Loading...
04-01-14 Searchable packetTable of Contents Agenda 3 Joint City Council and Planning Commission study session to review the Goals, Policies and Programs for the 2014 - 2022 Housing Element Staff Report 10 A - Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 19 B - Summary of proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 38 C - Summary Matrix Table of Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Programs and Relationship to Goals and Policies 41 D - Proposed Revisions of 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals and Policies 48 E - Summary of Financial Resources for Housing 51 Joint City Council and Planning Commission study session regarding Draft GPA concepts Staff Report 54 A - Revised Concept Alternative Diagrams 69 B - Retail Strategy 72 C - Draft 2040 Community Vision and Guiding Principles 166 Proclamation for National Volunteer week No Written Materials 169 2014 Arbor Day Proclamation Staff Report 170 A - 2013 Growth Award 171 Teen Commission annual update No Written Materials 172 Approve the March 17 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes 173 Approve the March 18 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes 177 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending February 7, 2014 A - Draft Resolution 182 Accept Accounts payable for period ending February 21, 2014 A - Draft Resolution 191 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending February 28, 2014 A - Draft Resolution 200 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending March 7, 2014 A - Draft Resolution 209 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending March 21, 2014 A - Draft Resolution 217 B - Draft AP Report 218 1 Renew the voluntary cap of $28,000 for campaign expenditures for the 2014 City Council election Staff Report 229 A - Draft Resolution 231 Parcel Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Apple Campus 2 Staff Report 234 A - Draft Resolution 237 B - Final Map 239 C - Subdivision Improvement Agreement 246 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)and General Fund Human Service Grant (HSG) Allocations for FY 14-15 (1st hearing) Staff Report 267 A - Draft Resolution 273 B - Adjusted Grant Application Summary 275 C - Grant Application Summary 276 D - CDBG Annual Action Plan 277 E - Charities Housing Funding Request 335 F - Grant Application Descriptions 337 Accept resignation of Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioner Ashish Kolli and Public Safety Commissioner Lily Lim, and direct staff to fill the unscheduled vacancies Staff Report 341 A - Ashish Kolli Resignation Letter 343 B - Lily Lim Resignation Letter 344 McClellan Ranch Preserve Environmental Education Center and Blacksmith Shop Relocation Project – receive report on bids, award a construction contract to lowest responsive and responsible bidder, authorize contingency budget, authorize the first amendment of the agreement with Siegel & Strain Architects for construction support services, and approve a Deed Restriction on the property as required by the grant funding Staff Report 345 A - Draft Amendment to the Agreement 351 B - Draft Resolution 390 C - Deed Restriction Document 391 Interim Parking Plan at the Civic Center Staff Report 408 A - Aerial Map of Existing Parking 412 B - 3/18/14 Survey Results 413 Public Works Construction Project Updates No Written Materials 460 2 AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ SPECIAL MEETING CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION – SPECIAL MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:00 PM JOINT MEETING OF CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AND CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – 3:00 PM ROLL CALL STUDY SESSION 1. Subject: Joint City Council and Planning Commission study session to review the Goals, Policies and Programs for the 2014 - 2022 Housing Element Recommended Action: Accept the reports on Accomplishments on 2007 – 2014 Housing Element and provide comments on the draft Goals and Policies for the 2014 – 2022 Housing Element. Description: Study session to review the Housing Plan section of the 2014-2022 Housing Element Staff Report A - Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs B - Summary of proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs C - Summary Matrix Table of Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Programs and Relationship to Goals and Policies D - Proposed Revisions of 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals and Policies E - Summary of Financial Resources for Housing Page: 10 3 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 Cupertino City Council 2. Subject: Joint City Council and Planning Commission study session regarding Draft GPA concepts Recommended Action: Review policy topics for the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and provide comments Description: Study session on major policy topics to be considered in the focused General Plan Amendment (GPA-2013-01) process Staff Report A - Revised Concept Alternative Diagrams B - Retail Strategy C - Draft 2040 Community Vision and Guiding Principles Page: 54 ADJOURNMENT OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL – 6:45 PM CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 3. Subject: Proclamation for National Volunteer week Recommended Action: Present the proclamation No Written Materials Page: No written materials in packet 4. Subject: 2014 Arbor Day Proclamation Recommended Action: Present proclamation Staff Report A - 2013 Growth Award Page: 170 5. Subject: Teen Commission annual update Recommended Action: Receive the presentation No Written Materials Page: No written materials in packet POSTPONEMENTS 4 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 Cupertino City Council ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 6. Subject: Approve the March 17 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes A - Draft Minutes Page: 173 7. Subject: Approve the March 18 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes A - Draft Minutes Page: 177 8. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending February 7, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-132 accepting Accounts Payable for period ending February 7, 2014 A - Draft Resolution Page: 182 9. Subject: Accept Accounts payable for period ending February 21, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-133 accepting Accounts payable for period ending February 21, 2014 A - Draft Resolution Page: 191 10. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending February 28, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-134 accepting Accounts Payable for period ending February 28, 2014 A - Draft Resolution Page: 200 5 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 Cupertino City Council 11. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending March 7, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-135 accepting Accounts Payable for period ending March 7, 2014 A - Draft Resolution Page: 209 12. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending March 21, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-136 accepting Accounts Payable for period ending March 21, 2014 A - Draft Resolution B - Draft AP Report Page: 217 13. Subject: Renew the voluntary cap of $28,000 for campaign expenditures for the 2014 City Council election Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-137 setting a voluntary expenditure cap of $28,000 for the election of 2014 Staff Report A - Draft Resolution Page: 229 14. Subject: Parcel Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Apple Campus 2 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-138 approving the Parcel Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Apple Campus 2 Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Final Map C - Subdivision Improvement Agreement Page: 234 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 6 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 Cupertino City Council PUBLIC HEARINGS 15. Subject: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and General Fund Human Service Grant (HSG) Allocations for FY 14-15 (1st hearing) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-139 approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and General Fund Human Service Grant (HSG) Allocations for FY 14-15 Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Adjusted Grant Application Summary C - Grant Application Summary D - CDBG Annual Action Plan E - Charities Housing Funding Request F - Grant Application Descriptions Page: 267 ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 16. Subject: Accept resignation of Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioner Ashish Kolli and Public Safety Commissioner Lily Lim, and direct staff to fill the unscheduled vacancies Recommended Action: a) Accept resignation of Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioner Ashish Kolli, set application deadline date of Friday, May 30 at 4:30 p.m. and schedule interview date for Tuesday, June 10 beginning at 5:00 pm to fill the unscheduled vacancy; and b) Accept resignation of Public Safety Commissioner Lily Lim and set application deadline date of Friday, May 30 at 4:30 p.m. and schedule interview date for Tuesday, June 10 beginning at 4:00 pm; or c) Accept resignation of Public Safety Commissioner Lily Lim and fill the unscheduled vacancy from applicants interviewed in January Staff Report A - Ashish Kolli Resignation Letter B - Lily Lim Resignation Letter Page: 341 7 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 Cupertino City Council 17. Subject: McClellan Ranch Preserve Environmental Education Center and Blacksmith Shop Relocation Project – receive report on bids, award a construction contract to lowest responsive and responsible bidder, authorize contingency budget, authorize the first amendment of the agreement with Siegel & Strain Architects for construction support services, and approve a Deed Restriction on the property as required by the grant funding Recommended Action: 1) Award a contract for the construction of the subject project to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Romkon, Inc., in the amount of $1,798,000; and 2) Authorize a construction contingency budget of $270,000, approximately fifteen (15%) of the construction contract value, to address unforeseen conditions during construction; and 3) Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute the first amendment to the current consultant services agreement with Siegel & Strain Architects for construction support services for an amount not to exceed $80,000 for a total contract amount of $280,000; and 4) Adopt Resolution No. 14-140 authorizing the City Manager to execute and record a Deed Restriction granting a right of entry and a limitation of use for an environmental classroom facility in order to receive grant funds Staff Report A - Draft Amendment to the Agreement B - Draft Resolution C - Deed Restriction Document Page: 345 18. Subject: Interim Parking Plan at the Civic Center Recommended Action: Accept Staff Report on interim parking improvements at the Civic Center Staff Report A - Aerial Map of Existing Parking B - 3/18/14 Survey Results Page: 408 REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 19. Subject: Public Works Construction Project Updates Recommended Action: Present Construction Project Update Report No Written Materials Page: No written materials in packet ADJOURNMENT 8 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 Cupertino City Council 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), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. 9     DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL  10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014‐3255  (408) 777‐3308 • FAX (408) 777‐3333  PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT  Meeting: April 1, 2014    Agenda Item No. 1     SUBJECT:   Study Session to review the Housing Plan section of the 2014‐2022 Housing Element.   RECOMMENDATION:  Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council accept the reports on  Accomplishments on 2007 – 2014 Housing Element and provide comments on the draft Goals  and Policies for the 2014 – 2022 Housing Element.  BACKGROUND:  Housing Element Overview  In accordance with State law, California cities must have an adopted General Plan, which must  contain a Housing Element. Housing Element law requires that all jurisdictions facilitate  housing development by creating policies and adopting land use plans and regulatory schemes  that provide opportunities for housing development, including units that could accommodate  households with extremely low, very low, low, moderate and higher incomes.   State law requires that each city and county update its Housing Element on a pre‐determined  cycle. For the current cycle, the updated Housing Element must be adopted by January 31, 2015  (plus a 120‐day grace period).  If this adoption deadline is met, the planning period for this  cycle extends from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or eight years). Otherwise, the City must  update the Housing Element again in 2019 (every four years). The City Council approved the  project scope of work and authorized the budget for the project on November 4, 2013.  Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)  The RHNA is an estimate of projected needed housing units throughout the State and is based  on Department of Finance population projections and regional population and employment  forecasts.         10 Page 2 Planning Commission/City Council Housing Element Study Session March 19, 2014    The RHNA identifies Cupertino’s regional housing needs by income levels:     Income Group RHNA  Very Low (≤ 50% of Area Median Income(AMI)) 356  Low(51 – 80% of AMI) 207  Moderate(81 ‐ 120% of AMI) 231  Above Moderate(> 120% of AMI) 270  Total 1,064                                                         The City is not obligated to construct the housing units identified by the RHNA. Rather, the  City’s responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity, by identifying specific sites, to satisfy  the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy.  HCD generally requires jurisdictions to  show a surplus of sites/units in order to guarantee that the City could realistically accommodate  the RHNA allocations.     The Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council have conducted multiple  study sessions and community workshops to review potential housing sites to meet the RHNA.  On March 4, 2014, the City Council provided direction on the sites that would be studied in the  EIR. Sites were presented in two tiers of priority: High and Moderate. These sites consistently  met criteria set by both the State and the City presenting realistic potential for housing  development during the planning cycle. While all sites will be studied in the EIR, final decisions  on potential sites to be included in the Housing Element will be made by City Council in the  fall.  Housing Plan  Required by State law, the Housing Element includes a Housing Plan section, which outlines  the goals, policies, and implementation programs to guide the City’s housing policy.  State law  requires that the Housing Plan section address the maintenance, preservation, improvement,  and development of housing. In addition, the Housing Plan section must include  implementation programs that achieve the following:   1) Make sites available to meet the RHNA  2) Assist in the development of adequate affordable housing   3) Address, and where legally possible, remove governmental constraints to housing  improvement and development  4) Conserve and improve the condition of existing affordable housing  5) Promote equal housing opportunities regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, etc.  6) Preserve affordable housing developments that may be at risk of converting to market‐rate    The Housing Plan section must also identify appropriate funding sources, timeframes for  completion, and responsible parties for each implementation measure.    11 Page 3 Planning Commission/City Council Housing Element Study Session March 19, 2014  General Plan Amendment and Environmental Review  In addition to the Housing Element, the City is also preparing a General Plan Amendment  (GPA) for City Council consideration, as directed by the City Council in August 2012. The  primary purpose of the GPA is to replenish, re‐allocate, and potentially increase citywide  development allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development activity while  keeping with the community’s character, goals, and objectives. The secondary purpose of the  GPA is to consolidate development requests by several property owners for amendments to the  General Plan, under a comprehensive community vision. The environmental review for the  General Plan and Housing Element projects is being completed concurrently and will be  presented in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It is anticipated that the Draft EIR will be  available in Summer 2014.  DISCUSSION:  2007‐2014 Housing Element Housing Plan  As part of the 2007‐2014 Housing Element drafting, a wide‐ranging public outreach effort was  undertaken, including interviews with stakeholders, public meetings, and study sessions with  decision makers. These meetings contributed to the development of the goals, policies, and  implementation programs that were ultimately adopted in the 2007‐2014 Housing Element  (adopted in 2010).    Update to the Housing Plan for 2014‐2022  Four years later, the 2014‐2022 Housing Element draws strongly from the 2007‐2014 Housing  Element. After recent significant public input (including stakeholder interviews in 2013, two  community workshops, and three study sessions—outlined in more detail below under Public  Noticing and Outreach) the City has received input that very closely reflects the input received  for the previous Housing Element and the resulting Housing Plan. As such, the public outreach  thus far has indicated no significant, broad‐reaching changes to housing policy.     The City’s consultant, the team of MIG and Veronica Tam and Associates, has considered public  input to date and taken the following steps in reviewing the existing Housing Element and  developing proposed amendments to the proposed Housing Plan:  ƒ Revise programs to ensure the Housing Element complies with State Housing Element  law, including efforts to encourage housing opportunities for extremely low‐income  households (AB 2634) and persons with developmental disabilities (SB 812);   ƒ Introduce a new goal to highlight City efforts in energy conservation regarding new and  existing development.  ƒ Add additional policy related to mixed‐use development to encourage development on  identified sites to meet the RHNA; and   ƒ Reformatting to reduce redundancy and reorganizing for ease in reading and  implementing.  12 Page 4 Planning Commission/City Council Housing Element Study Session March 19, 2014  Attachment A provides a summary of the accomplishments on the previous (2007‐2014 Housing  Element) implementation programs, with an added discussion of proposed program  recommendations for the 2014‐2022 Housing Element.  Building on the policy direction of the  previous Housing Element, recent public outreach efforts, and the GPA vision and planning  principles, staff has outlined proposed goals, policies, and programs for the 2014‐2022 Housing  Element as indicated in Attachment B. Attachment C provides a detailed matrix table of each  proposed program with a program description and relationship to proposed goals and policies  for the upcoming 2014‐2022 Housing Element. Attachment D outlines proposed revisions to the  existing Housing Element’s goals and policies.    Affordable Housing Funding  The City of Cupertino has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources for  affordable housing activities.  A summary of each of these financial resources is available in  Attachment E. These include programs from federal, state, local, and private resources,  including:  ƒ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development  Block Grant (CDBG) Program   ƒ City’s General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program  ƒ City’s Below Market‐Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF)   ƒ Housing Trust Silicon Valley   ƒ Santa Clara County Office of Affordable Housing – Mortgage Credit Certificate Program  ƒ Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) – Housing Choice Voucher  Program   ƒ Low‐Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)   ƒ Potential participation in the County Consortium for HOME Investment Partnerships  Program (HOME) funds   Redevelopment Funding  Redevelopment Agency (RDA) housing set‐aside funds, which used to be a primary local  funding source for affordable housing, are no longer available to assist in new affordable  housing development or acquisition/rehabilitation of existing units for conversion into  affordable housing. This loss is associated with the Governor’s 2011 State budget revisions and  subsequent court cases, and as a result, funding sources for affordable housing are significantly  more constrained.   BMR (Below‐Market Rate) Mitigation Program  Cupertino retains elements of an affordable housing program—its Housing Mitigation  Program—as a resource.  However, a 2009 court‐case (Palmer vs. the City of Los Angeles) has  resulted in cities suspending or amending the portion of their Housing Mitigation program  requiring affordable units to be included in market‐rate rental developments.  There also have  13 Page 5 Planning Commission/City Council Housing Element Study Session March 19, 2014  been a number of court cases related to affordable housing requirements (decided and those  that are still being litigated).  Due to uncertainty regarding the legal standard applicable to  affordable housing requirements, the Governor vetoed an Assembly Bill (AB 1229) which aimed  to reverse the decision in the Palmer case.    Currently pending in the California Supreme Court is a challenge to the City of San Joseʹs  inclusionary ordinance. The Building Industry Association asserts that all programs requiring  affordable housing, whether for‐sale or for‐rent, must be justified by a nexus study showing  that the affordable housing requirement is ʹreasonably relatedʹ to the impacts of the project on  the need for affordable housing. In a previous California Supreme Court case, Sterling Park v.  City of Palo Alto, the Court ruled that affordable housing requirements were a type of exaction  that could be challenged under the protest provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act.     The City of Cupertino has long justified its Housing Mitigation program as based on the  impacts of market‐rate housing on the need for affordable housing and continues to require  rental housing developments to pay a mitigation fee. However, the fee is based on an older  nexus study. The methodology and facts justifying the fee may have changed and therefore, the  City intends to update its nexus study on the BMR mitigation fees in the fiscal year 2014‐2015 to  determine appropriate housing mitigation fees.    For Cupertino, key items to address in the Affordable Housing topic include updating the  nexus study and housing mitigation requirements given the Palmer decision and continuing  legal challenges to affordable housing programs. An existing program, the Rental Preservation  Program, is retained as a placeholder so that additional review of similar programs in other  jurisdictions may be conducted to determine whether this may be modified or retained. Options  for Council review will be presented with the Draft Housing Element in Fall 2014.   