated crossing of this transportation corridor. This parcel is bordered by Rancho San Antonio County Park to the north and County Roads property to the south. 900 C HAPTER 6 – D EVELOPMENT C HALLENGE Page 94 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study This page is intentionally left blank. 901 C HAPTER 7 – B IBLIOGRAPHY Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 95 CITY STAFF CONTACTED (* Denotes Former Staff) CITY OF SUNNYVALE Kent Steffens, Director of Public Works Manuel Pineda, Assistant Director of Public Works Jack Witthaus, Transportation & Traffic Manager* Patricia Lord, Senior Management Analyst* Jim Stark, Parks Manager Carla Ochoa, Traffic Engineer Joel Arreola, Transportation Engineer Christina Uribe, Administrative Aide - Confidential CITY OF CUPERTINO Mark Linder, Director of Parks and Recreation* Gail Seeds, Park Improvement Manager David Stillman, Senior Civil Engineer Jo Anne Johnson, Engineering Technician CITY OF LOS ALTOS Cedric Novenario, Transportation Services Manager Larry Lind, Senior Engineer* Kathy Small, Assistant Engineer CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW J.P. de la Montaigne, Community Services Director Bob Kagiyama, Deputy Public Works Director* Helen Kim, Public Works Project Manager John Marchant, Recreation Manager AGENCIES CONTACTED CALTRANS Nick Saleh, District 4 Division Chief, South Region Larry Moore, Design Reviewer, Headquarters Beth Thomas, Pedestrian & Bicycle Coordinator, District 4 Dina El-Tawansy, Project Manager, District 4 Fariba Zohoury, Project Manager, District 4 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Sue Tippetts, Director, Community Projects Review Unit Usha Chatwani, Associate Civil Engineer, Community Projects Review Unit Chris Elias, Lower Peninsula Watershed Deputy Operating Officer Liang Lee, Hydraulics Unit Manager Pat Showalter, Senior Project Manager CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Toby Smith, Director, Maintenance, Operations & Transportation Rick Hausman, Chief Business Officer, Business Services COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ROADS & AIRPORTS DEPARTMENT Dawn Cameron, County Transportation Planner Planning, Land Development & Survey Unit 902 C HAPTER 7 – B IBLIOGRAPHY Page 96 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Jane Mark, Senior Planner* Tim Heffington, Senior Real Estate Agent Will Fourt, Park Planner 903 C HAPTER 7 – B IBLIOGRAPHY Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY REPORTS, PLANS, STUDIES AND DATABASES Alta Transportation Consulting. Union Pacific Rail Trail Feasibility Study. October 2001. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2012. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2004. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments. 2005. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. California Department of Fish and Game. 2011. California Natural Diversity Database, Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento: California. Available from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb. California Department of Transportation. 2012. Caltrans Highway Design Manual: Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design. California Department of Transportation. 2014. Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan. California Native Plant Society. 2010. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. Available from http://cnps.org/inventory. California Partners in Flight. 2002. Version 2.0. The oak woodland bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing oak woodland habitats and associated birds in California (S. Zack, lead author). Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html.City of Cupertino. 2005. 2000-2020 Cupertino General Plan. California Wildlife Foundation/California Oaks Project. 2010. Wildlife Habitat, Oak Woodlands and Climate Change. www.californiaoaks.org City of Cupertino. 2000. General Plan 2000-2020. City of Cupertino. 2002. Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study. City of Cupertino. 2002. Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines. City of Cupertino. 2006. Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. City of Cupertino. 2011. Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Project, Phase 2 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. City of Cupertino. 2011. Bicycle Transportation Plan. City of Los Altos. 2002. General Plan. 904 C HAPTER 7 – B IBLIOGRAPHY Page 98 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study City of Los Altos. 2008. Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study. City of Los Altos. 2011. Collector Traffic Calming Plan. City of Los Altos. 2012. Bicycle Transportation Plan. City of Mountain View. 1991. Stevens Creek Trail and Wildlife Corridor Feasibility Report. City of Mountain View. 1992. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment for the Stevens Creek Trail and Wildlife Corridor Project. City of Mountain View Council Report: Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 Alignment Study, Project 96-26 (February 24, 1998) City of Mountain View. 2001. Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study, Reach 4, Segment 2 Final Report. City of Mountain View. 2002. Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4, Segment 2, Final EIR. City of Mountain View. 2008. Bicycle Transportation Plan. City of Mountain View. 2010. Pedestrian and Bicycle Count Results for May 2010. City of Mountain View. 2012. 2030 General Plan. City of Sunnyvale. 1994. Evaluation of Policy and Planning Issues Related to Proposed Stevens Creek Trail as Impacting Sunnyvale. City of Sunnyvale. 2011. General Plan: Consolidated in 2011. City of Sunnyvale. 2013. Mary Avenue Street Space Allocation Study. City of Sunnyvale. 2006. Bicycle Plan. City of Sunnyvale. 2009. Parks of the Future Study. County of Santa Clara Planning Department. 1961. Stevens Creek Park Chain. County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department. 1992. Rancho San Antonio County Park Master Plan. County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department. 1993. Stevens Creek County Park Master Plan. County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department. 1994. Stevens Creek County Park Master Plan Environmental Impact Report. County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department. 1995. Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan. County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department. 1999. Santa Clara County Uniform Interjurisdictional Trails Design, Use and Management Guidelines. 905 C HAPTER 7 – B IBLIOGRAPHY Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 99 County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department. 2001. County of Santa Clara Stevens Creek Trail Master Plan. County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department. 2002. Stevens Creek Trail Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Study Area A. County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department. 2005. Trail Maintenance Manual. County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department. 2008. Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study: 2008 Update. March 3, 2009. Goals Project. 1999. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals. A report of habitat recommendations prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, Calif./S.F. Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, California. McDonald, Noreen C. et al. 2009. U.S. School Travel, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 41, Issue 2, 146 – 151. Riparian Habitat Joint Venture. 2004. Version 2.0. The riparian bird conservation plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/pdfs/riparian.v-2.pdf. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2008. Countywide Bicycle Plan. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2011. Valley Transportation Plan 2040. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2012. Bicycle Technical Guidelines. Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2003. Draft Settlement Agreement Regarding Water Rights of the Santa Clara Valley Water District on Coyote, Guadalupe and Stevens Creeks. Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2004. Stevens Creek Limiting Factors Analysis Technical Report, Stillwater Sciences. Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2005. Lower Peninsula Watershed Stewardship Plan. http://cf.valleywater.org/_wmi/Stewardship_plan/Comments/watershedprod.cfm?water shedid=3 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2006. Water Resources Protection Manual: Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams. Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2010. FAHCE Stevens Creek Fish Passage Enhancement Project No. 00294001, Final Planning Study Report. Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Sibley, D. A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. The Planning Collaborative Inc., 1980. Stevens Creek: A Plan of Opportunities. 906 C HAPTER 7 – B IBLIOGRAPHY Page 100 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Thomas, J.H. 1961. Flora of the Santa Cruz Mountains of California. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, California. U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. 2013. Recommendations for Accessibility Guidelines: Outdoor Developed Areas Final Report. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Justice. 2010. ADA Standards for Accessible Design. ORDINANCES, MAPS AND RECORD DRAWINGS California Department of Transportation. 2012. SR 85 Express Lane Project Plans – I-280 to US 101: Pavement Delineation and Typical Cross-Section Sheets. City of Cupertino. Flood Zone Map. City of Cupertino. Municipal Code Chapter 14.18: Protected Trees. City of Mountain View. 2011. Construction Plans: Dale/Heatherstone Extension. City of Mountain View. Bid Summaries of previous segments of Stevens Creek Trail. City of Mountain View. Aerial photos of Stevens Creek Park Chain to Fremont Avenue. City of Sunnyvale. 2005 Bicycle Map. Darren Howe, Gary Stern (2013-04-19). Stevens Creek Survey and Observations (Report). NOAA/NMFS. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2011 Santa Clara Valley Bikeways Map. Santa Clara Valley Water District. 1974. Stevens Creek Improvements Plans – Fremont Drop Structure: Plan and Profile Sheets. Santa Clara Valley Water District. 1980. Stevens Creek Improvements Plans – Fremont Drop Structure Repair: Plan and Profile Sheets. 907 A PPENDIX A – S UMMARY OF M EETINGS Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page A-1 Meeting Type and Content in Chronological Order Meeting Date Citizens Working Group #1 – Kick-off & Review of Existing Conditions Nov. 1, 2012 Joint Cities Working Team #1 – Review of Existing Conditions Nov. 12, 2012 Public Meeting #1 Nov. 14, 2012 Study Introduction, Existing Conditions & Gather Input on Alignments Citizens Working Group #2 – Preliminary Trail Alignments and Crossings Dec. 6, 2012 Joint Cities Working Team #2 – Preliminary Trail Alignments and Crossings Dec. 10, 2012 Citizens Working Group #3 – Universe of Trail Alignments, Part 1, Jan. 10, 2013 Agency Input and Refined Crossings Solutions Joint Cities Working Team #3 – Universe of Trail Alignments, Part 1, Jan. 14, 2013 Agency Input and Refined Crossings Solutions Public Meeting #2 Jan. 30, 2013 Dale/Heatherstone to Homestead Road: Universe of Trail Alignments and Crossing Options Public Survey of Northern Alignments Citizens Working Group #4 – Universe of Trail Alignments, Part 2 Feb. 7, 2013 Joint Cities Working Team #4 – Universe of Trail Alignments, Part 2 Feb. 11, 2013 Public Meeting #3 Feb. 25, 2013 Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Blvd. with Connections to Rancho San Antonio County Park: Universe of Trail Alignments and Crossing Options Public Survey of Southern Alignments Citizens Working Group #5 – Review of Community Feedback Mar. 7, 2013 Joint Cities Working Team #5 – Review of Community Feedback Mar. 11, 2013 Citizens Working Group #6 – Review of Community Feedback Wrap-up May 2, 2013 and Trail Segments and Ranking Criteria Joint Cities Working Team #6 – Review of Community Feedback Wrap-up May 13, 2013 and Trail Segments and Ranking Criteria Los Altos Public Meeting - SCT Feasibility Study: A Review and Update Jun. 18, 2013 Citizens Working Group #7 – Draft Study Route Options – Descriptions Sept. 5, 2013 and Rankings Joint Cities Working Team #7 – Draft Study Route Options – Descriptions Sept. 9, 2013 and Rankings 908 A PPENDIX A – S UMMARY OF M EETINGS Page A-2 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Meeting Type and Content Meeting Date Citizens Working Group #8 – Refined Route Descriptions and Cost Estimates Oct. 3, 2013 Joint Cities Working Team #8 – Refined Route Descriptions and Cost Estimates Oct. 14, 2013 Public Meeting #4 Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont: A Focus on Creek Corridor Options Citizens Working Group #9 – Trail Routes Wrap Up Joint Cities Working Team #9 – Trail Routes Wrap Up Joint Cities Working Team #10 – Project Reorientation Citizens Working Group #10 - Project Reorientation Joint Cities Working Team #11 – Preparation for Public Meetings Citizens Working Group #11 - Technical Comments Public Meeting #5 Draft Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Report: Public Input Meeting Public Meeting #6 Draft Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Report: Public Input Meeting Public Meeting #7 Draft Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Report: Public Input Meeting Citizens Working Group #12 – Alignment Recommendations Joint Cities Working Team #12 – Alignment Recommendations Joint Cities Working Team #13 – Alignment Recommendations Joint Cities Working Team #14 – Alignment Recommendations Joint Cities Working Team #15 – Alignment Recommendations Nov. 14, 2013 May 1, 2014 May 12, 2014 March 18, 2015 March 25, 2015 April 20, 2015 May 7, 2015 May 21, 2015 June 1, 2015 June 8, 2015 June 17, 2015 July 20, 2015 July 24, 2015 August 5, 2015 August 21, 2015 909 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page B-1 OVERVIEW Appendix B summarizes all of the routes investigated during the course of this study. The summary matrix combines pedestrian/bike pathways fully separated for automobile traffic and on-street pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The study segment and routes, improvement options evaluated along each route and the opportunities and constraints associated with each site are highlighted in the summary matrix. A feasibility assessment is provided for all routes. Issues to be addressed at the trail master plan or design phase are provided for routes deemed to be technically feasible, likely feasible or potentially feasible. The rationale is provided for routes determined to be technically infeasible. FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Four terms are used to describe the feasibility of the studied routes. The terms include: Feasible applies to routes that meet the minimum design criteria for trails and on- street pedestrian and bicycle facilities. These routes are in areas of adequate land availability as determined by ownership and width. If the route is along the creek corridor the alignment is assumed to pass hydraulic and geotechnical screening and have the potential to be combined with enhancement measures to improve wildlife habitat. Likely Feasible routes meet the same criteria as feasible routes but are in more highly constrained areas of the corridor where the alignment is likely, but ability to pass hydraulic and geotechnical screening is uncertain. Likely feasible also applies to routes that require a reduction of travel lanes or parking from local roadways. These routes require a traffic study, but the conceptual designs meet city policies and guidelines for enhancing pedestrian and bicycle mobility. Potentially Feasible identifies routing options, which based upon current circumstances, appear to be feasible, but future plans by other agencies may impact feasibility. Too few project details had been developed by the other agencies to fully assess these pedestrian and bicycle routes. In general, this designation is assigned to only a few routes that enter parcels owned by Caltrans or SCVWD. Infeasible applies to routes proposed in areas of inadequate land availability as determined by ownership and width either within the creek corridor or along the roadways within the study area. Infeasible also applies to crossings of existing structures that could not be modified to support a trail for a range of reasons including engineering constraints, hydraulic limitations and lack of support by operating agencies. Infeasible also applies to streets routes that did not meet minimum design criteria. FACILITY IMPROVEMENT DEFINITIONS Appendix B uses the following feasibility report terms to describe the bicycle and pedestrian facilities evaluated along each route. Pedestrian/Bike Path is a trail or path separated from auto traffic. These facilities are proposed in open space lands and parallel to roadways. A pedestrian/bike path is typically considered to be 10-feet wide with 2-foot shoulders on each side of the facility. Pedestrian/bike paths are intended to serve a wide-range of trail users with varying skill levels. Bike Lanes are indicated on arterial and collector streets carrying average daily traffic of more than 4,000 vehicles per day. Bike lanes provide a striped lane in either direction on the roadway and require one- way bike travel. Bike lanes are assumed to be 6-feet wide unless otherwise noted in this report. Signed Bike Routes are indicated on streets having low traffic volume as measured by average daily traffic of 910 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Page B-2 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study typically less than 2,000 vehicles per day, and speeds no more than 25 mph, and limited width. Bike route signs and optional pavement markings are used to designate a street as a signed bike route. Bike routes are placed on streets with and without parallel parking. Neighborhood Greenway is a signed bike route that includes neighborhood enhancements to manage vehicle speed and volume and prioritize bicycle traffic. Neighborhood greenways are identified on streets where the addition of roadway markings, corner curb bulb-outs with landscaping and other amenities are feasible within the roadway right-of-way. Sidewalks are designated walking spaces along roadways. Sidewalks may be directly adjacent to the roadway curb or may include a planting strip that provides buffer to the roadway and an opportunity for street trees and landscaping. Sidewalk standards may vary by city. ENGINEERED STRUCTURES Engineered trail improvements include underpasses, overcrossings, tunnels, pedestrian bridges and at-grade street crossings. Several structures have been proposed throughout the trail alignments. In most cases, these engineered improvements retrofit existing roadway bridges and provide an opportunity for human-scale transportation. Underpasses extend along the creek banks and cross beneath the roadways. The underpasses follow existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) maintenance access roads where feasible. The underpasses retrofit existing roadway bridges to provide grade-separated trail crossings. The in-channel underpasses are typically designed to handle bicyclists, pedestrians and light duty maintenance vehicles. Roadway underpass improvements are designed for bicyclists and pedestrians only. The adjacent roadway provides access for street maintenance. Pedestrian Overcrossings (POC) span major roadways and exclusively serve bicyclists and pedestrians. The overcrossings are proposed when no opportunity exists to retrofit the existing roadway and where grade-separations are preferred for extending the grade-separated the Stevens Creek Trail. The overcrossings provide grade-separated trail crossings and are feasible at some highway and local streets locations. Tunnels pass beneath roadways to provide grade-separated crossings. Tunnels were evaluated in areas where no opportunity exists to retrofit the existing roadway bridge. Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridges are proposed to provide connections across the creek corridor to extend the trail and over the UPRR line to access Rancho San Antonio County Park from Stevens Creek Boulevard. Pedestrian/bicycle bridges are intended to be of equal width to the trail and to completely span the creek without need for in-channel support. This type of a structure is referred to as a clear span bridge. These bridges can also be designed to accommodate vehicle loading should a trail area require vehicle access. At-Grade Street Crossings are proposed at junctions where the trail meets a roadway and at the intersections along the on-street routes. Several at-grade street crossings are proposed for modification. The at-grade street crossings are proposed at controlled intersections or require modifications to intersections that do not meet these criteria. 911 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page B-3 STUDY SEGMENT AND ROUTES IMPROVEMENTS OPTIONS EVALUATED OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND ISSUES TO RESOLVE Dale/Heatherstone Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) to Village Court – Segment Overview A variety of engineering solutions Direct route to approx. 22 acres of publicly-owned open space Caltrans and private property ownership, limited land availability along the top-of-bank, eroding creek banks FEASIBLE: Easement needed from Caltrans or apartment complex, hydraulic analysis and geotech investigation • Corridor Route – Ramping Structure to At- Grade Trail inside soundwall Caltrans ROW Ramping structure and at-grade trail inside freeway ROW. Maintains pedestrian/bike path in the corridor separated from vehicle traffic. Easement needed from Caltrans INFEASIBLE: Caltrans not supportive of trail within soundwall. • Corridor Route – Ramping Structure to At- Grade Trail behind new soundwall in Caltrans ROW Ramping structure and at-grade trail and new soundwall. Maintains pedestrian/bike path in the corridor separated from vehicle traffic. Easement needed from Caltrans FEASIBLE: Requires easement or acquisition from Caltrans and reconstruction of the soundwall. • Corridor Route – At-Grade Trail punching through soundwall near Dale/Heatherstone POC to At-Grade Trail inside soundwall in Caltrans ROW At-grade trail inside freeway ROW. Maintains pedestrian/bike path in the corridor separated from vehicle traffic. Easement needed from Caltrans INFEASIBLE: Caltrans not supportive of trail within soundwall. • Corridor Route – At-Grade Trail punching through soundwall near Dale/Heatherstone POC to At-Grade Trail behind new soundwall in Caltrans ROW At-grade trail and new soundwall. Maintains pedestrian/bike path in the corridor separated from vehicle traffic. Easement needed from Caltrans FEASIBLE: Requires easement or acquisition from Caltrans and reconstruction of the soundwall. • Corridor Route – At-Grade Trail through Heatherstone Apartments hugging soundwall At-grade trail with improvements along edge of property Maintains pedestrian/bike path in the corridor separated from vehicle traffic. Easement needed through apartment complex FEASIBLE: Requires easement or acquisition from apartment complex. • Combined Corridor and Neighborhood Streets Route – Pedestrian Bridge at Mockingbird Lane City street bike/ped facilities to new bike/ped bridge at Mockingbird Lane. Provides access to the corridor if pedestrian/bike path is infeasible between Dale/Heathertone POC and Mockingbird. Narrow top-of-bank. FEASIBLE: Hydraulic analysis and geotech investigation of bridge site. 912 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Page B-4 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study STUDY SEGMENT AND ROUTES IMPROVEMENTS OPTIONS EVALUATED OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND ISSUES TO RESOLVE Village Court to Permanente Creek Bypass – Segment Overview A range of engineering solutions Direct, off-street route to approx. 22 acres of open space SR 85 bridge with box culvert, limited top-of-bank, eroding creek banks, confluence with bypass channel LIKELY FEASIBLE: Easement needed from Caltrans or apartment complex, Hydraulic Analyses and Geotech Investigation required • Corridor Route – Trail underpass beneath SR 85 opposite Diericx Drive Trail underpass and ramps. Maintains pedestrian/bike path in the corridor separated from vehicle traffic. Box culvert bridge cannot be modified to pass flood flows and support a trail underpass. INFEASIBLE: Box culvert cannot be modified. • Corridor Route – Steel Truss pedestrian bridge to span creek parallel to SR 85 and structure slab trail on piles with curtain wall and geomorphic habitat enhancement to span narrow top-of-bank ledge and a second structure slab trail on piles to span the narrow bank at the Permanente Creek Bypass Channel • 300 foot bike/ped bridge in two spans (180 and 120 feet each) parallel to SR85 • 100 foot structure slab trail on piles with curtain wall and geomorphic habitat enhancement at creek bottom • 350 foot structure slab trail on piles in bank behind existing secrete structure. Maintains pedestrian/bike path in the corridor separated from vehicle traffic. Steel Truss bridge passes through Caltrans ownership behind soundwall – Easement needed from Caltrans. Bank stability concerns at pinch points. LIKELY FEASIBLE: Geotech and hydraulic analysis required, Requires easement or acquisition from Caltrans. Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans. • Corridor and Neighborhood Streets Route – Pedestrian bridge to span creek at Mockingbird to access corridor plus structure slab trail on piles with curtain wall to span narrow top-of-bank ledge and a second structure slab trail on piles to span the narrow bank at the Permanente Creek Bypass Channel • 90 foot bike/ped bridge at Mockingbird • 100 foot structure slab trail on piles with curtain wall and geomorphic habitat enhancement at creek bottom • 350 foot structure slab trail on piles in bank behind existing secrete structure. Eliminates need to span the creek behind Village Court through narrow top-of-bank area. Requires use of city streets to reconnect to the corridor – route more circuitous, but feasible. Bank stability concerns at pinch points. LIKELY FEASIBLE: Geotech and hydraulic analysis required. 913 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page B-5 STUDY SEGMENT AND ROUTES IMPROVEMENTS OPTIONS EVALUATED OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND ISSUES TO RESOLVE Permanente Creek Bypass to State Route (SR 85) – Segment Overview At-grade, meandering trail alignment past the pinch point at the Permanente Creek Bypass Wide expanse of open space to support a trail Narrow and eroding creek banks at pinch points LIKELY FEASIBLE: Easement from SCVWD and Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans, Geotech and Hydraulic Analyses required • Corridor Route – At-grade trail to pedestrian overcrossing spanning SR 85 to Mountain View • 1,150 foot POC spanning SR 85. Mountain View owned parcel west of SR 85 provides landing area for POC ramp. Optional neighborhood access point at Remington Court with bike/ped bridge. Conflicts with trailhead on Byrant – Limited roadway width on Truman and Bryant to accommodate bike facilities with existing on-street school parking. FEASIBLE: Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans, Coordination with Mountain View High School. • Corridor Route – At-grade trail to bike/ped bridge near Cal Water site to SCVWD maintenance road used to access the Fremont Drop Structure/Fish Ladder • 150 foot bike/ped bridge spanning Stevens Creek upstream of the CalWater site. Optional neighborhood access points at Remington Court with bike/ped bridge and Blackberry Terrace and Townsend Court. Must maintain maintenance access to SCVWD Fremont Drop Structure/Fish Ladder, limited land availability on east bank and large oak trees to protect, invasive Arundo and Cape Ivy to remove. FEASIBLE: Easement from SCVWD. • Corridor Route – At-grade trail to bike/ped bridge near Townsend Court to SCVWD land adjacent to SR 85 • 150-foot bike/ped bridge spanning Stevens Creek to SCVWD land adjacent to Townsend Court. Optional neighborhood access point at Remington Court with bike/ped bridge. Limited land availability on east bank. PG&E Towers may limit bike/ped bridge placement. May be insufficient land to support both the trail underpass ramp and placement of the bike/ped bridge to Townsend Court on east bank. INFEASIBLE: Insufficient land availability. Easement from SCVWD. • Corridor Route – At-grade trail to bike/ped bridge parallel to SR 85 to pedestrian overcrossing spanning Fremont to Bernardo • 135-foot bike/ped bridge spanning Stevens Creek parallel to SR 85. Optional neighborhood access points at Remington Court with bike/ped bridge and Townsend Court. Limited land availability on west bank adjacent to SR 85 immediately upstream of the Fremont Drop Structure/Fish Ladder. LIKELY FEASIBLE: Easement from SCVWD and Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans. 914 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Page B-6 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study STUDY SEGMENT AND ROUTES IMPROVEMENTS OPTIONS EVALUATED OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND ISSUES TO RESOLVE State Route 85 (SR 85) to Fremont Avenue – Segment Overview Retrofit existing SR 85 bridge to accommodate trail underpass and ramps Wide expanse of open space to support a trail SR 85 and Fremont Avenue bridges, limited top-of-bank, eroding creek banks, power towers FEASIBLE: Easement from SCVWD and Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans. Possible easement from 1195 West Fremont. Geotech and Hydraulic Analyses required • Corridor Route – Trail Underpass along east bank of SR 85 bridge with ramp curving upward to parallel Fremont Avenue Off-Ramp Pedestrian/bike path along north side of Fremont and intersection improvements. Maintains pedestrian/bike path in the corridor separated from vehicle traffic. Direct connection to Fremont Avenue. Seasonal underpass, “Cold Water Management Zone” for steelhead. FEASIBLE: Easement from SCVWD and Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans, Geotech and hydraulic analysis required. • Corridor Route – Trail Underpass along east bank of SR 85 bridge with ramp extending along top of bank at 1195 West Fremont Avenue Pedestrian/bike path along north side of Fremont and intersection improvements. Provides for future grade-separated trail underpass at Fremont when roadway bridge is replaced. Maintains pedestrian/bike path in the corridor separated from vehicle traffic. Direct connection to Fremont Avenue. Power towers, seasonal underpass, “Cold Water Management Zone” for steelhead. FEASIBLE: Easements needed from SCVWD and 1195 West Fremont Avenue. Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans. Geotech and hydraulic analysis required. • Corridor Route – Replace Fremont Avenue bridge with new structure that includes a trail underpass to access public land along Bedford to a street alignment Complete bridge replacement with integrated trail underpass and ramps. Fremont Avenue bridge is aging and will require replacement. Maintains pedestrian/bike path in the corridor separated from vehicle traffic. Existing concrete arch bridge built in 1911 cannot be retrofit to accommodate trail underpass, power towers, “Cold Water Management Zone” for steelhead. FEASIBLE: Only with complete roadway bridge replacement. • Corridor Route – Trail Underpass along west bank of SR 85 bridge Trail underpass and ramps. Maintains pedestrian/bike path in the corridor separated from vehicle traffic. Direct connection to Fremont Avenue. Multiple parcels in private ownership. Inadequate land availability along top-of- bank, “Cold Water Management Zone” for steelhead. INFEASIBLE: Lack of land. 915 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page B-7 STUDY SEGMENT AND ROUTES IMPROVEMENTS OPTIONS EVALUATED OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND ISSUES TO RESOLVE Roadway Routes from Dale/Heatherstone Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) to Fremont Avenue – Segment Overview On-street pedestrian and bicycle facilities Existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities Limited roadway widths, Requires loss of parking, School drop-off and pick- up, Some high volume streets FEASIBLE: Existing on- street facilities • Neighborhood Streets Route – Franklin, Levin, St. Giles, Shady Spring, Bryant to Truman to Fremont Neighborhood greenway on streets. Low traffic volume and speed residential streets. Existing bike lanes on Bryant with plans to add bike lanes on Truman south of Oak. Streets busy during school drop-off and pick-up. Limited roadway width on Truman and Bryant to accommodate bike facilities with existing on-street school parking. INFEASIBLE: Limited roadway width and school parking needs. • Neighborhood Streets Route – Heatherstone, Knickerbocker, Bernardo to Fremont New bike lanes on Bernardo from Remington to Fremont, which requires loss of parking on one side of Bernardo south of Remington. Low traffic volume and speed residential streets. Existing bike lanes on Knickerbocker and Bernardo to Remington. Requires loss of parking on one side of Bernardo south of Remington. Fremont is a high volume street that serves SR 85. FEASIBLE: Parking analysis of Bernardo. Crossing analysis of SR 85/Fremont for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Neighborhood and Collector Streets Route – Heatherstone, Knickerbocker, Mary to Fremont New bike lanes approved with Mary Avenue Street Space Allocation Study. Bikes lanes approved with the Mary Avenue Street Space Allocation Study. Mary is a high volume street farthest from the creek corridor. Fremont is a high volume street that serves SR 85. FEASIBLE: Crossing analysis of SR 85/Fremont for pedestrians and bicyclists. 916 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Page B-8 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study STUDY SEGMENT AND ROUTES IMPROVEMENTS OPTIONS EVALUATED OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND ISSUES TO RESOLVE Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road – Segment Overview A variety of on-street routes and various opportunities for a pedestrian/bike path along Bernardo. Low traffic volume and speed residential streets. Homestead Road bridge, very few portions of the corridor in public ownership. FEASIBLE: Traffic Study Required. Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans for POC options. • Neighborhood Streets Route – Greenway along Bernardo with at-grade crossings of Fremont and Homestead Greenway street improvements. Low traffic volume and speed street. Streets busy during school drop-off and pick-up. FEASIBLE: Traffic study required. • Pedestrian/Bike Path Route parallel to soundwall on Bernardo with at-grade crossings of Fremont and Homestead Pedestrian/bike path parallel to the soundwall. Extends pedestrian/bike path separated from traffic. Requires 1-way street or loss of parking. LIKELY FEASIBLE: Traffic study required. • Pedestrian/Bike Path Route along soundwall with grade-separated crossings of Fremont and Homestead (north of roadway bridge) Pedestrian/bike path parallel to the soundwall, POC at Fremont adjacent to SR 85 on-ramp, bridge over SR 85 parallel and north of Homestead Road, street improvements on Homestead to connect to Los Altos path. Extends pedestrian/bike path with grade- separated crossings of roadways. Requires 1-way street or loss of parking. LIKELY FEASIBLE: Traffic study and geotech investigation required. Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans. • Pedestrian/Bike Path Route parallel to soundwall on Bernardo with grade- separated crossings of Fremont and Homestead (south of roadway bridge and within Caltrans cloverleaf) Pedestrian/bike path parallel to the soundwall, POC at Fremont adjacent to SR 85 on-ramp, POC over Homestead and SR 85 south of Homestead, inter- section improvements on Homestead. Extends pedestrian/bike path with grade- separated crossings of roadways. Requires 1-way street or loss of parking. INFEASIBLE: POC south of Homestead Road in Caltrans ROW. Insufficient land and poor grades for structure. • Pedestrian/Bike Path Route – Fallen Leaf to Homestead Median running pedestrian/bike path along the center of Fallen Leaf. Extends pedestrian/bike path. Requires use of entire 60-foot wide public ROW. INFEASIBLE: Requires full use of 60-foot wide public ROW. Restricts traffic movements. • Neighborhood Streets Route – Fallen Leaf to Homestead Greenway with walking space along the east side of Fallen Leaf or bike route street improvements. Direct route on low volume and speed residential street. Bike route alone would not accommodate pedestrians. FEASIBLE: Traffic study required. • Pedestrian/Bike Path and Neighborhood Streets Route – Pedestrian/Bike Path through Sunnyvale open space land to Bedford to West Valley Elementary School to existing Pedestrian/Bike Bridge to Fallen Leaf Lane Pedestrian/bike path parallel to the creek corridor and greenway or bike route on city streets. Maintains pedestrian/bike path in the corridor separated from vehicle traffic for short distance. Uses low volume/speed residential streets. Streets busy during school drop-off and pick-up. Many route and trail type changes over a short segment of trail. FEASIBLE: Coordination with West Valley Elementary School for shared use of property and pedestrian/bike bridge. • Pedestrian/Bike Path and Neighborhood Streets Route – Pedestrian/Bike Path through Sunnyvale open space land to Bedford to West Valley Elementary School property to SCVWD property behind Brookside Oaks Apartments Pedestrian/bike path parallel to the creek corridor and greenway or bike route on city streets. Maintains pedestrian/bike path in the corridor separated from vehicle traffic for short distance. Uses low volume and speed residential streets. Streets busy during school drop-off and pick-up. Many route and trail type changes over a short segment of trail. INFEASIBLE: Inadequate land availability behind Brookside Oaks Apartments,Coordination with West Valley Elementary School for shared use of property and pedestrian/bike bridge. 917 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page B-9 -- CONTINUED -- Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road – Segment Overview A variety of on-street routes and various opportunities for a pedestrian/bike path along Bernardo. Low traffic volume and speed residential streets. Homestead Road bridge, very few portions of the corridor in public ownership. FEASIBLE: Traffic Study Required. Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans for POC options. • Neighborhood Streets Route – Belleville Bike lanes and intersection improvements. Direct route on low volume and speed residential street. Would directly link with corridor path extending along SR 85 off- ramp. Streets busy during school drop-off and pick-up. Limited roadway width on Belleville to accommodate bike facilities with existing on-street parking. Requires loss of parking to extend bike lanes. FEASIBLE: Traffic study required. • Pedestrian/Bike Path Route along north side of Fremont Avenue and both the east and north sides of Grant Road Pedestrian/bike path parallel to city streets with 2 intersections, 12 side streets, 2 cul de sacs and driveways to the Woodland Branch Library and Lucky Supermarket intersecting the path. Extends pedestrian/bike path within existing street right-of-way with at-grade crossings of roadways and intersections. Improvements result in the loss of the westbound bicycle lane on Fremont and northbound bicycle lane on Grant. These lanes are integrated into the 10-12-foot wide path in an effort to preserve some trees in the undeveloped right-of-way. FEASIBLE: Traffic study needed to assess loss of bicycle lanes and intersection impacts. • Neighborhood Streets Route – Bernardo, The Dalles to Samedra, Homestead to Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge to Stevens Creek Blvd. Greenway street and intersection improvements. Takes advantage of Don Burnett Bicycle- Pedestrian Bridge to Stevens Creek Blvd. Route is more circuitous and requires short jog on Homestead. FEASIBLE: Traffic study required. • Neighborhood Streets Route – Mary to Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge to Stevens Creek Blvd. Bike lanes as based on the Mary Avenue Street Space Allocation Study. Takes advantage of Don Burnett Bicycle- Pedestrian Bridge to Stevens Creek Blvd. Requires loss of a travel lane to extend bike lanes. FEASIBLE: Only with reduced number of traffic lanes. • Neighborhood Streets Route – Mary to Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge to Stevens Creek Blvd. Median running path on Mary. Extends pedestrian/bike path. Requires loss of a travel lane and bike lanes in exchange for median running path. May restrict turning movements for vehicles. INFEASIBLE: In conflict with Mary Avenue Street Space Allocation Study. 918 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Page B-10 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study STUDY SEGMENT AND ROUTES IMPROVEMENTS OPTIONS EVALUATED OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND ISSUES TO RESOLVE Interstate 280 (I-280) Crossings – Segment Overview Two potentially feasible grade- separated crossing of Interstate 280 and UPRR that would require use of residential streets near the creek corridor. Most direct route to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park and trail connection on Stevens Creek Blvd. in Cupertino. Limited portions of the corridor in public ownership, significant grade changes, UPRR operation, access to crossings on residential streets. POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE: Coordination with SR85/I280 Interchange Improvements to fully assess future feasibility. Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans. • Barranca to Peninsular to Somerset Park Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) spanning I-280. Spans I-280. PG&E power tower proximity. Neighborhood has incomplete sidewalks for pedestrians. POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE: Coordination with SR85/I280 Interchange Improvements to fully assess future feasibility. Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans. Aerial Easement from UPRR. • Maxine to Caroline to Madera Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) spanning Interstate 280 and UPRR. Connects directly with the trail at Stevens Creek Blvd. Spans both I-280 and UPRR. PG&E power line proximity. Neighborhood has incomplete sidewalks for pedestrians. POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE: Coordination with SR85/I280 Interchange Improvements to fully assess future feasibility. Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans. Aerial Easement from UPRR. • SCVWD lands to Madera Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) spanning I-280 and UPRR. Connects directly with the trail at Stevens Creek Blvd. Spans both I-280 and UPRR. Difficult topography with challenging grade changes. PG&E power towers challenges. Long angled POC span needed. INFEASIBLE: Inadequate land availability due to topography and PG&E towers. Poor POC geometrics unlikely to be approved by Caltrans. • SCVWD lands to Groveland Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) spanning I-280 and UPRR. Shortest POC span providing access to elementary school and Varian Park. Difficult topography with challenging grade changes. PG&E power towers obstruct POC landing. INFEASIBLE: Inadequate land availability at Groveland due to PG&E towers. • Use of Existing Tunnels Trail underpass and access ramps passing beneath I-280 and UPRR. Use of existing at-grade crossing of I-280 and UPRR. Inadequate land availability to the south. Very long, remote stretch of corridor. Difficult topography with challenging grade changes. Frequent flooding. POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE: Requires additional land. Requires easements and design support from SCVWD, Caltrans and UPRR. 919 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page B-11 STUDY SEGMENT AND ROUTES IMPROVEMENTS OPTIONS EVALUATED OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND ISSUES TO RESOLVE Interstate 280 (I-280) to Stevens Creek Blvd. – Segment Overview Two likely feasible connections on existing streets Most direct routes require new POC. Other options would improve conditions on existing roadways for pedestrians and bicyclists. Use existing facilities requires travel on high volume/speed roadways that also serve as truck routes and traversing the hills on Stevens Creek Blvd. FEASIBLE: Traffic Operations and Queuing Analysis for I-280 Interchange Improvements. Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans for POC and I-280 Interchange and Path Improvements along Foothill • Neighborhood Streets Route – Madera to Phar Lap to Stevens Creek Corridor Park Greenway street and intersection improvements. Direct alignment to Stevens Creek Trail connection on Stevens Creek Blvd. Requires POC connection over I-280 and UPRR. Neighborhood has incomplete sidewalks. POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE: Requires POC connection over I-280 and UPRR. • Neighborhood Streets Route – Stokes, Dempster to Peninsula to Stevens Creek Blvd. Greenway street and intersection improvements. Close access to Stevens Creek Trail connection on Stevens Creek Blvd. Requires POC connection over I-280. Must traverse hill to the east on Stevens Creek Blvd. to reach trail connection. Stevens Creek Blvd. is a truck route. POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE: Requires POC connection over I-280. • Arterial Streets Route – Mary to Stevens Creek Blvd. Bike lanes as based on the Mary Avenue Street Space Allocation Study. Takes advantage of improvements to Mary Avenue and existing Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge. Must pass DeAnza College, navigate traffic entering/exiting SR85 and traverse steep hill to the east on Stevens Creek Blvd. to reach trail. Stevens Creek Blvd. is a truck route. Traffic speed, volume and uncontrolled turning movements. INFEASIBLE: Route exists, but not suitable for beginner bicyclists and families. Traffic Study for Intersection Improvements. • Arterial Streets Route – Foothill Expressway to Foothill Blvd. to Stevens Creek Blvd. Use in current condition. Uses existing bike lanes on Foothill Blvd. Must navigate high volume and speed traffic on Foothill Expwy entering and exiting I-280 and traverse very steep hill to the west on Stevens Creek Blvd. to trail. Expwy has incomplete pedestrian facilities. Roadways are truck routes. INFEASIBLE: Does not provide a ped/bike experience appropriate for all trail user abilities. • Arterial Streets and Pedestrian/Bike Path Route – Foothill Expressway Path extending below I-280 to Foothill Blvd. to Stevens Creek Blvd. Pedestrian/bike path, reconfiguration of I- 280/Foothill interchange and I-280 bridge underpass. Potential to improve existing conditions for pedestrians, road cyclists and trail users along the Expressway. Uses existing bike lanes on Foothill Blvd. Must cross Foothill Expressway to join parallel pedestrian/bike passing beneath I-280 and traverse very steep hill to the west on Stevens Creek Blvd. to reach trail connection. Roadways are truck routes. LIKELY FEASIBLE: Traffic operations and queuing analysis required. Encroachment Permit and Design Review by Caltrans. • Arterial Streets and Pedestrian/Bike Path Route – Foothill Expressway Path extending below I-280 to Tunnel in cloverleaf extending beneath Foothill to ped/bike bridge over UPRR to Baxter Pedestrian/bike path, reconfiguration of I- 280/Foothill interchange, I-280 bridge underpass, tunnel below Foothill and ped/bike bridge to Baxter Potential to improve existing conditions for pedestrians, road cyclists and trail users along the Expressway. Connects to neighborhood streets Must cross Foothill Expressway to join parallel pedestrian/bike passing beneath I-280. Roadways are truck routes. INFEASIBLE: Inadequate land availability for tunnel ramping and ped/bike bridge landing. • Arterial Streets and Pedestrian/Bike Path Route – Foothill Expressway Path extending below I-280 to ramp in cloverleaf extending Cristo Rey Pedestrian/bike path, reconfiguration of I- 280/Foothill interchange, I-280 bridge underpass, ramp in cloverleaf to Caltrans, UPRR, SCVWD and CalWater properties. Potential to improve existing conditions for pedestrians, road cyclists and trail users along the Expressway. Uses existing bike lanes on Foothill Blvd. Very remote, circuitous route. Grade changes. Must cross Foothill Expressway to join parallel pedestrian/bike passing beneath I-280. Truck routes. INFEASIBLE: Lacks support from property owners. 920 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Page B-12 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study STUDY SEGMENT AND ROUTES IMPROVEMENTS OPTIONS EVALUATED OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND ISSUES TO RESOLVE Stevens Creek Blvd. Crossings – Segment Overview Several grade-separated crossing locations of Stevens Creek Blvd. remain under study. May provide direct access into Stevens Creek Corridor Park. Wide ROW to the east on Stevens Creek Blvd. Sensitive floodplain habitat, significant grade changes and numerous utilities in Stevens Creek Blvd. POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE: These sites for a tunnel crossing have been preliminarily identified as potentially feasible. • Tunnel west of Stevens Creek connecting to Stevens Creek Corridor Park (22120 Stevens Creek Blvd., ‘Stocklmeir Ranch’ property) Tunnel and ramps. Grade-separated direct connection to existing trail at Stocklmeir Ranch. Difficult topography with challenging grade changes. Sensitive floodplain habitat. Fewer utilities. POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE: Remains under study. • Tunnel east of Stevens Creek starting at the sidewalk west of Phar Lap along the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd. connecting to 22050 Stevens Creek Blvd. property Tunnel and ramps. Takes advantage of recent addition of 22050 Stevens Creek Blvd. to city ownership. Better grades, but more utilities. POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE: Remains under study. • Tunnel east of Stevens Creek starting at the sidewalk east of Phar Lap along the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd. connecting to 22050 Stevens Creek Blvd. property Tunnel and ramps. Takes advantage of recent addition of 22050 Stevens Creek Blvd. to city ownership. Better grades, but more utilities. POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE: Remains under study. 921 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page B-13 STUDY SEGMENT AND ROUTES IMPROVEMENTS OPTIONS EVALUATED OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND ISSUES TO RESOLVE Trail Connection to Rancho San Antonio County Park – Segment Overview A ped/bike bridge to provide a grade- separated crossing of UPRR. Provides auxiliary access and trailhead parking to Rancho San Antonio County Park. UPRR Crossing, County Roads and Airports and UPRR ownership, challenges with grades. Must maintain Gate of Heaven access. FEASIBLE: A crossing of the UPRR tracks is feasible with a ped/bike bridge. Requires County Roads and Airports and UPRR land. Aerial Easement from UPRR. Geotech Investigation. • At-grade crossing of UPRR from Stevens Creek Blvd. to Rancho San Antonio County Park Use existing at-grade crossing to Gate of Heaven Cemetery and historic Hammond-Snyder house. Uses existing facilities. UPRR Crossing, County Roads and Airports and UPRR ownership, challenges with grades. Must maintain Gate of Heaven access. INFEASIBLE: UPRR not supportive of additional use at the Gate of Heaven grade crossing. • Grade-separated crossing of UPRR from Stevens Creek Blvd. to Rancho San Antonio County Park Ped/bike bridge and ramps spanning UPRR. Connects to existing on-street bike facilities and trails within Rancho San Antonio County Park Difficult topography with grade changes. UPRR Crossing. County Roads and Airports and UPRR ownership. Must maintain Gate of Heaven access. Earthquake fault in vicinity. FEASIBLE: Requires County Roads and Airports and UPRR land. Aerial Easement from UPRR. Geotech Investigation. • Trail Staging Area off Stevens Creek Blvd. Trail staging area with restrooms and trail amenities. Connects to existing on-street bike facilities. County Roads and Airports and UPRR ownership. Must maintain Gate of Heaven access. FEASIBLE: Requires County Roads and Airports and UPRR land. 922 A PPENDIX B – S UMMARY OF S TUDIED R OUTES Page B-14 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study This page is intentionally left blank. 923 924 Citizens Working Group Recommendations to the Joint Cities Working Team on the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 1 of 4 The Citizens Working Group, comprised of three citizens from each city, was selected by the Joint Cities Working Team (JCWT)to assist agency staff, the consultant team and policy representatives to prepare a feasibility study for connecting the completed segments of the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View and Cupertino. The Citizens Working Group reviewed technical feasibility findings including ownership and land availability information, habitat and wildlife data, geologic and hydrological materials, assessments of on-street conditions, institutional opportunities and constraints, and cost estimates over the course of two years. The Citizens Working Group members were provided a summary of themes from community input meetings held in May and June 2015 and were provided copies of all written comments submitted by the public on the draft feasibility study report. Their volunteer efforts have culminated in these recommendations discussed at a meeting of the group on June 17, 2015. These recommendations set a long-range vision for the development of the trail. A map is also attached that shows the preferred trail alignment and key connecting routes. Citizens Working Group Recommendations 1. Alignment Themes  Extend the Stevens Creek Trail as a pedestrian/bike path as far south as possible to keep the trail separated from automobile traffic to the greatest extent possible in order to create a family-friendly and recreational route that enhances the bicycle and pedestrian networks of the four cities.  Enhance the habitat along the creek corridor with the development of the trail.  For existing bike routes that are in the area but not part of the recommended alignment modest safety improvements (such as adding sharrows, other street markings, and/or additional signage) should be considered. 2. Recommendation Details by Segment a. Dale/Heatherstone Pedestrian Overcrossing to Fremont Avenue  The preferred alignment and top priority is to extend the Stevens Creek Trail through the 22 acres of open space along State Route 85 from Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue. The trail should incorporate habitat enhancements and the 22 acres along the creek corridor should be managed as passive open space.  Develop the project in phases, as needed, to construct as soon as possible. Suggested phases include Dale/Heatherstone to Remington and Remington to Fremont Avenue.  Include a neighborhood access point at Remington Avenue.  Continue to explore the potential for an overcrossing over Highway 85 to provide a connection to Mountain View High School, which would provide 925 Citizens Working Group Recommendations to the Joint Cities Working Team on the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 2 of 4 an east-west connection between Mountain View and Sunnyvale via Remington Drive. This is the lowest priority feature in this segment.  The preferred crossing of Fremont Avenue is a pedestrian/bike overcrossing to Bernardo Avenue to continue the separated pedestrian/bike path.  A second connection to Fremont Avenue is also recommended via a trail underpass beneath State Route 85 connecting to Fremont Avenue west of the Highway 85 interchange adjacent to the southbound off-ramp. A preferred alternative to make this connection is to pursue a trail easement along the creek through the parking lot located at 1195 W. Fremont Avenue (current Stanford medical office).  When the Fremont Avenue bridge over Stevens Creek is replaced in the future, consider a trail underpass to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle crossings of Fremont Avenue and provide an access point to the trail. b. Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road  If a pedestrian overcrossing at Fremont Avenue is considered feasible, the preferred alignment to extend the Stevens Creek Trail is a separated off-street pedestrian/bike path along the soundwall on Bernardo Avenue. This pedestrian/bike path would continue the experience of the trail by providing a route free from automobile traffic.  The feasibility study indicates that a road reconfiguration of Bernardo is necessary to support the off-street pedestrian/bike path. Conduct traffic and parking studies to determine the feasibility of either one-way traffic or two- way traffic with loss of parking.  If a separated pedestrian/bike path were not feasible on Bernardo, the second choice would be to modestly enhance Bernardo, Belleville and Fallen Leaf streets with bicycle safety improvements and wayfinding signage to the trail. None of these on-street routes would be designated as the Stevens Creek Trail. Even if the off-street route on Bernardo is considered feasible, evaluate bicycle safety improvements that could be made with modest improvements to Belleville and Fallen Leaf.  Connect the pedestrian/bike path on Bernardo to the pedestrian/bike path on the north side of Homestead Road in Los Altos. The Homestead Road path currently extends from Stevens Creek west to El Sereno Avenue near the Grant Road/Foothill Expressway intersection. Continue to explore either a) widening the existing Homestead Road Bridge over State Route 85 or b) placing a new pedestrian/bike bridge parallel and just to the north of the Homestead Road bridge and making path improvements in Sunnyvale west from State Route 85 interchange to Stevens Creek to provide for a continuous off-street path. Extension of the Homestead Road path could proceed as a 926 Citizens Working Group Recommendations to the Joint Cities Working Team on the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 3 of 4 stand-alone project intended to improve walking and bicycling access to Cupertino Middle School and Homestead High School.  Bicycle safety improvements to existing on-street bike lanes on Mary Avenue and Fremont Avenue. c. Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard  A new grade-separated crossing of Interstate 280 is recommended to provide access to the Stevens Creek Trail on a direct route along low-volume, low- speed streets. The potential grade-separated crossing alternatives in order of preference include: i. The preferred crossing is a trail underpass beneath Interstate 280 using one of the existing tunnels that convey the Stevens Creek flows to San Francisco Bay. This option is potentially technically feasible but was previously not supported by Caltrans. The use of one of the tunnels should continue to be pursued as a long-term solution to extending the trail south. The tunnel route would connect Barranca Drive to Madera Drive. The trail would use Madera Drive to Phar Lap Drive to access Stevens Creek Blvd., where it would connect to the existing trail in Cupertino. ii. An alternate choice is a pedestrian overcrossing that spans both Interstate 280 and the UPRR tracks connecting Peninsular Avenue to Madera Drive. iii. Another option to consider if the previous two alternatives for crossing I- 280 were considered infeasible is a pedestrian overcrossing that spans only Interstate 280 connecting Caroline Drive to Somerset Square Park located off Stokes Avenue.  Safety improvements to Mary Avenue from the Don Burnett Bicycle- Pedestrian Bridge to Stevens Creek Boulevard and the Stevens Creek Boulevard crossing of State Route 85. These improvements are important, but should not be considered part of the Stevens Creek Trail. The State Route 85/Stevens Creek Blvd. interchange is not appropriate for the wide range of cycling abilities that currently use the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View and Cupertino.  Pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Foothill Expressway/Foothill Blvd. between Vineyard Drive and Cristo Rey Drive. These improvements are important, but should not be considered part of the Stevens Creek Trail. The expressway environment is not appropriate for the wide range of cycling abilities that currently use the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View and Cupertino. 927 Citizens Working Group Recommendations to the Joint Cities Working Team on the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 4 of 4 d. Trail Connection to Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve  A pedestrian/bike path that extends along the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard west from Stonebridge to undeveloped open space land behind the Gate of Heaven Cemetery is recommended to provide access to Rancho San Antonio County Park. This alignment would include a pedestrian/bike bridge over the UPRR tracks to provide a connection to the Hammond- Snyder Loop Trail in Rancho San Antonio County Park. This route is viewed as an important recreational amenity for the community and could be developed as a stand-alone project.  A trail staging area with parking, restrooms and signage is recommended. The additional parking area would provide a more convenient access into Rancho San Antonio County Park and would also help reduce parking demand at the busy Rancho San Antonio parking lots. 3. Additional Recommendations  Encourage the Joint Cities Working Team to continue to collaborate throughout the trail planning and development process.  Continue to seek long-term opportunities to make the creek corridor publically accessible.  Retain all publicly owned land along the creek corridor.  Connect the Stevens Creek Trail to a trail using the UPRR corridor when and if this land becomes available. The feasibility study is the first step in a trail planning process. The feasible alignments identified in the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study report provide a range of choices for decision makers to consider for extending and improving connections to the trail. The next step is an evaluation of the study findings, the public input and the Citizens Working Group recommendations by the Four Cities Working Team. This will be followed by presentations to the four respective city councils. The next step would involve the development of a trail master plan for the alignments selected by the four city councils. A trail master plan would be evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). All future trail planning and environmental review will provide opportunities for public involvement. 928 FEASIBILITY STUDY PREFERRED ALIGNMENT 929 1 Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study JOINT CITIES WORKING TEAM RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCILS Project Background The vision for a Stevens Creek Trail was first identified by the Santa Clara County Planning Department in 1961. The County’s plan for a “Stevens Creek Park Chain” created a framework for preserving land along Stevens Creek for an interconnected system of parks and trails. Today, the Stevens Creek Trail extends approximately five miles from San Francisco Bay to the Dale/Heatherstone bike- pedestrian overcrossing of State Route 85 in Mountain View. An additional one mile trail segment is in place from Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road through Blackberry Farm Park and McClellan Ranch Preserve in Cupertino. A gap exists between these trail segments of approximately three miles through the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Mountain View and Sunnyvale. The purpose of this feasibility study was to evaluate potential routes to bridge the gap in trail segments that currently exist. The scope of the feasibility study also included an evaluation of routes to connect Stevens Creek Trail to Rancho San Antonio County Park which features an extended trail network into the Santa Cruz Mountains. Study area boundaries, as shown in Figure 1, were established from Heatherstone Way in the north, Mary Avenue to the east, Grant Road to the west, and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south. The study area is approximately 3.25 miles north to south and 1.50 miles east to west. A coordinated trail planning effort between the four cities was started in 2009 with the appointment of a Stevens Creek Trail Coordination Committee consisting of one elected official and one staff member from each of the four jurisdictions. This group worked to develop the scope of the current feasibility study, prepare the funding plan, and selected a consultant to prepare the feasibility study. In 2011, the four cities entered a funding agreement and created the Joint Cities Working Team (JCWT) to oversee preparation of the feasibility study. In the fall of 2012, a Citizens Working Group (CWG) was also created to assist with public outreach and act in an advisory role to the JCWT. Figure 1 - Study Area 930 2 Feasibility Study Outreach Process Between November of 2012 and May of 2014, a series of public meetings of the JCWT and CWG were held to review current conditions and discuss possible trail alignments. Five community meetings were held to gather input on potential trail alignments. A full summary of these meetings can be found in Appendix B of the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study (http://www.stevenscreektrail.insunnyvale.com). After this series of meetings a draft feasibility study report was prepared and then published for public comment in March 2015. It is important to note that the final feasibility study report does not include recommendations for which trail alignments are considered to be the best. The feasibility study was developed to assess the technical feasibility of a wide array of possible alignments and to document the characteristics of routes that are considered feasible. Filling the gap in the Stevens Creek Trail presents many challenges including the possibility of constructing bridges or tunnels to traverse the Creek itself and to cross major roadways such as Interstate 280, State Route 85, Fremont Avenue, and Homestead Road. The feasibility study developed potential solutions to these challenges with conceptual level engineering analysis and ruled out some potential routes as infeasible. This analysis focused on physical constraints including elevation changes, existing infrastructure such as the location of bridges and sound walls, and the availability of existing public land. Although the feasibility study provides a solid basis from which the JCWT formulated a set of recommendations, these recommendations may require further planning, studies, or environmental review to determine further feasibility. Once the draft feasibility study was published in March 2015, an additional seven public meetings of the CWG and JCWT were held before this final recommendation from the JCWT was completed on August 21, 2015. During this time, comments on the draft feasibility study report were accepted via e-mail and mailings. Ultimately, 945 written comments were received and are include as Appendix C of the Final Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study report. All comments were provided to members of the CWG and the JCWT before recommendations were made. Three additional public outreach meetings were held by the JCWT in May and June of 2015 to obtain public input on the project. These meetings were well attended with approximately 100-200 residents attending each of the three meetings. A brief summary of the outreach meetings is included as Attachment A (High-Level Themes – SCT Public Input Meetings). Recommendation Development The recommendations outlined in this summary represent the majority support of the JCWT and includes alignment preferences as well as policy recommendations. During their discussions, the policymakers took into consideration the draft feasibility study, public comments, the CWG recommendations (Attachment B), and individual insight to conclude on regional recommendations for the Stevens Creek Trail. The JCWT made its recommendations as a regional body and considered the alignments through all of the cities. These recommendations were discussed during a series of four meetings on July 20th, July 24th, August 5th, and August 21st. Meeting minutes for these four meetings can be found here. (http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/PublicWorks/StevensCreekTrailJointCitiesFeasibilityStudy/Steven sCreekTrailMeetingNotes.aspx). 931 3 Alignment Recommendations Study Segment 1 – Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue The preferred Stevens Creek Trail (SCT) route in this segment is an off-street trail through existing open space areas along Stevens Creek as shown in Figure 2. Steps to preserve and enhance the riparian habitat along the Creek in this segment should be included as part of master planning for the trail project. Special attention should be paid to narrow areas where new bridges or structures are needed to traverse the Creek. Connections to the trail in this study segment should include:  A connection to West Remington Drive in Sunnyvale via a new bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Stevens Creek. This connection is prioritized by the JCWT to provide neighborhood access.  A connection to Mountain View High School via new bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Highway 85 near Bryant Ave. in Mountain View.  