Housing Commission Study Session on Housing Plan  On March 19, 2014, the Housing Commission held a study session to review accomplishments  that the City achieved on the previous Housing Element and discuss potential changes to goals,  policies, and implementation programs from the 2007‐2014 Housing Element. The City’s  consultant provided a presentation to review the goals and policies proposed for the Housing  Element Update. Minor updates and reorganization is proposed to the goals and policies and  the general intent remains consistent with the vision of the existing Housing Element.     The Housing Commission discussed the presentation and noted that there is a growing need for  affordable housing in the community; however, it often meets with community resistance –  likely due to lack of awareness and education. The Commission recommended increasing  education and awareness on affordable housing issues.   Public Comments  Comments from the public are summarized below with staff comments in italics, where  appropriate.  14 Page 6 Planning Commission/City Council Housing Element Study Session March 19, 2014  ƒ New market‐rate housing tends to have households with many cars, increasing traffic  problems. Senior housing, on the other hand does not have the same level of traffic impacts  ‐ Environmental review on traffic is currently underway and will assess potential traffic impacts and  will identify mitigation measures that to mitigate the potential impacts. The Draft EIR will be  available for public review and comment this summer.  ƒ Housing needs to be distributed throughout the community ‐ Proposed sites meet the criteria of  ABAG’s One Bay Area Plan of developing along the existing VTA PDA’s. Sites being studied in the  EIR include sites that meet HCD criteria located in southern and western parts of the City.  ƒ Citizens have been pushing for granny units to be used to meet the RHNA, but the City has  been discouraging that ‐ Use of second units to meet the RHNA is specifically regulated by State  law.  The City may only project the number of second units to be credited toward the RHNA based on  historical trends in terms of number of units and demonstrated affordability.  During the last seven  years, only 31 second units had been constructed. At the maximum, the City can assume a similar  level of second units to be constructed over the next eight years.  ƒ Rather than increasing density, encourage smaller units that will be affordable to seniors  and single persons ‐ The Housing Element includes Policy 5: Range of Housing Types “Encourage  the development of diverse housing stock that provides a range of housing types (including smaller,  moderate cost housing) and affordability levels.” However, the City must not take actions that will  make housing unavailable to families with children.  ƒ School impacts are a concern. If Alternative A in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) can  meet RHNA, the City should not consider Alternatives B and C ‐ Pursuant to SB 50, the City  is not permitted to consider the environmental impacts on the need for school facilities if a developer  pays school impact fees. Additionally, CEQA requires an EIR to analyze a reasonable range of  alternatives to the proposed project. However, for some projects, there is the potential for negotiated  Development Agreements to result in additional benefits to schools such as funding for facilities,  provision of facilities within the development site, or funding for operational costs.  ƒ Mixed use development is not working. Most developers are interested in developing the  residential portion of the project and do not include substantial commercial uses or parking,  and the retail portions end up being poorly planned/designed and therefore, unsuccessful –  Potential sites identified for inclusion in the Housing Element are intended to best facilitate mixed‐ use development, especially at corner properties where commercial uses are most viable. Suggestions  for lot consolidation for potential housing element sites identified have also been based on experience  from previous mixed‐use developments.  Additionally, site planning for newer developments is based  on staff’s experience from site planning with past developments.   ƒ Energy conservation mechanisms can lead to cost savings and more affordable housing ‐ An  existing policy to support energy conservation in rehabilitation has now been added as a new goal for  all construction – rehabilitation and new construction.    The Housing Commission accepted the reports and recommended forwarding the goals and  policies as proposed to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration.  15 Page 7 Planning Commission/City Council Housing Element Study Session March 19, 2014  PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH  The following outreach efforts have been undertaken on this project to date.   Postcards  A postcard was delivered in February 2014 to all postal addresses in the City to announce  upcoming dates on the General Plan and Housing Element projects. The postcard also provided  a brief description of the two projects and identified the project website where interested persons  may sign up for project updates and further notices.   Website  A website has been set up for the combined General Plan and Housing Element projects at  www.cupertinogpa.org. All technical reports, notices and other important information are  available at the website. The website also has a separate tab for the Housing Element project  which provides answers to Frequently Asked Questions. Interested persons may also submit  comments at the website.   Meetings  Stakeholder Interviews – Stakeholder interviews were conducted on December 11 & 12, 2013 to  solicit input from stakeholders ranging from community members, property owners, housing  developers, service providers, School Districts and the business community.   Joint PC/HC Workshop – On January 23, 2014 the Planning Commission and Housing Commission  hosted a joint workshop to begin the Housing Element Sites discussion. Eleven participants  broke into small groups and identified potential future sites for housing and criteria for  increased density in certain areas including community benefits. Participants drew on maps and  placed stickers to identify potential housing sites.   February 12 Housing Commission Workshop – On February 12, 2014 the Housing Commission  hosted a workshop to continue the Housing Element Sites discussion and prioritize sites for  inclusion in the Housing Element. Following a project update presentation, approximately  fifteen (15) participants broke into three groups and discussed identification of new sites and  prioritizing potential housing sites to meet the RHNA of 1,064. The Housing Commission  recommended forwarding all the sites highlighted by the workshop participants as priority sites  to the Planning Commission for consideration.    February 19 Planning Commission Open House and Study Session – On February 19, 2014, the  Planning Commission hosted an open house and study session to provide a public forum to  continue the Housing Element Sites discussion and prioritize sites for inclusion in the Housing  Element. The planning commission recommended criteria to focus the sites selection.  Specifically, the Commission recommended removing certain sites that were viewed as unviable  (successful shopping centers, sites with existing established institutional uses, and small sites  with low yield or no property owner interest). In addition, the Planning Commission  recommended including sites that would further the following three goals: distribute housing  16 Page 8 Planning Commission/City Council Housing Element Study Session March 19, 2014  throughout the city, encourage development along the Priority Development Area designated by  the One Bay Area Plan, and minimize impacts to schools.    March 4 City Council Study Session – On March 4, 2014 the City Council held a study session to  discuss in depth the potential housing sites that would be analyzed in the Environmental Impact  Report. A detailed list of “High” and “Moderate” priority sites was proposed, based on previous  public and Commission input. The Council recommended including two additional sites, which  had previously been included in the last Housing Element, and provided direction to study in  the EIR all sites presented as “High” and “Moderate”. The Council was also advised at this  meeting that impact to schools may not be a goal of the site selection exercise since SB‐50  preempts this issue with the adoption of School Impact Mitigation fees which fully mitigate any  school impacts from development of property.  March 11 Environmental Review Scoping Meeting – On March 11, 2014, the City held a Scoping  Meeting to discuss the Environmental Review of the combined General Plan Amendment and  Housing Element update project. The meeting provided an opportunity for the community to  comment on the scope and content of the EIR.    March 19 Housing Commission Meeting on Housing Policy ‐ On March 19, 2014, the Housing  Commission held a study session to discuss revisions to housing goals, policies, and programs  associated with the Housing Element update. More detail on this meeting is summarized above  under “Update to the Housing Plan for 2014‐2022” section.  The following table summarizes the noticing for this meeting:    Notice  Agenda  ƒ Email sent to all interested parties  signed up through the project website    ƒ Posted on the Cityʹs official notice bulletin  board  (five days prior to the hearing)     ƒ Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web  site (five days prior to the hearing)   ƒ Posted on the project Website (five days  prior to hearing)    CONCLUSION  The goal for this study session is to provide comments on proposed goals and policy revisions  and identify any additional goals, policies, or implementation programs for inclusion in the  2014‐2022 Housing Element update.          Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, AICP, Senior Planner   Christopher “C.J.” Valenzuela, Senior Housing Planner  MIG, Consultant to the City of Cupertino  Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development    Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development   Approved by: David Brandt, City Manager  17 Page 9 Planning Commission/City Council Housing Element Study Session March 19, 2014    Attachments:  A. Summary of Accomplishments of 2007‐2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs   B. Summary of proposed 2014‐2022 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs  C. Summary Matrix Table of proposed 2014‐2022 Housing Element Programs and     Relationship to Goals and Policies   D. Proposed Revisions of 2007‐2014 Housing Element Goals and Policies  E. Summary of Financial Resources for Housing  18 ATTACHMENT A Page 1 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All Economic Segments Policy 1: Sufficiently Residentially Zoned Land for New Construction Need Program 1: Zoning and Land Use Designations Rezone one property (APN: 326-10- 046) of 7.98 acres from 10 units per acre to 25 units per acre to accommodate up to 199 units. The City completed the rezoning of 7.98 acres of land from 10 du/ac to 25 du/ac in 2010. The City is currently updating the Land Use Element concurrent with the Housing Element update. The Land Use Element update will likely result in additional sites for residential and mixed use development to accommodate the fifth cycle RHNA of 1,064 units. This program is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element to reflect the need to maintain an inventory of sites to accommodate the new RHNA of 1,064 units. New Program 1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions The City will continue to: • Provide adequate capacity through its Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance to accommodate its RHNA of 1,064 units, while maintaining a balanced land use plan that offers opportunities for employment growth, commercial/retail activities, services, and amenities. • Monitor its development standards to ensure they are adequate and appropriate to facilitate a range of housing in the community • Monitor its sites inventory and make it available on City website. Program 2: Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance Continue to implement ordinance to achieve 25 second units Between 2007 and 2013, 31 second units were constructed in the City. This program continues to be appropriate for the City and is proposed to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. New Program 2: Second Dwelling Units The City will continue to implement the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and encourage the production of second units. Program 3: Encourage Lot Consolidation Continue to encourage lot consolidation through master plans. Provide technical assistance to property owners. The City continues to provide assistance to property owners regarding lot consolidation. This is an ongoing activity and is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. New Program 3: Lot Consolidation The City will continue to: • Encourage lot consolidation when contiguous smaller, underutilized parcels are to be redeveloped. • Encourage master plans for such sites with coordinated access and circulation. 19 Page 2 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language • Provide technical assistance to property owners of adjacent parcels to facilitate coordinated redevelopment where appropriate. • Encourage intra- and inter-agency cooperation in working with applicants at no cost prior to application submittal for assistance with preliminary plan review. Goal B: Housing is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households Policy 2: Housing Mitigation Plan Program 4: Housing Mitigation Plan – Office and Industrial Mitigation Continue to implement Office and Industrial Mitigation fee program. Between 2007 and 2013, $1,195,414 had been collected through the Housing Mitigation Program (Office/Industrial and Residential) and deposited to the Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). This program represents a key financing mechanism for affordable housing in Cupertino and is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. New Program 5: Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program The City will continue to implement the Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program. This program requires that developers of office, commercial, and industrial space pay a fee, which will then be used to support affordable housing for families who work in Cupertino but live elsewhere. These fees are collected and deposited in the City’s Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). 20 Page 3 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language Program 5: Housing Mitigation Program – Residential Mitigation Continue to implement the “Housing Mitigation” program to mitigate the need for affordable housing created by new market-rate residential development. Between 2007 and 2013, 20 Below Market Rate (BMR) units were created through the Residential Housing Mitigation Program: • 17 BMR rental units (Markham) • 3 BMR ownership units (Las Palmas) The City contracts with West Valley Community Services (WVCS) to administer the Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Program which includes placing eligible households in the City’s BMR units. Between 2007 and 2013, $1,195,414 had been collected through the Housing Mitigation Program (Office/Industrial and Residential) and deposited to the City’s Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). This program represents a key mechanism for affordable housing in Cupertino and is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. New Program 6: Residential Housing Mitigation Program The City will continue to implement the Residential Housing Mitigation Program to mitigate the need for affordable housing created by new market-rate residential development. This program applies to all new residential development of one unit or greater. Mitigation includes either the payment of the “Housing Mitigation” fee or the provision of a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit or units. Projects of seven or more for-sale units must provide on-site BMR units. Projects of six units or fewer for-sale units can either build one BMR unit or pay the Housing Mitigation fee. Developers of market-rate rental units, where the units cannot be sold individually, must pay the Housing Mitigation fee to the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). Program 6: Affordable Housing Fund Provide financial assistance to affordable housing developments. Expend housing funds in the following manner: • Finance affordable housing Between 2007 and 2013, $1,195,414 had been collected through the Housing Mitigation Program (Office/Industrial and Residential) and deposited to the City’s Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). These funds were used to support affordable housing projects, programs and services such as: The City will continue to utilize the Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) to support affordable housing projects, programs and services. This program is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 New Program 7: Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) The City’s Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) will continue to support affordable housing projects, programs and services, including but not limited to: 21 Page 4 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language projects. • Establish a down payment assistance plan that may be used in conjunction with the BMR program or to make market rate units more affordable. • Establish a rental subsidy program to make market rate units more affordable. 1. Project Sentinel – Landlord/Tenant Mediation Services 2. West Valley Community Services (WVCS) – BMR Program Administration 3. 19935 Price Avenue – Acquisition of affordable housing residential rental property. However, the City did not establish a downpayment assistance program or a rental subsidy program. Housing Element with a revised expanded list of potential eligible uses of funds. • Rehabilitation • Acquisition with or without rehabilitation • New construction • Preserving “at-risk” BMR units • Rental operating subsidies • Down payment assistance • Land write-downs • Direct gap financing • Public service agencies • Special needs housing The City will target a portion of the Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) to benefit extremely low- income households and persons with special needs (such as the elderly, victims of domestic violence, and the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities). 22 Page 5 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language Policy 3: Range of Housing Types Program 7: Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program Participate in the countywide MCC program to assist one to two households annually. The County of Santa Clara continues to operate this program. However, given the high home prices in Cupertino, the potential of utilizing this program is limited. As of 2013, the maximum purchase price limits were $570,000 for resale properties and $630,000 for new units. This program is proposed to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing Element as a new program – Referral to Housing Resources. New Program 8: Referral to Housing Resources The City will continue to provide information on housing resources and services offered by the County and other outside agencies. These include, but are not limited to: • Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) • Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers • Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (HTSCC) • Housing Authority of Santa Clara County (HASCC) • County of Santa Clara HOME Consortium Program 8: Move-In for Less Program Program is offered by the Apartments Association. This program offered by the Tri-County Apartment Association was discontinued in 2010. This program is proposed to be removed from the 2014-2022 Housing Element. Program removed. 23 Page 6 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language Program 9: Surplus Property for Housing Explore opportunities on surplus properties as follows: • In conjunction with local public agencies, school districts and churches, develop a list of surplus property or underutilized property that have the potential for residential development. • Encourage long-term land leases of property from churches, school districts corporations for construction of affordable units. • Evaluate the feasibility of developing special housing for teachers or other employee groups on the surplus properties. • Review housing programs in neighboring school districts that assist teachers for applicability in Cupertino. As part of the 2014-2022 Housing Element update and concurrent Land Use Element update, the City has explored and prioritized various vacant and underutilized properties with potential residential and mixed use development within the next eight years. These properties are included in the sites inventory for the Housing Element. This program is proposed to be included and revised in the 2015-2023 Housing Element. New Program 9: Surplus Properties for Housing The City will explore opportunities on surplus properties as follows: • Work with local public agencies, school districts and churches, to identify surplus properties or underutilized properties that have the potential for residential development. • Encourage long-term land leases of properties from churches, school districts, and corporations for construction of affordable units. • Evaluate the feasibility of developing special housing for teachers or other employee groups on the surplus properties. • Review housing programs in neighboring school districts that assist teachers for applicability in Cupertino. Program 10: Jobs/Housing Balance Program Require major new office/industrial development to build housing as part of new development projects. The City’s General Plan and 2007-2014 Housing Element offer adequate capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA for the planning period. The City continues to implement its Housing Mitigation Program to enhance the jobs/housing balance in the community. This program is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element as key elements of three new programs – Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions, Housing Mitigation Plan – Office and Industrial Refer to following three New Programs: • New Program 1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions • New Program 5: Housing Mitigation Plan – Office and Industrial Mitigation • New Program 6: Housing Mitigation 24 Page 7 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language Mitigation and Housing Mitigation Plan – Residential Mitigation. Plan – Residential Mitigation Policy 4: Housing Rehabilitation Program 11: Affordable Housing Information and Support Provide information, resources and support to developers who can produce affordable housing. The City continues to provide information, resources, and support to developers. This program is proposed to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. Refer to New Program 8: Referral to Housing Resources Policy 5: Development of Affordable Housing Program 12: Density Bonus Program Allow for a density bonus and additional concessions for development of 6 or more units that provide affordable housing for families and seniors. As part of the 2015-2023 Housing Element update, the City is also amending its Zoning Code to revise the Density Bonus Ordinance to be consistent with State law. This program is proposed to be included and revised in the 2015-2023 Housing Element. Adoption of a new revised Density Bonus Ordinance is anticipated to be completed concurrent with the 2014-2022 Housing Element. New Program 10: Incentives for Affordable Housing Development The City will continue to offer a range of incentives to facilitate the development of affordable housing. These include: • Financial assistance through the City’s Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; • Density bonus incentives; • Flexible development standards; • Technical assistance; • Waiver of park dedication fees; • Parking ordinance waivers; and • Expedited permit processing. 25 Page 8 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language Program 13: Regulatory Incentives for Affordable Housing Provide regulatory incentives for affordable housing, such as waiving park dedication fees and construction tax for affordable units, or reducing parking requirement for mixed use developments. The City continues to waive park dedication fees and provide parking ordinance waivers for affordable developments. This program is proposed to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. Refer to New Program 10: Incentives for Affordable Housing Development Program 14: Extremely Low Income Housing Encourage the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-income households by providing assistance and funding for affordable housing developments. The City continues to support the development of housing affordable to extremely low income households. This program is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. The proposed revision will include Housing for Persons with Special Needs to be added to this program. New Program 11: Extremely Low Income Housing and Housing for Persons with Special Needs The City will continue to encourage the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-income households and persons with special needs (such as the elderly, victims of domestic violence, and the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities). Specifically, the City will consider the following incentives: • Provide financing assistance using the BMR AHF and CDBG funds (refer to New Program 7). • Allow residential developments to exceed planned density maximums if they provide special needs housing and the increase in density will not overburden neighborhood streets or 26 Page 9 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language hurt neighborhood character. • Grant reductions in off-street parking on a case-by-case basis. Program 15: Residential and Mixed Use Opportunities in or Near Employment Centers Encourage mixed use development and the use of shared parking facilities in or near employment centers. Evaluate the possibility of allowing residential development above existing parking areas. As part of the 2015-2023 Housing Element update and concurrent Land Use Element update, the City has explored and prioritized various vacant and underutilized properties with potential residential and mixed use development within the next eight years. These properties are included in the sites inventory for the Housing Element. This program is proposed to be added as a policy statement to Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All Economic Segments for the 2014-2022 Housing Element to encourage mixed use development. Included as a policy statement. See new Policy A-3 in Attachment HC-2. Program 16: Expedited Permit Procedures Expedite permit processing for housing developments that contain at least 20 percent of units for lower- income households, or 10 percent of units for very low-income households, or 50 percent of units for senior citizens. The City continues of offer expedited permit processing for affordable housing projects meeting the State Density Bonus requirements. This program is proposed to be included but revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element as a new program - Incentives for Affordable Housing Development. Refer to New Program 10: Incentives for Affordable Housing Development. Policy 6: Tax Increment Funds Program 17: Redevelopment Housing Set Aside Fund Develop policies and objectives for the use of those Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds. The Redevelopment Agency was dissolved in 2012, pursuant to AB1X26 and AB1X27. Program is proposed to be removed from the 2014-2022 Housing Element. Program and policy removed. 27 Page 10 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language Policy 7: Housing Densities Program 18: Flexible Residential Standards Allow flexible residential development standards in planned residential zoning districts, such as smaller lot sizes, lot widths, floor area ratios and setbacks, particularly for higher density and attached housing developments. Accomplishments The City continues to offer flexible development standards. Policy 7 and this program are proposed to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing Element under Goal A to facilitate a range of housing options in the community. New Program 4: Flexible Development Standards The City will continue to: • Offer flexible residential development standards in planned residential zoning districts, such as smaller lot sizes, lot widths, floor area ratios and setbacks, particularly for higher density and attached housing developments. • Consider granting reductions in off- street parking on a case-by-case basis for senior housing. Program 19: Residential Development Exceeding Maximums Allow residential developments to exceed planned density maximums if they provide special needs housing. The City continues to provide this regulatory incentive to facilitate affordable housing for persons with special needs. However, no development utilized this incentive between 2007 and 2013. This program is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element as part of a new program – Housing for Extremely Low Income Households and Persons with Special Needs. Refer to New Program 11: Extremely Low Income Housing and Housing for Persons with Special Needs. Program 20: Monitor R-3 Development Standards Monitor the R-3 development standards on a regular basis to ensure that the requirements do not constrain new housing production. Accomplishments The City continues to monitor its development standards. Future residential development is likely to focus in mixed use areas in the City. As part of the Land Use Element update process conducted concurrent with the Housing Element update, the City reviewed and This program is proposed to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing Element as part of a new program – Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions. Refer to New Program 1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions. 28 Page 11 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language proposed modifications to development standards to facilitate multi-family and mixed use development. Program 21: Clarify Language of Planned Development (P) District Amend the zoning ordinance to clarify that residential development in P (Res/R3) zones will require a planned development permit and not a conditional use permit. The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2010 to clarify that residential development in the P (Res/R3) zones require a planned development permit. This program was completed in 2010 and is proposed to be removed from the 2014-2022 Housing Element. Program removed. Goal C: Enhance Residential Neighborhoods Policy 8: Maintenance and Repair Program 22: Apartment Acquisition and Rehabilitation Provide financial assistance to eligible very low and low-income homeowners to rehabilitate their housing units. Accomplishments The City continues to assist non-profits with the acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing units such as: 1. Maitri Transitional Housing Rehabilitation: CDBG funds were used to rehabilitate this four-unit transitional housing for victims of domestic violence. Project was completed in 2010. 2. Senior Housing Solutions – 19935 Price Avenue: Acquisition and rehabilitation of this property using the Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and was completed in 2011. This home is now Preserving and improving the quality of housing for lower income households is important to the City. This program is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element to incorporate both rehabilitation efforts for both single-family and multi-family rehabilitation. New Program 12: Residential Rehabilitation The City will continue to: • Utilize its BMR AHF and CDBG funds to support residential rehabilitation efforts in the community. These include: o Acquisition/rehabilitation of rental housing o Rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing • Provide assistance for home safety repairs and mobility/accessibility improvements to income-qualified owner-occupants using CDBG funds. The focus of this program is on the correction of safety hazards. • Explore opportunities for acquisition 29 Page 12 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language occupied by five low income seniors. and/or rehabilitation of rental housing for lower income households. Policy 9: Conservation of Housing Stock Program 23: Preservation of “At Risk Units” Monitor owners of at-risk projects on an ongoing basis to determine their interest in selling, prepaying, terminating or continuing participation in a subsidy program. Work with owners, tenants, and nonprofit organizations to assist in the nonprofit acquisition of at-risk projects to ensure long-term affordability of developments where appropriate. The City did not experience a loss of any “at risk” affordable units converting to market-rate during the planning period. The City works to preserve its affordable housing stock. This program is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. New Program 13: Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units To preserve the City’s affordable housing inventory, the City will: • Annually monitor the status of its affordable housing inventory and contact property owners for the intent to remain or opt out of their affordable programs. • In the event a project becomes at risk of converting to market-rate housing, work with property owners or other interested non-profit housing providers to preserve the units. Program 24: Condominium Conversions Continue to implement to Condominium Conversion Ordinance. The City continues to implement the Condominium Conversion Ordinance. This program is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. New Program 14: Condominium Conversion The City’s existing Condominium Conversion Ordinance regulates the conversion of rental units in multi-family housing development in order to preserve the rental housing stock. Condominium conversions are not allowed if the rental vacancy rate in Cupertino and certain adjacent areas is less than five percent at the time of the application for conversion and has averaged five percent over the past six months. The City will continue to 30 Page 13 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language monitor the effectiveness of this ordinance in providing opportunities for homeownership while preserving a balanced housing stock with rental housing. Program 25: Rental Housing Preservation Program Develop and adopt a program that would grant approval only if at least two of the following three circumstances exist: • The project will comply with the City’s BMR Program based on the actual number of new units constructed, not the net number of units; and/or • The number of rental units to be provided on the site is at least equal to the number of existing rental units; and/or • No less than 20 percent of the units will comply with the City’s BMR Program. The City has not adopted a Rental Housing Preservation Program. This program is proposed to be discussed further and will be included as a placeholder in the 2015-2023 Housing Element. New Program 27: Rental Housing Preservation Program (PLACEHOLDER) This program will be discussed further in light of recent court cases such as Palmer vs. City of Los Angeles, Sterling Park vs. City of Palo Alto. Also in response to recent court cases various cities are addressing this issue with updating mitigation fees for rental units. Due to the uncertainty of the outcome of several court cases that are pending this program will be discussed further. Program 26: Conservation and Maintenance of Affordable Housing Develop a program to encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of residential structures to preserve the older, more affordable housing stock. The City contracts with Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley (RTSV) to provide home safety repairs and mobility/ accessibility improvements to income- qualified owner-occupants using CDBG funds. The focus of this program is on the correction of safety hazards. Between The City recognizes the importance of maintaining and improving its existing housing stock. This program is proposed to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing Element as a new program - Residential Refer to New Program 12: Residential Rehabilitation. 31 Page 14 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language 2007 and 2013, 31 households were assisted through this program. Rehabilitation. Program 27: Neighborhood and Community Clean Up Campaigns Continue to encourage and sponsor neighborhood and community clean up campaigns for both public and private properties. The Environmental Services division organizes an annual city-wide garage sale to encourage reuse of items which ordinarily might end up in the landfill. Also, the division organizes community creek clean-up campaigns. This is an ongoing program and is proposed to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. New Program 15: Neighborhood and Community Clean Up Campaigns The City will continue to encourage and sponsor neighborhood and community clean up campaigns for both public and private properties. Policy 10: Energy Conservation Program 28: Energy Conservation Opportunities Continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and evaluate utilizing suggestions as identified in the Environmental Resources/Sustainability element. The City continues to enforce Title 24. This is a function of the Building Division and is proposed to be included as a separate housing program in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. New Program 16: Enforcement of Title 24 The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation. Program 29: Fee Waivers or Reduction for Energy Conservation Evaluate and implement the potential to provide incentives, such as waiving or reducing fees, for energy conservation improvements to residential units (existing or new). The City adopted a Green Building Ordinance in 2013 to facilitate energy conservation efforts. Residential and nonresidential new construction, addition, and renovation are required to comply with the Green Building Ordinance. This program is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. New Program 17: Green Building Ordinance The City will continue to implement the Green Building Ordinance (adopted in 2013) that applies to new residential and nonresidential development, additions, renovations, and tenant improvements. To further the objectives of the City’s Green Building Ordinance, the City will evaluate the potential to provide incentives, such as waiving or reducing fees, for energy conservation improvements at residential projects (existing or new) with fewer than ten 32 Page 15 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language units to exceed the minimum requirements of the California Green Building Code. Program 30: Energy Efficiency Audits Offer free energy efficiency audits for residential units under a contract with Acterra. Energy audits were offered through an ARRA grant by the Public Information Office through a contract with Actera. The ARRA program expired in 2012. This program is proposed to be removed from the 2014- 2022 Housing Element. Program removed. Program 31: Energy Conservation in Residential Development Continue to encourage energy efficient residential development and provide technical assistance to developers who are interested in incorporating energy efficient design elements into their program. The City also adopted a Green Building Ordinance in 2012 to encourage energy conservation efforts. This program is proposed to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. Refer to New Program 17: Green Building Ordinance. Goal D: Services for Special Needs Households Policy 11: Special Needs Households Program 32: Emergency Shelters Revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow permanent emergency shelter facilities in “BQ” Quasi-Public zoning districts as a permitted use. The City revised the Zoning Ordinance in 2010 to permit emergency shelters in the “BQ” Quasi-Public zoning districts as a permitted use. However, the development standards established in the Zoning Ordinance may not comply with SB 2 requirements. This program is proposed to be included in the 2015-2023 Housing Element and revised to comply with SB 2 requirements. New Program 18: Emergency Shelters The City amended its Zoning Ordinance in 2010 to provide for the siting of emergency shelters in the “BQ” Quasi- Public zoning districts as a permitted use. However, the development standards established in the Zoning Ordinance do not meet State law requirements for permanent year-round shelters. Specifically, the City requires the shelter to be located in an existing church structure – a location requirement not permitted under State law. The City will 33 Page 16 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language revise the Zoning Ordinance to comply with State law. Program 33: Rotating Homeless Shelter Continue to support the rotating emergency shelter operated by West Valley Community Services. West Valley Community Services (WVCS) successfully managed the Rotating Shelter Program for 18 years. The Rotating Shelter Program is now operated through Faith in Action Silicon Valley. The City recognizes the critical need to provide homeless prevention and emergency shelter services for the homeless in the region. This program is proposed to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. New Program 19: Rotating Homeless Shelter The City will continue to support the operation of a Rotating Homeless Shelter program. Program 34: Transitional and Supportive Housing Amend its zoning ordinance to comply with the requirements of SB2. Transitional and supportive housing will be treated as residential uses and be subject to the same development standards and restrictions that apply to similar housing types in the same zone. The City revised the Zoning Ordinance in 2010 to provide transition and supportive housing as a residential use to be permitted in similar manners as similar uses in the same zones. In 2008, the City contributed $800,000 to Maitri, a non-profit agency providing transitional housing to victims of domestic violence, for the purchase of a four-plex in Cupertino. The project was completed in 2010. The Zoning Ordinance amendment program was completed in 2010. This program is proposed to be removed from the 2014-2022 Housing Element. Program to revise Zoning Ordinance removed. Refer to New Program 10: Incentives for Affordable Housing Development and New Program 11: Extremely Low Income Housing and Housing for Persons with Special Needs for City efforts in facilitating transitional and supportive housing. Program 35: Catholic Social Services (Single Parents) Provide help, Catholic Social Services, to place single parents in shared housing situations through the Santa Clara County Urban County programs. Catholic Charities continues to provide the shared housing services through the Urban County CDBG program. The City will continue to provide a range of supportive services to its residents, especially those with special needs, in order to foster a suitable living environment. A new program is proposed to be included and revised in the New Program 20: Supportive Services for Lower Income Households and Persons with Special Needs The City will continue to utilize its BMR AHF, CDBG funds, and General Fund Human Service Grants funds to provide for a range of supportive services for lower income households and persons 34 Page 17 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language 2014-2022 Housing Element to reflect the range of services that may be supported by the City. with special needs. Program 36: Flexible Parking Standards Consider granting reductions in off- street parking on a case-by-case basis for senior housing. The City continues to offer reductions in parking requirements on a case-by-case basis for senior housing. However, no new senior housing project was developed between 2007 and 2013. This program is proposed to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. Refer to New Program 10: Incentives for Affordable Housing Development. Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities Policy 12: Housing Discrimination Program 37: Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium Distribute fair housing materials at all public facilities throughout the City and also has a booth at public events to distribute materials. The City continues to participate in the Fair Housing Consortium. Fair housing materials distributed by various organizations are available at public counters. This program is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. New Program 21: Fair Housing Services The City will continue to: • Provide fair housing services, which include outreach, education, counseling, and investigation of fair housing complaints. • Retain a fair housing service provider to provide direct services for residents, landlords, and other housing professionals. • Coordinate with efforts of the Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium to affirmatively further fair housing. • Distribute fair housing materials produced by various organizations at public counters and public events?. Program 38: Fair Housing Outreach Continue to contract with ECHO Housing to provide fair housing outreach services. The City continues to contract with Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) to provide fair housing services, including outreach and education, This program is proposed to be included in the 2014-2022 Housing Element as a new program - Fair Housing Refer to New Program 21. 