Connections to Fremont Avenue east and west of Highway 85 if feasible. Study Segment 2 – Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road The preferred alignment is an off-street bike/pedestrian pathway on Bernardo Avenue including a bike/pedestrian overpass of Fremont Avenue at Bernardo. This alignment requires either the removal of on-street parking or the conversion of Bernardo to a one-way street. A detailed parking and traffic study should be conducted prior to further trail master planning work in this segment so the City of Sunnyvale can determine if this alignment is feasible. Every effort should be made to minimize impacts to nearby residents by preserving parking where feasible. In addition to the off-street improvements Figure 2 – Study Segment 1 Recommended off-street pedestrian/bike trail Figure 3 – Potential Configuration on Bernardo Avenue, between Astoria Drive and The Dalles Avenues = Recommended Alignment 932 4 Figure 4- Study Segment 2 Recommended off-street pedestrian/bike trail on Bernardo, modest on-street bike/pedestrian improvements should be considered on Belleville Way and Fallen Leaf Lane consistent with each city's adopted bike/pedestrian master plans. Special attention should be paid to making safety enhancements for bikes and pedestrians near Cupertino Middle School and managing traffic during school pick up and drop off times. A potential configuration of Bernardo Avenue, between Astoria Drive and The Dalles Avenue is shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 outlines the location of the JCWT recommendation in this segment. If an off-street bike/pedestrian pathway on Bernardo Avenue is not considered feasible by the City of Sunnyvale, no routes should be designated as the Stevens Creek Trail in this segment. In this case, other modest bike and pedestrian safety improvements should be evaluated on Bernardo Avenue as well as other routes in the area that could connect to the Stevens Creek Trail, such as Belleville Way, Fallen Leaf Lane, Bernardo Avenue, and Bedford Avenue. The extent of these modest improvements and their implementation should be determined by each city for the streets within its jurisdiction. Study Segment 3 – Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard In this study segment no route for an off-street facility was found to be feasible. Although several feasible alternatives were identified in the feasibility study, the JCWT did not select one of these routes as a preferred alternative. Feasible routes identified in the study had major drawbacks which included: 1) the route required on-street bike lanes on heavily traveled and high-speed streets such as Stevens Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, or Mary Avenue which Figure 5 – Existing Homestead Road Bike/Pedestrian Path in Los Altos = Recommended Alignment 933 5 was considered incompatible with the goal of a system that was suitable for bike riders of all skill levels; or 2) the route required a new crossing of Interstate 280 in an area that could be changed by the planned reconfiguration of the I-280/SR 85 interchange. While the JCWT did not specify for an alignment in segment 3, they recognize there is a need for a long term vision for the trail. The JCWT agreed that should circumstances change regarding the availability of land in the area, further studies should be undertaken to identify a feasible route. For example, if the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way became available in the future, new off-street trail routes may be possible and should be explored and pursued as a “rails-to-trails” concept. In addition, if the I-280/State Route 85 Interchange were rebuilt, new routes may become available through this area. Since the rebuilding of this interchange is included in current long-range transportation plans, the JCWT recommends that cities reach out proactively to Caltrans and VTA to express that bike and pedestrian accesses through the interchange is a community priority and discourage any modifications that may limit future improvements. Furthermore, the JCWT supports improvements on Foothill Expressway/Boulevard. While this segment would not be part of the Stevens Creek Trail, bicycle and pedestrian improvements should be considered if there are Caltrans improvements to the I-280/Foothill interchange or as part of other city or county projects in the vicinity. Within this segment improvements to Homestead Road were evaluated. The Homestead Road crossing of State Route 85 is particularly challenging for bicycles. The JCWT supported either widening the existing bridge or building a separate parallel bicycle/pedestrian bridge to provide a connection to the existing off-street bike/pedestrian pathway along the north side Homestead Road in Los Altos. This improvement would have independent utility as a safety improvement for better bike access to Cupertino Middle School and Homestead High School for students in Cupertino, Los Altos and Sunnyvale. Figure 6 - Study Segment 3 Area Figure 7 – Eastbound Homestead Road Approaching Bernardo Avenue/NB SR 85 934 6 Study Segment 4 – Trail Connections to Ranch San Antonio County Park via Stevens Creek Boulevard The preferred route from Blackberry Farm to Rancho San Antonio County Park is using the existing Stevens Creek Boulevard on-street bike lanes and then continuing west via an off-street trail along the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard starting near Stonebridge. This route would include a new bike/pedestrian bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and connect to the Hammond-Snyder Loop Trail in Rancho San Antonio County Park. This route is considered an important recreational amenity for the community but is not considered part of the Stevens Creek Trail. A staging area is recommended with parking, restrooms, and signage on County Roads and UPRR land south of the new railroad crossing bridge. Figure 8 - Study Segment 4 Area Other Recommendations  Stevens Creek is important habitat for Steelhead which is a Federally-listed threatened species. Any construction near the Creek will require an extensive environmental review process by State and Federal wildlife agencies. Any future trail projects should try to improve habitat values in and around the Creek channel.  Existing public lands near Stevens Creek should be maintained as public land to preserve habitat and future trail opportunities.  Extension of the Stevens Creek Trail is an important regional goal that can benefit each jurisdiction. The four cities should support each other with future efforts to continue with master planning and implementation of trail segments within each jurisdiction through continued collaboration and support for funding opportunities. List of Attachments Attachment A: High-Level Themes – SCT Public Input Meetings Attachment B: Citizens Working Group Recommendations to the Joint Cities Working Team on the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study 935 ATTACHMENT A High-Level Themes – SCT Public Input Meetings 936 High-Level Themes SCT Public Input Meetings The following themes from each of the three SCT Public Input meetings were compiled by Shawn Spano, meeting facilitator, and shared with the participants at the end of each meeting. May 21, 2015 Meeting in Sunnyvale  Use existing infrastructure (to minimize costs and impacts)  Connect trail using Mary Ave and existing overpass bridge  Utilize multiple paths through city streets and neighborhoods (don’t have one designated trail/path/route)  Use alignments that ensure safety for residents and trail users (away from the middle school, have access for emergency vehicles, safe for bicyclist, etc.)  Use alignments that minimize vehicle spill over onto neighborhood streets  Use alignments that minimize costs (no new overpass bridge)  Use alignments that don’t result in lose of neighborhood parking spaces  Use alignments that minimize disruptions to neighborhoods (creating one-way streets, removal of existing trees, etc.)  No alignment or connection preferences – do not pursue the trail project extension June 1, 2015 Meeting in Cupertino  Keep trail as close to the creek alignment and open spaces as much as possible, if possible, while minimizing environmental impacts  Corollary is to keep trail/path/route off city and residential streets as much as possible  Use alignments that ensure safety for residents and trail users (cars pulling out of driveways on residential streets)  Use alignments that minimize impacts to the neighborhoods (lose of parking, traffic, congestion, etc.)  Use and upgrade existing infrastructure (use existing overpass bridge, build protected bike lanes)  Use alignments that minimize costs (no new overpass bridge)  Preference is to complete the trail project extension, and the benefits that will result from this (health, recreations, and commuting), as long as negative impacts (safety, cost, etc.) can be maintained June 8, 2015 Meeting in Mountain View  Keep trail/path/route off city and residential streets as much as possible, including busy streets like Stevens Creek Ave. The main reason given was safety for residents and trail users (cars pulling out of driveways on residential streets) 937  Keep trail as close to the creek alignment and open spaces as much as possible, if possible  Do not have a single designated route/path through residential areas. Have numerous routes available and let bicyclist and pedestrians choose what they want to use (will lessen the impact to a single neighborhood)  Use and upgrade existing infrastructure (use existing overpass bridge, build protected bike lanes)  Trail preference mentioned most often was creek corridor/Bernardo Ave. Second most was Heatherstone to Mary Ave and existing overpass bridge  Preference is to complete the trail project extension, as long as negative impacts (safety.) can be maintained 938 ATTACHMENT B Citizens Working Group Recommendations to the Joint Cities Working Team on the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study 939 Citizens Working Group Recommendations to the Joint Cities Working Team on the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 1 of 4 The Citizens Working Group, comprised of three citizens from each city, was selected by the Joint Cities Working Team (JCWT)to assist agency staff, the consultant team and policy representatives to prepare a feasibility study for connecting the completed segments of the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View and Cupertino. The Citizens Working Group reviewed technical feasibility findings including ownership and land availability information, habitat and wildlife data, geologic and hydrological materials, assessments of on-street conditions, institutional opportunities and constraints, and cost estimates over the course of two years. The Citizens Working Group members were provided a summary of themes from community input meetings held in May and June 2015 and were provided copies of all written comments submitted by the public on the draft feasibility study report. Their volunteer efforts have culminated in these recommendations discussed at a meeting of the group on June 17, 2015. These recommendations set a long-range vision for the development of the trail. A map is also attached that shows the preferred trail alignment and key connecting routes. Citizens Working Group Recommendations 1. Alignment Themes  Extend the Stevens Creek Trail as a pedestrian/bike path as far south as possible to keep the trail separated from automobile traffic to the greatest extent possible in order to create a family-friendly and recreational route that enhances the bicycle and pedestrian networks of the four cities.  Enhance the habitat along the creek corridor with the development of the trail.  For existing bike routes that are in the area but not part of the recommended alignment modest safety improvements (such as adding sharrows, other street markings, and/or additional signage) should be considered. 2. Recommendation Details by Segment a. Dale/Heatherstone Pedestrian Overcrossing to Fremont Avenue  The preferred alignment and top priority is to extend the Stevens Creek Trail through the 22 acres of open space along State Route 85 from Dale/Heatherstone to Fremont Avenue. The trail should incorporate habitat enhancements and the 22 acres along the creek corridor should be managed as passive open space.  Develop the project in phases, as needed, to construct as soon as possible. Suggested phases include Dale/Heatherstone to Remington and Remington to Fremont Avenue.  Include a neighborhood access point at Remington Avenue.  Continue to explore the potential for an overcrossing over Highway 85 to provide a connection to Mountain View High School, which would provide 940 Citizens Working Group Recommendations to the Joint Cities Working Team on the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 2 of 4 an east-west connection between Mountain View and Sunnyvale via Remington Drive. This is the lowest priority feature in this segment.  The preferred crossing of Fremont Avenue is a pedestrian/bike overcrossing to Bernardo Avenue to continue the separated pedestrian/bike path.  A second connection to Fremont Avenue is also recommended via a trail underpass beneath State Route 85 connecting to Fremont Avenue west of the Highway 85 interchange adjacent to the southbound off-ramp. A preferred alternative to make this connection is to pursue a trail easement along the creek through the parking lot located at 1195 W. Fremont Avenue (current Stanford medical office).  When the Fremont Avenue bridge over Stevens Creek is replaced in the future, consider a trail underpass to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle crossings of Fremont Avenue and provide an access point to the trail. b. Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road  If a pedestrian overcrossing at Fremont Avenue is considered feasible, the preferred alignment to extend the Stevens Creek Trail is a separated off-street pedestrian/bike path along the soundwall on Bernardo Avenue. This pedestrian/bike path would continue the experience of the trail by providing a route free from automobile traffic.  The feasibility study indicates that a road reconfiguration of Bernardo is necessary to support the off-street pedestrian/bike path. Conduct traffic and parking studies to determine the feasibility of either one-way traffic or two- way traffic with loss of parking.  If a separated pedestrian/bike path were not feasible on Bernardo, the second choice would be to modestly enhance Bernardo, Belleville and Fallen Leaf streets with bicycle safety improvements and wayfinding signage to the trail. None of these on-street routes would be designated as the Stevens Creek Trail. Even if the off-street route on Bernardo is considered feasible, evaluate bicycle safety improvements that could be made with modest improvements to Belleville and Fallen Leaf.  Connect the pedestrian/bike path on Bernardo to the pedestrian/bike path on the north side of Homestead Road in Los Altos. The Homestead Road path currently extends from Stevens Creek west to El Sereno Avenue near the Grant Road/Foothill Expressway intersection. Continue to explore either a) widening the existing Homestead Road Bridge over State Route 85 or b) placing a new pedestrian/bike bridge parallel and just to the north of the Homestead Road bridge and making path improvements in Sunnyvale west from State Route 85 interchange to Stevens Creek to provide for a continuous off-street path. Extension of the Homestead Road path could proceed as a 941 Citizens Working Group Recommendations to the Joint Cities Working Team on the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 3 of 4 stand-alone project intended to improve walking and bicycling access to Cupertino Middle School and Homestead High School.  Bicycle safety improvements to existing on-street bike lanes on Mary Avenue and Fremont Avenue. c. Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard  A new grade-separated crossing of Interstate 280 is recommended to provide access to the Stevens Creek Trail on a direct route along low-volume, low- speed streets. The potential grade-separated crossing alternatives in order of preference include: i. The preferred crossing is a trail underpass beneath Interstate 280 using one of the existing tunnels that convey the Stevens Creek flows to San Francisco Bay. This option is potentially technically feasible but was previously not supported by Caltrans. The use of one of the tunnels should continue to be pursued as a long-term solution to extending the trail south. The tunnel route would connect Barranca Drive to Madera Drive. The trail would use Madera Drive to Phar Lap Drive to access Stevens Creek Blvd., where it would connect to the existing trail in Cupertino. ii. An alternate choice is a pedestrian overcrossing that spans both Interstate 280 and the UPRR tracks connecting Peninsular Avenue to Madera Drive. iii. Another option to consider if the previous two alternatives for crossing I- 280 were considered infeasible is a pedestrian overcrossing that spans only Interstate 280 connecting Caroline Drive to Somerset Square Park located off Stokes Avenue.  Safety improvements to Mary Avenue from the Don Burnett Bicycle- Pedestrian Bridge to Stevens Creek Boulevard and the Stevens Creek Boulevard crossing of State Route 85. These improvements are important, but should not be considered part of the Stevens Creek Trail. The State Route 85/Stevens Creek Blvd. interchange is not appropriate for the wide range of cycling abilities that currently use the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View and Cupertino.  Pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Foothill Expressway/Foothill Blvd. between Vineyard Drive and Cristo Rey Drive. These improvements are important, but should not be considered part of the Stevens Creek Trail. The expressway environment is not appropriate for the wide range of cycling abilities that currently use the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View and Cupertino. 942 Citizens Working Group Recommendations to the Joint Cities Working Team on the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Page 4 of 4 d. Trail Connection to Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve  A pedestrian/bike path that extends along the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard west from Stonebridge to undeveloped open space land behind the Gate of Heaven Cemetery is recommended to provide access to Rancho San Antonio County Park. This alignment would include a pedestrian/bike bridge over the UPRR tracks to provide a connection to the Hammond- Snyder Loop Trail in Rancho San Antonio County Park. This route is viewed as an important recreational amenity for the community and could be developed as a stand-alone project.  A trail staging area with parking, restrooms and signage is recommended. The additional parking area would provide a more convenient access into Rancho San Antonio County Park and would also help reduce parking demand at the busy Rancho San Antonio parking lots. 3. Additional Recommendations  Encourage the Joint Cities Working Team to continue to collaborate throughout the trail planning and development process.  Continue to seek long-term opportunities to make the creek corridor publically accessible.  Retain all publicly owned land along the creek corridor.  Connect the Stevens Creek Trail to a trail using the UPRR corridor when and if this land becomes available. The feasibility study is the first step in a trail planning process. The feasible alignments identified in the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study report provide a range of choices for decision makers to consider for extending and improving connections to the trail. The next step is an evaluation of the study findings, the public input and the Citizens Working Group recommendations by the Four Cities Working Team. This will be followed by presentations to the four respective city councils. The next step would involve the development of a trail master plan for the alignments selected by the four city councils. A trail master plan would be evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). All future trail planning and environmental review will provide opportunities for public involvement. 943 FEASIBILITY STUDY PREFERRED ALIGNMENT 944 1 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION and BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION CITY OF CUPERTINO Special Joint Meeting AMENDED MINUTES Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. Community Hall, 10350 Torre Ave., Cupertino, CA Note: This meeting will be televised CALL TO ORDER Parks & Recreation Commission Chair David Fung called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Ave., Cupertino, CA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Parks & Recreation Commissioners present: David Fung, Helene Davis, Carol Stanek, Judy Wilson PRC Commissioner absent: Neesha Tambe Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioners present: Gary Jones, Pete Heller, Erik Lindskog, Vidula Aiyers (6:45) BPC Commissioner absent: Sean Lyn Staff present: Carol Atwood, Gail Seeds, David Stillman, Liz Nunez NEW BUSINESS 1. Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study A. Presentation Jana Sokale, Principal of Jana Sokale Environmental Planning presented the attached overview of the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Feasibility Study and the associated recommendations of the Joint Cities Working Team. B. Public Comment Public Comments were received from the following citizens for this Item: 945 2 Ed Bloom, resident of Homestead Villa, Cupertino Ernest Fam, resident of Cupertino Esther Fam, resident of Cupertino Sue Lampkin, resident of Homestead Villa, Cupertino Glenn Lenker, resident of Cupertino Jane Bloom, resident of Homestead Villa, Cupertino Steve Elich, Citizens for Responsible Trails Mark Merun, resident of Cupertino Jan Parcel, resident of Cupertino Craig Hofstetter, resident of Cupertino Judy Wilson, resident on Phar Lap, Cupertino Marianne Klinkowski, resident of Cupertino Brian Chow, resident of Cupertino Michelle Matkovich, resident of Homestead Villa, Cupertino Jane Casler, resident of Cupertino Tina Ma, Oakdell Ranch, resident of Cupertino Anne Ng, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, resident of Cupertino Tom Schaefer, resident of Cupertino Geoff Paulsen, resident of Cupertino Tessa Ennals, resident of Cupertino Terry Dyckman, resident of Cupertino Carolyn Miller, resident of Cupertino Lynn Bonicelli, resident of Cupertino Raghu Thiagarajaw, resident of Cupertino Venki Seshaadri, resident of Cupertino Joe Weiss, resident of Cupertino Simon Lee, resident of Cupertino Mark Law, resident of Cupertino Bert L. Frescura, resident on Phar Lap Drive, Cupertino Jake Maier, resident on Phar Lap Drive, Cupertino Joetta Maier, resident on Phar Lap Drive, Cupertino Written Communications: Email communications from Valeria de Paiva and Tom Schaefer were submitted to both Commissions. Craig Hofstetter submitted the “City of Cupertino Citizen Comment Analysis- Executive Summary” (prepared by the Citizens for Responsible Trails – September 2015). Ed Bloom re-submitted (originally submitted to City in 2013) Homestead Villa Homeowner’s Assn. Stevens Creek Trail Petition, with additional new signatures. 946 3 C. Discussion Discussion by the Commission followed. Commissioners’ comments are summarized below. BPC Chair Peter Heller- Many of the fears about cycling are unfounded. Cycling will improve overall safety and improve health. Take advantage of our existing assets – take advantage Don Burnett bridge, improve Foothill Expwy., and improve Stevens Creek Blvd. Work with UP Railroad regarding access to railroad right-of-way. The BPC will be discussing a new Bike Plan and will take in consideration all feedback presented. PRC Commissioner Helene Davis - Segment 1 – concurs with Working Team recommendation. Segment 2 -Bernardo plan - needs more studies, and Fallen Leaf should be looked at. Segment 3 – Working Team recommendations are good; should use the Mary Avenue bridge and also improve Stevens Creek Blvd., recommend improvement to 280/Foothill interchange. Consider bridge over Union Pacific Railroad to Rancho San Antonio. Consider options for the future. BPC Commissioner Vidula Aiyer - Consider separating the objectives between creek trail and bike paths; for the bike network use existing assets; expand the bicycle network with infrastructure we have and improve walking experience at the creek; maybe private property could be considered. PRC Vice Chair Judy Wilson - Separate out biking versus hiking, do not align pedestrian trail through neighborhoods because it really does not provide a “trail”; improve the larger streets for biking safely. BPC Commissioner Gary Jones - Not prepared to vote on anything. PRC Commissioner Carol Stanek - We don't have the opportunity to get a pedestrian trail through our city unless we acquire property such as doing life estate arrangements for a long term solution. Need to have an open mind and work together. Better bike access is possible and need to look at where to improve access for bikes – such as Foothill Expressway, and connections to Rancho San Antonio Park. Look for grants to fund improvements. Do not take options or opportunities off the table; important to preserve those. BPC Commissioner Erik Lindskog - no comment 947 4 PRC Chair David Fung- Need to look at this closely in the Bike Transportation Plan. Mary Avenue Bridge is the preferred way of getting across Hwy. 280 but we also need a safe bike path on Stevens Creek Blvd. Foothill Expy. improvements - very important to look at. We should stop considering a new bridge over Hwy 280 unless something happens in the future that makes this worth re-examining. Don't give up on railroad opportunities or Water District opportunities or other property options. We should design non-vehicular paths with work by Caltrans, the railroad or where other opportunities occur. In general, supports the Working Team proposal (Segment 1- concurs with the recommendation, Segment 2-challenging). Ranch San Antonio - not part of the creek trail discussion but strongly supports a trail there. Without Segment 2, it doesn't make sense to do Segment 3; both segments need to be coordinated to get value. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION , matters not on the agenda – none ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, matters not on the agenda – none ADJOURNMENT – Chair Fung adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Liz Nunez, Administrative Assistant Recreation and Community Services Department Minutes re-approved at the Parks & Recreation Commission 2/4/16 regular meeting 948 RESOLUTION NO. 2015-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS SUPPORTING THE STEVENS CREEK TRAIL ALIGNMENT IDENTIFIED BY THE JOINT CITIES WORKING TEAM WHEREAS , the extension of the Steven s C reek Trial is an important regio nal goal that can b en e fit each jurisdictio n alo n g the creek corridor; and WHEREAS, the Stev ens Creek T r ail J oint Citie s Working T eam was formed as a collab orative effort b e twee n the C ities o f C upertino , Los A ltos , Mountain V ie w and Sunnyva le fo r the purpose o f ex ploring the feasibili ty o f connecting the S tevens Cr ee k Trail throu gh those cities and to reco mme nd a pre ferred alignment; and WHEREAS , the Joint Citie s Working Team ha s co mpleted a technical feas ibili ty s tud y and s u b mitte d its re commendation s to the r es pective City C ouncils; and WHEREAS, the City o f L os A ltos ("City ") has given due co nsideratio n to the r eco mmendatio n s s ubmitted, public comments received and the City's P edes trian Ma st er Plan and Bic ycle Trans portatio n Plan ; and WHE REAS, the purpose and inte nt o f this resolution is to mem orializ e the C ity's support o f the J oint C itie s Working T ea m re comme ndation s s ubmitted to the Ci ty o n O cto ber 27 , 201 5;and WHEREAS, the Co uncil find s tha t the ad o ptio n o f thi s Resolutio n is exempt from review under the California Enviro nmenta l Q uali ty A ct (CEQA) purs uant to Secti o n 15306 o f the CEQA G uidelines beca use CEQA does n o t a pply to informatio n collection and ga thering, or as part o f a s tudy lea ding t o an ac tio n w hich a public agency h as no t ye t a pproved, a do pted, or fund e d. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council o f the Ci ty o f L os Altos hereb y supports the recommendation s o f the J oint Citie s W orking T ea m , submitted to the L os Altos City Council o n October 27, 2015 , and agree s t o supp ort the Citie s of C upertino, M o untain Vi ew and Sunnyval e in their Stevens C reek Trail planning e fforts as foll ows : R esolution N o. 2015-39 P ag e 1 949 City of Los Altos Supported Alignment Recommendations Study Segment 1-Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue Supp ort the preferred alignment and recommendations of the Join t C ities Working Team as s pecified : • An o ff-s treet trail along the 22-acres of open space along State Route (S R) 85 and Stevens Creek from Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue. • Connection s a t Fremont A venue on both sides (east and west) of SR 85, if fea sible. • A connection to West Remington Drive in Sunnyvale via a new bicycle /pedestrian bridge over Stevens Creek, should the Ci ty o f Sunnyvale elec t to purs ue this connection. • A connection to Mountain View High Sc hool via n ew bicycle /pedestrian bridge over SR 85, sh ould the City of Mountain V iew elect to pursu e this connection. • Steps to preserve and enhance the rip arian ha bitat along the Creek. • Collaborate with the Ci ty o f Mountain V iew to seek o ut grant funding for master planning, environmental review and potential con struction. Study Segment 2-Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road Supp ort the preferred alignment and recommendations of the Joint C ities Working Team as specified/ modified: • An off-street bike/pedestrian pathway on Bernardo Avenue that is designated as the Steven s Creek Trail, including a bike/pedestrian overpass of Fremont Avenue at Bernardo. • Encourage the City of Sunnyvale to initia te a comprehen sive traffic and parking s tudy for an off-s treet bicycle/pedestrian padnvay on Bernardo Avenue fr om Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road. • Collabor ate with the City o f Sunnyva le to se ek out grant funding for master planning, environmental review and potential cons truction, if comprehen sive study proves fe as ible and desirable b y the City o f Sunnyva le. • No routes sh ould be designated as the Steven s Creek Trail in thi s segment, if an off- s tre et bike /pedestrian pathway o n Bernardo Avenue is n ot considered fea sible or desirable by the City of Sunnyvale. • Imp lement modest improvements on Bellevill e Way and Fallen Leaf Lane co n sistent with each city's adopted bike /pedestria n plans, independe nt of w h ether or no t a separa ted facili ty is consuucted on B ernardo Avenue. Resolu ti on No. 2015-39 P age 2 950 • Modest improvements for Fallen Leaf Lane will be defined and limited to a standard bike route (C la ss III) as described in the City of Los Altos Bicycle Trans portation Plan (BTP) and be consistent with the Circulati on E lement of the General Plan. • Implementation of Fallen Leaf Lane improvements will b e considered in conjunction with other bicycle improvement projects defined in the BTP or packaged as part of any resurfacing, slurry seal or striping projects in the area. • Fallen Leaf Lane will not be designated nor "badged" as the Stevens Creek Trail by signage or documentation, nor will way-finding signs be directed to Fallen Leaf Lane. Study Segment 3 -Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard Support the recommendations of the Joint Cities Working Team as specified/modified: • With the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyval e and Mountain View, reach out to agencies such as Calttans and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) to raise awareness of shared goal to close the gap in the Stevens Creek Trail between H omestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard and ask that i f circumstances change, such as the reconfiguration of Interstate 280 from the SR 85 interchange to the Foothill Expressway interchange or the availability of the UPRR right-o f-way, that consideration be given to bike /pedestrian improvements that enable trail linkage s. • A connection from the existing off-street bike /pedestrian pathway along the north side of Homestead Road in Los Altos to the Bernardo SCT pathway via either the widening of the existing bridge or building a separate parallel bike /pedestrian bridge over SR 85, should the City of Sunnyvale elect to pursue this connection. Study Segment 4 -Trail Connections to Rancho San Antonio County Park via Stevens Creek Boulevard Concur with the assessment of the joint Cities Working Team that a connection from Blackberry Farm to Rancho San A ntonio County Park would be a va luable recreation amenity for the Cupertino community but should not be considered part of the Stevens Creek Trail. Other Recommendations Support the recommendations of the Joint Cities Working Team as specified/modified: • Any construction neat the Creek should tty to improve habitat values in and around the Creek channel. • Existing public lands near Stevens Creek should be maintained as public land to preserve habitat and future trail opportunities. Resolution No. 2015-39 Page 3 951 • The four cities should support each other with future efforts to continue with master planning and implementation of trail segments within each jurisdiction, providing such things as data, feedback, and letters of support for grant funding. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los A ltos at a meeting thereof on the 24 'h day of November, 2015 by th e following vote: AYES: OES: ABSENT: ABSTA I N: Attest: BRUINS, MORDO, PEPPER, PROCHNOW, SATTERLEE NO E NONE ONE I----YOR Re solution No. 20 15-39 Page 4 952 City of Sunnyvale Meeting Minutes City Council 4:30 PM West Conference Room and Council Chambers, City Hall, 456 W. Olive Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Tuesday, February 9, 2016 Special Meeting-Closed Session-4:30 PM | Study Session-5:30 PM | Regular Meeting-7 PM 7 P.M. COUNCIL MEETING CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hendricks called the meeting to order in Council Chambers. SALUTE TO THE FLAG Mayor Hendricks led the salute to the flag. ROLL CALL Mayor Glenn Hendricks Vice Mayor Gustav Larsson Councilmember Jim Griffith Councilmember Tara Martin-Milius Councilmember David Whittum Councilmember Pat Meyering Councilmember Jim Davis Present:7 - PRESENTATION 15-1084 PRESENTATION - Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Presentation on Measure AA Projects Jed Cyr, Board member, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, presented information regarding the district’s Measure AA projects. CLOSED SESSION REPORT Vice Mayor Larsson reported Council met in Closed Session pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6: Conference with Labor Negotiators; nothing to report. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Page 1City of Sunnyvale 953 February 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes Council reconvened at 9:45 p.m. with all Councilmembers present. Following the recess, Council considered Item 1.F. 3 16-0034 Support the Preferred Alignment of the Stevens Creek Trail as Recommended by the Joint Cities Working Team (JCWT) and Find that Action is Exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15262 and 15306 (Feasibility and Planning Studies and Information Collection) Assistant City Manager Kent Steffens provided the staff report. Consultant Jana Sokale provided additional information. Public Hearing opened at 11:15 p.m. James Lee, resident of South Bernardo, stated the plan for a bike trail on Bernardo would be very disruptive, add several travel miles per day for residents, and impact safety. Cyndi Iwala stated making Bernardo one-way will cause her to drive an additional 10 blocks per day when exiting Highway 85 and cause a decline in property values. Iwala encouraged Council to investigate alternate avenues with less residential impact. Ben Davison stated he moved to the area to reduce vehicle use and commute by bicycle, and encouraged support for bicycle paths. Kurt Wampler, resident on Bernardo between Fremont and Homestead, stated Bernardo is an important access route for residents, public safety and service vehicles and stated there is no creek side experience on this section of Bernardo and it would lower property values. Wampler stated input from the residents is missing from the staff recommendation. Alan Ross, member of the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, spoke in support of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission recommendations with the modification to consider the planning of the two segments in parallel rather than time sequenced. Tim Oey, member of the Citizens Working Group, spoke in support of the staff recommendation and accelerating the study and planning of the Bernardo segment to be in parallel with the segment north of Fremont. Robert Sloan spoke in support of completing the trail, encouraged Council to work Page 10City of Sunnyvale 954 February 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes with Los Altos to purchase the land behind the medical center at Fremont and Highway 85 and to complete the trail between Mountain View and Cupertino. Chris Somers stated he has lived on Bernardo since 1958 and suggested Bedford Avenue as an alternative. Chuck Fry spoke in support of doing segment 1 as soon as possible and provided comments regarding segments 2 and 3. Sasha Zbrodzck spoke in support of completion of the trail and in opposition to scaling down the trails. Nikhil Sharma spoke in support of segment 1 and an off-street trail for segment 2 especially for families with young children. Steve Garrity spoke in support of the trail, segment 1, and recommended doing the segment 2 study now. Ramesh Ramaiyer, resident of Bernardo, spoke in opposition to turning Bernardo into a one-way street. Mark Hlady, Parent Coordinator, County Safe Routes to School Program, spoke in support of the staff recommendation plan for the safety of children travelling to school. Ben Stetson, resident on Belleville, spoke in support of segment 1, but in opposition to the idea for Bernardo, stating that many will be disrupted for the benefit of a few, and recommended waiting on segment 2. Gary Bailey spoke regarding the importance of consideration for the fire protection plan in the location of the trail. Kathleen Cordova spoke in opposition to routing the trail on residential streets and provided a PowerPoint presentation. Ed Bloom, representing Homestead Villa in Cupertino, spoke in favor of a route that has the least negative impact on residents, and presented photos. Vivian Euzent, resident on Dominion Avenue, read an excerpt of a letter to the Joint Cities Working Team and encouraged a plan that meets Google’s bike vision requirements as an alternative to the Bernardo Avenue recommendation. Page 11City of Sunnyvale 955 February 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes Bruce Euzent provided a summary of community input on the Stevens Creek Trail and a PowerPoint presentation and spoke in support of using the Mary Avenue infrastructure. William Carpenter spoke in opposition to further disrupting Bernardo and spoke regarding the letter shown earlier from the Cupertino Union School District. Tom LaPierre, Citizens for Responsible Trails, spoke in support of using the existing bicycle structure and minimizing the impact on the neighborhoods, and presented slides. Kevin Jackson Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission member speaking on behalf of a majority of the commission, spoke in support of the preferred alignment recommended by the Joint Cities Working Team. Mike Serrone spoke in support of the staff recommendation and in support of segment 1. Garth Williams, member of the Board of Directors of the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail but speaking as a Sunnyvale resident, spoke in support of segment 1 and recommended studying segment 2 as soon as possible. Anne Ng, resident of Cupertino and member of the Board of Directors of the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail and of the Cupertino Citizens Working Group, spoke in support of the Bernardo option, segment 1 and a traffic study. Dave Jones, Chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission, expressed the unanimous support of the commission for the staff recommendations including a study of the Bernardo section now, and recommended studying segment 2 right away. Steve Elich, Citizens for Responsible Trails, spoke in opposition to the Bernardo route. Craig Hofstetter, resident of Cupertino, spoke in opposition to the Bernardo route. Praveen Swadi, resident on Bernardo, spoke in opposition to the Bernardo route. Elisabeth Eschelbeck spoke in opposition to the Bernardo route and urged smart trail alignment. Page 12City of Sunnyvale 956 February 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes John Cordes, Vice Chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission speaking for himself, spoke in support of not delaying a traffic study for segment 2. Kendrick Uemura spoke in opposition to disrupting the residents on Bernardo. Hugh Harris, resident on Bernardo, spoke in support of constructing the trail, but expressed concerns regarding the Bernardo option. David Ishimaru, resident of Bernardo, spoke in opposition to the Bernardo route. Robert Kenney spoke in opposition to the Bernardo plan and recommended sticking with the plan of 20 years ago. Cyrus Fakhari spoke regarding the cost of oil and the need to build more bike trails. Nancy Smith spoke in support of the concept of one way streets near schools and in support of a traffic study on Bernardo. Public Hearing closed at 12:54 a.m. MOTION: Councilmember Griffith moved and Vice Mayor Larsson seconded the motion to approve Alternative 1 (modified), 2(a) (modified), 3, 4 and 5: 1: Support the recommended alignment of the JCWT in Study Segment 1 (Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue). This includes an off-street trail along the 22 acres of open space along State Route (SR) 85 from Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue, and connections at Fremont Avenue, on both sides of SR 85. Collaborate with Mountain View to seek out grant funding for the master planning, environmental review, and potential construction; with the inclusion of a fire study; 2(a). Upon completing environmental review and securing funding for potential construction of Study Segment 1, initiate a comprehensive traffic and parking study for an off street bicycle/pedestrian trail on Bernardo Avenue for Study Segment 2 (Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road), with the explicit requirement that prior to initiating 2(a) it must be brought back to Council for approval at a public hearing prior to moving forward; 3. Collaborate with Cupertino and Los Altos to seek out grant funding for the master planning, environmental review, and construction of Study Segment 3 (Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard) improvements at Homestead Road (i.e., the Homestead Road bridge widening or Homestead Road pedestrian/bike bridge); Page 13City of Sunnyvale 957 February 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes 4. Support our regional partners as they pursue funding for closing the gap for the Stevens Creek Trail between Mountain View and Cupertino. 5. In an effort to achieve the regional goal of extending the Stevens Creek Trail the City will support and adopt the following policies as identified in the JCWT recommendation summary: a. All trail projects should try to improve habitat values in and around the Creek. b. Existing public lands near Stevens Creek should be maintained as public land to preserve habitat and future trail opportunities. c. The City will continue collaboration with regional partners for extension of the Stevens Creek Trail and support the alignment of a Stevens Creek Boulevard spur trail connection to Rancho San Antonio County Park. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Mayor Hendricks offered a friendly amendment relating to Alternative 2(a) to specify on Bernardo a three-dimensional route to move a potential connector of Homestead to Fremont as an elevated connector. Councilmember Griffith declined to accept the friendly amendment. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Mayor Hendricks offered a friendly amendment to break it into two separate motions, separating out 2(a). Councilmember Griffith accepted the friendly amendment. REVISED MOTION: Councilmember Griffith revised the motion and Vice Mayor Larsson seconded the revised motion to approve Alternatives 1 (modified), 3, 4 and 5: 1: Support the recommended alignment of the JCWT in Study Segment 1 (Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue). This includes an off-street trail along the 22 acres of open space along State Route (SR) 85 from Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way to Fremont Avenue, and connections at Fremont Avenue, on both sides of SR 85. Collaborate with Mountain View to seek out grant funding for the master planning, environmental review, and potential construction; with the inclusion of a fire study; 3. Collaborate with Cupertino and Los Altos to seek out grant funding for the master planning, environmental review, and construction of Study Segment 3 (Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard) improvements at Homestead Road (i.e., the Homestead Road bridge widening or Homestead Road pedestrian/bike bridge); 4. Support our regional partners as they pursue funding for closing the gap for the Stevens Creek Trail between Mountain View and Cupertino. 5. In an effort to achieve the regional goal of extending the Stevens Creek Trail the City will support and adopt the following policies as identified in the JCWT recommendation summary: Page 14City of Sunnyvale 958 February 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes a. All trail projects should try to improve habitat values in and around the Creek. b. Existing public lands near Stevens Creek should be maintained as public land to preserve habitat and future trail opportunities. c. The City will continue collaboration with regional partners for extension of the Stevens Creek Trail and support the alignment of a Stevens Creek Boulevard spur trail connection to Rancho San Antonio County Park. The motion as revised carried by the following vote: Yes:Mayor Hendricks Vice Mayor Larsson Councilmember Griffith Councilmember Martin-Milius Councilmember Whittum Councilmember Meyering Councilmember Davis 7 - No:0 MOTION: Councilmember Griffith moved and Vice Mayor Larsson seconded the motion to approve a new “Alternative 6” to find that the feasibility study report is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15262 and 15306 (Feasibility and Planning Studies and Information Collection); and Alternative 2(a) Upon completing environmental review and securing funding for potential construction of Study Segment 1, initiate a comprehensive traffic and parking study for an off street bicycle/pedestrian trail on Bernardo Avenue for Study Segment 2 (Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road). If the traffic study indicates that an off street facility is desirable as determined by the Sunnyvale City Council, then proceed to seek grant funding for trail master planning, environmental review and potential construction of Study Segment 2; and Upon completion of the environmental review and securing funding for potential construction of Study Segment 1 and upon approval by the City Council including a public hearing, initiate everything else that’s in 2(a) or other action that’s decided by the City Council at that time. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Whittum moved to amend the motion and Councilmember Meyering seconded to remove consideration of the one-way configuration on Bernardo. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT: Mayor Hendricks offered a friendly amendment to also remove consideration of removal of on-street parking. Councilmember Whittum accepted the friendly amendment. The motion to amend carried by the following vote: Page 15City of Sunnyvale 959 February 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes Yes:Mayor Hendricks Councilmember Whittum Councilmember Meyering Councilmember Davis 4 - No:Vice Mayor Larsson Councilmember Griffith Councilmember Martin-Milius 3 - AMENDMENT: Councilmember Meyering moved to amend the motion and Councilmember Whittum seconded to include a requirement that there be a parallel and companion comprehensive traffic and parking study for a separated bicycle/pedestrian lane on Mary Avenue from Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road. The motion to amend failed by the following vote: Yes:Councilmember Whittum Councilmember Meyering 2 - No:Mayor Hendricks Vice Mayor Larsson Councilmember Griffith Councilmember Martin-Milius Councilmember Davis 5 - The main motion as amended failed by the following vote: Yes:Mayor Hendricks Councilmember Whittum Councilmember Davis 3 - No:Vice Mayor Larsson Councilmember Griffith Councilmember Martin-Milius Councilmember Meyering 4 - MOTION: Councilmember Griffith moved and Vice Mayor Larsson seconded the motion to find that the feasibility study report is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15262 and 15306 (Feasibility and Planning Studies and Information Collection). The motion carried by the following vote: Page 16City of Sunnyvale 960 February 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes Yes:Mayor Hendricks Vice Mayor Larsson Councilmember Griffith Councilmember Martin-Milius Councilmember Whittum Councilmember Meyering Councilmember Davis 7 - No:0 MOTION: Councilmember Griffith moved and Vice Mayor Larsson seconded to approve Alternative 2(a) Upon completing environmental review and securing funding for potential construction of Study Segment 1, initiate a comprehensive traffic and parking study for an off street bicycle/pedestrian trail on Bernardo Avenue for Study Segment 2 (Fremont Avenue to Homestead Road). If the traffic study indicates that an off street facility is desirable as determined by the Sunnyvale City Council, then proceed to seek grant funding for trail master planning, environmental review and potential construction of Study Segment 2; and Upon completion of the environmental review and securing funding for potential construction of Study Segment 1 and upon approval by the City Council including a public hearing, initiate everything else that’s in 2(a) or other action that’s decided by the City Council at that time. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Whittum moved to amend the motion and Councilmember Meyering seconded to remove consideration of a one-way configuration for Bernardo. The motion to amend failed by the following vote: Yes:Councilmember Whittum Councilmember Meyering Councilmember Davis 3 - No:Mayor Hendricks Vice Mayor Larsson Councilmember Griffith Councilmember Martin-Milius 4 - The main motion carried by the following vote: Yes:Mayor Hendricks Vice Mayor Larsson Councilmember Griffith Councilmember Martin-Milius 4 - Page 17City of Sunnyvale 961 February 9, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes No:Councilmember Whittum Councilmember Meyering Councilmember Davis 3 - MOTION: Councilmember Griffith moved and Councilmember Martin-Milius seconded the motion to continue with the remaining items on the agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes:Mayor Hendricks Councilmember Griffith Councilmember Martin-Milius Councilmember Davis 4 - No:Vice Mayor Larsson Councilmember Whittum Councilmember Meyering 3 - Council recessed at 2:14 a.m. Council reconvened at 2:21 a.m. with all Councilmembers present. Following the recess, Council considered Item 5. 4 15-1104 Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 5.36 (Taxicabs) of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code; Adopt a Resolution Amending Related Taxicab Franchise Fees, Rates and Charges; and Find CEQA Exemption per Guideline 15061(b)(3) Management Analyst Elaine Ketell provided the staff report. Public Hearing opened at 10 p.m. No speakers. Public Hearing closed at 10 p.m. MOTION: Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Griffith seconded the motion to approve Alternative 1: Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 5.36 (Taxicabs) of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code; and Adopt a Resolution Amending Related Fees, Rates and Charges; and Find CEQA Exemption per Guideline 15061(b)(3). City Clerk Kathleen Franco Simmons read the ordinance title. Page 18City of Sunnyvale 962 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1419 Name: Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/25/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Adoption of 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject:Adoptionof2016CupertinoBicycleTransportationPlanandMitigatedNegative Declaration for the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan a.)ApproveaMitigatedNegativeDeclarationforthe2016CupertinoBicycleTransportation Plan; and b.) Adopt Resolution No. 16-070 adopting the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™963 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: June 21, 2016 Subject Adoption of 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Recommended Action a.) Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan; and b.) Adopt Resolution No. 16-___ adopting the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Discussion The Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan is a long-range planning document designed to encourage bicycling as a safe, practical and healthy alternative to the motor vehicle. The current Plan was adopted by the City Council in May, 2011. Since that time, the city has witnessed an increase in bicycle usage and an increased emphasis on alternative forms of transportation as a way to reduce traffic congestion and promote environmental sustainability. As a result, over the past eight months City staff, along with Alta Planning + Design, have been working together to develop an update to the Bicycle Transportation Plan that addresses present and future needs of the bicycling community and lays the groundwork for grant funding eligibility for bicycle projects. The 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan (the Plan) is divided into six main chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the Plan and describes Cupertino’s land use and demographics, its major transportation facilities and programs, and describes bicycling attractors and generators. Chapter 2, Needs Analysis, discusses bicyclist collision history, public outreach efforts and, importantly, outlines a vision statement and recommends objectives, goals and policies to guide the development and implementation of improving the City’s bicycling environment into the foreseeable future. Chapter 3, Infrastructure Recommendations, contains the list of bikeway and spot improvements that are recommended to be implemented over the life of the Plan. Noteworthy is the recommendation to construct several Class IV, or separated, bikeways. This is a new bikeway designation recently approved by Caltrans, and is essentially an on-street bike lane with a physical buffer separating it from the adjacent 964 vehicle lanes. Chapter 4, Trail Feasibility Study, outlines a primarily off-street network of bikeways that forms a loop around much of Cupertino and recommends alignments along the UPRR right-of-way and the Santa Clara Water District Channel south of and parallel to Interstate 280. Chapter 5, Recommended Programs, recommends education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation programs that the City, in cooperation with the Santa Clara County Sheriff Department and others, should implement in order to compliment the infrastructure improvements being recommended elsewhere in the Plan. This chapter describes the ways in which bicycling can be encouraged, discusses incentives to bicycle commuting, discusses the challenges posed by cyclists who lack the basic skills to safely ride a bicycle in traffic and the various education programs and approaches designed to improve cyclists’ safety, and focuses on the importance and role of law enforcement officials in citing cyclists who fail to observe the rules of the road. Chapter 6, Implementation Strategy, presents the prioritized list of individual infrastructure improvements, including the evaluation criteria, scoring method and project cost estimates. For each bikeway, the proposed designation (bike route, bike lane, bicycle boulevard, etc.), location, length, total score, and approximate cost are given. Proposed improvements range from small, low-cost items such as installing bike route signs, to large-scale projects such as grade-separated bike/ped crossings. The improvements have been sorted into short-term (within five years), mid-term (five to 15 years) and long-term (15-20 years) priority tiers based on a logical breakdown of scores and complexities of implementation. It is anticipated that projects within the short-term Tier 1 would be completed first; however, projects in Tiers 2 or 3 may be implemented sooner if practical considerations or funding opportunities make it advisable. Implementation of many of the bikeways will need to be vetted with the neighborhoods, as they may involve removal of on-street parking, removal of stop signs, or providing access through neighborhoods which currently have no through access. City Council’s adoption of the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan will allow staff to pursue the feasibility of the individual bikeways through detailed engineering studies, cost estimating, public outreach, and pursuit of potential grants, and staff will return to Council for final approval of each of the bikeways individually once that work has been done and community concerns have been addressed to the extent possible. The adoption of a Bicycle Transportation Plan is a requirement for a jurisdiction to be eligible for outside funding from certain sources, such as the One Bay Area Grant program (OBAG) or Active Transportation Program (ATP) administered through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Outreach and Public Hearings 965 Public workshops were held on December 1, 2015 and March 16, 2016 for the purpose of soliciting input from the Cupertino community with respect to their vision for bicycling in Cupertino, and to solicit feedback on proposed goals, policies, programs and infrastructure improvements. In addition, the Plan has been a regular item on the agenda of the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, including presentations by Alta staff on November 18, 2015 and March 16, 2016 for the purpose of informing and gathering input from the Commission and members of the general public. At their meeting of April 27, 2016, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend that City Council adopt the Plan. Sustainability Impact Implementation of the elements of the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan will encourage bicycling, reduce reliance on the single-occupancy vehicle, and will therefore have a positive impact on sustainability. Additionally, adopting the Plan is consistent with the Mobility Element of the General Plan, Goal M-3 (“Support a Safe Pedestrian and Bicycle Network for People of All Ages and Abilities”) and Policy M-3 (“Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan”). Fiscal Impact There is no immediate fiscal impact resulting from adoption of the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. However, there will be a cost associated with implementing each of the proposed improvements contained within the Plan. Council recently approved $2 million in Capital Improvement Program funding for the 2016/17 fiscal year to begin implementation of elements within the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. As a result, no further budget requests for Plan implementation are anticipated within the upcoming fiscal year. Staff would return to Council at a later date for approval of any contracts over $175,000 or projects of a controversial nature. _____________________________________ Prepared by: David Stillman, Senior Civil Engineer Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Resolution B – 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan 966 RESOLUTION NO. 16-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE 2016 CUPERTINO BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Program and Transportation Development Act provide funding for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycling; and WHEREAS, a local agency must have a current Bicycle Transportation Plan to be eligible for Active Transportation Program and Transportation Development Act funds; and WHEREAS, the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan has been prepared by Alta Planning + Design in conjunction with the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and City staff; and WHEREAS, the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan complies with California Streets and Highways Code Section 2380 and the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission recommends City Council approval of the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 21st day of June, 2016 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ /s/ _________________________ ________________________ City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 967 Initial Study Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Project Application File Number: Prepared by May 2016 968 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino i May 2016 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .............................................................................. 3 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY ......................................................................... 3 1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD ......................................................................................... 3 1.3 CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROJECT .............................. 3 1.4 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ................................................................................ 4 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 5 2.1 PROJECT TITLE ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................ 5 2.3 LEAD AGENCY/PROPERTY OWNER/PROJECT APPLICANT CONTACT ........ 5 2.4 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER ............................................................................ 5 2.5 ZONING DISTRICT AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ............................. 5 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 8 SECTION 4.0 SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, AND IMPACTS ............................. 21 4.1 AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................. 22 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES .................................................... 27 4.3 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................... 29 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 36 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 40 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................ 43 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................................... 46 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...................................................... 53 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................ 56 4.10 LAND USE ................................................................................................................. 63 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 65 4.12 NOISE ......................................................................................................................... 66 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................... 69 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................... 70 4.15 RECREATION ............................................................................................................ 72 4.16 TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................. 73 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................................... 77 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................................... 80 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 83 SECTION 6.0 AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS ............................................................................ 85 6.1 LEAD AGENCY .......................................................................................................... 85 969 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino ii May 2016 6.2 CONSULTANTS ......................................................................................................... 85 FIGURES Figure 2.0-1 Regional Map .............................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2.0-2 Aerial Map .................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3.0-1 Bicycle Network Recommendations ......................................................................... 17 Figure 3.0-2 Cupertino Loop Trail Alignment............................................................................... 18 Figure 3.0-3 Protected Bike Boulevard Network ........................................................................... 19 Figure 3.0-4 Protected Bike Lane Network ................................................................................... 20 970 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 3 May 2016 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study of environmental impacts has been prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of Cupertino. The City of Cupertino is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Initial Study to address the impacts of implementing the proposed Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. 1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD Publication of this Initial Study marks the beginning of a 20-day public review and comment period. During this period, the Initial Study will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Initial Study during the 20-day public review period should be sent to: David Stillman City of Cupertino Public Works Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3249 DavidS@cupertino.org 1.3 CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROJECT The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) analyzes the maximum environmental impacts of the proposed project. Following the adoption of the MND, the City may choose to implement a reduced Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. The impacts of this reduced-scope alternative would be less than the impacts analyzed in this MND and, therefore, would not require additional environmental review. Following the conclusion of the 20-day public review period, the City will consider the adoption of the MND for the project at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. The City shall consider the MND together with any comments received during the public review process. Upon adoption of the MND, the City may proceed with project approval actions. 971 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 4 May 2016 1.4 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION If the project is approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination (NOD) within five days of project approval, which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)). 972 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 5 May 2016 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 PROJECT TITLE Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The Bicycle Transportation Plan Update is an update to the existing Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted by the City of Cupertino as part of its General Plan. The Bicycle Transportation Plan proposes upgrading or adding bicycle facilities (Classes I-IV) to existing streets and trails throughout the City of Cupertino. Regional and aerial maps of the City are shown on Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-2. 2.3 LEAD AGENCY/PROPERTY OWNER/PROJECT APPLICANT CONTACT David Stillman City of Cupertino Public Works Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3249 davids@cupertino.org 2.4 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER Most of the length of the proposed bicycle network is on existing public right-of-ways which generally, do not have individual assessor parcel numbers. 2.5 ZONING DISTRICT AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Most of the length of the proposed bicycle network is on existing public right-of-ways, which generally do not have individual General Plan or zoning designations. The proposed bicycle facilities run through areas with various General Plan land use designations and zoning areas throughout the City. 973 VI C I N I T Y M A P FIGURE 2.0-1 17 28 0 28 0 88 0 680 85 85 35 35 85 23 7 9 9 9 82 82 101 10 1 San Jose Sa n t a C l a r a Lo s A l t o s Cu p e r t i n o Cu p e r t i n o Lo s G a t o s Sa r a t o g a Ca m p b e l l Ca m p b e l l Su n n y v a l e Su n n y v a l e Mo u n t a i n Vi e w Sa n F r a n c i s c o B a y Pa c i f i c O c e a n Mo n t e r e y B a y Sa n J o s é Fr e m o n t Oa k l a n d Sa n F r a n c i s c o Sa n t a C r u z Mo u n t a i n V i e w Mo r g a n H i l l Fr e m o n t Oa k l a n d Sa n F r a n c i s c o Sa n t a C r u z Mo u n t a i n V i e w Su n n y v a l e Mo r g a n H i l l Pr o j e c t S i t e Pr o j e c t S i t e Sa n J o s é Ca m p b e l l Ca m p b e l l Su n n y v a l e 97 4 97 5 A E R I A L P H O T O G R A P H FIGURE 2.0-2 Su n n y v a l e Cu p e r t i n o SaratogaSan JoseSanta Clara Ci t y o f C u p e r t i n o 0 1 0 0 0 30 0 0 60 0 0 F e e t 97 6 97 7 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 8 May 2016 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The City of Cupertino’s General Plan requires that its Bicycle Transportation Plan be updated every five years to reflect current roadway and bicycle lane conditions to seek funding opportunities for planned bikeway improvements. The proposed project is the update to the existing Bicycle Transportation Network Plan adopted by the City of Cupertino as part of the City’s General Plan, Community Vision 2015-2040. The Bicycle Transportation Plan, herein referred to as the “project”, is based on the recommendations and objectives of the City’s Bicycle Pedestrian Commission. 3.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed project is the updating of the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan, as shown on Figure 3.0-1, Bicycle Network Recommendations. The project identifies a series of bicycle facilities that would improve upon and add to the existing bicycle network in Cupertino to form the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation network. The proposed bikeways would be aligned on existing streets, right- of-ways, and along creeks within the City of Cupertino, as shown on Figure 3.0-4. When all components of the project are completed, the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation network would be approximately 48.40 miles in length and would include a variety of bicycle classes based on the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) criteria, as shown in Table 3.0-1 below. Table 3.0-1: Proposed Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Bikeway Class Definition Proposed Miles Class I Class I or Shared Use Path provides for bicycle and pedestrian travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from streets or highways 7.97 Class II Class II Bike Lanes provide a signed, striped and stenciled lane for one - way travel on both sides of a roadway. Buffered Class II bike lanes are those that are further enhanced by painted buffers that provide greater lateral separation from either travel lanes or parking lanes. 15.4 Class III Class III Bike Routes provide for shared travel lane use and are generally only identified with signs. Class III Bike Boulevards include traffic calming features, interventions to reduce total vehicle volumes, and enhanced wayfinding and signage. 14.7 Class IV Separated bikeways for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. Separation may include flexible/inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking. 10.33 Total 48.4 Sources: 1. City of Cupertino, City of Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update – Draft Plan. March 2016. 2. California Department of Transportation. Highway Design Manual. Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design. December 30, 2015. 