35 Page 18 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language counseling, and investigation of fair housing complaints. Also Project Sentinel provides tenant/landlord mediation services under contract for the City. Services. Program 39: Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance Adopt a written reasonable accommodation ordinance to provide persons with disabilities exceptions in zoning and land-use for housing. The City adopted the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance in 2010. This program was completed in 2010 and is proposed to be removed from the 2015-2023 Housing Element. Program removed. Goal F: Coordination with Local School Districts Policy 13: Coordination with Local School Districts Program 40: Coordination with Local School Districts Form a new committee of key staff from the City and the school districts to meet on a bi-monthly basis or as needed to review City planning initiatives, development proposals and School capital facilities and operating plans. City staff continues to meet with the school districts to discuss facility needs. However, no formal committee was established. The City recognizes the importance of addressing development impacts on the school districts. This program is proposed to be included and revised in the 2014-2022 Housing Element. In addition, the proposed new revised program will reflect coordination with other agencies, organizations, and neighboring jurisdictions to address regional housing issues. New Program 22: Coordination with Outside Agencies and Organizations The City recognizes the importance of partnering with outside agencies and organizations in addressing local and regional housing issues. These may include, but are not limited to the following: • School districts • Housing providers • Neighboring jurisdictions • Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) • Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (HTSCC) • Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium • Santa Clara County HOME 36 Page 19 of 19 Summary of Accomplishments of 2007-2014 Housing Element Implementation Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2007-2014 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Program Recommendation Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Changes to Program Language Consortium • Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (COC) • Housing Authority of Santa Clara County (HASCC) Specifically, the City will meet with these agencies/organizations periodically to discuss the changing needs, development trends, alternative approaches, and partnering opportunities. 37 ATTACHMENT B Summary of Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All Economic Segments  Policy 1: Provision of Adequate Capacity for New Construction Need Designate sufficient land at appropriate densities to accommodate Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,064 units for 2014-2022 RHNA planning period.  Policy 2: Housing Densities Provide a full range of ownership and rental housing unit densities, including apartments and other high-density housing.  New Policy 3: Mixed Use Development Encourage mixed use development near transportation facilities and employment centers.  Goal A Programs:  Program 1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions  Program 2: Second Dwelling Units  Program 3: Encourage Lot Consolidation  Program 4: Flexible Residential Standards Goal B: Housing is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households  Policy 4: Housing Mitigation Ensure that all new developments, including market-rate residential developments, help mitigate its impact on affordable housing needs.  Policy 5: Range of Housing Types Encourage the development of diverse housing stock that provides a range of housing types (including smaller, moderate cost housing) and affordability levels. Emphasize the provision of housing for lower and moderate income households and also households with wage earners who provide essential public services (e.g., school district employees, municipal and public safety employees, etc.)  Policy 6: Development of Affordable Housing and Housing for Persons with Special Needs Maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations and other development tools to encourage the development of affordable housing. Make every reasonable effort to disperse units throughout the community but not at the expense of undermining the fundamental goal of providing affordable units. 38 Page 2 of 3  Goal B Programs:  Program 5: Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program  Program 6: Residential Housing Mitigation Program  Program 7: Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF)  Program 8: Referral to Housing Resources  Program 9: Surplus Properties for Housing  Program 10: Incentives for Affordable Housing Development  Program 11: Extremely Low-Income Housing and Housing for Persons with Special Needs  Program 23: Nexus Study Update  Program 24: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program  Program 26: HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods  Policy 7: Housing Rehabilitation Pursue and/or provide funding for the acquisition/rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. Actively support and assist non-profit and for profit developers in producing affordable units.  Policy 8: Maintenance and Repair Assist lower income homeowners and rental property owners in maintaining and repairing their housing units.  Policy 9: Conservation of Housing Stock Conserve the existing stock of owner and rental housing units, which provide affordable housing opportunities for lower and moderate income households.  Goal C Programs:  Program 12: Residential Rehabilitation  Program 13: Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units  Program 14: Condominium Conversion  Program 27: Rental Housing Preservation Program  Program 15: Neighborhood and Community Clean Up Campaigns New Goal (D): Energy Conservation  Policy 10: Energy Conservation Encourage energy conservation in all existing and new residential and mixed use development.  Goal D Programs:  Program 16: Enforcement of Title 24 39 Page 3 of 3  Program 17: Green Building Ordinance Goal E: Services for Extremely Low Income Households and Special Needs Households  Policy 11: Special Needs Households Support organizations that provide services to special need households in the City, such as the homeless, elderly, disabled and single parent households.  Goal E Programs:  Program 18: Emergency Shelters  Program 19: Rotating Homeless Shelter  Program 20: Supportive Services for Lower Income Households and Persons with Special Needs  Program 25: General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program Goal F: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities  Policy 12: Housing Discrimination The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis all unlawful discrimination in housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent housing.  Goal F Programs:  Program 21: Fair Housing Services Goal G: Coordination with Regional Organizations and Local School Districts  Policy 13: Coordination with Local School Districts The Cupertino community places a high value on the excellent quality of education provided by the two public school districts which serve the city. In order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the schools in tandem with the preservation and development of vibrant residential areas, the City will institute a new policy of coordinating closely with the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD).  Policy 14: Coordination with Regional Efforts to Address Housing-Related Issues Coordinate efforts with regional organizations, including ABAG, as well as neighboring jurisdictions, to address housing issues.  Goal G Programs:  Program 22: Coordination with Outside Agencies and Organizations 40 ATTACHMENT C Goal D: EnergyGoal E: Special NeedsGoal F: Fair Housing Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 3 Policy 4 Policy 5 Policy 6 Policy 7 Policy 8 Policy 9 Policy 10 Policy 11 Policy 12 Policy 13 Policy 14 Program 1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions The City will continue to: • Provide adequate capacity through its Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance to accommodate its RHNA of 1,064 units, while maintaining a balanced land use plan that offers opportunities for employment growth, commercial/retail activities, services, and amenities. • Monitor its development standards to ensure they are adequate and appropriate to facilitate a range of housing in the community • Monitor its sites inventory and make it available on City website. √√√√√ Program 2: Second Dwelling Units The City will continue to implement the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and encourage the production of second units. √√√√ Program 3: Encourage Lot Consolidation The City will continue to: • Encourage lot consolidation when contiguous smaller, underutilized parcels are to be redeveloped. • Encourage master plans for such sites with coordinated access and circulation. • Provide technical assistance to property owners of adjacent parcels to facilitate coordinated redevelopment where appropriate. • Encourage intra- and inter-agency cooperation in working with applicants at no cost prior to application submittal for assistance with preliminary plan review. √√√√ Program 4: Flexible Residential Standards The City will continue to: • Offer flexible residential development standards in planned residential zoning districts, such as smaller lot sizes, lot widths, floor area ratios and setbacks, particularly for higher density and attached housing developments. • Consider granting reductions in off-street parking on a case-by-case basis for senior housing. √√√√ Program 5: Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program The City will continue to implement the Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program. This program requires that developers of office, commercial, and industrial space pay a fee, which will then be used to support affordable housing for families who work in Cupertino but live elsewhere. These fees are collected and deposited in the City’s Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). √√√√ Housing Element Implementation Programs Goal A: Supply of Units Goal B: Affordable Housing Goal C: Enhanced Neighborhoods Goal G: Coordination 41 Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Programs and Relationship to Goals and Policies Page 2 of 7 Goal D: EnergyGoal E: Special NeedsGoal F: Fair Housing Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 3 Policy 4 Policy 5 Policy 6 Policy 7 Policy 8 Policy 9 Policy 10 Policy 11 Policy 12 Policy 13 Policy 14 Housing Element Implementation Programs Goal A: Supply of Units Goal B: Affordable Housing Goal C: Enhanced Neighborhoods Goal G: Coordination Program 6: Residential Housing Mitigation Program The City will continue to implement the Residential Housing Mitigation Program to mitigate the need for affordable housing created by new market-rate residential development. This program applies to all new residential development of one unit or greater. Mitigation includes either the payment of the “Housing Mitigation” fee or the provision of a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit or units. Projects of seven or more for-sale units must provide on-site BMR units. Projects of six units or fewer for-sale units can either build one BMR unit or pay the Housing Mitigation fee. Developers of market- rate rental units, where the units cannot be sold individually, must pay the Housing Mitigation fee to the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). √√√√ New Program 7: Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) The City’s Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) will continue to support affordable housing projects, programs and services, including but not limited to: • Rehabilitation • Acquisition with or without rehabilitation • New construction • Preserving “at-risk” BMR units • Rental operating subsidies • Down payment assistance • Land write-downs • Direct gap financing • Public service agencies • Special needs housing The City will target a portion of the Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) to benefit extremely low-income households and persons with special needs (such as the elderly, victims of domestic violence, and the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities). √√√ Program 8: Referral to Housing Resources The City will continue to provide information on housing resources and services offered by the County and other outside agencies. These include, but are not limited to: • Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) • Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers • Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (HTSCC) • Housing Authority of Santa Clara County (HASCC) • County of Santa Clara HOME Consortium √√√ 42 Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Programs and Relationship to Goals and Policies Page 3 of 7 Goal D: EnergyGoal E: Special NeedsGoal F: Fair Housing Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 3 Policy 4 Policy 5 Policy 6 Policy 7 Policy 8 Policy 9 Policy 10 Policy 11 Policy 12 Policy 13 Policy 14 Housing Element Implementation Programs Goal A: Supply of Units Goal B: Affordable Housing Goal C: Enhanced Neighborhoods Goal G: Coordination Program 9: Surplus Properties for Housing The City will explore opportunities on surplus properties as follows: • Work with local public agencies, school districts and churches, to identify surplus properties or underutilized properties that have the potential for residential development. • Encourage long-term land leases of properties from churches, school districts, and corporations for construction of affordable units. • Evaluate the feasibility of developing special housing for teachers or other employee groups on the surplus properties. • Review housing programs in neighboring school districts that assist teachers for applicability in Cupertino. √ Program 10: Incentives for Affordable Housing Development The City will continue to offer a range of incentives to facilitate the development of affordable housing. These include: • Financial assistance through the City’s Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds; • Density bonus incentives; • Flexible development standards; • Technical assistance; • Waiver of park dedication fees; • Parking ordinance waivers; and • Expedited permit processing. √√ Program 11: Extremely Low-Income Housing and Housing for Persons with Special Needs The City will continue to encourage the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-income households and persons with special needs (such as the elderly, victims of domestic violence, and the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities). Specifically, the City will consider the following incentives: • Provide financing assistance using the BMR AHF and CDBG funds (refer to New Program 7). • Allow residential developments to exceed planned density maximums if they provide special needs housing and the increase in density will not overburden neighborhood streets or hurt neighborhood character. • Grant reductions in off-street parking on a case-by-case basis. √√√ 43 Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Programs and Relationship to Goals and Policies Page 4 of 7 Goal D: EnergyGoal E: Special NeedsGoal F: Fair Housing Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 3 Policy 4 Policy 5 Policy 6 Policy 7 Policy 8 Policy 9 Policy 10 Policy 11 Policy 12 Policy 13 Policy 14 Housing Element Implementation Programs Goal A: Supply of Units Goal B: Affordable Housing Goal C: Enhanced Neighborhoods Goal G: Coordination Program 12: Residential Rehabilitation The City will continue to: • Utilize its BMR AHF and CDBG funds to support residential rehabilitation efforts in the community. These include: o Acquisition/rehabilitation of rental housing o Rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing • Provide assistance for home safety repairs and mobility/accessibility improvements to income-qualified owner-occupants using CDBG funds. The focus of this program is on the correction of safety hazards. • Explore opportunities for acquisition and/or rehabilitation of rental housing for lower income households. √√ Program 13: Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units To preserve the City’s affordable housing inventory, the City will: • Annually monitor the status of its affordable housing inventory and contact property owners for the intent to remain or opt out of their affordable programs. • In the event a project becomes at risk of converting to market-rate housing, work with property owners or other interested non-profit housing providers to preserve the units. √ Program 14: Condominium Conversion The City’s existing Condominium Conversion Ordinance regulates the conversion of rental units in multi-family housing development in order to preserve the rental housing stock. Condominium conversions are not allowed if the rental vacancy rate in Cupertino and certain adjacent areas is less than five percent at the time of the application for conversion and has averaged five percent over the past six months. The City will continue to monitor the effectiveness of this ordinance in providing opportunities for homeownership while preserving a balanced housing stock with rental housing. √√ Program 15: Neighborhood and Community Clean Up Campaigns The City will continue to encourage and sponsor neighborhood and community clean up campaigns for both public and private properties. √ Program 16: Enforcement of Title 24 The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation. √ 44 Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Programs and Relationship to Goals and Policies Page 5 of 7 Goal D: EnergyGoal E: Special NeedsGoal F: Fair Housing Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 3 Policy 4 Policy 5 Policy 6 Policy 7 Policy 8 Policy 9 Policy 10 Policy 11 Policy 12 Policy 13 Policy 14 Housing Element Implementation Programs Goal A: Supply of Units Goal B: Affordable Housing Goal C: Enhanced Neighborhoods Goal G: Coordination Program 17: Green Building Ordinance The City will continue to implement the Green Building Ordinance (adopted in 2013) that applies to new residential and nonresidential development, additions, renovations, and tenant improvements. √ Program 18: Emergency Shelters The City amended its Zoning Ordinance in 2010 to provide for the siting of emergency shelters in the “BQ” Quasi-Public zoning districts as a permitted use. However, the development standards established in the Zoning Ordinance do not meet State law requirements for permanent year-round shelters. Specifically, the City requires the shelter to be located in an existing church structure – a location requirement not permitted under State law. The City will revise the Zoning Ordinance within one year of the Housing Element adoption to comply with State law. √ Program 19: Rotating Homeless Shelter The City will continue to support the operation of the rotating emergency shelter program. √ Program 20: Supportive Services for Lower Income Households and Persons with Special Needs The City will continue to utilize its Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program and CDBG funds, to provide for a range of supportive services for lower income households and persons with special needs. √ Program 21: Fair Housing Services The City will continue to: • Provide fair housing services, which include outreach, education, counseling, and investigation of fair housing complaints. • Retain a fair housing service provider to provide direct services for residents, landlords, and other housing professionals. • Coordinate with efforts of the Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium to affirmatively further fair housing. • Distribute fair housing materials produced by various organizations at public counters and public events. √ 45 Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Programs and Relationship to Goals and Policies Page 6 of 7 Goal D: EnergyGoal E: Special NeedsGoal F: Fair Housing Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 3 Policy 4 Policy 5 Policy 6 Policy 7 Policy 8 Policy 9 Policy 10 Policy 11 Policy 12 Policy 13 Policy 14 Housing Element Implementation Programs Goal A: Supply of Units Goal B: Affordable Housing Goal C: Enhanced Neighborhoods Goal G: Coordination Program 22: Coordination with Outside Agencies and Organizations The City recognizes the importance of partnering with outside agencies and organizations in addressing local and regional housing issues. These may include, but are not limited to the following: • School districts • Housing developers • Public service agencies • Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) • Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (HTSCC) • Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium • Santa Clara County HOME Consortium • Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (COC) • Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara County (HACSCC) Specifically, the City will meet with these agencies/ organizations periodically to discuss the changing needs, development trends, alternative approaches, and partnering opportunities. √√ Program 23: Nexus Study Update The City will update its Nexus Study in relationship to its Office, Industrial and Residential Mitigation Program with every Housing Element update √ Program 24: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program The City will continue to utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement funds to support eligible capital housing projects and publi servcice housing activities. √√ Program 25: General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program The City will continue to utilize General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) funds to support public servcice agencies, affordable housing programs and services. √ Program 26: HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program The City will propose to join the County of Santa Clara HOME Consortium. The City would be eligible to apply for HOME funds through the County of Santa Clara for eligible affordable housing projects and programs. √ 46 Proposed 2014-2022 Housing Element Programs and Relationship to Goals and Policies Page 7 of 7 Goal D: EnergyGoal E: Special NeedsGoal F: Fair Housing Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 3 Policy 4 Policy 5 Policy 6 Policy 7 Policy 8 Policy 9 Policy 10 Policy 11 Policy 12 Policy 13 Policy 14 Housing Element Implementation Programs Goal A: Supply of Units Goal B: Affordable Housing Goal C: Enhanced Neighborhoods Goal G: Coordination Program 27:Rental Housing Preservation Program (PLACEHOLDER) This program will be discussed further in light of recent court cases such as Palmer vs.City of Los Angeles,Sterling Park vs.City of Palo Alto.Also in response to recent court cases various cities are addressing this issue with updating mitigation fees for rental units.Due to the uncertainty of the outcome of several court cases that are pending this program will be discussed further. √ 47 ATTACHMENT D Proposed Revisions to 2007-2014 Housing Element Goals and Policies Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All Economic Segments Policy 1: Sufficiently Residentially Zoned landProvision of Adequate Capacity for New Construction Need Designate sufficient residentially-zoned land at appropriate densities to provide adequate sites that will meet accommodate ABAG’s estimate of Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,170064 units for 200714-201422 RHNA planning period. Policy 72: Housing Densities Provide a full range of ownership and rental housing unit densities, including apartments and other high-density housing. New Policy 3: Mixed Use Development Encourage mixed use development near transportation facilities and employment centers. Goal B: Housing is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households Policy 24: Housing Mitigation Plan Ensure that The Housing Mitigation plan is based on a nexus study prepared by the City that demonstrated that all new developments, including market-rate residential developments, helps mitigate its impacts on create a need for affordable housing needs. Policy 35: Range of Housing Types Encourage the development of diverse housing stock that provides a range of housing types (including smaller, moderate cost housing) and affordability levels. Emphasize the provision of housing for lower and moderate income households and also households with wage earners who provide essential public services (e.g., school district employees, municipal and public safety employees, etc.) Policy 4: Housing Rehabilitation Pursue and/or provide funding for the construction or rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to very low, low and moderate-income households. Actively support and assist non- profit and for profit developers in producing affordable units. Policy 56: Development of Affordable Housing and Housing for Persons with Special Needs Maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations and other development tools to encourage the development of affordable housing. Make every reasonable effort to disperse units throughout the community but not at the expense of undermining the fundamental goal of providing affordable units. 