978 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 9 May 2016 The project includes three overlapping components that residents can use according to their preference:  Cupertino Loop Trail  Protected Bike Lane Network  Bike Boulevard Network These networks are described in greater detail in the following section and shown on Figures 3.0-2 – 3.0-4. Access to the proposed bikeways would be from existing public streets and parks. All components of the Plan would be constructed in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Tables 3.0-2 and 3.0-3 list the proposed bikeway improvements and spot improvements for the project. Bikeway classes are shown, the vast majority of which are Class III on-street Bike Routes and Boulevards. Bike Routes have signs and/or sharrows1 with no changes to the streets. Bike Boulevards may include traffic calming components to make the streets more appealing to bicycles. Table 3.0-2: Proposed Bikeway Project Recommendations Location Start End Bikeway Class Facility Length (miles) Blaney Ave. Homestead Rd. Bollinger Rd. Class IV 1.91 Bollinger Rd. De Anza Blvd. Lawrence Expy. Class II 2.00 Bollinger Rd. De Foe Dr. Westlynn Way Class II 0.18 Bollinger Rd. to Stevens Creek Bike Route (Bike Route #1) 0.84 Stern Ave. Tilson Ave. Stevens Creek Blvd. Class III 0.43 Wunderlich Dr. Johnson Ave. Barnhart Ave. Class III 0.19 Johnson Dr. Bollinger Rd. Wunderlich Dr. Class III 0.22 Bubb Rd. Stevens Creek Blvd. McClellan Rd. Class II 0.53 Campus Dr./ Stevens Creek Blvd. Connector Campus Dr. Stevens Creek Blvd. Class II 0.11 Carmen Rd.* Stevens Creek Blvd.- south side Stevens Creek Blvd. - north side Bridge 0.02 Civic Center to Creekside Park Bike Route (Bike Route #2) 1.24 Torre Ave. Rodrigues Ave. Pacifica Dr. Class III 0.20 Pacifica Dr. Torre Ave. Farallone Ave. Class III 0.11 1 Sharrows are road markings used to indicate a shared lane environment for bicycles and automobiles. Source: National Association of City Transportation Officials. Shared Lane Markings Available at: http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bikeway-signing-marking/shared-lane-markings/. Accessed on April 11, 2016. 979 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 10 May 2016 Farallone Ave. Pacifica Dr. Suisun Dr. Class III 0.05 Suisun Dr. Blaney Ave. Farallone Ave. Class III 0.22 Clifford Dr. Blaney Ave. Estates Dr. Class III 0.30 Estates Dr. Clifford Dr. Creekside Path Class III 0.36 Civic Center to Jollyman Park Bike Blvd. (Bike Blvd #1) 0.86 Rodrigues Ave. De Anza Blvd. Terry Way Class III 0.09 Terry Way Rodrigues Ave. Shelly Dr. Class III 0.05 Shelly Dr. Terry Way Westacres Dr. Class III 0.20 Westacres Dr. Shelly Dr. McClellan Rd. Class III 0.19 Kim St. McClellan Rd. Kirwin Ln. Class III 0.14 De Foe Dr. Bollinger Rd. Jollyman Park Class III 0.18 Civic Center to Sterling Barnhart Park Bike Blvd (Bike Blvd #2) 1.41 Rodrigues Ave. Blaney Ave. Wilson Park Class III 0.13 Wintergreen Dr. Portal Ave. Cold Harbor Ave. Class III 0.09 Cold Harbor Ave. Wintergreen Dr. Vicksburg Dr. Class III 0.09 Vicksburg Dr. Cold Harbor Ave. Estates Dr. Class III 0.10 Estates Dr. Vicksburg Dr. Creekside Park Path Class III 0.03 Calle de Barcelona Miller Ave. Finch Ave. Class III 0.16 Tilson Ave. Finch Ave. Wunderlich Dr. Class III 0.54 Wunderlich Dr. Tilson Ave. Barnhart Ave. Class III 0.05 Barnhart Ave. Wunderlich Dr. Sterling Blvd. Class III 0.22 Cristo Rey Dr. 150 feet East of Cristo Rey Pl. Roundabout Class II 0.57 De Anza Blvd. Homestead Rd. Bollinger Rd. Class II 1.75 Deep Cliff Golf Course Trail* McClellan Rd. Linda Vista Dr. Class I 0.45 Finch Ave. Stevens Creek Blvd. Phil Ln. Class IV 0.45 Foothill Blvd Bike Route (Bike Route #3) 0.81 Palm Ave. Scenic Blvd. Foothill Blvd. Class III 0.25 Voss Ave. Foothill Blvd. Lockwood Dr. Class III 0.25 Lockwood Dr. Voss Ave. Stevens Creek Blvd. Class III 0.31 Foothill Blvd/Stevens Canyon Rd. I-280 Off-ramp Rancho Deepcliff Dr. Class II 1.74 Foothill to Stevens Creek Bike Blvd. (Bike Blvd #3) 0.99 Starling Dr. Foothill Blvd. Chace Dr. Class III 0.10 Chace Dr. Starling Dr. Hartman Dr. Class III 0.04 Hartman Dr. Chace Dr. Ainsworth Dr. Class III 0.16 Ainsworth Dr. Hartman Dr. Varian Way Class III 0.25 Varian Way Ainsworth Dr. Varian Park Class III 0.06 Amelia Ct. Varian Park Crescent Rd. Class III 0.08 Crescent Rd. Amelia Ct. Hillcrest Rd. Class III 0.10 Hillcrest Rd. Crescent Rd. Cupertino Rd. Class III 0.09 Cupertino Rd. Hillcrest Rd. Carmen Rd. Class III 0.06 980 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 11 May 2016 Carmen Rd. Cupertino Rd. Stevens Creek Blvd. Class III 0.04 Golden Gate Elementary to Memorial Park Bike Route (Bike Route #4) 0.42 Ann Arbor Ave. Greenleaf Dr. Lauretta Dr. Class III 0.20 Lauretta Dr. Ave Arbor Ave. Ann Arbor Ct. Class III 0.01 Ann Arbor Ct. Lauretta Dr. End of Street Class III 0.06 Memorial Park Christensen Dr. Alves Dr. Class III 0.16 Homestead Rd. Mary Ave. Bridge Tantau Ave. Class II 0.51 Hwy 85 to Stevens Creek Blvd. Bike Route (Bike Route #5) 0.19 Peninsula Ave. Stevens Creek Blvd. Grand Ave. Class III 0.09 Grand Ave. Peninsula Ave. Alhambra Ave. Class III 0.10 Hyde Ave. Bike Route (Bike Route #6) 0.24 Hyde Ave. Shadygrove Dr. Bollinger Rd. Class III 0.24 I-280 Channel Bike Path* Meteor Dr./Mary Ave. Vallco Pkwy. Class I 2.94 Jollyman Park* Stelling Rd. Dumas Dr. Class I 0.15 Lazaneo Dr. Bandley Dr. De Anza Blvd. Class II 0.09 Mary Ave. Meteor Dr. Stevens Creek Blvd. Class II 0.71 Mary Ave. to Portal Ave Bike Blvd (Bike Blvd #4) 1.51 Meteor Dr. Mary Ave. Castine Ave. Class III 0.23 Castine Ave. Meteor Dr. Greenleaf Dr. Class III 0.10 Greenleaf Dr. Castine Ave. Beardon Dr. Class III 0.53 Beardon Dr. Greenleaf Dr. Greenleaf Dr. Class III 0.03 Greenleaf Dr. Beardon Dr. End of street Class III 0.14 Merritt Dr. End of street Portal Ave. Class III 0.47 Mary Ave. to Vallco Mall Bike Route (Bike Route #7) 1.78 Memorial Park Mary Ave. Alves Dr. Class III 0.20 Alves Dr. Anton Way Bandley Dr. Class III 0.53 Bandley Dr. Alves Dr. Lazaneo Dr. Class III 0.10 Lazaneo Dr. De Anza Blvd. Randy Ln. Class III 0.32 Randy Ln. Lazaneo Dr. Chavoya Dr. Class III 0.05 Chavoya Dr. Randy Ln. Carol Lee Dr. Class III 0.05 Carol Lee Dr. Chavoya Dr. Wheaton Dr. Class III 0.09 Wheaton Dr. Carol Lee Dr. End of street Class III 0.43 McClellan Rd. Byrne Ave. De Anza Blvd Class IV 1.43 Miller Ave. Bollinger Rd. Stevens Creek Blvd. Class II 0.87 Oaks Development Bike Path* Stevens Creek Blvd. Mary Ave. Class I 0.13 Pacifica Dr. De Anza Blvd. Torre Ave. Class II 0.16 Perimeter Rd* I-280 Channel Trail Stevens Creek Blvd. Class I 0.59 Portal Ave. Bike Blvd (Bike Blvd #5) 0.69 Portal Ave. Merritt Dr. Wintergreen Dr. Class III 0.69 Prospect Rd. Stelling Rd. De Anza Blvd. Class II 0.42 Rainbow Dr. Upland Wy. Stelling Rd. Class II 0.50 Rainbow Dr. Stelling Rd. De Anza Blvd. Class II 0.57 Regnart Creek Trail* Pacficia Dr. Estates Dr. Class I 0.82 981 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 12 May 2016 Rose Blossom/Huntridge Bike Route (Bike Route #8) 0.41 Rose Blossom Dr. McClellan Rd. Huntridge Ln. Class III 0.32 Huntridge Ln. Rose Blossom Dr. Stelling Rd. Class III 0.09 San Tomas-Aquino Creek Trail* Stevens Creek Blvd. Sterling Barnhart Park Class I 0.50 SR-85 Crossing* Grand Ave. Mary Ave. Bridge 0.13 Stelling Rd. Homestead Rd. Prospect Rd. Class IV 3.02 Stevens Creek Blvd. Foothill Blvd. Tantau Ave. Class IV 3.43 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino City Limit Foothill Blvd. Class IV 0.62 Stevens Creek Bike Blvd. (Bike Blvd #6) 1.12 San Fernando Ave. Orange Ave. Stevens Creek Trail Class III 0.30 Scenic Cir. Scenic Circle Path Scenic Blvd. Class III 0.19 Scenic Blvd. Scenic Cir. Carmen Rd. Class III 0.26 Carmen Rd. Scenic Blvd. Stevens Creek Blvd. Class III 0.17 Janice Ave. Carmen Rd. Stevens Creek Blvd. Class III 0.25 Tantau Ave. Homestead Rd. Stevens Creek Blvd. Class II 1.00 Tantau Ave. Bike Route (Bike Route #9) 0.41 Tantau Ave. Bollinger Rd. Barnhart Ave. Class III 0.41 Tri-School East/West Bike Blvd (Bike Blvd #7) 0.66 Linda Vista Dr. McClellan Rd. Hyannisport Dr. Class III 0.19 Hyannisport Dr. Linda Vista Dr. Bubb Rd. Class III 0.47 Tri-School North/South Bike Blvd (Bike Blvd #8) 0.76 Santa Teresa Dr. Hyannisport Dr. Terrace Dr. Class III 0.55 Terrace Dr. Santa Teresa Dr. Bubb Rd. Class III 0.32 Union Pacific to Hwy 85 Bike Route (Bike Route #10) 1.48 September Dr. McClellan Rd. Festival Dr. Class III 0.28 Festival Dr. September Dr. Orogrande Pl. Class III 0.34 Orogrande Pl. Festival Dr. Stelling Rd. Class III 0.03 Squirewood Way Stelling Rd. Scotland Dr. Class III 0.13 Scotland Dr. Squirewood Way Kingsbury Pl. Class III 0.22 Kingsbury Pl. Scotland Dr. Gardenside Ln. Class III 0.06 Gardenside Ln. Kingsbury Pl. Rainbow Dr. Class III 0.18 Poppy Way Rainbow Dr. Plum Blossom Dr. Class III 0.21 Plum Blossom Dr. Poppy Way Jamestown Dr. Class III 0.04 Jamestown Dr. Plum Blossom Dr. Prospect Rd. Class III 0.25 Union Pacific Trail* Stevens Creek Blvd. Prospect Rd. Class I 2.10 Vallco Pkwy. Perimeter Rd. Tantau Ave. Class II 0.30 Varian Park Path* Amelia Ct. Varian Way Class I 0.05 Vista Dr. Forest Ave. Stevens Creek Blvd. Class II 0.24 West Cupertino North/South Bike Blvd. (Bike Blvd #9) 0.63 Orange Ave. Mann Dr. McClellan Rd. Class III 0.55 Fort Baker Dr. Presidio Dr. Hyannisport Dr. Class III 0.08 Westlynn/Fallenleaf Bike Route (Bike Route #11) 0.37 982 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 13 May 2016 Westlynn Way Bollinger Rd. Fallenleaf Ln. Class III 0.28 Fallenleaf Ln. Westlynn Way De Anza Blvd. Class III 0.09 Wilson Park* Rodrigues Ave. Wilson Park Path Class I 0.03 Wolfe Rd. Homestead Rd. Stevens Creek Blvd. Class II 1.00 Note: Proposed improvements with an * may require further environmental review. 3.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS 3.3.1 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Network 3.3.1.1 Cupertino Loop Trail The proposed Cupertino Loop Trail would implement Class I trails along Regnart Creek, along the I- 280 flood control canal, and along the UPRR right-of-way (see Figure 3.0-2). These trail segments would be connected to each other by a series of low-stress on-street bikeways recommended in the Plan. The network design and improvements are intended primarily to support recreational riders and long-range bicycle trips. The Class I facilities are discussed in this Initial Study for the purposes of understanding the entirety of the proposed project; however, most of the proposed Class I facilities will require additional environmental review prior to project construction. 3.3.1.2 Protected Bike Lane Network The proposed Protected Bike Lane Network would convert bike lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Stelling Road, McClellan Road, Blaney Avenue, and Finch Avenue to a network of protected Class II and Class IV bike lanes (see Figure 3.0-3). This network will provide a connected east/west and north/south spine of direct bike routes for residents wanting to quickly reach key destinations throughout Cupertino. The protected bike lane network would be designed to connect major streets to local K-12 schools throughout the City and to provide better access to De Anza College students, commuters, and residents making local shopping trips. 3.3.1.3 Bike Boulevard Network The proposed Bike Boulevard Network would construct Class III bike routes and bike boulevards to provide neighborhood-friendly alternatives parallel to bike network options on major City streets (see Figure 3.0-4). The Bike Boulevard Network would be designed to support families and young students wanting to reach schools, parks, and community amenities on quiet streets with low traffic volumes. 3.3.1.4 Spot Improvements/Other Agency Coordination/Studies A series of spot improvements are proposed in locations throughout the City to address specific biking challenges as shown in Table 3.0-3 below. The proposed bikeways that could affect state roadway facilities such as I-280 and SR-85, would require coordination with Caltrans during project design. Some of the recommended improvements to the bicycle network include studying a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Stevens Creek Boulevard, adding green paint to freeway on-ramp and 983 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 14 May 2016 off-ramp crossings through coordination with Caltrans, and the reconfiguration of intersections to allow for bike travel. Coordination with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) may be required for bikeways along creeks. Table 3.0-3 below lists the recommended spot improvements for the project. Table 3.0-3: Recommended Spot Improvements Location Cross Street Project Category Greenleaf Dr. Mariani Ave. Reconfigure wall/fence Portal Ave. Wheaton Dr. Configure Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd. Stelling Rd. Configure Intersection Bubb Rd. Union Pacific Railroad Path Trail Crossing McClellan Rd. Union Pacific Railroad Path Trail Crossing Wheaton Dr. Perimeter Rd. Reconfigure wall/fence Wolfe Rd. Stevens Creek Blvd. Configure Intersection Stelling Rd. Rainbow Dr. Configure Intersection McClellan Rd. Westacres Dr./Kim St Configure Intersection Blaney Ave. Wheaton Dr. Configure Intersection Wolfe Rd. I-280 Overpass Freeway interchange enhancement De Anza Blvd. I-280 Overpass Freeway interchange enhancement De Anza Blvd. Hwy 85 Overpass Freeway interchange enhancement Stevens Creek Blvd. Hwy 85 Overpass Freeway interchange enhancement McClellan Rd. Stelling Rd. Configure Intersection McClellan Rd. Rose Blossom Dr. Configure Intersection Imperial Ave. Alcazar Ave. Reconfigure wall/fence Stelling Rd. Alves Dr. Configure Intersection Mary Ave Ped Bridge I-280 Bike/Ped Bridge Enhancement De Anza Blvd. McClellan Rd. Configure Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd. De Anza Blvd. Configure Intersection Infinite Loop Merritt Dr. Configure Intersection Homestead Rd. Mary Ave. Trail Crossing In addition, implementation of a rail-with-trail facility within UPRR right-of-way would require coordination with and the acquisition of easements from the railroad. Spot improvements intended to address bicycling mobility that require parking lane removal, parking removal, or road diets to accommodate the recommended treatment may require specific studies to determine whether impacts different or greater than identified in this Initial Study could occur. If there is a potential for such impacts, further environmental review may be required. 3.3.1.5 Infrastructure Recommendations The following recommendations could be incorporated into the project as facilities are constructed. Bicycle Wayfinding Program: The proposed Bicycle Wayfinding Program would install a series of informational signs conveying routes and distances to key community destinations by bicycle such as schools, parking, regional trails, landmarks, and civic buildings. The wayfinding program would expand upon existing signage to create a more comprehensive informational network for bicyclists. 984 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 15 May 2016 Bicycle Detection: The project proposes the implementation of passive detection mechanisms at all signalized intersections to provide safer bicycle crossing at intersections throughout the City. Bicycle Parking: The project proposes updating the bicycle parking ordinance requiring bike parking choices at all new major development including parks, schools, public facilities, commercial/retail and industrial developments, shopping centers, and transit stations. 3.3 STORMWATER OUTFALLS AND STORM DRAINAGE The majority of proposed bikeways would be located on existing streets and public right-of-ways that direct stormwater into existing storm drains. In areas where new bikeway reaches would be constructed on unpaved surfaces, the bikeways would be constructed with porous paving and be sloped towards bio-treatment areas. Stormwater treatment measures to be implemented would be consistent with the Santa Clara Valley Stormwater Municipal Permit’s C.3 provisions and handbook and the City’s Climate Action Plan. These would include:  Installing self-treating and self-retaining areas in bio-treatment areas such as bioretention and rain garden landscaped areas; and  Reducing impervious surfaces by utilizing permeable/pervious/porous pavements. The project would implement pre- and post-construction-related measures to conform to the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18. A discussion of the best management practices to be implemented can be found in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. 3.4 RIPARIAN MITIGATION The Bicycle Transportation network would be constructed to minimize impacts to biologically sensitive areas including riparian corridors. For the Class I facilities proposed along Stevens Creek, Regnart Creek, Saratoga Creek, and San Tomas-Aquino Creek the IS discusses potential impacts to biologically sensitive areas and identifies mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, as appropriate. Pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors will be required in biologically-sensitive habitats suitable for these species where Class I facilities are proposed as discussed further in Section 4.4.2.1. These pre-construction surveys will be conducted to determine the presence of such species on or near the project area and will be used to identify mitigation measures, as appropriate. 3.5 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The project would be implemented within the timeframe of the City’s General Plan, Community Vision 2015-2040 and as funding becomes available. Individual private development projects in proximity to planned network improvements/extensions may be conditioned to contribute towards construction. 3.6 CONSISTENCY WITH ZONING, PLANS, AND OTHER APPLICABLE LAND USE CONTROLS 3.6.1 Land Use & Zoning Designation The project network is consistent with the land use designations in the City of Cupertino’s General Plan and is consistent with zoning throughout its segments in the City. 985 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 16 May 2016 3.6.2 Property and Easement Acquisitions The project would be implemented on existing streets and along unpaved public right-of-ways to the extent practical. Any proposed improvements that would result in the taking of private property and/or easements could be required to undergo further environmental review prior to project construction. 3.7 PURPOSE AND NEED The proposed project is an update to the Bicycle Transportation Plan contained in the City’s General Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to evaluate the existing bicycle network in the City in terms of safety, quality (how much stress a bicyclist experiences traveling on the existing bicycle network), and community-identified needs. Updating the Bicycle Plan also enables the City to apply for grants and other funding opportunities as they arise. The following themes were identified during community involvement exercises and preparation of the Plan: 1) Plan a Low Stress Bicycle Network; 2) Construct a Trail along the Union Pacific Right-of-Way; 3) Improve Intersections; 4) Provide Bicycle Parking; 5) Expand the Safe Routes to Schools Program; and 6) Provide Education for Bicyclists and Drivers. Infrastructure recommendations were also identified to support and promote bicycling in Cupertino. These recommendations include a Bicycle Wayfinding Program, Bicycle Detection at Intersections, and Bicycle Parking, including types and locations, as previously described in Section 3.3.1.5. This Initial Study is intended to provide programmatic CEQA environmental clearance for the Bicycle Plan as a whole. Projects were divided into Class I, Class II, Class III, and Class IV facilities. Project-level clearance (further environmental review is not required), is provided for all of the Class III projects identified in Table 3.0-1. It is also intended that all Class II projects can be constructed without further environmental review, provided additional studies related to e.g., parking, reconstructed medians, buffered bike lanes, and intersection re-striping are prepared and it is determined that these components would not result in additional or greater environmental effects than described in this Initial Study. Class I and Class IV projects may require further environmental review depending on locations and environmental conditions. 986 987 B I C Y C L E N E T W O R K R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S FIGURE 3.1-1 CU P E R T I N O SA R A T O G A LO S AL T O S SANTA CLARA SU N N Y V A L E SA N J O S E Reg n a r t C r e e k Heney C reek Calab a z a s C r e e kSaratogaCreek Pro s p ect Creek St e v en s Cree k Per m an ente Cr eek Mo n t a V i s t a Re c r e a t i o n Ce n t e r / P a r k So m e r s e t Sq u a r e Pa r k Va r i a n Pa r k Li n d a Vi s t a P a r k Jo l l y m a n Pa r k Th r e e Oa k s P a r k Ho o v e r Pa r k Portal Park Wilson Park Creekside Park Ca l i Mi l l Pl a z a Sterling Barnhart Park Me m o r i a l Pa r k Fr a n c o Pa r k Li t t l e Ra n c h o Pa r k Ca n y o n Oa k P a r k Mc C l e l l a n Ra n c h Pr e s e r v e Ma r y A v e Do g P a r k St o c k l m e i r Ra n c h Bl a c k b e r r y Fa r m P a r k Main Street Park 28 0 280 85 85 Vallco Mall Th e Oa k s HOMESTEAD RD STEVENS CREEK BLVDN WOLFE RD N DE ANZA BLVD S DE ANZA BLVD MARY A V E MARIA N I AVE PA L M A V E ORANGE AVE ME R R ITTDR WESTACRES DR ALVES DR WHEATON DR VO S S A V E S E P T E M B E R DR PRICE AVE TILSONAVE S C O T L A N D D R ROSE BLO S SO M D R SYCA M O R E D R TE R R A C E D R MIL FO R D D R CLIFFORD DR SH E LL Y D R BARNHART AVE GR E E N L E A F D R WHITNEY WAY MURIEL LN TWIG LN HALE PL H I L L C REST RD F E S T I V A LD R VALL E Y GR E E N DR DE F OE D R VALLCOPK W Y F A L LENLEAF LN HA R T M A N D R M O N T E B ELL O R D STEVEN S C R E E K B L V D EESTATESDR ANN ARBOR AVE STERLINGBLVD JOHNSONAVE SC E N I C BLVD WUNDERLICH DR TORR E A VE C R I S TORE Y D R N PORTAL AVE RODRIGU E S A V E S CENIC CIR SANTATERESADR JAMESTOWNDR BOLLINGERRD KIM ST INFINIT E LOO P BANDLEY DR FORT BAKER DR STERNAVE MILLER AVENTANTAUAVEPRNERIDGEAVE PR O S P E C T R D S STELLING RD N BLANEY AVE FOOTHILL BLVD MC C L E L L A N R D S TANTAU AVE RAIN BOW DR S T E V ENS C ANYONRD S BLANEY AVE BUBB RD LOCKWOOD DR LAZ A N E O DR U ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! PPEEEEEEEEEEEEEECCCCCC APPLE, INC.PUBLIC PARKCOMMERCIALCIVICK-12 SCHOOL!SPOT IMPROVEMENT CLASS IV SEPARATED BIKEWAYCLASS III BIKE ROUTECLASS III BIKE BOULEVARDCLASS II BIKE LANECLASS II BUFFERED BIKE LANECLASS I BIKE PATH Ex i s t i n g | Proposed Bicycle FacilitiesRECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 98 8 98 9 C U P E R T I N O L O O P T R A I L A L I G N M E N T FIGURE 3.1-2 CU P E R T I N O LO S AL T O S SANTA CLARA SU N N Y V A L E SA N J O S E Reg n a r t C r e e k Heney C reek Calab a z a s C r e e kSaratogaCreek Pro s p ect Creek St e v en s Cree k Per m an ente Cr eek Mo n t a V i s t a Re c r e a t i o n Ce n t e r / P a r k So m e r s e t Sq u a r e Pa r k Va r i a n Pa r k Li n d a Vi s t a P a r k Jo l l y m a n Pa r k Th r e e Oa k s P a r k Ho o v e r Pa r k Portal Park Wilson Park Creekside Park Ca l i Mi l l Pl a z a Sterling Barnhart Park Me m o r i a l Pa r k Fr a n c o Pa r k Li t t l e Ra n c h o Pa r k Ca n y o n Oa k P a r k Mc C l e l l a n Ra n c h Pr e s e r v e Ma r y A v e Do g P a r k St o c k l m e i r Ra n c h Bl a c k b e r r y Fa r m P a r k Main Street Park 28 0 280 85 85 Vallco Mall Th e Oa k s HOMESTEAD RD STEVENS CREEK BLVDN WOLFE RD N DE ANZA BLVD S DE ANZA BLVD MARY A V E MARIA N I AVE PA L M A V E ORANGE AVE ME R R ITTDR WESTACRES DR ALVES DR WHEATON DR VO S S A V E S E P T E M B E R DR PRICE AVE TILSONAVE S C O T L A N D D R ROSE BLO S SO M D R SYCA M O R E D R TE R R A C E D R MIL FO R D D R CLIFFORD DR SH E LL Y D R BARNHART AVE GR E E N L E A F D R WHITNEY WAY MURIEL LN TWIG LN HALE PL H I L L C REST RD F E S T I V A LD R VALL E Y GR E E N DR DE F OE D R VALLCOPK W Y F A L LENLEAF LN HA R T M A N D R M O N T E B ELL O R D STEVEN S C R E E K B L V D EESTATESDR ANN ARBOR AVE STERLINGBLVD JOHNSONAVE SC E N I C BLVD WUNDERLICH DR TORR E A VE C R I S TORE Y D R N PORTAL AVE RODRIGU E S A V E S CENIC CIR SANTATERESADR JAMESTOWNDR BOLLINGERRD KIM ST INFINIT E LOO P BANDLEY DR FORT BAKER DR STERNAVE MILLER AVENTANTAUAVEPRNERIDGEAVE PE C T R D S STELLING RD N BLANEY AVE FOOTHILL BLVD MC C L E L L A N R D S TANTAU AVE RAIN BOW DR S T E V ENS C ANYONRD S BLANEY AVE BUBB RD LOCKWOOD DR LAZ A N E O DR U APPLE, INC.PUBLIC PARK COMMERCIALCIVICK-12 SCHOOL REQUIRES FURTHER STUDYREQUIRES FCUPERTINO LOOP TRAILON-STREET CONNECTORCLASS I BIKE PATH Ex i s t i n g | P r o p o s e d CUPERTINO LOOP TRAIL 99 0 99 1 P R O T E C T E D B I K E B O U L E V A R D N E T W O R K FIGURE 3.1-3 CU P E R T I N O LO S AL T O S SANTA CLARA SU N N Y V A L E SA N J O S E Reg n a r t C r e e k Heney C reek Calab a z a s C r e e kSaratogaCreek Pro s p ect Creek St e v en s Cree k Per m an ente Cr eek Mo n t a V i s t a Re c r e a t i o n Ce n t e r / P a r k So m e r s e t Sq u a r e Pa r k Va r i a n Pa r k Li n d a Vi s t a P a r k Jo l l y m a n Pa r k Th r e e Oa k s P a r k Ho o v e r Pa r k Portal Park Wilson Park Creekside Park Ca l i Mi l l Pl a z a Sterling Barnhart Park Me m o r i a l Pa r k Fr a n c o Pa r k Li t t l e Ra n c h o Pa r k Ca n y o n Oa k P a r k Mc C l e l l a n Ra n c h Pr e s e r v e Ma r y A v e Do g P a r k St o c k l m e i r Ra n c h Bl a c k b e r r y Fa r m P a r k Main Street Park 28 0 280 85 85 Vallco Mall Th e Oa k s HOMESTEAD RD STEVENS CREEK BLVDN WOLFE RD N DE ANZA BLVD S DE ANZA BLVD MARY A V E MARIA N I AVE PA L M A V E ORANGE AVE ME R R ITTDR WESTACRES DR ALVES DR WHEATON DR VO S S A V E S E P T E M B E R DR PRICE AVE TILSONAVE S C O T L A N D D R ROSE BLO S SO M D R SYCA M O R E D R TE R R A C E D R MIL FO R D D R CLIFFORD DR SH E LL Y D R BARNHART AVE GR E E N L E A F D R WHITNEY WAY MURIEL LN TWIG LN HALE PL H I L L C REST RD F E S T I V A LD R VALL E Y GR E E N DR DE F OE D R VALLCOPK W Y F A L LENLEAF LN HA R T M A N D R M O N T E B ELL O R D STEVEN S C R E E K B L V D EESTATESDR ANN ARBOR AVE STERLINGBLVD JOHNSONAVE SC E N I C BLVD WUNDERLICH DR TORR E A VE C R I S TORE Y D R N PORTAL AVE RODRIGU E S A V E S CENIC CIR SANTATERESADR JAMESTOWNDR BOLLINGERRD KIM ST INFINIT E LOO P BANDLEY DR FORT BAKER DR STERNAVE MILLER AVENTANTAUAVEPRNERIDGEAVE PE C T R D S STELLING RD N BLANEY AVE FOOTHILL BLVD MC C L E L L A N R D S TANTAU AVE RAIN BOW DR S T E V ENS C ANYONRD S BLANEY AVE BUBB RD LOCKWOOD DR LAZ A N E O DR U APPLE, INC.PUBLIC PARK COMMERCIALCIVICK-12 SCHOOLCLASS III BIKE BOULEVARDCLASS III BIKE ROUTE CLASS III BICLASS III BI BIKE BOULEVARD NETWORK BIKEWAY CONNECTOR Ex i s t i n g | P r o p o s e d BIKE BOULEVARD NETWORK 99 2 99 3 P R O T E C T E D B I K E L A N E N E T W O R K FIGURE 3.1-4U CU P E R T I N O LO S AL T O S SANTA CLARA SU N N Y V A L E SA N J O S E Reg n a r t C r e e k Heney C reek Calab a z a s C r e e kSaratogaCreek Pro s p ect Creek St e v en s Cree k Per m an ente Cr eek Mo n t a V i s t a Re c r e a t i o n Ce n t e r / P a r k So m e r s e t Sq u a r e Pa r k Va r i a n Pa r k Li n d a Vi s t a P a r k Jo l l y m a n Pa r k Th r e e Oa k s P a r k Ho o v e r Pa r k Portal Park Wilson Park Creekside Park Ca l i Mi l l Pl a z a Sterling Barnhart Park Me m o r i a l Pa r k Fr a n c o Pa r k Li t t l e Ra n c h o Pa r k Ca n y o n Oa k P a r k Mc C l e l l a n Ra n c h Pr e s e r v e Ma r y A v e Do g P a r k St o c k l m e i r Ra n c h Bl a c k b e r r y Fa r m P a r k Main Street Park 28 0 280 85 85 Vallco Mall Th e Oa k s HOMESTEAD RD ST E V E N S C R E E K B L V D N WOLFE RD N DE ANZA BLVD S DE ANZA BLVD MARY A V E MARIA N I AVE PA L M A V E ORANGE AVE ME R R ITTDR WESTACRES DR ALVES DR WHEATON DR NEW BRUNSWICK AVE VO S S A V E S E P T E M B E R DR PRICE AVE TILSONAVE S C O T L A N D D R ROSE BLO S SO M D R SYCA M O R E D R TE R R A C E D R MIL FO R D D R CLIFFORD DR SH E LL Y D R BARNHART AVE GR E E N L E A F D R WHITNEY WAY MURIEL LN TWIG LN HALE PL H I L L C REST RD F E S T I V A LD R VALL E Y GR E E N DR DE F OE D R VALLCOPK W Y F A L LENLEAF LN HA R T M A N D R M O N T E B ELL O R D STEVEN S C R E E K B L V D EESTATESDR ANN ARBOR AVE STERLINGBLVD JOHNSONAVE SC E N I C BLVD WUNDERLICH DR TORR E A VE C R I S TORE Y D R N PORTAL AVE RODRIGU E S A V E S CENIC CIR SANTATERESADR JAMESTOWNDR BOLLINGERRD KIM ST INFINIT E LOO P BANDLEY DR FORT BAKER DR STERNAVE MILLER AVENTANTAUAVEPRNERIDGEAVE PE C T R D S STELLING RD N BLANEY AVE FOOTHILL BLVD MC C L E L L A N R D S TANTAU AVE RAIN BOW DR S T E V ENS C ANYONRD S BLANEY AVE BUBB RD LOCKWOOD DR LAZ A N E O DR APPLE, INC.PUBLIC PARK COMMERCIALCIVICK-12 SCHOOLCLASS II BUFFERED BIKE LANE CLASS IV SEPARATED BIKE LANECLASS II BU CLASS IV SE SEPARATED BIKE LANE NETWORK Ex i s t i n g | P r o p o s e d SEPARATED BIKE LANE NETWORK 99 4 99 5 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 21 May 2016 SECTION 4.0 SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, AND IMPACTS This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project area, as well as environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as recommended in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, identifies environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of this section. Mitigation measures are identified for all significant project impacts. Mitigation Measures are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guideline 15370). Standard measures that are included in the project to further reduce or avoid already less than significant impacts are categorized as “Standard Permit Conditions.” Important Note to the Reader: The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion [California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (No. S 213478)] confirmed that CEQA, with several specific exceptions, is concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment, not the effects the existing environment may have on a project. Therefore, the evaluation of the significance of project impacts under CEQA in the following sections focuses on impacts of the project on the environment, including whether a project may exacerbate existing environmental hazards. The City of Cupertino currently has policies that address existing conditions (e.g., noise) affecting a proposed project, which are also addressed in this Initial Study. This is consistent with one of the primary objectives of CEQA and this document, which is to provide objective information to decision-makers and the public regarding a project as a whole. The CEQA Guidelines and the courts are clear that a CEQA document (e.g., EIR or Initial Study) can include information of interest even if such information is not an “environmental impact” as defined by CEQA. Therefore, where applicable, in addition to describing the impacts of the project on the environment, this chapter will discuss “planning considerations” that relate to City policies pertaining to existing conditions. Such examples include, but are not limited to, locating a project near sources of air emissions that can pose a health risk, in a floodplain, in a geologic hazard zone, in a high noise environment, or on/adjacent to sites involving hazardous substances. 996 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 22 May 2016 4.1 AESTHETICS 4.1.1 Setting 4.1.1.1 Visual Character The City of Cupertino is an urbanized area developed primarily with a mix of uses, including single- and multi-family residential, office, public/quasi-public (schools and parks), and commercial. The majority of the planned bicycle facilities would be constructed on existing city streets; however, bikeways in parks, and along existing highways, creeks, and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks are also planned. The parks are typically grass-covered with trees, trails, pathways, and picnic areas. The creeks are both concrete-lined and in their natural condition. The Union Pacific Railroad, Interstate 280, and Highway 85 (SR-85) right-of-ways are highly disturbed. There are a number of mature and young trees located throughout the City. Representative photos of some of the bikeway locations and facilities are provided in Photos 1-3 on the following pages. Photo 4 shows an example of an existing Class II bikeway in Cupertino to illustrate the extent of such projects. 4.1.1.2 Scenic Views The Montebello foothills at the south and west boundaries of the valley floor provide a scenic backdrop to the City of Cupertino. The central portion of the City is flat for the most part and views of the foothills from the proposed bikeways are obscured by existing buildings and/or trees. Neither Highway 85 nor Interstate 280 in Cupertino are designated scenic highways. 997 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 23 May 2016 Photos 1 and 2 Photo 1: View of Stevens Creek Blvd. looking west through the intersection with De Anza Blvd. A Class IV Protected Bikeway is proposed along this alignment. Photo 2: Proposed location for a spot improvement (intersection reconfiguration) at De Anza Blvd./McClellan Rd. intersection looking south. 998 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 24 May 2016 Photos 3 and 4 Photo 3: Proposed Class IV Protected Bikeway on McClellan Rd. from Byrne Ave. to De Anza Blvd. looking east. Photo 4: Class II Bikeway along McClellan Rd. at McClellan/Bubb Rd. intersection looking east. 999 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 25 May 2016 4.1.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1,2 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 Aesthetic values are, by nature, very subjective. Opinions as to what constitutes a degradation of visual character will differ among individuals. The proposed bike facilities, the majority of which would be painted on streets, would be visible from adjacent land uses. The following discussion addresses the proposed changes to the visual setting of the project area and factors that are part of the community’s assessment of the aesthetic values of a project’s design. 4.1.2.1 Impacts to Scenic Views or Scenic Resources The proposed bikeways would be located in a highly developed area on the floor of the Santa Clara Valley. Scenic resources, including state scenic highways would not be affected. For these reasons, the proposed project would not have a direct adverse effect on a scenic vista or damage scenic resources. (No Impact) Scenic views from the immediate project vicinity are limited. The Montebello foothills to the south of the City are largely obscured by existing development and trees. Any proposal that includes an elevated bicycle/pedestrian bridge would require additional review of potential visual impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially block scenic views and is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.1.2.2 Changes in Visual Character The project proposes to implement the Bicycle Transportation Plan within the City. Most of the improvements would be completed on-street within existing right-of-ways. A minimal number of trees would be removed to construct the bikeways and replacement trees would be planted in most locations per City Municipal Code to reduce potential visual impacts and preserve the existing character of the project locations. 1000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 26 May 2016 For these reasons and those stated above, implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan would have a less than significant impact on the visual character of areas adjacent to the proposed alignments. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.1.2.3 Light and Glare Impacts The proposed bikeways would be located along lighted streets and are not expected to include a substantial amount of new lighting. Facilities along creeks that include lighting would be designed to minimize impacts by orienting lighting away from creek environs. Similarly, improvements that include elevated bikeways over state highway facilities would be designed according to Caltrans design criteria pertaining to lighting. Further study of these locations would be required prior to construction of any creek bikeways or improvements that could affect state highway facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.1.