48 Page 2 of 3 Policy 7: Housing Densities Provide a full range of ownership and rental housing unit densities, including apartments and other high-density housing. Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods Policy 47: Housing Rehabilitation Pursue and/or provide funding for the construction oracquisition/ rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. Actively support and assist non-profit and for profit developers in producing affordable units. Policy 8: Maintenance and Repair Assist very low and low-incomelower income homeowners and rental property owners in maintaining and repairing their housing units. Policy 9: Conservation of Housing Stock Conserve the existing stock of owner and rental housing units, which provide affordable housing opportunities for lower and moderate income households. New Goal D: Energy Conservation Policy 10: Energy Conservation Encourage energy conservation in all existing and new residential and mixed use development. Goal DE: Services for Extremely Low Income Households and Special Needs Households Policy 11: Special Needs Households Support organizations that provide services to special need households in the City, such as the homeless, elderly, disabled and single parent households. Goal EF: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities Policy 12: Housing Discrimination The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis all unlawful discrimination in housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent housing. 49 Page 3 of 3 Goal FG: Coordination with Local School DistrictsRegional Organizations and Neighboring Jurisdictions Policy 13: Coordination with Local School Districts The Cupertino community places a high value on the excellent quality of education provided by the two public school districts which serve the city. In order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the schools in tandem with the preservation and development of vibrant residential areas, the City will institute a new policy of coordinating closely with the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD). Policy 14: Coordination with Regional Efforts to Address Housing-Related Issues Coordinate efforts with regional organizations, including ABAG, as well as neighboring jurisdictions, to address housing issues. 50 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 1 of 3 Summary of Financial Resources for Housing The City of Cupertino has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources for affordable housing activities. These include programs from federal, state, local, and private resources. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local governments for funding a wide range of housing and community development activities for low-income persons. During the 2013 fiscal year, the City of Cupertino received $342,702 in CDBG funds. CDBG funds are used for public services, site acquisition, housing rehabilitation, and fair housing/housing counseling activities. For the 2014 fiscal year, the City is estimated to receive approximately $310,950 in CDBG funds. General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program Annually, the City of Cupertino provides approximately $40,000 to non-profit agencies providing needed services to Cupertino residents. HSG Program funds are proposed to be allocated on a competitive basis toward eligible public service activities. Recent recipients have used the funds to provide transitional housing for domestic violence victim, senior adult day care services and legal assistance services to seniors. Cupertino Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) The City of Cupertino has a Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) that provides financial assistance to affordable housing projects, programs and services. The City requires payment of an Office and Industrial Mitigation fee, which is assessed on developers of office and industrial space and a Housing Mitigation fee, which is assessed on developers of market-rate rental housing to mitigate the need for affordable housing created by new development. Developers of for-sale housing with six or fewer units are required to pay the Housing Mitigation fee. Developers of market-rate rental units, where the units cannot be sold individually, must pay the Housing Mitigation fee to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be consistent with recent court decisions and the State Costa-Hawkins Act regarding rent control. All affordable housing mitigation fees are deposited into the Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). Recent funding activities have included loans and grants to non-profit developers for acquisition and rehabilitation activities and public services such as landlord/tenant mediation services provided trough Project Sentinel, and assistance to very low income persons and ATTACHMENT E 51 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 2 of 3 families provided through West Valley Community Services. As of end of 2013, there is approximately $1.2 million in the Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). Housing Trust Silicon Valley (formerly Housing Trust of Santa Clara County) Housing Trust Silicon Valley provides programs to to increase the supply of affordable housing, assist first-time homebuyers, prevent homelessness and stabilize neighborhoods. These programs include down-payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, closing cost assistance and predevelopment, acquisition and rehabilitation loans to developers. The Housing Trust’s Affordable Housing Growth Fund comprises of funds from local jurisdictions and lending institutions. The City of Cupertino has contributed approximately $1 million to the Fund through the City’s former Redevelopment Agency. The Housing Trust has financed affordable housing projects in the City of Cupertino which include the Vista Village and Price Avenue properties. Santa Clara County Office of Affordable Housing - Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program was created by the federal government, but the program is locally administered by the County of Santa Clara to assist first-time homebuyers in qualifying for a mortgage. The IRS allows eligible homebuyers with an MCC to take 20% of their annual mortgage interest as a dollar-for-dollar tax credit against their federal personal income tax. This enables first-time homebuyers to qualify for a larger mortgage than otherwise possible, and thus can bring home ownership within reach. In 1987, the County of Santa Clara established an MCC Program that has assisted over 200 low and moderate-income first time homebuyers in Cupertino to qualify for a mortgage. During the last Housing Element period, the MCC Program assisted three low- and moderate-income residents in the City of Cupertino. Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) and Housing Choice Voucher Program The Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly known as Section 8 Rental Assistance) is a federal program that provides rental assistance to very-low income persons in need of affordable housing. This program offers a voucher that pays the difference between the current fair market rent and what a tenant can afford to pay (e.g. 30% of their income). The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing that may cost above the payment standard but the tenant must pay the extra cost. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the LIHTC program has been used in combination with City and other resources to encourage the construction and rehabilitation of rental housing for lower-income households. The program allows investors an annual tax credit over a ten-year period, provided that the housing meets the following minimum low-income occupancy requirements: 20% of the units must be affordable to households at 50% of area median income (AMI) or 40% of the units must be affordable to those at 60% of AMI. The total credit over the ten-year period has a present value equal to 70% of the qualified construction and rehabilitation expenditure. The tax credit is typically sold to large investors at a syndication value. 52 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 3 of 3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds are also granted by HUD. These have a more focused scope than CDBG. The HOME program provides formula grants to States and localities that communities use - often in partnership with local nonprofit groups - to fund a wide range of activities including building, buying, and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership or providing direct rental assistance to low-income persons. The City of Cupertino does not receive HOME funds directly from HUD (due to population thresholds) but is eligible to apply through the State of California HOME program or the City also has the option of joining the County of Santa Clara HOME consortium. As a qualified “urban county” the County of Santa Clara receives annual entitlement grants and disburses the funds to local participating jurisdictions accordingly. 53 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT      CITY HALL  10    10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014‐3255      TELEPHONE: (408) 777‐3308    www.cupertino.org  JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT  Meeting: April 1, 2014    Subject  Study Session on major policy topics to be considered in the focused General Plan Amendment  (GPA‐2013‐01) process.    Recommended Action  Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council:  ƒ Review policy topics for the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and provide comments.     Discussion    Background  Recent Study Sessions  On February 19, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the GPA Concept  Alternatives and Housing Element sites to be studied in the Environmental Impact Report  (EIR). Members of the public attended an open house prior to the study session that included  stations showcasing Draft General Plan Community Vision and Guiding Principles, Concept  Alternatives, and the proposed Housing Element sites. On March 4, 2014, the City Council  conducted a similar study session and directed staff to study the three proposed Concept  Alternatives (Alternatives A, B, and C) in the EIR for the General Plan and Housing Element.  The Council will make the final decision on the preferred alternative in the fall.    Modifications to the Concept Alternative Diagrams  Since the March 4, 2014 study session, minor modifications have been made to the Concept  Alternative diagrams based on Council’s comments and selection of Housing Element sites to  be studied in the EIR. The modifications are only for the purpose of study in the EIR and are  summarized below:  ƒ The geographic distribution of residential allocations in Alternatives B and C was updated  in order to be consistent with the Housing Element Update sites selected by the Council for  study in the EIR.  • The residential density for the Stevens Creek & 85 Gateway was updated to be consistent  with the Housing Element site selected by the Council for study in the EIR in Alternatives B  and C.  54 • The residential density for the North Crossroads Sub‐Area was updated to be consistent  with the Housing Element densities for Stevens Creek Office Center and Marina Plaza  selected by the Council for study in the EIR in Alternatives B and C. These two Housing  Element sites are being studied at increased densities and are located at two ends of the  North Crossroads Sub‐Area (Stevens Creek Office Center and Marina Plaza). The density  increase was applied to the North Crossroads Sub‐Area for consistency in the EIR.  • Clarifications to notes and allocation tables.  • Clarification that retail is not required for certain additional heights for The Hamptons  Housing Element site selected by the Council for study in the North Vallco Gateway, since  the site is currently zoned residential only and will continue to be zoned for residential  purposes.  Please refer to Attachment A for the revised Concept Alternative diagrams.    Update on the Retail Strategy  On March 6, 2014, the City published a Retail Strategy Report that analyzes retail in Cupertino,  particularly each GPA study area’s suitability for retail development. The report is intended to  help inform community discussions regarding potential changes to future land uses, heights  and intensities, and development allocations along Cupertinoʹs major mixed‐use corridors. The  report pays particular attention to future repositioning or revitalization options for the Vallco  Shopping Mall and larger shopping district. Please refer to Attachment B for the Retail Strategy.    General Plan Amendment Policy Topics  The General Plan Amendment process is a focused update of the 2005 General Plan. While the  majority of the General Plan’s content will remain the same, there are several major policy  topics that will be addressed through new or updated goals, policies, standards or programs.  The policy topics are broken down in the following three major categories:  ƒ Major Policy Concepts: Ideas that have emerged during the General Plan Amendment process  for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.  ƒ Recent State Requirements: Recent State laws that need to be addressed in the amended  General Plan.  ƒ Clean‐up Items: Updates and corrections that are proposed to be included in the amended  General Plan.     Each of the major policy concepts and several recent state requirements prompt questions for  the input from the Planning Commission and City Council.    Major Policy Topics  A. Draft 2040 Community Vision and Guiding Principles  The draft 2040 Community Vision is based on the current 2005 General Plan’s vision, and has  been updated to reflect extensive community input on Cupertino’s future conducted in 2013.  This includes ideas, thoughts and desires from residents, local business and property owners,  55 study area stakeholders, elected and appointed officials, and other members of the Cupertino  community.    The draft 2040 Guiding Principles provide additional detail about Cupertino’s future. Similar to  the Community Vision, the Guiding Principles build from the current 2005 General Plan’s  Guiding Principles and have been updated based on extensive community input conducted in  2013. The Guiding Principles were refined based on additional community input and reviewed  by the Planning Commission and City Council in February and March 2014, respectively. Please  refer to Attachment C for the Draft Community Vision and Guiding Principles.    CC/PC POLICY QUESTIONS:  1. Are there any topics that are missing from the Draft 2040 Community Vision that should be  added?  2. Are there any topics that are missing from the Draft 2040 Guiding Principles that should be  added?    Action:  Following comments by the Planning Commission and City Council, staff will present the Final  2040 Community Vision and Guiding Principles in the Draft General Plan.    B. Development Allocation System Changes  The City controls growth through a Development Allocation system that establishes a City‐ wide “pool” of available future residential, hotel, commercial, and office allocation which new  projects can draw from. The purpose of this system is to ensure that new development fulfills  community goals and priorities, while minimizing traffic and quality of life impacts.     Allocations are assigned to various geographic areas in the City to provide general guidance as  to where growth is expected to occur, to study environmental effects, and to plan the circulation  network and infrastructure needed to support growth.    The City currently allocates development potential on a case‐by‐case basis to private projects  based on the community benefits the project would provide. The current system intentionally  allows flexibility among the allocations assigned to each geographical area. Allocations may be  redistributed from one geographical area to another if necessary and, if significant  environmental impacts, including traffic impacts, can be mitigated.    For the purposes of allocation in the seven GPA study areas, it is assumed that development  allocations will be reserved for a period of up to five years depending on the Planning  Commission and Council’s input. Allocations for the Vallco Shopping District will be  permanently set aside as to incentivize revitalization.    Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:   This concept would apply to Guiding Principles #6, #7 and #11.    56 CC/PC POLICY QUESTION:  1. Should the existing Development Allocation policy be kept flexible or should it be updated  to require additional review to move allocations between different geographic areas?     Action:  nges to this policy would be addressed through revisions to existing policies in the  . Community Benefits Program Any cha Land Use/Community Design Element.     C   shop participants have suggested that in order to build taller  nder the Community Benefits Program discussed in Alternatives B and C, the Planning  he initial list of potential community benefit categories includes:  ng within a project above and beyond BMR requirements  ct  er  y   Open Space (accessible to the public):  ject  During the GPA process, work than the maximum allowed heights, new development in the major mixed‐use corridors should  provide a retail component and/or direct benefits for the City and the community. These  benefits would include items that have been discussed by the community as being needed or  desirable in Cupertino. The rationale for this approach is to ensure that new, more intensive  development directly benefits the broader Cupertino community, beyond just economic or  fiscal or project benefits.    U Commission and City Council would have discretionary approval to allow additional height  under two “tiers.” Tier 1 projects would include a retail component for a moderate height  increase. Tier 2 projects would include both a retail component and a community benefit for  greater height increases. The specific increases by geographical area are shown on the Concept  Alternative diagrams for B and C in Attachment A. Community benefits would have to be  above and beyond what is required for projects that build within the standard height limits.     T ƒ Affordable Housing:  o Provision of housi o Provision of land to build an affordable housing project  o Provision of funding to build an affordable housing proje ƒ Arts and Cultural Facility  ƒ Community Facilities:  o Senior center  o Childcare cent o Teen/youth facilit ƒ Conference Space  ƒ Museum  ƒ Parks and o Contribution towards parkland  o Provide park/open space in a pro o Rooftop parks/open space    57 ƒ Schools:   ng for operations or facilities  ors  tion Improvements:     people around to key commercial centers)  ral Plan, and  ing Principles #5, #6, #7, #9, #10 and #11.    ommunity Benefits program be developed and included in the  ram have two tiers for height allocation, or should the program just  uld be considered “retail?”    in the Land Use/Community Design  D. Healthy Community Strategies  o Fundi o Providing facilities in a project  o Partnerships for projects  o Teacher housing  ƒ Tax Revenue Generat o Retail  ƒ Transporta o Bike and pedestrian trails  o Transit amenities  rds transito Contribution towa o Community shuttles (to move   Ultimately, the specific list of community benefits would be included in the Gene potentially, in applicable Specific and Master Plans, and the City’s Municipal Code. Timing and  funding of the various projects and criteria would be included in project‐specific conditions of  approval and/or Development Agreement.     elationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles: R This concept specifically implements Guid   C/PC POLICY QUESTIONS: C 1. Should a comprehensive C amended General Plan?  2. What should the list of Community Benefits include?  3. Should there be the prog focus on community benefits from the approved list?   4. If two tiers are acceptable, what types of projects wo   Action:  This change would be addressed through revised policies Element and Circulation Element.       hy community promotes a positive physical, social and economic environment that  ysical activity. A typical healthy community strategy for a  eneral plan includes components such as:  munities with “complete streets” designed for all modes of  ƒ Community focal points, a sense of place   A healt supports the well‐being of its residents, workers and visitors. Healthy communities are places  that encourage healthy eating and ph g ƒ Walkable and bikeable com transport, as well as dedicated trails  ƒ Transportation options and access to public transit  58 ƒ Parks, open space, public spaces, and trails  ƒ Access to nutritious food  ƒ Recreation, nutrition, and education programs  ƒ Adequate housing including mixed use neighborhoods and housing choices to  accommodate different life stages   physicalƒ Healthy schools with healthy nutrition and  activity policies and practices  uiding Principles #1 through #10.    support for improved access to open space and   incorporate Healthy Community strategies and policies throughout the  ral Plan?    through new policies and/or programs in the Land Use and  Circulation Element, and the Health and Safety Element.   ƒ Access to appropriate health care  es ƒ Worksite wellness initiativ   Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:  This concept specifically implements G   Community Input:  There was strong community workshop walkable/bikeable areas in Cupertino.    CC/PC POLICY QUESTION:  1. Should the City amended Gene   Action:  This change would be addressed Community Design Element,    E. Technology Infrastructure and Access   fficient and accessible technE e ology is critical to improving the quality of life of residents and  g local businesses have the infrastructure necessary to be competitive in a global  y. While most technology‐related infrastructure is privately financed and constructed   can  elp identify technology deficiencies, coordinate public and private entities to expand  adequate access for all residents, workers and visitors.    