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant visual or aesthetic impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1001 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 27 May 2016 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 4.2.1 Setting 4.2.1.1 Agricultural Resources The Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012 map designates most of the City of Cupertino as Urban and Built-Up Land. Urban and Built-Up Land is defined as residential land with a density of at least six units per 10-acre parcel, as well as land used for industrial and commercial purposes, golf courses, landfills, airports, sewage treatment, and water control structures. The project alignments are not zoned or used for agricultural purposes, nor are they the subject of Williamson Act contracts.2 The alignments and spot treatment locations are within an urban area of Cupertino. 4.2.1.2 Forest Resources The proposed alignments are not classified as forest land or timberland. There is no forest land or timberland located in the City of Cupertino. 4.2.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 4 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 2,4 3. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? 2 4. Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 2 2 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014. 2013. 1002 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 28 May 2016 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 5. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1,2 4.2.2.1 Agricultural Resources Impact The project improvements, most of which are on existing City streets, are not designated, zoned, or used as farmland or for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use, or otherwise result in impacts to agricultural resources. (No Impact) 4.2.2.2 Forest Resources Impact There are no forest resources in the City of Cupertino. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact forest resources. (No Impact) 4.2.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to agriculture or forestry resources. (No Impact) 1003 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 29 May 2016 4.3 AIR QUALITY The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion (BIA v. BAAQMD) confirmed CEQA is concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment, not the effects the existing environment may have on a project; nevertheless, the City has policies that address existing conditions (e.g. air quality) affecting a proposed project, which are described in Section 4.3.2.2, below. 4.3.1 Setting Clean air is a natural resource of vital importance. Pollutants in the air can cause health problems, especially for children, the elderly, and people with heart or lung problems. Healthy adults may experience symptoms during periods of intense exercise. Pollutants can also cause damage to vegetation, animals, and property. 4.3.1.1 Climate and Topography The City of Cupertino is located in the Santa Clara Valley within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The City is located in proximity to both the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay, which has a moderating influence on the climate. This portion of the Santa Clara Valley is bounded to the north by the San Francisco Bay and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest. The surrounding terrain greatly influences winds in the valley, resulting in a prevailing wind that follows along the northwest-southeast axis of the valley. 4.3.1.2 Regional and Local Criteria Pollutants Major criteria pollutants listed in “criteria” documents by the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM). These pollutants can have health effects such as respiratory impairment and heart/lung disease symptoms. The Bay Area is currently designated as an “attainment area,” meaning the area meets the relevant standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The region is classified as a “nonattainment area” for both the federal and state ozone standards, although a request for reclassification to “attainment” of the federal standard is currently being considered by the USEPA. The area does not meet the state standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). 4.3.1.3 Local Community Risks/Toxic Air Contaminants and Fine Particulate Matter Besides criteria air pollutants, there is another group of substances found in ambient air referred to as Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). These contaminants tend to be localized and are found in relatively low concentrations in ambient air; however, exposure to low concentrations over long periods can result in adverse chronic health effects. Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) is a complex mixture of substances that includes elements such as carbon and metals; compounds such as nitrates, organics, and sulfates; and complex mixtures such as diesel exhaust and wood smoke. Long-term and short-term exposure to PM2.5 can cause a wide range of health effects. 1004 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 30 May 2016 Common stationary source types of TACs and PM2.5 include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and diesel backup generators which are subject to permit requirements. The other, often more significant, common source is motor vehicles on freeways and roads. 4.3.1.4 Regulatory Framework Clean Air Plan The City of Cupertino is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality standards are set by the federal government (the 1970 Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments) and the state (California Clean Air Act of 1988 and its subsequent amendments). Regional air quality management districts such as BAAQMD must prepare air quality plans specifying how state standards would be met. The most recent Clean Air Plan is the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP) that was adopted by BAAQMD in September 2010. This plan includes a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources. The 2010 CAP provides an updated comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health, taking into account future growth projects to 2035. Some of these measures or programs rely on local governments for implementation. The 2010 CAP also includes measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4.3.1.5 Sensitive Receptors BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (e.g., children, the elderly, and the acutely and chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, school playgrounds, child-care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. Project alignments would abut sensitive land uses including residential areas and schools including Monta Vista High School, Cupertino High School, Hyde Middle School, John F. Kennedy Middle School, Lawson Middle School, William Faria Elementary School, Eaton Elementary School, and Sedgwick Elementary School (refer to Figure 3.1-1: Bikeway Map). 4.3.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1, 6 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1,2 1005 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 31 May 2016 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? 1 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1 4.3.2.1 Project-Level Significance Thresholds The thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants are a net increase of 54 pounds or more per day of reactive organic gas (ROG), nitrous oxide (NOX), and/or PM2.5; or 82 pounds or more a day of PM10. These thresholds are based on thresholds identified by BAAQMD in 2011.3 The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that projects be evaluated for community risk when they are located within 1,000 feet of freeways, high traffic volume roadways (10,000 average annual daily trips or more), and/or stationary permitted sources of TACs. The thresholds for TACs are an increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in one million, increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or a PM2.5 increase of 0.3 µg/m3. 4.3.2.2 Clean Air Plan Consistency Determining consistency with the 2010 CAP involves assessing whether applicable control measures contained in the 2010 CAP are implemented. Implementation of control measures improve air quality and protect public health. These control measures are organized into five categories: Stationary Source Measures, Mobile Source Measures, Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), Land Use and Local Impact Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures. Applicable control measures and the project’s consistency with them are summarized in Table 4.3-1, below. 3 As previously discussed in Section 4.0, on December 17, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in “CBIA vs. BAAQMD” holding that CEQA is primarily concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment and generally does not require agencies to analyze the impact of existing conditions on a project’s future users or residents unless the project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or risks that already exist. Nevertheless, the City has policies and regulations that address existing conditions affecting a proposed project, which are included in Section 4.3.2.2. The City has carefully considered the thresholds prepared by BAAQMD and the recent court ruling, and regards the thresholds to be based on the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and conservative in terms of the assessment of health effects associated with TACs and PM 2.5. Therefore, the analysis in this Initial Study is based upon the methodologies and thresholds in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. 1006 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 32 May 2016 The project supports the primary goals of the CAP in that it does not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds for operational air pollutant emissions and would reduce vehicle trips in the City. The project would not hinder the implementation of the CAP control measures and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 CAP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the CAP. (Less Than Significant Impact) Table 4.3-1: Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures Control Measures Description Project Consistency Transportation Control Measures Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities Expand bicycle facilities serving transit hubs, employment sites, educational and cultural facilities, residential areas, shopping districts, and other activity centers. The project is the implementation of the planned Bicycle Transportation Network which would provide 48.40 miles of bikeways and pedestrian facilities throughout the City. Improve Pedestrian Access and Facilities Improve pedestrian access to transit, employment, and major activity centers. Pedestrian facilities are comprised of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at all nearby intersections. The project would enhance existing pedestrian facilities and create new facilities to provide better access to parks, schools, and other community amenities. Support Local Land Use Strategies Promote land use patterns, policies, and infrastructure investments that support mixed- use, transit-oriented development that reduce motor vehicle dependence and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use. The project is the implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Network, which would provide 48.40 miles of bikeways and pedestrian facilities throughout the City thereby reducing motor vehicle dependence and encouraging alternative modes of transportation. Energy and Climate Measures Energy Efficiency Increase efficiency and conservation to decrease fossil fuel use in the Bay Area. The project would decrease fossil fuel use in the Bay Area by providing residents with bikeway and pedestrian facilities to encourage alternative commute patterns to City destinations. Urban Heat Island Mitigation Mitigate the “urban heat island” effect by promoting the implementation of cool roofing, cool paving, and other strategies. Not applicable. Tree-Planting Promote planting of low-VOC- emitting shade trees to reduce urban heat island effects, save energy, and absorb CO2 and other air pollutants. The project would replace removed trees in accordance with the City of Cupertino’s Tree Ordinance. 4.3.2.3 Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts Project construction activities would be minimal, if at all, and would marginally affect local air quality during the construction period. Class I facilities have the potential to result in construction 1007 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 33 May 2016 activities including earthmoving, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed earth. Class II, III, and IV facilities are not expected to result in such construction activities. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non-water based paints, thinners, some insulating materials, and caulking materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and contribute to the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application. Construction Dust Emissions Construction dust could affect local air quality at various times during construction of some bikeways. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed to the atmosphere. Construction activities, particularly during site area preparation, grading, and excavation, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5, however, these activities are not expected as part of the construction of Class II, III and IV bikeway facilities. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the project area would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. Fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather and soil conditions. If not controlled, construction dust could result in a significant air quality impact. Consistent with BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Measures, the proposed project would include the following Best Management Practices to be implemented by the construction contractor to reduce air pollutant emissions to avoid any significant impacts to local air quality: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible and feasible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible and feasible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 1008 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 34 May 2016 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. The contractor shall also implement the following measures, as appropriate, consistent with BAAQMD’s additional construction mitigation measures recommended for projects with construction emissions above the threshold: 1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. 2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. 3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. 4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. 6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. 7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. 8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways and creeks from sites with a slope greater than one percent. 9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes. 10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. 11. Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). 1009 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 35 May 2016 12. Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. 13. Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. Additional measures are included to reduce localized construction equipment exhaust emissions: 1. All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent; and 2. All portable diesel-powered off-road equipment (e.g., air compressors) operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. Note that the construction contractor could use other measures to minimize construction period DPM emissions. Such measures may be the use of alternative powered equipment (e.g., LPG-powered lifts), alternative fuels (e.g., biofuels), added exhaust devices, or a combination of measures. The BAAQMD basic and additional construction mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant and construction equipment exhaust emissions are included in the project to avoid and/or reduce any impacts to local air quality. (Less Than Significant Impact) Construction TAC and PM2.5 Health Risks Construction equipment and heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. Diesel exhaust poses both a health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. Given that the Class II, III, IV and spot improvements would occur along existing right-of-ways and would require minimal construction, if at all, construction TACs would not be generated long enough to result in human health risks. Class I facilities may require more study to determine TAC impacts, depending on the extent of construction. If it is determined that construction TAC impacts could be significant further environmental review would be required. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.3.2.4 Operational-Related Impacts from the Project The project is the implementation and construction of approximately 48.40 miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the City of Cupertino. Operational use of the project would decrease automobile use and would, therefore, be considered a beneficial air quality impact. (No Impact) 4.3.2.5 Odors The project does not propose a use that would generate objectionable odors. (No Impact) 4.3.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1010 1011 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 36 May 2016 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.4.1 Setting The proposed Class II, III, IV bicycle facilities and spot improvements would be constructed on existing city streets; however, bikeways in parks, and along existing highways, creeks, and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks are also planned. For the Class I and bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing facilities proposed along creeks and currently unpaved surfaces, further environmental study may be needed prior to project implementation. 4.4.1.1 Regulatory Framework Special Status Species A summary of applicable special status species regulations are provided below. Threatened and Endangered Species State and federal “endangered species” legislation has provided CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Species listed as threatened or endangered under provisions of the state and federal Endangered Species Acts (ESAs), candidate species for such listing, state species of special concern, and some plants listed as endangered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) are collectively referred to as “species of special status.” Permits may be required from both the CDFW and USFWS if activities associated with a proposed project will result in the take of a listed species. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the state of California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” said species (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). “Take” is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include “harm” of a listed species (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). Migratory Birds State and federal laws protect most bird species. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Birds of Prey Birds of prey, such as owls and hawks, are protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, (1992), which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental 1012 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 37 May 2016 loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a “taking” by the CDFW. Trees The Class II and III facilities and spot improvements proposed would be completed on-street within existing right-of-ways. Trees are not located within these right-of-ways, but could be located adjacent to creeks and within parks. 4.4.1.2 On-Site Conditions The City of Cupertino is an urbanized area with a diversity of land uses. The project would be built on existing right-of-ways that are adjacent to residential, commercial, industrial uses, parks, and open space uses. Habitats in developed urban areas are relatively low in species diversity. Species that use this habitat are urban and suburban adapted birds, such as rock dove, mourning dove, house sparrow, scrub jay, and starling. 4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 1 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 1 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1 1013 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 38 May 2016 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1, 2 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1, 2 The project is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 4.4.2.1 Impacts to Special-Status Species Special-Status Plant Species Developed sites in urban areas typically do not support special-status plant species. Proposed Class I bicycle facilities along creeks and drainage canals that would require paving may remove native vegetation and could need further environmental review prior to construction. For the remainder of the proposed bicycle facilities and spot improvements on existing streets and right-of-ways, project components would not result in significant impacts to special-status plant species. (No Impact) Special-Status Animal Species and Species Protected Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Given that the majority of the project would be constructed on existing right-of-ways that lack suitable habitat for many special-status animal species, the project is not anticipated to result in impacts to special-status animal species with the possible exception of tree nesting raptors or other nesting birds in areas that are currently unpaved. Class I and IV facilities and bicycle/pedestrian overcrossings could result in direct impacts to nesting birds if trees are to be removed; however, these project segments would need further environmental review. Mitigation measures would be identified during the environmental process for Class I facilities, as necessary. While creeks can serve as migration corridors, the creeks in the project area are urban in nature with little migration qualities (significant water levels and vegetation, e.g.). The implementation of the proposed project would therefore, not substantially interfere with the movement of native wildlife species. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.4.2.2 Impacts to Riparian Habitat Class I facilities are proposed along Stevens Creek, Regnart Creek, Saratoga Creek, and San Tomas- Aquino Creek. Construction of these bikeway facilities may result in the loss of riparian habitat along these waterways. Further environmental study would be necessary to determine if the 1014 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 39 May 2016 proposed bikeway facilities would result in the removal of riparian habitat or native riparian species in the project area. Mitigation measures could include the acquisition and maintenance of replacement habitat. 4.4.2.2 Impacts to Trees Class II, III, and IV facilities would be constructed on existing right-of-ways that lack vegetation and trees. The Class II, III, and IV facilities proposed would not remove trees as part of implementation. Proposed Class I facilities and bicycle/pedestrian overcrossings that would result in tree removal would need further environmental review prior to project approval. All other proposed facilities would have a less than significant impact to trees. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.4.3 Conclusion The project would not impact a local habitat conservation plan. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on riparian habitat, riparian species, migration corridors, and trees. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1015 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 40 May 2016 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.5.1 Setting Cultural resources are evidence of past human occupation and activity and include both historical and archaeological resources. These resources may be located above ground, underground, or underwater and have significance in history, prehistory,4 architecture or culture of the nation, State of California, or local or tribal communities. Cultural resources are generally identified in historic or cultural resources inventories maintained by the county or local cities or towns, and also on the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Heritage trees are considered cultural resources in the City of Cupertino and are recognized as a cultural resource in the General Plan. As defined in the Protected Trees Ordinance (Section 14.18.020), a Heritage tree is any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors including, but not limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or species, has been found by the Planning Commission to have a special significance to the community. Paleontological resources are fossils; the remains or traces of prehistoric life preserved in the geological record. They range from well-known and well publicized fossils (such as mammoth and dinosaur bones) to scientifically important fossils (such as paleobotanical remains, trace fossils, and microfossils). Potentially sensitive areas with fossil bearing sediments near the ground surface in areas of Santa Clara County are generally in or adjacent to foothill areas rather than the younger Holocene age deposits on the valley floor. Geologic units of the Holocene age are generally not considered sensitive for paleontological resources, because biological remains younger than 10,000 years are not usually considered fossils. The project area is located on the valley floor and most likely contains geologic units of Holocene age; therefore, it is highly unlikely that the project area contains any paleontological resources. 4.5.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 1,2 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? 1 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature? 1 4 Events of the past prior to written records are considered prehistory. 1016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 41 May 2016 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1 4.5.2.1 Prehistoric, Historic, and Paleontological Resources Construction of Class II, III, and IV bicycle facilities would primarily occur along right-of-ways and would not include the removal of or impacts to identified historical resource or a site recognized in the Cupertino General Plan as a Historic Site or Commemorative Site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact to historic resources in the City of Cupertino. (No Impact) While highly unlikely, buried prehistoric or historic deposits which could provide information on prehistory or the history of this site, its inhabitants, and the role it played in the development of the City could be encountered during construction activities for Class I facilities that involve subsurface grading. Impact CUL-1: Implementation of the Class I facilities included in the proposed project could result in significant impacts to buried cultural resources, if encountered. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measures: As a condition of approval, the proposed Class I facilities shall implement the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level: MM CUL-1.1: In the event of the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits or paleontological deposits, work shall be halted within 50 feet of the discovery and a qualified professional archaeologist (or paleontologist, as applicable) shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The recommendation shall be implemented and could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. MM CUL-1.2: Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California:  In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition 1017 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 42 May 2016 of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the land owner shall re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. MM CUL-1.3: If cultural resources are encountered, a final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation program that was implemented (e.g., monitoring and testing program), a list of the resources found, a summary of the resources analysis methodology and conclusion, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the Director Public Works. 4.5.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not impact historic resources. (No Impact) Impact CUL-1: The proposed project, with the implementation of the mitigation measures MM CUL-1.1, MM CUL-1.2, and MM CUL-1.3 would not result in significant impacts to subsurface cultural or paleontological resources. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) 1018 1019 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 43 May 2016 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion (BIA v. BAAQMD) confirmed CEQA is concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment, not the effects the existing environment may have on a project; nevertheless, the City has policies that address existing conditions (geologic hazards) affecting a proposed project, which are described in Section 4.6.2.2, below. 4.6.1 Setting Geology and Soils The City of Cupertino is located in the western portion of the Santa Clara Valley and lower portion of the Santa Cruz Mountain foothills. The Santa Clara Valley is located within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California; an area characterized by northwest-trending ridges and valleys, underlain by strongly deformed sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of the Franciscan Complex. Overlying these rocks are sediments deposited during recent geologic times. The Santa Clara Valley consists of a large structural basin containing alluvial deposits derived from the Diablo Range to the east and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. Valley sediments were deposited as a series of coalescing alluvial fans by streams that drain the adjacent mountains. These alluvial sediments make up the groundwater aquifers of the area. Soil types at the project site include clay, similar to other low-lying areas of the City. Soil on-site has a moderate to high potential for expansion.5 Seismicity and Seismic Hazards The City of Cupertino is located within the San Francisco Bay Area, which is classified as Zone 4, the most seismically active zone in the United States. The Monta Vista and San Andreas Faults are south of the City. Hazards associated with seismic activity along regional and local faults include fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, differential settlement, landslides, and waves in bodies of water. The northeast portion of Cupertino along SR 85 is located within a fault rupture hazard zone.6 Liquefaction Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loose water- saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state after ground shaking. There are many variables that contribute to liquefaction, including the age of the soil, soil type, soil cohesion, soil density, and groundwater level. The lands adjacent to Stevens Creek, Calabazas Creek, Saratoga Creek and San Tomas-Aquino Creek are located within a designated State of California Liquefaction Hazard Zone and a Santa Clara County Liquefaction Hazard Zone. 7 The remainder of the City is not located in these zones. 5 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Accessed April 14, 2016. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm 6 Santa Clara County. Geologic Hazard Zones. October 26, 2012. 7 Ibid. 1020 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 44 May 2016 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. There are no open faces within the project area. Landsliding Landslides occur when the stability of a slope changes from a stable to unstable condition. In general, steep slopes are less stable than more gently inclined ones. Landslides can also be triggered by seismic shaking. The project’s geographic scope is not located within a State of California Landslide zone.8 The City’s General Plan also maps geologic and seismic hazards. The project area is within a valley, an area with relatively low levels of geologic hazards. 4.6.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as described on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) 1,5 b. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,5 c. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1,5 d. Landslides? 1,5 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 1,5 8 County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazards Zones Map 26. Accessed March 29, 2016. Available at: http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/GIS/GeoHazardZones/Documents/GeohazardMapsATLAS2.pdf 1021 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 45 May 2016 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? 1 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 1 The project does not propose to construct facilities that would require the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems; therefore, impacts related to the use of these systems are not applicable to the proposed project and not discussed further. 4.6.2.1 Soils Impacts The proposed project would not be exposed to substantial slope instability, erosion, or landslide- related hazards due to the flat topography of the project area. Soils within the project area, however, have a moderate to high expansion potential. The presence of expansive soil could damage future bikeway improvements unless avoided by incorporating appropriate engineering into grading designs. The project would not result in loss, injury or death related to expansive soils. The project proposes to be constructed in accordance with standard practices in the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of Cupertino, to reduce expansive soil impacts to a less than significant level. 4.6.2.2 Seismic and Seismic-Related Impacts The project is located in a seismically active region and, therefore, strong ground shaking would be expected during the lifetime of the project. While no active faults are known to cross the project area, and the site does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo zone, ground shaking on the site could damage the proposed bicycle facilities. Project alignments in liquefaction hazard zones would be constructed to reduce geologic hazard impacts to a less than significant level. Incorporation of standard construction measures in conformance with the 2013 California Building Code and City policies would reduce seismic hazards and impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.6.3 Conclusion The project would result in less than significant seismic shaking, soil erosion, and expansive soil impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1022 1023 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 46 May 2016 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.7.1 Setting 4.7.1.1 Background Information Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which are discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality and have local or regional impacts, emissions of greenhouse gases have a broader, global impact. Global warming associated with the “greenhouse effect” is a process where greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere over time. The principle greenhouse gases contributing to global warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. Greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors. 4.7.1.2 Regulatory Framework State of California AB 32 and Related Executive Orders and Regulations The Global Warming Solutions Act (also known as “Assembly Bill (AB) 32”) sets the State of California’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. The Act requires that the greenhouse gas emissions in California be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Prior to adoption of AB 32, the Governor of California also signed Executive Order S-3-05 which identified CalEPA as the lead coordinating State agency for establishing climate change emission reduction targets in California. Under Executive Order S-3-05, the state plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Additional state law and regulations related to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions includes SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (see discussion below), the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard for Energy Standard (Senate Bill 2X) and fleet-wide passenger car standards (Pavley Regulations). In December 2008, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal. On May 22, 2014, the First Update to the Scoping Plan was approved by the CARB. The First Update identifies opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions through strategic planning and targeted low carbon investments. In addition, the First Update defines climate change priorities for CARB for the next five years and sets the groundwork to achieve long-term goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012.9 9 California Air Resources Board. “First Update to AB 32 Scoping Plan.” May 27, 2014. Accessed February 4, 2015. Available at: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm> 1024 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 47 May 2016 CEQA As required under state law (Public Resources Code Section 21083.05), the California Natural Resources Agency has amended the state CEQA Guidelines to address the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Under these sections of the CEQA Guidelines (§15064.4), lead agencies, such as the City of Cupertino, retain discretion to determine the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions based upon individual circumstances. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide a specific methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases and under the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may describe, calculate or estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project and use a model and/or qualitative analysis or performance based standards to assess impacts. The CEQA Guidelines (§15183.5) also outline the required components of a “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.” Projects consistent with such a Strategy or Plan would reduce their contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas impacts to a less than significant level. Senate Bill 375 – Sustainable Communities Strategy Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. It builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional greenhouse gas reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035 when compared to emissions in 2005. The per capita reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035.10 The four major requirements of SB 375 are: 1. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) must meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for automobiles and light trucks through land use and transportation strategies. 2. MPOs must create a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), to provide an integrated land use/transportation plan for meeting regional targets, consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). 3. Regional housing elements and transportation plans must be synchronized on eight-year schedules, with Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation numbers conforming to the SCS. 4. MPOs must use transportation and air emissions modeling techniques consistent with guidelines prepared by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area in July 2013. The strategies in the plan are intended to promote compact, mixed-use development close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities, particularly within Priority Development Areas (PDAs) identified by local jurisdictions. Bikeway facilities along Stevens Creek Blvd. between SR-85 and the eastern city limit, and along De Anza Blvd. north of Stevens Creek Blvd. would intersect with PDAs. 10 The emission reduction targets are for those associated with land use and transportation strategies, only. Emission reductions due to the California Low Carbon Fuel Standards or Pavley emission control standards are not included in the targets. 1025 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 48 May 2016 Regional and Local Plans Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is a multi-pollutant plan that addresses greenhouse gas emissions along with other air emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. One of the key objectives in the 2010 CAP is climate protection. The 2010 CAP includes emission control measures in five categories: Stationary Source Measures, Mobile Source Measures, Transportation Control Measures, Land Use and Local Impact Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures. Consistency of a project with current control measures is one measure of its consistency with the CAP. The current CAP also includes performance objectives, consistent with the state’s climate protection goals under AB 32 and SB 375, designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. City of Cupertino General Plan The Cupertino General Plan includes an Environmental Resources/Sustainability Section, with policies that call for energy efficiency, alternative transportation planning, and green building. These policies and the City’s Green Building and Green Business Programs include measures designed to reduce energy and water use and associated direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. The City also has adopted a construction and debris (C&D) recycling program ordinance that requires applicants seeking building or demolition permits for projects greater than 3,000 square feet to recycle at least 60 percent of project discards. Recycling can indirectly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the need to manufacture or mine new products or materials. Cupertino Climate Action Plan The City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan seeks to identify emission reduction strategies that are informed by the goals, values, and priorities of the community. The Climate Action Plan describes the City’s current emissions inventory and establishes future reduction targets. In addition, community-wide reduction measures and actions that can be implemented to help achieve future emission targets are described. 4.7.1.3 Existing Conditions The City of Cupertino is highly urbanized with a diversity of land uses. Greenhouse gas emissions within the City are mostly the result of vehicle trips to, from, and throughout the City. The existing bicycle transportation network does not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions since it is used by bicyclists and pedestrians, and reduces vehicle trips within the City. 1026 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 49 May 2016 4.7.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1 2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1,2 GHG emissions worldwide cumulatively contribute to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change. No single land use project could generate sufficient GHG emissions on its own to noticeably change the global average temperature. The combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects in the City of Cupertino, the entire state of California, across the nation, and around the world, contribute cumulatively to the phenomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental impacts. 4.7.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the Lead Agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The first checklist question is assessed using quantitative thresholds for GHG emissions identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in 2009. Using a methodology that models how new land use development in the San Francisco Bay area can meet Statewide AB 32 GHG reduction goals, BAAQMD identified a significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year.11 The City has carefully considered the thresholds prepared by BAAQMD and regards the quantitative thresholds to be based on the best information available for development in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Evidence supporting these thresholds has been presented in the following documents:  BAAQMD. 2009. CEQA Thresholds Options and Justification Report.  BAAQMD. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. (Appendix D).  CARB. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. (Statewide GHG Emission Targets) BAAQMD has not identified a threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. 11 In addition to this bright-line threshold, an “efficiency” threshold was identified for urban high density, transit- oriented development projects that are intended to reduce vehicle trips but that may still result in overall emissions greater than 1,100 metric tons per year. This efficiency threshold is 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population (e.g., residents and employees) per year. 1027 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 50 May 2016 4.7.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts from the Project The project is the implementation of approximately 48.40 miles of bikeways and pedestrian facilities throughout the City of Cupertino. The bikeways and pedestrian facilities would provide residents with alternative means of travel to access community amenities and would, therefore, not release or contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and is considered a beneficial impact. (No Impact) 4.7.2.3 Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies As discussed in Section 4.7.1.2 Regulatory Framework, the State of California has adopted a Climate Change Scoping Plan. Greenhouse gas emissions are also addressed in the adopted 2010 CAP and Plan Bay Area and the City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan. Comparison of Project Features to State of California Climate Change Scoping Plan Measures The CARB-approved Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines a comprehensive set of actions intended to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. The Scoping Plan includes 39 Recommended Actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While the Scoping Plan focuses on measures and regulations at a statewide level, implementation of measures at the local level are also important. Recommended Actions/measures that pertain to the project are noted in Table 4.7-1. Under the Scoping Plan, local governments are expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by five million metric tons (statewide) through transportation and land use changes. In addition, local governments play a key role in implementing many of the strategies contained in the Scoping Plan, such as energy efficient building codes, local renewable energy generation, and recycling programs. As discussed in Section 4.7.2.1 and listed in Table 4.7-1, the project is consistent with several recommended actions in the Scoping Plan and would not conflict with implementation of recommended actions in the Scoping Plan intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020. Table 4.7-1: Climate Change Scoping Plan – Applicable Recommended Actions Compared to Project Features Measure Description Applicable Feature Transportation T-3 Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets The project is the implementation and construction of 48.40 bikeways and pedestrians facilities. Energy Efficiency/Electricity and Natural Gas E-1 Energy Efficiency, including more stringent building standards Not applicable. E-4 Million Solar Roofs/Solar Initiative Not applicable. CR-1 Energy Efficiency – Utility, Building and Appliance Standards Not applicable. 1028 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 51 May 2016 Table 4.7-1: Climate Change Scoping Plan – Applicable Recommended Actions Compared to Project Features Measure Description Applicable Feature CR-2 Solar Water Heating Not applicable. Green Buildings GB-1 Green Buildings Not applicable. Water W-1 Water Use Efficiency Not applicable. W-4 Reuse Urban Runoff Not applicable. Recycling and Waste Management RW-3 High Recycling/Zero Waste (including Commercial Recycling) Not applicable. Sustainable Communities Strategy Plan Bay Area, which includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy that links transportation and land use planning, grew out of California’s 2008 Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg), which requires each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Plan Bay Area promotes compact, mixed-use commercial and residential development focused in Priority Development Areas that is walkable and bikeable and close to mass transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities. The project proposes the construction of approximately 48.40 miles of bikeways and pedestrian facilities throughout the City, enabling residents to utilize non-automobile transit routes thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The project is, therefore, compliant with and contributing to the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan The 2010 CAP includes performance objectives, consistent with the state’s climate protection goals under AB 32 and SB 375, designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. The 2010 CAP identifies a range of Transportation Control Measures, Land Use and Local Impacts Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures that make up the CAP’s control strategy for emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions. As discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality, the project is generally consistent with applicable control measures and the development of the project would not interfere with implementation of the 2010 CAP. Cupertino Climate Action Plan The proposed project is an update in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, the implementation of which would reduce long-term emissions, consistent with the Climate Action Plan. 1029 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 52 May 2016 The project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions adopted by the California legislature, CARB, BAAQMD, or City of Cupertino. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.7.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant greenhouse gas emission impacts, would be consistent with adopted plans and policies related to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and would be considered a beneficial impact. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1030 1031 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 53 May 2016 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4.8.1 Setting 4.8.1.1 Overview Hazardous materials encompass a wide range of substances, some of which are naturally-occurring and some of which are man-made. Examples include motor oil and fuel, metals (e.g., lead, mercury, and arsenic), asbestos, pesticides, herbicides, and chemical compounds used in manufacturing and other uses. A substance may be considered hazardous if, due to its chemical and/or physical properties, it poses a substantial hazard when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or released into the atmosphere in the event of an accident. Determining if such substances are present on or near project sites is important because exposure to hazardous materials above regulatory thresholds can result in adverse health effects on humans. 4.8.1.2 Regulatory Framework Hazardous waste generators and users in the City are required to comply with regulations enforced by several federal, state, and county agencies. The regulations are designed to reduce the risk associated with the human exposure to hazardous materials and minimize adverse environmental effects. The Santa Clara County Fire Department coordinates with the County’s Hazardous Materials Compliance Division to implement the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Management Plan and to ensure that commercial and residential activities involving classified hazardous substances are properly handled, contained, and disposed. Federal, state, and local requirements govern the removal of asbestos or suspected asbestos- containing materials, including the demolition of structures where asbestos is present. Typically, a certified asbestos contractor must remove all asbestos-containing materials prior to demolition activities. Federal and state regulations also govern the demolition of structures where lead or material containing lead is present. During demolition, lead-based paint that is securely adhering to wood or metal may be disposed of as demolition debris, which is a non-hazardous waste. Loose and peeling paint must be disposed of as a California and/or federal hazardous waste if the concentration of lead exceeds applicable waste thresholds. Other hazardous materials encountered during demolition must be handled and disposed of in accordance with hazardous waste laws and regulations. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations require protective measures during construction activities where workers may be exposed to asbestos, lead, and/or other hazardous materials. 4.8.2 Existing Setting 4.8.2.1 Site Conditions Known sources of historical hazardous materials contamination in Cupertino are mainly the result of leaking underground storage tanks. Within the project area, all known sources of hazardous materials contamination are currently in the process of remediation and/or statements of case closure for the incidents have been issued. 1032 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 54 May 2016 4.8.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 1 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 1 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1,7 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 7. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1,8 4.8.4 Hazard and Hazardous Materials Impacts As described above, leaking underground storage tanks have been identified in the project area but have received a case closed status or are in the process of remediation. Improvements to existing 1033 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 55 May 2016 bikeways or the construction of new bikeways and spot improvements along streets, boulevards, and creeks would not require extensive grading, and it is unlikely that construction activities would expose workers to contaminated soils or groundwater. The project does not include the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or emissions and would therefore, not emit or handle hazardous materials within a quarter mile of schools in the project area (Less Than Significant Impact) The project area is not located within an airport land use plan, wildfire hazard zone, or in the vicinit y of a private airstrip. Construction of the proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant hazardous material impacts related to these issues. (No Impact) 4.8.5 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project, in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, would not result in a significant hazardous materials impact. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1034 1035 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 56 May 2016 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion (BIA v. BAAQMD) confirmed CEQA is concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment, not the effects the existing environment may have on a project; nevertheless, the City has policies that address existing conditions (e.g. floodplains) affecting a proposed project, which are described in Section 4.9.2.4, below. 4.9.1 Setting 4.9.1.1 Regulatory Framework National Flood Insurance Program In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance available for communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the NFIP and creates Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that designate 100-year floodplain zones and delineate other flood hazard areas. A 100-year floodplain zone is the area that has a one in 100 (one percent) chance of being flooded in any one year based on historical data. As discussed in more detail in Section 4.9.1.2 below, segments of the proposed project are located within a 100-year flood zone. Water Quality (Nonpoint Source Pollution Program) The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water quality. Regulations set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. USEPA’s regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the water quality control boards, which for the Cupertino area is the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Statewide Construction General Permit The State Water Resources Control Board has implemented a NPDES General Construction Permit for the State of California. For projects disturbing one acre or more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared prior to commencement of construction. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)/C.3 Requirements The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Permit Number CAS612008) (MRP). In an effort to standardize stormwater management requirements throughout the region, this permit replaces the formerly separate countywide municipal 1036 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 57 May 2016 stormwater permits with a regional permit for 77 Bay Area municipalities, including the City of Cupertino. Under provisions of the NPDES Municipal Permit, redevelopment projects that add and/or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, or 5,000 square feet of uncovered parking area, are required to design and construct stormwater treatment controls to treat post- construction stormwater runoff. Amendments to the MRP require all of the post-construction runoff to be treated by using Low Impact Development (LID) treatment controls, such as infiltration, evaporation, harvesting, or biotreatment facilities, where feasible. The MRP also identifies subwatershed and catchment areas subject to hydromodification management controls. Projects that add or replace one acre of impervious surfaces are subject to the hydromodification standard and associated requirements in the MRP.12 City of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 Prevention of Flood Damage of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code governs construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas (Zone A, AO, or A1-30 on FIRM maps) having special flood or flood-related erosion hazards. Under this regulation, the Director of Public Works reviews all development permits to determine that the permit requirements of this chapter have been satisfied, and that building sites are reasonably safe from flooding. Chapter 9.18 Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code outlines the City’s minimum requirements designed to control the discharge of pollutants into the City of Cupertino’s storm drain system and to assure that discharges from the City of Cupertino storm drain system comply with applicable provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and NPDES Permit. 4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions Hydrology and Drainage The project area is located within the West Valley Watershed. Each watershed is made up of one or more main creeks, as well as many smaller tributaries, each with its own sub-watershed. Creeks in the West Valley Watershed include portions of the Sunnyvale East Channel and Calabazas Creek, and Regnart Creek.13 Watershed elements include not only these tributaries but groundwater. Cupertino is located within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin and includes the McClellan groundwater recharge facility. Class II, III, and IV bicycle facilities and spot improvements are proposed to be constructed on existing impervious surfaces (i.e. streets, boulevards etc.). Runoff from the project area would connect with existing storm drains in streets which would drain into Regnart Creek and San Tomas Aquino Creek which eventually drains into San Francisco Bay. 12 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Hydromodification Management (HM) Applicability Map City of Cupertino. November 2010. Available at: <http://www.scvurppp- w2k.com/HMP_app_maps/Cupertino_HMP_Map.pdf> 13 Santa Clara Valley Water District. “West Valley Watershed.” Accessed April 12, 2016. Available at: < http://www.valleywater.org/uploadedImages/Services/HealthyCreeksEcoSystems/WatershedInformation/WestValle y/WestValley2005Mapxl.jpg?n=1070 aspx>. 1037 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 58 May 2016 Groundwater The project area is located in the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin between the Diablo Mountains to the east and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. The City of Cupertino is located in the Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Recharge Area.14 Groundwater in the project area varies depending on location in the City. Fluctuations in the level of subsurface water can occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors. Water Quality The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as non-point source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. The runoff often contains contaminants such as oil, grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitat of natural waterways such as Regnart Creek, which drains into Calabazas Creek and eventually into San Francisco Bay. Flooding and Other Inundation Hazards According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the majority of the City of Cupertino is located within the FEMA Flood Zone, X500. X500 Zones are areas of 500-year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot and an area inundated by 0.2% annual chance of flooding. The portions of Cupertino located within FEMA Zone A are adjacent to Calabazas Creek and Stevens Creek.15 Areas within Zone A have a 1% annual chance of flooding. Central Cupertino is located within FEMA Flood Zone X, which are moderate risk areas within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, and areas protected from the 1-percent-annual-chance flood by a levee. The project area is not subject to flooding due to seiches or tsunamis.16 In the event of a Stevens Creek Dam failure, sections of Cupertino would be subject to dam inundation.17 14 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2012 Groundwater Management Plan. 15 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Clara County, California, Community-Panel Number 06085C0209H, May 18, 2009. 16 Association of Bay Area Governments. Interactive Flooding Map. Accessed April 13, 2016. Available at: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=femaZones 17 City of Cupertino. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Approving the Join Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan. October, 16, 2012. Available at: http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1210. Accessed on March 31, 2016. 1038 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 59 May 2016 4.9.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there will be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells will drop to a level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1,9 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which will result in flooding on-or off-site? 1 5. Create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1,11 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which will impede or redirect flood flows? 1,11 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 1 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1 1039 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 60 May 2016 4.9.2.1 Hydrology and Drainage Impacts The majority of the project area is currently developed with impervious surfaces (i.e. streets, boulevards etc.). Runoff generated by the project would flow into existing storm drains or be treated using LID stormwater controls where appropriate. Project components not developed with impervious surfaces are along Stevens Creeks, Regnart Creek, Saratoga Creek, San Tomas-Aquino Creek, the UPRR right-of-way, and the I-280 canal. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.9.2.2 Groundwater Construction of project components in unpaved areas is not expected to excavate soils to levels that would reach groundwater. Implementation of the proposed project would, therefore, not substantially deplete groundwater resources or interfere with groundwater recharge. (No Impact) 4.9.2.3 Water Quality Impacts Construction-Related Impacts The majority of the project is planned for implementation on paved right-of-ways, parks, open space areas, and along creek alignment. Project improvements on undeveloped land would require minimal grading, if at all. It is not anticipated that these improvements would generate construction-related pollutants that would adversely impact water quality. Implementation of the following standard measures would ensure that construction-related impacts to water quality would be reduced to a less than significant level. In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project includes the following standard measures:  The project shall implement construction BMPs to avoid impacts to surface water quality during construction, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Construction BMPs would include, but would not be limited to the following measures:  Preclude non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater system.  Incorporate site-specific Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control during the construction period consistent with the NPDES permit.  Cover soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute to non-visible pollution prior to rainfall events or monitor runoff.  Perform monitoring of discharges to the stormwater system to ensure that stormwater runoff during construction is contained prior to discharge to allow sediment to settle out and filtered, if necessary to ensure that only clear water is discharged to the storm system. Post-Construction Measures In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project includes the following standard measures; if applicable: 1040 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 61 May 2016  The project shall comply with Provision C.3 of NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, which provides enhanced performance standards for the management of stormwater for new development. Prior to issuance of building and grading permits, each phase of development shall include provision for post-construction structural controls in the project design in compliance with the NPDES C.3 permit provisions, and shall include BMPs for reducing contamination in stormwater runoff as permanent features of the project. The specific BMPs to be used in each phase of development shall be determined based on design and site-specific considerations and will be determined prior to issuance of building and grading permits.  To protect groundwater from pollutant loading of urban runoff, BMPs which are primarily infiltration devices (such as infiltration trenches and infiltration basins) must meet, at a minimum, the following conditions:  Pollution prevention and source control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater;  Use of infiltration BMPs cannot cause or contribute to degradation of groundwater;  Infiltration BMPs must be adequately maintained;  Vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high groundwater mark must be at least 10 feet. In areas of highly porous soils and/or high groundwater table, BMPs shall be subject to a higher level of analysis (considering potential for pollutants such as on-site chemical use, level of pretreatment, similar factors); and  Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be selected and designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works in accordance with the requirements contained in the most recent versions of the following documents:  City of Cupertino Post-Construction BMP Section Matrix;  SCVURPPP “Guidance for Implementing Storm Water Regulations for New and Redevelopment Projects;”  NPDES Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit issued to the City of Cupertino by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region;  California BMP Handbooks;  Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) “Start at the Source” Design Guidance Manual;  BASMAA “Using Site Design Standards to Meet Development Standards for Stormwater Quality – A Companion Document to Start at the Source;” and  City of Cupertino Planning Procedures Performance Standard.  To maintain effectiveness, all stormwater treatment facilities shall include long-term maintenance programs. 1041 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 62 May 2016 Implementation of standard measures would ensure that the project would not result in significant construction-related water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) Post-Construction Impacts Operation of the project would nominally contribute to pollutant generation from existing streets and boulevards throughout Cupertino, if at all. Implementation of standard measures, as discussed above, would ensure that the project would not result in significant post-construction water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.9.2.4 Flood Impacts and Other Inundation Hazards As discussed previously, the project area is within the 100-year, or one percent flood zone. In addition, the project does not propose to build housing. The project, therefore, would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area or impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. Placing bikeways within floodplains along creeks may result in seasonal trail closures if the trails are flooded. These locations would be marked per SCVWD and City of Cupertino policies; therefore, safety impacts to trail users would be less than significant. The future trails would also be designed to reduce the potential for impeding flood flows based on additional studies to be completed prior to project implementation. The project is not located in an area subject to inundation hazards from dam failure, projected sea level rise, or earthquake-induced waves or mudflows. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.9.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant hydrology or water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1042 1043 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 63 May 2016 4.10 LAND USE 4.10.1 Setting The proposed project is an update to the City of Cupertino’s existing Bicycle Transportation Plan. The project is planned throughout the City of Cupertino along existing public streets, boulevards, and highways and within City parks, open space areas, and Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, as listed in Table 3.0-2 and Table 3.0-3. Bikeways are planned on existing maintenance roads adjacent to Regnart and San Tomas-Aquino Creeks and a drainage channel near Interstate 280. The project also includes plans for a pedestrian overcrossing of SR-85 and various spot improvements as shown in Table 3.0-3. The proposed bikeways would be adjacent to a variety of land uses, including commercial/retail, multi- and single-family residential, office, schools, and parks. 