and access throughout  nsurin econom (e.g., telecommunications, fiber optics, WiFi), the City has the ability to work with the private  sector to expand access to technology infrastructure throughout the Cupertino. The City h infrastructure, and ensure that there is    Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:  This concept specifically implements Guiding Principles #1, #9 and #12.    Community Input:  Improved technology infrastructure was a common theme at the workshops.    CC/PC POLICY QUESTION  1. Should the City develop policies to expand technology infrastructure Cupertino?  59   Action:  This concept would be addressed through new policies and/or programs in the Land Use and  and Health and Safety Element.    ajor policy concepts, there have also been recent changes to State law that affect  e legal and content requirements of a general plan. While the City has flexibility on how to  se requirements, the final General Plan Amendment document will need to adequately  Community Design Element,    Recent State Requirements  In addition to m th meet the address recent State laws and regulations. The following is a summary of these requirements.     . Greenhouse Gas Reduction A   Assembly Bill 32 (2008) requires the California Air Resources Board to adopt regulations that    nce, which sets forth a process for tiering and streamlining the   gas emissions: S rrangements, creating density bonuses for  fordable housing and live/work developments, and reducing vehicle trips through land use  n Plan (CAP) being developed  oncurrently with the GPA process, but CAP’s are not required by State law. The Climate  clude a detailed strategy and policy framework to show how the City will  meet local, regional and State greenhouse gas reduction and sustainability targets and achieve  achieve 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2020.  To achieve these statewide emissions reductions  targets, CEQA Guideline Amendments (SB97), require agencies to determine, consider, and  mitigate project greenhouse gas emissions impacts.  To simplify this process for local  governments, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines outlines steps   develop a qualified‐greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy or climate action plan into accordance with OPR Guida analysis of project‐related greenhouse   To achieve these requirements, the City must demonstrate how it will achieve greenhouse gas  reduction standards through land use decisions, including the general plan. The law also  includes mart Growth Principles that should be included within the amended General Plan as  a major strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some recommended principles include  encouraging mixed‐use and transit‐oriented development, expanding pedestrian and bicycle  corridors, creating a job/housing balance, establishing incentives for developments that have  flexible development standards and shared parking a af and urban design.    Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:  This requirement relates to Guiding Principles #3, #4 and #10.      Community Input:  Improved air quality and reduction of traffic congestion was a common theme at community  workshops.    Action:  These requirements will be addressed in the Climate Actio c Action Plan will in 60 emissions reductions that will arise from the GPA. This Climate Action Plan, once adopted  following certification of an EIR, may be used in the cumulative impact analysis of later  rojects. The General Plan will include a reference to the Climate Action Plan for consistency  realize the emissions reductions mitigations established by the Climate Action Plan.   p and to  Also, the General Plan EIR will include an inventory and analysis of greenhouse gas emissions  and reduction strategies.    B. Sustainable Communities Strategies  Senate Bill 375 (2008) is the primary implementation tool of AB 32. The law requires regional  agencies (MPOs) to demonstrate how regional land use, housing, and transportation planning  decisions will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To do this, the law requires all MPOs to update  their Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and prepare Regional Housing Needs Allocations  (RHNA) that result in development patterns and supporting transportation networks which  reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. It also requires MPOs to prepare  nd use and transportation planning strategies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which  al element of its RTP.    the reduction targets allocated by  quirement relates to Guiding Principles #1 through #6, #9 and #10.   ure residential and   estimates in the One   the basis of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for   Bay Area.  The residential allocations in the Concept Alternatives exceed the  la are to be incorporated as an addition   A major focus of this law is to achieve regional sustainability. As a major implementation piece,  the law requires regional agencies to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in  conjunction with Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). ABAG and MTC recently developed the  regional SCS for the Bay Area, known as the One Bay Area Plan. The SCS will effectively act as  a blueprint for future regional land use and transportation decisions. It will identify the general  location of uses, residential densities and building intensities within the region. It will also  describe how the development pattern and transportation network can work together to  asibly reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent withfe State.    Having the General Plan consistent with the SCS will also allow the City to streamline the  environmental review of certain future projects, so long as they are consistent with the SCS.  This can be a large incentive for the development community, and can be leveraged by the City  to gain support for sustainable growth policies and programs.    Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:  This re   Community Input:  Varied support was received at community workshops for sustainable development and  locations of increased growth.    Action:  The Concept Alternatives prepared during the GPA process allocate fut employment growth consistent with the One Bay Area Plan. The forecast Bay Area Plan form jurisdictions in the 61 RHNA for Cupertino (1,064 units). The One Bay Area Plan identifies the Stevens Creek and De  Anza corridors as Priority Development Areas (PDAs) as potential areas where residential and  mployment growth may occur because they are major transportation and transit corridors.  ives B & C of the EIR anticipate that development in Cupertino will occur consistent  e Alternat with the One Bay Area Plan.     In addition to land use and development allocation assumptions, the General Plan will also  address local, regional and State sustainability targets through new policies and/or programs in  the Land Use/Community Design Element, Circulation Element, Housing Element,  Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element, and Health and Safety Element.     C. Complete Streets   Assembly Bill 1358 (2008) requires local jurisdictions, upon any substantive revision to their  irculation element, to plan for a balanced multi‐modal transportation network. This includes  i l    Circulation  iagram. These changes will result in not only a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but  r quality of life for Cupertino residents, since they will have greater options       saf    streets for bicyclists and pedestrians.    ts  c meeting the needs of all users of streets, roads and highways, including motorists, pedestrians,  bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods and users of  publ c transportation. The City’s General Plan wil  need to include policies related to complete  streets and identify specific areas for improvements in both standards and the D also promote a bette for how they move around the city.     There is flexibility on how the City addresses Complete Streets requirements. The following  comments raised during community workshops are potential policies that can be  included/expanded upon in the General Plan:    • Improve connections from neighborhoods to schools and community facilities (e.g., parks,  community centers, neighborhood shopping, etc).  • Retain and improve school and community facilities and neighborhood centers around  existing residential neighborhoods. • Create more separated pathways to schools, not just sidewalks, to provide safe walking and  bike access from new developments.  • Develop bike and pedestrian paths on existing public easements for e and easy access.   Identify ways to retrofit and improve major•   Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:  This requirement relates to Guiding Principles #1, #3 and #4.    Community Input:  proved mobility from neighborhoodIms to schools, parks, and shopping for all users of the street (including bicycle and pedestrian users) was a common theme raised by participan during community workshops.    CC/PC POLICY QUESTIONS:  62 1. Should the City create more detailed policies and programs related to the draft list included  above?   key projects or ideas the Planning Commission and City Council would like   through new policies and/or programs in the Circulation  nity Design Element.  ervice (LOS) Changes  2. Are there other staff to include in the draft General Plan?    Action:  This requirement will be addressed Element and Land Use/Commu   D. Level of S    requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and  esearch (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating  rtation impacts. Particularly within areas served by transit, those alternative criteria   traveled per capita, automobile trip  ips generated.” OPR also has discretion to develop alternative   by transit, if appropriate.   3, should additional factors be evaluated with LOS to determine roadway  les, pedestrians, and transit? For example, a multi‐ ped by the VTA. Other cities in the Bay Area also  Senate Bill 743 (2013) creates a process to change the way that transportation impacts are  analyzed under CEQA. Specifically, the law R transpo must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal  transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” Measurements of transportation impacts  ay include “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle milesm generation rates, or automobile tr criteria for areas that are not served   Once the CEQA Guidelines are amended to include those alternative criteria, auto delay, as  measured solely by LOS or similar measure of traffic capacity or congestion, will no longer be  considered a significant impact under CEQA. Transportation impacts related to air quality,  noise and safety must still be analyzed under CEQA where appropriate. The law also amended  congestion management laws to allow cities and counties to opt out of LOS standards within  certain infill areas.     Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:  This requirement relates to Guiding Principles #3, #4 and #10.     CC/PC POLICY QUESTIONS:  1. Should the City continue to use a Level of Service (LOS) based system for determining  roadway functionality and for evaluating projects during CEQA review?  2. As part of SB 74 functionality for all users, including bicyc modal LOS is currently being develo analyze trip generation in addition to LOS.    Community Input:  Traffic and congestion concerns were recurring themes at the community meetings.        63 Action:  This optional approach can be addressed through new policies and/or programs in the  Circulation Element.      Military Facilities E.  Senate Bill 1468 (2002) requires the general plan land use element to consider the impact of new  of locations  at counties and cities must include in their circulation elements, and prohibits conservation  lements from relying on military installationsʹ habitat or conservation programs as mitigation  easures for endangered or threatened species.  iding  es to Guiding Principles #2 and #10.   growth on military readiness activities. It also adds military installations to the list  th e m   Relationship to the 2040 Gu Principles:  This requirement relat   Action:  This requirement will be addressed through new policies and/or programs in the Land  Use/Community Design Element, Circulation Element, and Environmental  Resources/Sustainability Element.      F. Urban Water Conservation  Senate Bill SB X7‐X (2009) mandates water conservation targets and efficiency improvements for  an water reduction target is 10 percent by 2015 and 20   policy language addressing these  rgets. In addition to mandating water conservation, this law also restricts communities from  g future growth that it does not have the adequate water resources to support   Principles #10 and #11.    rent with  e GPA process. The Climate Action Plan will include a detailed strategy and policy  eet local, regional and State water conservation and  on urban water suppliers. The Statewide urb percent by 2020. The General Plan will need to include ta plannin   Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:  This requirement relates to Guiding    Community Input:  Ensuring that future growth is adequately served by water and other public infrastructure was  a common theme raised by participants during workshops and the scoping session.     Action:  This requirement will be addressed in the Climate Action Plan being developed concur th framework to show how the City will m water supply requirements.     G. Tribal Consultati   onal Tribal  Senate Bill 18 (2004) requires cities and counties to consult with California Native American  tribes during the general plan update process for the purpose of protecting Traditi 64 Cultural Places. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) maintains a list of  ia Native American Tribes with whom local governments must consult.   ction:  ject consultants will consult with local tribes as part of the General Plan  Californ   Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:  This requirement relates to Guiding Principle #8.     A City staff and the pro Amendment process.     H. Sea Level Rise  Executive Order S‐13‐08 (2008) directs State agencies to develop a climate adaptation strategy   for the years 2050 and 2100 in order to assess   risks, and increase resiliency to sea‐level rise. The law  AT) to coordinate statewide efforts to reduce  missions and adapt to climate change.   s to Guiding Principles #2 and #10.   ral Plan that are in need of updates,  orrections, or clarifications. The following is a summary of these refinements:   ating/correcting land use designations for various properties, as well as maps and  e Action Plan  o Local Hazard Mitigation Plan  in Master Plan  ght‐tolerant/native landscaping  and consider a range of sea‐level rise scenarios project vulnerability and reduce expected established the California Climate Action Team (C e    Relationship to the 2040 Guiding Principles:  This requirement relate   Action:  This requirement will be addressed in the Climate Action Plan being developed concurrent with  the General Plan Amendment process. The Climate Action Plan will include a detailed strategy  and policy framework to show how the City will meet local, regional and State climate change  adaptation targets. The General Plan will include a reference to the Climate Action Plan for  consistency.    Clean‐Up Items  City staff has identified several areas within the 2005 Gene c ƒ Upd tables  ƒ Updating the Historic Resource inventory  Including references to newly adopted or anticipated policies, programs, and plans, such as:  o Climat ƒ o Storm Dra o ADA Transition Plan  o Proper disposal of organic waste  o Cleaner outdoor areas  o Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater measures  o Drou 65 o Extended producer responsibility  o Wireless Master Plan update  or Master Plan o Stevens Creek Corrid   Public Noticing and Outreach  The following outreach efforts have been undertaken on this project to date.  dresses in the City to announce  lement projects. The postcard also provides a brief  ifies the project website where interested persons may     was sent in July 2013 announcing Community‐wide Workshop  ebsite  has been set up for the combined GPA and Housing Element projects at  mittee Meetings, Stakeholder Meetings, Study ick off the GPA project. As discussed above, a City‐wide postcard was  sent to all City addresses, and the City’s website and project website also announced the  op. In addition, e‐mails were sent to all stakeholders and other interested parties.   d Stevens  Creek) and within the Vallco Shopping District. E‐mails were sent to all study area  e  bsite also announced the workshop.     Postcards  A postcard was delivered in February 2014 to all postal ad upcoming dates on the GPA and Housing E description of the two projects and ident sign up for project updates and further notices.   A previous City‐wide postcard #1 (discussed below).     W A website www.cupertinogpa.org. All technical reports, notices, and other important information are  available at the website. Interested persons may also submit comments at the website.  Workshops, Public Meetings, Commission/Com essions, and Scoping Session S ƒ Community‐wide Workshop #1 (July 18, 2013) ‐ On July 18, 2013, the City hosted a community‐ wide workshop to k worksh ƒ Community‐wide Workshop #2 (October 23, 2013) ‐ On October 23, 2013, the City held a second  Community‐wide Workshop to discuss community ideas for future uses, design and  mobility concepts along major mixed‐use corridors (Homestead, De Anza, Wolfe, an stakeholders, Community‐wide Workshop #1 participants, and other interested parties. Th City’s website and project we ƒ Other Public Meetings – The City also held the following additional meetings which covered  essentially the same concepts from Community‐wide Workshop #2:  o Follow‐up meeting for interested Cupertino residents on December 5, 2013  o Meeting with the Chamber of Commerce on January 29, 2014  o Annual meeting of the Cupertino Neighborhood Block Leaders on January 29, 2014.  ƒ Commission and Committee Meetings – City staff introduced the GPA project before certain City  Commissions and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce’s Legislative Action Committee  (LAC) in order to expand awareness of the project, receive feedback, and answer questions.  Staff presented the project at the:     66 o October 2, 2013 Teen Commission meeting;   o December 6, 2013 and February 7, 2014 Legislative Action Committee meetings; and   esentatives, organizations  etc.  o January 15, 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission meeting   ƒ Stakeholder Meetings – Meetings with key neighborhood repr (including the Chamber of Commerce and VTA), property owners in the study areas,  were held from May 2013 through February 2014.  ƒ Planning Commission Study Session and Open House (February 19, 2014) – See background  section. As discussed above, a City‐wide postcard was sent to all City addresses, and the  City’s website and project websi   te also announced the study session and open house. In  past workshop participants, and other   As discussed above, a  iew of the combined General Plan Amendment and Housing Element  addition, e‐mails were sent to all stakeholders,  interested parties.  ƒ City Council Study Session (March 4, 2014) – See background section. City‐wide postcard was sent to all City addresses, and the City’s website and project website  also announced the study session. In addition, e‐mails were sent to all stakeholders, past  workshop and study session participants, and other interested parties.  ƒ Notice of Preparation (NOP) – On March 5, 2014, the City posted a notice of preparation (NOP)  on the project website and sent it to public agencies and interested organizations to solicit  comments on the scope and content of the EIR. The last day for comments is April 7, 2014.  ƒ EIR Scoping Session – On March 11, 2014, the City held a scoping meeting to discuss the  environmental rev update project. The meeting provided an opportunity for the community to comment on the  scope and content of the EIR.  As discussed above, a City‐wide postcard was sent to all City  addresses, and the City’s website and project website also announced the scoping meeting. In  addition, e‐mails were sent to all stakeholders, past workshop and study session participants,  and other interested parties.     The following table summarizes the noticing for the April 1, 2014 joint study session:    Notice  Agenda  ƒ Email sent to all study area  stakeholders, prior workshop  participants, and interested parties  signed up through the project website  ƒ Citywide postcard sent to all addresses  in the City  ƒ Posted on the Cityʹs official notice bulletin  board  (one week prior to the study session)     ƒ Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site  (one week prior to the study session)   ƒ Posted on the project Website (one week prior  to study session)    Next Steps  The goal on the m  for this study session is for the Council  public input and provide comments  ajor policy concepts. These comment sed to develop policies and programs in  the Draft General Plan, which is anticipated to be released for public review in Summer 2014,  around the same time as the Draft EIR. An open house will be held in Summer 2014 when the  Draft General Plan is available.  The Planning Commission and City Council is expected to  formally review the Draft General Plan Amendment in Fall 2014.   to collect s will be u 67   ____________________________________    Prepared by: George Schroeder, Associate Planner   MIG, Consultant to the City Reviewed by:  of Cupertino    Gary Chao, Assistant Director elopment and   Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development  r Submission by:  of Community Dev Approved fo   David Brandt, City Manager    Attachments:      A. Revised Concept Alternative Diagrams  B. Retail Strategy  C. Draft 2040 Community Vision and Guiding Principles (excerpt from Concept  Alternatives Report)  68 City Hall De Anza College Apple Campus 2280 85 280 280 85 85 85 CUPERTINO SUNNYVALE SARATOGA WEST VALLEY SANTA CLARA ·········· Development Allocation Commercial..........70,000 s.f. Office....................10,000 s.f. Hotel.....................125 rooms Residential............200 units Homestead Corridor Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 10 (between Blaney and Blue Jay), 20 (between Blue Jay and De Anza, and north side of Homestead between De Anza and Franco), 35 (south side of Homestead between De Anza and Sunnyvale) units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling) Development Allocation Commercial..........50,000 s.f. Office....................30,000 s.f. Hotel.....................100 rooms Residential............100 units North Wolfe Corridor Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........500,000 s.f. Office....................315,000 s.f. Hotel.....................375 rooms Residential............1,000 units Heart of the City Corridor Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........10,000 s.f. Office....................25,000 s.f. Hotel.....................none Residential............170 units North De Anza Corridor Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........50,000 s.f. Office....................10,000 s.f. Hotel.....................none Residential...........150 units South De Anza Corridor Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet Citywide Development Summary Existing Alternative A Difference 17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f. 695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1416 units 1620 units 523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f. 5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f. 0 0 479 units 275 units 540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1,895 units 1,895 units Citywide Development Allocation 17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f. 695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1,416 units 1,620 units 523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f. 5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f. 0 0 479 units 275 units 540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1,895 units 1,895 units Major Corridors Built/Approved Office Commercial Hotel Residential Other Special Areas* Office Commercial Hotel Residential Total Office Commercial Hotel Residential +372,887 s.f. - 15,629 s.f. +261 rooms +204 units +127,113 s.f. +15,629 s.f. 0 - 204 units +500,000 s.f. 0 +261 rooms 0 * Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and other commercial/mixed-use centers, as defined in the 2005 General Plan. Remaining in Existing GP Alternative A Difference 8,929,774 s.f. 3,729,569 s.f. 1,090 rooms 21,399 units STEVENS CREEK BLVDWOLFE RD DE ANZA BLVDDE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD RD Stelling Gateway Primary Uses Commercial and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 30 (west side of Stelling) or 45 (east side of Stelling) feet Stevens Creek and 85 Gateway Primary Uses Commercial and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet North Crossroads Sub Area Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet City Center Node Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet South Vallco Gateway West Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component South Vallco Gateway East Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component North Vallco Gateway Primary Uses Commercial and Office Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet North De Anza Gateway Primary Uses Commercial Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet 0 800 1600 2400 Feet N Legend City Boundary Key Intersections Alternative A revised 3.24.14 69 City Hall De Anza College Apple Campus 2280 85 280 280 85 85 85 CUPERTINO SUNNYVALE SARATOGA WEST VALLEY SANTA CLARA ·· Development Allocation Commercial..........250,000 s.f. Office....................25,000 s.f. Hotel.....................150 rooms Residential............400 units Homestead Corridor Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 10 (between Blaney and Blue Jay), 20 (between Blue Jay and De Anza, and north side of Homestead between De Anza and Franco), 35 (south side of Homestead between De Anza and Sunnyvale) units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling) Development Allocation Commercial..........100,000 s.f. Office....................75,000 s.f. Hotel.....................150 rooms Residential............350 units North Wolfe Corridor Primary Uses Commercial, Office, Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........750,000 s.f. Office....................1,500,000 s.f. Hotel.....................439 rooms Residential............1,700 units Heart of the City Corridor Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units (35 units South Vallco) Maximum Height 45 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........25,000 s.f. Office....................200,000 s.f. Hotel.....................100 rooms Residential............170 units North De Anza Corridor Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........125,000 s.f. Office....................25,000 s.f. Hotel.....................none Residential............201 units South De Anza Corridor ·· Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet ** Net new commercial is not proposed - it is assumed that the existing Vallco Mall square footage (1,267,601 s.f.) will be demolished and that 625,335 s.f. would be reserved for future projects. ·········· Citywide Development Summary Existing Alternative A Difference 17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f. 695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1416 units 1620 units 523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f. 5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f. 0 0 479 units 275 units 540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1,895 units 1,895 units Citywide Development Allocation Major Corridors Built/Approved Office Commercial Hotel Residential Other Special Areas* Office Commercial Hotel Residential Total Office Commercial Hotel Residential Remaining in Existing GP Alternative B Difference 8,929,775 s.f. 3,729,569 s.f. 1,090 rooms 21,399 units + 1,807,887 s.f. + 554,371 s.f. ** + 500 rooms + 1,405 units + 192,113 s.f. + 87,895 s.f. ** 0 + 16 units + 2,000,000 s.f. + 642,266 s.f. ** + 500 rooms + 1,421 units 17,113 s.f. 1,825,000 s.f. 695,629 s.f. 1,250,000 s.f. 339 rooms 839 rooms 1,416 units 2,821 units 523,118 s.f. 715,231 s.f. 5,784 s.f. 93,679 s.f. 0 0 479 units 495 units 540,231 s.f. 2,540,231 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 1,343,679 s.f. 339 rooms 839 rooms 1,895 units 3,316 units * Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and other commercial/mixed-use centers, as defined in the 2005 General Plan. STEVENS CREEK BLVDWOLFE RD DE ANZA BLVDDE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD RD Stevens Creek and 85 Gateway Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component North Crossroads Sub Area Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component City Center Node Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, 75 feet with a retail component. = 90 feet with retail and project-wide/ community South Vallco Gateway West Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component. 75 feet along Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd with retail and project-wide/community benefits South Vallco Gateway East Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component. = 10 feet with retail and project-wide/ community benefits North Vallco Gateway Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component along Wolfe Rd (retail not required on east side of Wolfe Rd). = 95 feet with retail and project-wide/ community benefits North De Anza Gateway Primary Uses Commercial Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component. = 95 feet with retail and project-wide/ community benefits Stelling Gateway Primary Uses Commercial and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 with a retail component * ** * * * * * * * * * * 0 800 1600 2400 Feet N Legend City Boundary BRT Stop (for environmental analysis) BRT Line (for environmental analysis) Key Intersections * Additional height allowances w/ retail and project-wide/community benefits Alternative B revised 3.24.14 70 City Hall De Anza College Apple Campus 2280 85 280 280 85 85 85 CUPERTINO SUNNYVALE SARATOGA WEST VALLEY SANTA CLARA 100,000 s.f. 200 rooms 200 units Development Allocation Commercial..........250,000 s.f. Office....................50,000 s.f. Hotel.....................300 rooms Residential............530 units Homestead Corridor Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 10 (between Blaney and Blue Jay), 20 (between Blue Jay and De Anza, and north side of Homestead between De Anza and Franco), 35 (south side of Homestead between De Anza and Sunnyvale) units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling) Development Allocation Commercial..........100,000 s.f. Office....................90,000 s.f. Hotel.....................300 rooms Residential............825 units North Wolfe Corridor Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........750,000 s.f. Office....................2,700,000 s.f. Hotel.....................639 rooms Residential............2,100 units Heart of the City Corridor Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........25,000 s.f. Office....................400,000 s.f. Hotel.....................100 rooms Residential............170 units North De Anza Corridor Primary Uses Office Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 75 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........125,000 s.f. Office....................50,000 s.f. Hotel.....................none Residential............275 units South De Anza Corridor Primary Uses Office Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet ·········· Citywide Development Summary Existing Alternative A Difference 17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f. 695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1416 units 1620 units 523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f. 5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f. 0 0 479 units 275 units 540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1,895 units 1,895 units Citywide Development Allocation Major Corridors Built/Approved Office Commercial Hotel Residential Other Special Areas* Office Commercial Hotel Residential Total Office Commercial Hotel Residential Remaining in Existing GP Alternative C Difference 8,929,775 s.f. 3,729,569 s.f. 1,090 rooms 21,399 units + 3,272,887 s.f. + 554,371 s.f. + 1,000 rooms + 2,484 units + 227,113 s.f. + 87,895 s.f. 0 + 42 units + 3,000,000 s.f. + 642,266 s.f. + 1,000 rooms + 2,526 units 17,113 s.f. 3,290,000 s.f. 695,629 s.f. 1,250,000 s.f. 339 rooms 1,339 rooms 1,416 units 3,900 units 523,118 s.f. 750,231 s.f. 5,784 s.f. 93,679 s.f. 0 0 479 units 521 units 540,231 s.f. 4,040,231 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 1,343,679 s.f. 339 rooms 1,339 rooms 1,895 units 4,421 units * Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and other commercial/mixed-use centers, as defined in the 2005 General Plan. ** Net new commercial is not proposed - it is assumed that the existing Vallco Mall square footage (1,267,601 s.f.) will be demolished and that 625,335 s.f. would be reserved for future projects. STEVENS CREEK BLVDWOLFE RD DE ANZA BLVDDE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD RD North Crossroads Sub Area Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 40 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 with a retail component City Center Node Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 75 feet, or 90 feet with a retail component, = 110 feet with retail and project-wide/ community benefits South Vallco Gateway East Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 75 feet or 90 feet with retail, = 160 feet with retail and project-wide/ community benefits North Vallco Gateway Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component (retail not required east of Wolfe Rd), = 130 feet along Wolfe Rd with retail and project-wide/community benefits North De Anza Gateway Primary Uses Commercial Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component, = 145 feet with retail and project-wide/ community benefits South Vallco Gateway West Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 with a retail component, or 85 feet along Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd with retail and project-wide/community benefits Stelling Gateway Primary Uses Commercial and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component Stevens Creek and 85 Gateway Primary Uses Commercial, Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component * ** * * * * * * * * * 0 800 1600 2400 Feet N Legend City Boundary BRT Stop (for environmental analysis) BRT Line (for environmental analysis) Key Intersections * Additional height allowances w/ retail and project-wide benefits Alternative C revised 3.24.14 71 1 Retail Strategy Report March 6, 2014 Prepared by 72 1 Table of Contents Executive  Summary  and  Findings  ........................................................................................  4   BAE  Reports  and  Implications  for  General  Plan  Amendment  ..............................................  4   Commodity/Specialty;  Active/Non-­‐active  ...................................................................................  4   Study  Areas  ............................................................................................................................................  5   Vallco  Study  Area  .................................................................................................................................  6   Purpose  and  Background  of  Report  ....................................................................................  8   Review  of  Accompanying  Studies  .......................................................................................  10   BAE  Market  Study  ..............................................................................................................................  10   BAE  Sales  Leakage  Points  ................................................................................................................  12   Implications  for  General  Plan  Amendment  ...............................................................................  14   History,  Methodology  and  Key  Retail  Terminology  .....................................................  16   History  ...................................................................................................................................................................  16   Commodity  and  Specialty  Retail  .................................................................................................................  17   Active  and  Inactive  Uses  ................................................................................................................................  18   Gravity  Side  of  the  Trade  Area  ....................................................................................................................  19   Omnichannel  Retail  ..........................................................................................................................................  19   Lifestyle  and  Hybrid  Centers  .......................................................................................................................  21   Summary  and  Analysis  of  Study  Areas  .............................................................................  22   Study  Area  #1  –  Cupertino  Inn  and  Goodyear  Tire  .................................................................  23   Real  Estate  Evaluation  ....................................................................................................................................  24   Retail  Market  Evaluation  ...............................................................................................................................  24   Site  Evaluation  ....................................................................................................................................................  25   Place-­‐making  Considerations  ......................................................................................................................  25   Stakeholder  Feedback  .....................................................................................................................................  25   Study  Area  #2  –  City  Center  ............................................................................................................  25   Real  Estate  Evaluation  ....................................................................................................................................  27   Retail  Market  Evaluation  ...............................................................................................................................  27   Site  Evaluation  ....................................................................................................................................................  27   Place-­‐making  Considerations  ......................................................................................................................  28   Functionality  Evaluation  ................................................................................................................................  28   Study  Area  #3  –  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company  (PG&E)  ..................................................  28   Study  Area  #4  –  Mirapath  ................................................................................................................  28   Real  Estate  Evaluation  ....................................................................................................................................  29   Retail  Market  Evaluation  ...............................................................................................................................  29   Site  Evaluation  ....................................................................................................................................................  30   Study  Area  #5  –  Cupertino  Village  ................................................................................................  30   73 2 Real  Estate  Evaluation  ....................................................................................................................................  32   Retail  Market  Evaluation  ...............................................................................................................................  32   Site  Evaluation  ....................................................................................................................................................  32   Site  Plan  Recommendations  .........................................................................................................................  32   Place-­‐making  Considerations  ......................................................................................................................  33   Functionality  Evaluation  ................................................................................................................................  33   Study  Area  #6  –  Vallco  Shopping  Mall  .........................................................................................  33   Study  Area  #7  –  Stevens  Creek  Office  Center  ............................................................................  33   Real  Estate  Evaluation  ....................................................................................................................................  34   Retail  Market  Evaluation  ...............................................................................................................................  34   Site  Evaluation  ....................................................................................................................................................  35   Place-­‐making  Considerations  ......................................................................................................................  36   Functionality  Evaluation  ................................................................................................................................  36   Continuity  of  Place  Evaluation  ....................................................................................................................  36   Vallco  Shopping  Mall  ..............................................................................................................  38   Background  and  History  ..................................................................................................................  39   Real  Estate  Attributes  .......................................................................................................................  39   Fundamental  Site  Attributes  ..........................................................................................................  40   Land  Use  Designations,  Zoning  and  Land  Use  Policies  .....................................................................  40   Competitive  Landscape  ....................................................................................................................  42   Valley  Fair,  San  Jose/Santa  Clara  ...............................................................................................................  42   Santana  Row,  San  Jose  ....................................................................................................................................  43   Westgate  Center,  San  Jose  .............................................................................................................................  43   Sunnyvale  Town  Center,  Sunnyvale  ..........................................................................................................  44   Stanford  Shopping  Center,  Palo  Alto  ........................................................................................................  45   Vallco  Site  Area  ...................................................................................................................................  46   Vallco  Leasing  Makeup  .....................................................................................................................  47   Development,  Ownership,  and  Repositioning  History  ..........................................................  48   Ground  Lease  Discussion  .................................................................................................................  51   Title  Review  Discussion  ...................................................................................................................  51   Master  Ground  Lease  for  Mall  Development  ........................................................................................  51   Construction  Operating  Restrictions  Easements  Agreement  (COREA)  ....................................  52   First  Amendment  to  COREA  .........................................................................................................................  52   Second  Amendment  to  COREA  ....................................................................................................................  52   Third  Amendment  to  COREA  .......................................................................................................................  52   Fourth  Amendment  to  COREA  .....................................................................................................................  52   Fifth  Amendment  to  COREA  .........................................................................................................................  52   Sears  Documents  ...............................................................................................................................................  52   Development  Agreement  ...............................................................................................................................  53   74 3 General  Plan  Amendment  ..............................................................................................................................  53   Tenant  Leases  .....................................................................................................................................................  54   Stakeholder  Interviews  and  Discussion  –  Anchor  Tenants  .................................................  54   Macy’s  .....................................................................................................................................................................  