4.10.1.1 Regulatory Framework General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The majority of the planned improvements are located within existing City of Cupertino public roadways and are therefore, consistent with General Plan and zoning policies. Bikeways are also allowed within City parks. The project would be consistent with General Plan zoning designations throughout the City. Other Public Agencies Planned bikeways could be located within the right-of-ways of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (all creeks) and Caltrans (all state highway facilities). Coordination with the Cities of San José and Santa Clara may also be required for the transition of facilities to and from those cities into Cupertino. 4.10.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Physically divide an established community? 1 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,2 1044 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 64 May 2016 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1 4.10.2.1 Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The majority of the proposed bikeway network would be within existing Cupertino street right-of- ways and adjacent primarily to commercial/retail and residential uses. Streets and boulevards proposed for bicycle facilities are not subject to zoning regulations by the City of Cupertino since streets and boulevards are considered public right-of-ways. The project is therefore consistent with the City’s General Plan land use and zoning designations within the project area. Bike facilities proposed within the right-of-ways of the Santa Clara Valley Water and Caltrans have not yet been designed, however, it is anticipated that they would be designed consistent with the plans, policies, and requirements of those agencies. (Less than Significant Impact) 4.10.2.2 Land Use Compatibility The majority of the proposed bikeways would be constructed within existing City streets. Those that are located in other areas of the City would not create a barrier to development or physically divide a community. In fact, they would serve to better connect areas of the City that have limited bicycle access. The project is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. (Less than Significant Impact) 4.10.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community or conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental impact. The City is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1045 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 65 May 2016 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 4.11.1 Setting Mineral resources found and extracted in Santa Clara County include construction aggregate deposits such as sand, gravel, and crushed stone. There are several areas in the City of Cupertino that are designated by the State Mining and Geology Board under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) as containing mineral deposits which are of regional significance; however, th e City’s General Plan indicates that these areas are either depleted or unavailable due to existing development. The project area is not within one of the areas of Cupertino designated as containing mineral deposits of importance. 4.11.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 4. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that will be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1 5. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1,2 4.11.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resources. (No Impact) 1046 1047 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 66 May 2016 4.12 NOISE The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion (BIA v. BAAQMD) confirmed CEQA is concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment, not the effects the existing environment may have on a project; nevertheless, the City has policies that address existing conditions (e.g. noise) affecting a proposed project, which are described in Section 4.12.1.2, below. 4.12.1 Setting 4.12.1.1 Background Information Noise Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Noise can be disturbing or annoying because of its pitch or loudness. Pitch refers to relative frequency of vibrations; higher pitch signals sound louder to people. A decibel (dB) is measured based on the relative amplitude of a sound. Ten on the decibel scale marks the lowest sound level that a healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis such that each 10 decibel increase is perceived as a doubling of loudness. The California A-weighted sound level, or dBA, gives greater weight to sounds to which the human ear is most sensitive. Sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep. Twenty-four hour descriptors have been developed that emphasize quiet-time noise events. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, Ldn, is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community. It includes a 10 dB addition or “penalty” to noise levels from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account for human sensitivity to night noise. 4.12.1.2 Applicable Noise Standards and Policies General Plan The City of Cupertino General Plan provides a policy framework for guiding future land use and urban design decisions and contains a system of control and abatement measures to protect residents from exposure to excessive or unacceptable noise levels. Municipal Code The City of Cupertino regulates noise within the community in Chapter 10.48 (Community Noise Control) of the Municipal Code. 4.12.1.3 Existing Conditions The majority of the planned bicycle network is on existing streets and boulevards that are dominated by vehicular noise on these roadways. Class I facilities are planned within City parks and open space areas, and near creeks and highways. 1048 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 67 May 2016 The project area is not located within two miles of an airport or private airstrip, or within an airport land use plan area. 4.12.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1-3 2. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 1-3 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be considered substantial. Typically, project- generated noise level increases of three dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant where exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard. Where noise levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the project, noise level increases of three dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant. 4.12.2.1 Noise and Vibration Impacts From the Project Future project noise would result from bikeway and pedestrian facility users. It is expected that noise within the project area would be dominated by normal vehicular traffic on streets and boulevards. City parks, open space, and creek areas have lower noise levels; however these areas are urban in nature and the introduction of trail users would result in a nominal increase in noise levels to sensitive receptors and wildlife. Noise from project operation would not increase ambient noise 1049 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 68 May 2016 levels in the project area. Implementation of the proposed project is, therefore, not anticipated to result in a significant exterior noise impact. (Less Than Significant Impact) Noise impacts to bikeway users along city streets and boulevards and over state highway facilities would be similar to those currently experienced by bicyclists and pedestrians traveling in the City. The construction of Class I and IV facilities could serve to move bicyclists away from roadway traffic, thus potentially reducing noise levels. (Less Than Significant Impact) Construction activities can generate high noise levels, especially during the construction of project infrastructure when heavy equipment is used. Construction of the Class II – IV facilities would be minimal, if at all, and would not require the use of heavy equipment or machinery. The construction of Class I facilities could require the use of construction equipment; however, the duration would be short and the construction would be spread along the alignment. Therefore, noise from project construction would result in less than significant noise impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.12.3 Conclusion The project would result in less than significant operational and construction noise, vibration, and air traffic impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1050 1051 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 69 May 2016 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.13.1 Setting The proposed project is the expansion of the existing bicycle network within Cupertino. The project does not propose the construction of housing. 4.13.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 4.13.2.1 Growth Inducement Impacts The project area is located within the City of Cupertino. The project does not propose the construction of new homes or businesses, and would not construct utilities or infrastructure beyond what is required to serve the proposed project. The proposed project is intended to better serve and accommodate the existing residents within the City of Cupertino. The proposed project would not induce unplanned growth in the City. (No Impact) 4.13.2.2 Housing Displacement Impacts Bikeway alignments would be constructed on existing right-of-ways and would not result in the removal of existing housing or structures. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace people or housing. (No Impact) 4.13.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in growth inducement or impacts to existing housing supply. (No Impact) 1052 1053 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 70 May 2016 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.14.1 Setting The project is located throughout the City of Cupertino. Fire, police and emergency services are provided by the City. The bikeway network would be expanded onto existing streets and boulevards, right-of-ways along I-280, UPRR, and Highway 85, Stevens Creek, Regnart Creek, Saratoga Creek, and San Tomas-Aquino Creek. 4.14.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police Protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public Facilities? 1 1,12 1 1 1 41.14.2.1 Impacts to Fire and Police Protection Services The project area is located within an urbanized area of Cupertino that is currently served by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and Santa Clara County’s Sherriff’s Office. The introduction of more individuals along the proposed bikeway network expansion may increase calls for service within the project area. The reported incidents would be similar to those that occur on existing roadways and at neighborhood parks in the City. Increased use of bikeways as a result of project implementation would not require the construction of additional fire or police facilities; therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on fire and police protection services. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.14.2.2 Impacts to Schools, Parks, and Other Public Facilities Project implementation may increase use of community parks and amenities due to improved access to such facilities. It is not anticipated that the increase in use would exceed the capacity of the existing facilities such that new facilities would need to be constructed, therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact to schools, parks, or other public facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1054 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 71 May 2016 4.14.3 Conclusion The project could result in a slight increase in the demand for emergency services within the project area, however, the increase would not exceed the capacity for the City of Cupertino to provide services to its residents. The project would provide additional recreational opportunities by improving access to parks, schools, and community amenities. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts to public services. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1055 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 72 May 2016 4.15 RECREATION 4.15.1 Setting The Department of Recreation and Community Services is responsible for park planning and development, and a comprehensive leisure program for the City. The City of Cupertino is served by approximately 214 acres of parkland, including neighborhood parks, community parks, and school playing fields. Leisure services facilities within the City include the Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Sports Center, Monta Vista Recreation Center, Cupertino Senior Center, and Blackberry Farm. 4.15.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 1. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated? 1 2. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1 The project would connect existing and/or proposed bikeways and pedestrian facilities to existing parks in Cupertino. 4.15.2.1 Impacts to Parks and Recreational Facilities The project would improve bicycle and pedestrian access to parks and community amenities throughout the City which may result in an increase in use of parks and recreational facilities. The incremental increase in use of these parks and recreational facilities would not result in substantial or accelerated, physical deterioration of these facilities. The project would not result in significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.15.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities and would, therefore, not require the construction of additional facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1056 1057 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 73 May 2016 4.16 TRANSPORTATION The list of planned project improvements can be found in Table 3.0-2 and Table 3.0-3 in the Project Description of this Initial Study. 4.16.1 Setting 4.16.1.1 Existing Transportation Network Roadway Network The existing roadway network in Cupertino is made up of major streets, boulevards and neighborhood streets throughout the City. The main east/west streets include Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road. North/south streets include Tantau Avenue, Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue, Blaney Avenue, De Anza Boulevard, Stelling Road, Bubb Road and Stevens Canyon Road/Foothill Boulevard. Interstate 280 generally forms the northern boundary of the City while SR- 85 bisects it in a northwest to southeast direction. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities are primarily comprised of sidewalks and pedestrian signals at intersections along most major streets throughout Cupertino. The existing bikeways in the City are primarily along major streets including Homestead Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Bollinger Road, Rainbow Drive, Prospect Road, N. Foothill Boulevard, Mary Avenue, Bubb Road, N./S. De Anza Boulevard, N./S. Stelling Road, N. Wolfe Road, Miller Avenue, and McClellan Road. Existing bikeways along creeks include Permanente Creek, Stevens Creek, Calabazas Creek, and Saratoga Creek. Pedestrian facilities are located along most streets throughout Cupertino. Transit Services The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus routes circulate throughout Cupertino. Bus stops are located on major streets including Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, Stelling Road, Bollinger Road, Homestead Road, Wolfe Road, and Tantau Avenue. 4.16.1.3 Existing Conditions The existing bicycle network is primarily along streets and boulevards throughout Cupertino. The network is largely disjointed and does not provide adequate connectivity among existing bikeways in the City and surrounding area. The project’s intent is to improve upon existing facilities and to connect those facilities to a larger network of bikeways to provide for greater use. 1058 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 74 May 2016 4.16.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 1,2 2. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 6. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 1,2 4.16.2.1 Project Trip Estimates Trip Generation The project would not increase vehicular traffic and may result in fewer vehicle trips throughout the City by providing safe, on-street and off-street alternative means for travel by bicycle for area commuters and residents. 1059 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 75 May 2016 4.16.2.2 Impacts to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities Implementation of the planned improvements would not conflict with any policies of the City of Cupertino or other agencies (e.g., the Valley Transportation Authority) regarding pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, nor would it interfere with any existing or planned facilities. All bikeways would be designed to reduce conflicts with VTA bus facilities. The project is intended to improve the existing bicycle network in the City and would, therefore, be considered a beneficial impact to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in the project area. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The project is the implementation of 48.40 miles of bikeway facilities and spot improvements throughout the City. Build-out of the project would be considered an improvement to bicycle and pedestrian facilities for improved safety at crossings of signalized intersections and along major streets and boulevards. It is not expected that the project would generate vehicle trips since it would be providing residents with alternative transportation facilities for commute and recreational use. (No Impact) Transit Transit impacts are considered significant if the proposed project conflicts with existing or planned transit facilities, generates potential transit trips in excess of available capacity, or does not provide adequate facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists to access transit routes and stops. The project would provide bicycle and pedestrian facility users with improved access to transit along streets and boulevards throughout the City. (No Impact) 4.16.2.3 Other Transportation Impacts Parking The project does not propose the construction of parking or parking lots. Existing parking along some streets may be removed or relocated as a result of implementing the planned improvements. Parking studies would be required for such projects to determine potential effects. Air Traffic Patterns As discussed in Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project area is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Project implementation would not impact local air traffic patterns. (No Impact) Site Access and Hazards The project would improve access on streets and boulevards within parks, near schools, and other community amenities throughout the City. It is not expected that the project would increase hazards to recreational bikeway users because of improved bikeway markings and signalization as part of the bicycle network. Nonetheless, an improved bicycle network would likely increase use of bikeways and thus inadvertently expose bikeway users to hazards from vehicular traffic. The increase in 1060 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 76 May 2016 hazards to bikeway users would be reduced via implementation of improved markings and signalization at intersections. The provision of Class I and IV facilities in the City would place bicyclists on separate bikeways further improving safety conditions in the City. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.16.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant transportation impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1061 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 77 May 2016 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.17.1 Setting 4.17.1.1 Water Water service to the project area is supplied primarily by the San José Water Company (SJWC) and the California Water Service Company, which also maintains the water system. SJWC serves approximately 139 square miles of the Santa Clara Valley, including most of San Jose, most of Cupertino, the entire cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, the Town of Los Gatos, and parts of unincorporated Santa Clara County. SJWC relies on groundwater, imported treated water, and local surface water for its potable water supply. In 2010, SJWC received approximately 39 percent of its water supply from groundwater, 50 percent from imported treated water, and 11 percent from local surface water.18 In 2010, SJWC delivered 133,066 acre-feet of water per year (AFY) which is expected to increase to 159,479 by 2035. The project does not propose constructing features that would require water for maintenance or operation. 4.17.1.2 Storm Drainage As discussed in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, existing right-of-ways in the City drain into existing storm drains. Runoff from the project would depend on the specific location of the bikeway segment within the larger bikeway network. Class I facilities could drain to existing storm drains on other facilities. 4.17.1.3 Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer System The Cupertino Sanitary District (District) provides sanitary sewer service to the project area. The Cupertino Sanitary District collects and transports wastewater to the San José/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) located in north San José. The District purchases 7.85 million gallons per day of water treatment capacity from the RWF.19 Approximately five million gallons of wastewater a day is generated within the Cupertino Sanitary District and conveyed to the RWF.20 The project does not propose construction of features that would require service by the wastewater/sanitary sewer system. 4.16.1.4 Solid Waste Garbage and recycling collection services in the City of Cupertino are provided by Recology. Solid waste collected from the City is delivered to Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (NISL). Many types of recyclable materials are also delivered to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery Station (SMART 18 San José Water Company. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2011. 19 City of Milpitas. “Agreement for Treatment Plant Capacity Transfer”. 2009. Accessed: April 12, 2016. Available at: <http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2009/010609/item_17.pdf> 20 Cupertino Sanitary District. 2015 Annual Report. 2015. 1062 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 78 May 2016 Station) for recycling. Currently, NISL has approximately 20 million cubic yards of capacity remaining.21 The City has a contract with NISL until the year 2023 or until the cumulative tonnage delivered equals 2.05 million tons. The City has delivered a total of approximately 1.4 million tons of waste to the landfill. The City generates approximately 31,500 tons of solid waste a year.22 4.17.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1 3. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1 7. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1 22 The estimate annual tonnage of solid waste generated by the City is based on an average of 2009-2011. Source: King, Rick. Personal communications with NISL General Manager. February 2012. 1063 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 79 May 2016 4.17.2.1 Water Service and Supply The project does not propose the construction of features that would require water or water services. The project would, therefore, not substantially increase water demand to the extent that new entitlements and sources of water would be required. (No Impact) 4.17.2.2 Storm Drainage As discussed in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, implementation of the project would primarily occur on existing paved streets and boulevards. Stormwater runoff would be treated using new LID stormwater controls where feasible. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.17.2.3 Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer System The project does not propose the construction of features that would require connection to the City’s wastewater/sanitary sewer system. (No Impact) 4.17.2.4 Solid Waste The project does not propose the construction of features that would need to be served by solid waste facilities. (No Impact) 4.17.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to utilities and service systems. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1064 1065 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 80 May 2016 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 2. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 3. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 4.18.1 Project Impacts The proposed project, with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section 4.0 of this Initial Study, would not significantly degrade or impact the quality of the environment. As discussed in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, the Class II – IV facilities would not impact sensitive habitats or wildlife. Class I facilities in parks and along creeks could require additional analyses as they are designed. As discussed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, the project would not have a significant impact on cultural resources with the incorporation of the described mitigation measures. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) 4.18.2 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The project would not result in impacts to agricultural and forest resources or mineral resources and, therefore, would not contribute to the cumulative impacts of those resources. Project components that would result in the removal of existing trees would need additional environmental study prior to project construction. 1066 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 81 May 2016 The Class II, III and IV bicycle facilities and spot improvements that would not result in the removal of trees would not have a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on trees. The project would increase the number of bicyclists and pedestrians using the network which would increase the number of people on the streets at any given time. While this would increase the inherent risk for bicyclists and pedestrians, the improvements proposed as part of the project including signalization at intersections and protected bike lanes would reduce the risks associated with traditional bicycle use on urban and residential streets. There are no planned or proposed developments in the project area that could contribute to cumulative aesthetic, air quality (including construction-related impacts), hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, recreation, or utilities and service system impacts. The project’s archaeological resources and geology and soils impacts are specific to the project site and would not contribute to cumulative impacts elsewhere. The project’s cumulative impacts to greenhouse gas emissions is discussed in Section 4.7 and it was concluded that the project would have a less than significant (cumulative) impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the discussion above, the project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.18.3 Short-term Environmental Goals vs. Long-term Environmental Goals The project proposes to improve upon and expand the existing bicycle network throughout the City. The project would not result in the conversion of a greenfield site to urban uses or otherwise commit resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. The construction phase would require the use of nonrenewable construction material, such as concrete, metals, and plastics. Nonrenewable resources and energy would also be consumed during the manufacturing and transportation of bicycle facility materials, preparation of the specific project area, and construction of the project components. The operational phase would not consume energy because it would be used by bicyclists or pedestrians. Energy, in the form of fossil fuels, may be indirectly used as bicycle network users may drive to parks with bikes to begin recreationally using the network however, the intent of the project is to provide safe alternative transit routes for commuters and residents. The project would not induce substantial job or population growth (refer to Section 4.13) or result in a large or irretrievable commitment of resources. For these reasons, the project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.18.4 Direct or Indirect Adverse Effects on Human Beings Based on the analysis completed in Section 4.0 of this Initial Study, the project would not result in direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. (Less Than Significant Impact) 1067 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 82 May 2016 Checklist Sources 1. Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental specialist preparing this assessment, based upon a review of the site and surrounding conditions, as well as a review of the project plans. 2. City of Cupertino. General Plan. November 2005. 3. City of Cupertino. Municipal Code. February 19, 2013. 4. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012. Map. 5. County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazards Zones Map 18. Accessed April 13, 2016. Available at: < https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/PlansOrdinances/GeoHazards/Pages/GeoMaps.aspx> 6. California Air Resources Board. “First Update to AB 32 Scoping Plan.” May 27, 2014. Accessed April 13, 2016. Available at: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm> 7. County of Santa Clara, Planning Office. “Airport Land-Use Commission”. Accessed April 13, 2016. Available at: <http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx >. 8. CalFire. “Santa Clara County FHSZ Maps” Accessed April 11, 2016. Available at: <http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php> 9. Santa Clara Valley Water District. “West Valley Watershed.” Accessed April 11, 2016. Available at: < http://www.valleywater.org/uploadedImages/Services/HealthyCreeksEcoSystems/WatershedI nformation/WestValley/WestValley2005Mapxl.jpg?n=1070 > 10. Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2012 Groundwater Management Plan. 11. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Clara County, California, Community-Panel Number 06085C0209H, May 18, 2009. 12. United States Census Bureau. “State and County QuickFacts.” Cupertino (city), California. Accessed April 11, 2016. Available at: <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0617610.html> 13. City of Cupertino. “Fire: Santa Clara County Fire Department About County Fire”. Accessed April 11, 2016. Available at: <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=365> 14. City of Cupertino. “Sheriff's Office West Valley Division”. Accessed April 11, 2016. Available at: <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=364> 1068 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 83 May 2016 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments. Interactive Flooding Map. Accessed February 18, 2015. Available at: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=femaZones CalFire. “Santa Clara County FHSZ Maps” Accessed April 13, 2016. Available at: <http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php> California Air Resources Board. “First Update to AB 32 Scoping Plan.” May 27, 2014. Accessed February 4, 2015. Available at: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm > California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014. 2013. ---. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012. Map. City of Cupertino. “City of Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update (Draft Plan)”. March 2016. City of Cupertino. “Fire: Santa Clara County Fire Department About County Fire”. Accessed April 13, 2016. Available at: <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=365> ---. “Sheriff's Office West Valley Division”. Accessed December 23, 2014. Available at: <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=364> ---. General Plan. November 2005. ---. Municipal Code. February 19, 2013. County of Santa Clara, Planning Office. “Airport Land-Use Commission”. Accessed April 13, 2016. Available at: <http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx >. County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazards Zones Map 18. Accessed February 3, 2015. Available at: <http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/GIS/GeoHazardZones/Documents/GeohazardMapsA TLAS2.pdf> Cupertino Sanitary District. 2014 Annual Report. 2014. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Clara County, California, Community-Panel Number 06085C0209H, May 18, 2009. Fehr & Peers. Transportation Impact Analysis. February 6, 2015. King, Rick. Personal communications with NISL General Manager. February 2012. 1069 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 84 May 2016 McGourty, Scott. Personal communications with Environmental Manager at NISL. May, 2014. San José Water Company. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2011. Santa Clara Valley Water District. “West Valley Watershed.” Accessed April 30, 2014. Available at: < http://www.valleywater.org/uploadedImages/Services/HealthyCreeksEcoSystems/WatershedI nformation/WestValley/WestValley2005Mapxl.jpg?n=1070 >. ---. 2012 Groundwater Management Plan. United States Census Bureau. “American Fact Finder”. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010, for the City of Cupertino. Accessed January 22, 2015. Available at: <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10 _AIAN_AIANDP1&prodType=table> ---. “State and County QuickFacts.” Cupertino (city), California. Accessed December 23, 2014. Available at: < http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0617610.html> 1070 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Initial Study City of Cupertino 85 May 2016 SECTION 6.0 AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS 6.1 LEAD AGENCY City of Cupertino Department of Public Works Timm Borden, Director David Stillman, Senior Civil Engineer 6.2 CONSULTANTS David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants and Planners Jodi Starbird, Principal Caroline Weston, Researcher Zach Dill, Graphic Artist 1071 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:216-1621 Name: Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/7/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Brush abatement for public nuisance and potential fire hazard Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20162 Subject: Brush abatement for public nuisance and potential fire hazard Remove this item from the agenda since any parcels on the list have complied CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™1072 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 21, 2016 Subject Brush abatement for public nuisance and potential fire hazard. Recommended Action Remove this item from the agenda. Discussion On June 6, 2016, Council adopted Resolution No. 16-060 declaring brush to be a public nuisance and potential fire hazard and setting a hearing date of June 21 to consider any objections of property owners to the proposed removal of brush. The Santa Clara County Fire Department Assistant Fire Marshal informed the City Clerk’s Office that any outstanding parcels in Cupertino this year have complied, making a hearing unnecessary. Sustainability Impact None Fiscal Impact None _____________________________________ Prepared by: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk Reviewed by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: 1073 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1377 Name: Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/14/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:6/21/2016 Title:Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council6/21/20161 Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Report on Committee assignments and general comments CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/16/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™1074