54   Sears  .......................................................................................................................................................................  56   JC  Penney  ..............................................................................................................................................................  57   The  Bay  Club  .......................................................................................................................................................  58   Stakeholder  Interviews  and  Discussion  –  Rose  Bowl  ............................................................  58   Stakeholder  Interviews  and  Discussion-­‐  Other  .......................................................................  59   Strategies  for  Repositioning  Vallco  Shopping  Mall  .................................................................  62   Literature  Review  .............................................................................................................................................  62   Retrofitting  Suburbs:  Instant  Cities,  Instant  Architecture,  and  Incremental   Metropolitanism  ................................................................................................................................................  63   Converting  Obsolete  Malls  ............................................................................................................................  64   Analogous  Redevelopment  Projects  .........................................................................................................  65   Vallco  Repositioning  Alternatives  ................................................................................................  70   Repositioning  Scenario  1:  An  ideal  mix  appealing  to  Cupertino  and  extended  trade  area   customers  without  regard  to  entitlement  or  site  constraints  .......................................................  71   Repositioning  Scenario  2:  Assume  market  factors  such  as  competing  projects  and  legal   limitations  such  as  those  contained  in  the  COREA  and  land  use  regulations  .........................  80   Non-­‐Vallco  Related  Stakeholder  Interview  Feedback  .................................................  86   Recommendations  ...................................................................................................................  89   Bibliography  ..............................................................................................................................  92   75 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND FINDINGS Cupertino is an affluent community with a bifurcated retail sector: Daily needs and some commodity categories perform well while other categories perform poorly or not at all. Overall, the City leaks sales to the overall Trade Area, probably more as a result of being bested by more aggressive economic development and better-executed development elsewhere than by any fundamental flaw such as the City’s location in the Trade Area, transportation issues, or demographics. Cupertino is centrally located in the west portion of the Santa Clara Valley, commonly known as Silicon Valley. The City is well served by road infrastructure; however, there exist few regional mass transit options. There are significant barriers to entry such as lack of available land to build new retail projects in Cupertino. Careful consideration should be given to the planning and redevelopment or repositioning of existing retail projects, and to how retail might be added to existing or new mixed-use projects. Careful consideration should also be given to whether a retail development or retail component of a mixed-use development should be designed and positioned as a “commodity” or a “specialty” project. The City appears to have adequate commodity shopping alternatives within its borders. For example, Target, Safeway, Whole Foods, Ranch 99 (2), Walgreen’s, CVS, Sears, Michaels, Home Goods, TJ Maxx, Party City, and Aaron Brothers operate within the City’s borders. Barriers to entry contribute to robust sales for many of these stores. Focusing on redeveloping existing retail stores with robust sales (e.g. Target) may be interesting as a planning exercise but unrealistic from a purely economic perspective, particularly with an owner-user. BAE Reports and Implications for General Plan Amendment The City expects population to increase by 5,000 and job growth by 7,000 by 2040. Both residents and workers have higher wages than the County or the State. The City’s ethnic makeup has evolved so that over 63% of the resident population is of Asian descent. There are few good entry-housing opportunities in the City for younger members of the workforce, and few amenities that would incentivize these workers to live in Cupertino. In the defined Trade Area, there is little leakage or injection of retail sales. On a per-capita basis, the City’s retail sales underperform as compared with the County and the State. Some categories, like general merchandise, perform well while others, such as electronics and fashion, underperform. Any opportunity to increase retail sales in Cupertino would likely be at the expense of sales happening elsewhere in the Trade Area. Commodity/Specialty; Active/Non-active As the United States became more auto dependent, downtown shopping districts gave way to suburban shopping including enclosed malls. 76 5 Department stores gave up market share to big boxes, and consequently the number of viable malls contracted. The best model for illustrating how retail organizes itself today is by contrasting commodity retailers, where consumers based their purchasing decisions on price and convenience from specialty retailers, where consumers choose to spend their discretionary income during their discretionary time. The latter is particularly affected by the retailer’s environment. The advent of the so-called lifestyle center was driven by a trend in which small specialty retailers faced a shortage of high quality specialty retail space at the same moment that regional mall failures were accelerating. When designing retail environments, creating active, interactive environments where the consumer is engaged by businesses even when passing by, as opposed to inactive environments where the consumer does not interact with businesses, is of key importance. The trend towards “omnichannel” continues. This trend is characterized by retailers creating a seamless shopping experience regardless of whether consumers are shopping online, from portable devices, from catalogs, or in a store. Study Areas Presently, there are a number of Study Areas being considered for redevelopment. Of these, not all are well-suited for retail development. Additionally, for those that are well-suited for development, retail is not necessarily the highest and best use.. The best retail application for the Cupertino Inn/Goodyear Study Area is service retail (examples might include a cleaner or cell phone store), and foodservice, which serves the adjacent hotel and creates a synergistic use adjacent to the Homestead Square Shopping Center. Except for retail supporting the office tenants (e.g. sandwich shop or sundry store), the City Center Study Area is not well suited for retail development, and entitlements for office uses are presently being contemplated. The PG&E and Mirapath Study Areas might be developable with a big box anchoring the site, however, the site is not well located for retail development, and mitigations in excess of those typically required, for traffic and noise in particular, would be expected due to the site’s location away from a major intersection, freeway interchange, and close to housing. Cupertino Village already has entitlements for redevelopment of the site as a denser shopping center. This repositioning of the Study Area seems well thought out and appropriate. A change of use to residential, while possibly yielding a higher residual land value, would not necessarily be in the best interest of the immediate area since neither is there another daily- needs shopping area in the immediate vicinity nor are there many projects in Cupertino with so- called “lifestyle” components. 77 6 The Stevens Creek Office Center could be redeveloped as a retail project, however, there are other options that might be higher and better uses. The creation of cross access with an adjacent site is a positive development for both properties Other sites in the City were not included in the scope of work for this Report, but are worthy of evaluation. The Oaks, at the intersection of Stevens Creek and Route 85 and across the street from De Anza College, is one example of a site well positioned for redevelopment, perhaps as a retail-residential mixed-use project. Vallco Study Area The Vallco Shopping Mall is centrally located in the City. The property, which is zoned for regional commercial uses and was originally developed in the 1970’s, consists of 14 parcels and contains a 1.3 million square foot mall anchored by Macy’s, Sears, JC Penny, and AMC Theaters. The property has been remodeled several times since it was built. Despite being the largest retail project in the City, the Mall is largely vacant, save for the anchor tenants who continue to perform well. According to stakeholders, Vallco represents not only one of the best-located properties in the City, but also one of the City’s largest redevelopment opportunities, and challenges. Governing documents control what can be changed on the property, including parking, building requirements, and certain uses. Ground leases and various tenant leases have provisions further restricting changes and certain uses. The Mall operates in a competitive environment with successful project to the north (Stanford Shopping Center), east (Valley Fair and Santana Row), and south (Westgate Shopping Center). All of the anchor tenants state their stores perform well despite the Mall having a low occupancy rate, and their commitment to the Trade Area. All of the anchor tenants say they are receptive to redevelopment plans that might improve the project. There is an oversupply of mall space in the United States; Vallco’s circumstances are not unique. Key to the repositioning process is creating a brand that sets Vallco apart from competing projects and communicating that brand to the community and prospective tenants alike. An owner or developer with the expertise and financial capability to execute such a strategy is required for a successful outcome. The City’s ability to contribute financially and/or to use its governmental powers to facilitate redevelopment will have a material impact on the success and timing of any redevelopment. There are examples of similarly situated projects that have been successfully repositioned, including in California. An ideal redevelopment alternative that is not limited in its scope by ownership interests, controlling documents, or leases would likely see the existing project demolished entirely and replaced with a mixed-use project. In the alternative, a scenario that does recognize these limiting factors would more likely result in a mixed-use project with less density and a larger retail component. 78 7 Several adjacent projects are planned or under construction. The adjacent Rose Bowl project is under construction, and the owner expects to receive competitive rents for the 60,000 square feet of retail space. Main Street is entitled and being marketed for lease, but grading has only just begun. The Apple Campus 2 is approved, with construction expected to start soon. 79 8 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND OF REPORT In August 2012, the City Council initiated a process to have City staff and the community identify options for replenishing citywide office, commercial (retail) and hotel development allocations in order to meet economic development goals. During this time, the City was contacted by several property owners, including some within the Vallco Shopping District, who inquired about potential General Plan amendments for their sites. In order to comprehensively evaluate citywide needs and individual sites, the City Council decided in early 2013 to combine these efforts into a single General Plan Amendment project. A General Plan is a regulatory document that sets the “ground rules” for conserving resources, designing new projects, expanding public services, and improving community amenities. Every city in California is required to adopt and regularly update a General Plan. It functions as the City’s primary regulatory document and must be used as the basis for all planning-related decisions. While this project will consider citywide land use, urban design, mobility, and economic topics, it is not a rewrite of the City’s 2005 General Plan. Rather, this project is focused on identifying and analyzing potential changes within seven key study areas (identified in the Summary and Analysis of Study Areas section), and possible changes to urban design and mobility policies particularly along five major corridors in the City. The City has established several important goals for this project: ¥ Goal 1: Involve the community in a comprehensive discussion on mobility, urban design, and economic development challenges facing Cupertino. ¥ Goal 2: Identify and analyze potential increases to commercial (retail), office, mixed-use and hotel development allocations within the study areas. ¥ Goal 3: Enhance and improve the overall commercial experience in Cupertino by retaining existing business and attracting new companies. ¥ Goal 4: Revitalize the Vallco Shopping District so it becomes a cohesive, vibrant shopping and entertainment destination that serves both the region and the local community. ¥ Goal 5: Protect and enhance Cupertino’s quality of life so the city remains a desirable place to live, work, recreate and raise a family. ¥ Goal 6: Revise existing General Plan policies and diagrams as they relate to the goals listed above, and make some additional minor changes to address recent State and regional requirements. As part of the City’s overall growth management system, Cupertino’s General Plan establishes a development allocation system for commercial (retail), office, hotel room and residential growth. This Retail Strategy Report (the “RSR” or “Report”) will address each Study Area’s suitability specifically for retail development, and thereby help inform any decisions made regarding the various allocations noted above as well as some of the design 80 9 principles discussed in the September 2013 Settings and Opportunities Report prepared as a part of this project. Particular attention will be paid to the centerpiece of the South Vallco Master Plan Area: The Vallco Shopping Mall. While this Report is not intended to update the South Vallco Master Plan, it will touch on some of the key goals illuminated in that Plan including: ¥ Revitalizing the South Vallco Master Plan area, ¥ Coordinating aesthetic improvements, ¥ Connecting individual properties, ¥ Optimizing roadway infrastructure, and ¥ Promoting a unique identity for the area. As part of the General Plan Amendment process, BAE Urban Economics developed a Market Study,which contains a Retail Sales and Leakage Analysis. The market study analyzes future demand for retail, office, hotel, and housing over the coming 20-25 years. The retail sales and leakage analysis identifies sectors where the City might have an opportunity to capture more sales locally from its residents and employees (while possibly attracting shoppers from nearby areas). Below is a summary of the key findings from both studies. This summary will help provide context for this Report. 81 10 REVIEW OF ACCOMPANYING STUDIES BAE Market Study The BAE Market Study identifies a number of attributes that provide important context for this Report. Consider the following: ¥ ABAG’s One Bay Area Plan indicates that Cupertino will gain almost 5,000 households and over 7,000 jobs between 2010 and 2040. Cupertino has a strong housing market due largely to the high quality of local schools as well as proximity to well-paying high-tech jobs. The median price for Cupertino homes changed very little between 2009 and 2011, but increased significantly in 2012 to $1,045,750, higher than pre-recession levels and twice as high as the median for Santa Clara County with virtually no low- or moderately-priced options, and a steady rental market. The shortage of young adult residents and workers in Cupertino could be largely the result of the lack of moderately priced housing options for many young or single- earner households, which suggests a need for smaller, more affordable units that can serve as workforce housing. ¥ On a per capita basis, Cupertino’s annual retail sales for 2011 are $10,483, compared to $13,404 for Santa Clara County, and $12,493 for California. ¥ The City’s household composition is weighted towards family households with children and has a correspondingly larger household size than the overall trade area. ¥ Cupertino differs markedly from the County and region with respect to racial and ethnic breakdown. The City’s Asian population comprised 63.1 percent of total population in 2010. By contrast, just under 35 percent of daytime workers are of Asian descent. ¥ Reflecting high education levels and professional occupations, Cupertino households earn a significantly higher median household income ($123,700) than Santa Clara County ($87,200), and the Bay Area ($75,800). Cupertino residents’ high level of educational attainment correlates positively with a high degree of professional occupations concentrated in management, business, science, and arts as compared with Santa Clara County or the Bay Area. As a result of the higher percentage of management, business, science, and arts occupations, the median earnings of those working in Cupertino (as opposed to those living in Cupertino) is $81,000, again higher than Santa Clara County overall. ¥ Office demand continues to be strong, limited primarily by supply constraints and Apple’s demand for office space. 82 11 Anticipated office job growth of 49,000 jobs in the west portion of Silicon Valley (the area including Cupertino) will generate demand for approximately 12 million square feet of new office space between 2010 and 2040. There is significant potential for the City to attract an additional corporate campus to accommodate an existing major employer or to attract a new major employer Office workers and consequently office tenants more and more demonstrate a preference for working environments that offer urban-style amenities as opposed to traditional suburban office parks, and for green certified buildings. Proximity to public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian access, attractive retail offerings, and entertainment options are also important amenities. Office design trends that encourage employee interaction has resulted in more open building interiors and consequently greater employee density on a per square foot basis. ¥ Business-related travel is the driver of demand for hotel rooms in Silicon Valley. Exceptionally strong occupancy and growth in room revenue in Cupertino’s existing hotels suggest support for additional hotel rooms. There are five hotels in Cupertino with a total of 785 rooms. The City’s hotel development pipeline totals 302 rooms in two projects located at the Oaks Shopping Center and within the Main Street project respectively, the 122 room entitlement at The Oaks being due to expire in September, 2014. The City’s resident and workforce populations are distinct beyond the income and ethnicity differences noted above. For example, Apple is competing with Google, Facebook, LinkedIn and others for talent. To the extent that these workers are younger (as is often the case), there is a greater demand for a more urban environment. The City’s retail “outflow” can be seen most notably in per-capita sales as compared with the County. Looking at the various Study Areas with an eye to future retail needs is important. A retail offering tailored to better meet the needs of citizens (both those presently living in Cupertino and likely future residents, i.e. knowledge workers) will be instrumental if the City hopes to recapture some of the sales leakage. Vallco will be the City’s single greatest opportunity to draw retail dollars to Cupertino. While the present retail allocation for Cupertino is projected to be adequate to meet the retail needs of today’s residents and projected population growth, developing an overall retail strategy as a stated economic development goal will inform that allocation and enhance the City’s ability to create retail facilities capable of meeting the City’s future needs and meeting any stated goal of recapture leaking sales. 83 12 BAE Sales Leakage Points The BAE Retail Sales and Leakage Analysis identifies important spending patterns in the City as well as the defined trade area used for the study. The defined “Trade Area” is shown on the following map: Consider the following findings: ¥ A broad array of retail shopping options are available in nearby communities and are easily accessible to Cupertino residents. The leakage analysis shows that city boundaries do not represent a constraint on Cupertino residents shopping elsewhere or non- residents shopping in Cupertino. The fact that less than eight percent of potential sales from trade area customers were occurring outside of the Trade Area indicates that the overall retail trade area is well balanced with respect to retail. ¥ With respect to specific categories: o Cupertino has relatively strong sales in stores selling such as the general merchandise category which includes businesses that sell everyday items. Another reason this category is performing well is the presence of three mall department stores and one discount department store whose sales are included. It should be noted that two Trader Joe’s and two Safeway stores are 84 13 located just outside the City limits, but that a new Safeway will be opening within the City shortly. By contrast, stores specializing in other types of comparison goods are lacking in the City. With the exception of the Vallco Shopping Mall, which has its own challenges, most of the retail in the City serves daily needs and convenience- oriented shoppers. o There are also no major electronics or appliance stores such as Best Buy or Fry’s in Cupertino, although Sears (in the general merchandise store category) carries a large variety of appliances and may capture a larger share of resident expenditures that would otherwise occur in stores dedicated to electronics and appliances. o The lack of clothing and apparel-related stores is due in part to the lack of fashion-driven, destination retail centers in Cupertino. The exception may be Vallco Shopping Center, however, Vallco has suffered from competition with Valley Fair and other projects, leading to high vacancy and shoppers on apparel-driven trips turning to destinations outside Cupertino. ¥ The BAE Retail Sales and Leakage Analysis suggests that a strong regional retail environment in the overall Trade Area constrains opportunities for additional capture of resident spending through new retail development in Cupertino itself. While it is true that over the entire Trade Area there is not significant leakage, we believe that Cupertino’s central location within the Trade Area as well as access to freeways and major arterials creates the opportunity to introduce new retailers to the City, and perhaps even to capture sales presently leaking out of the City to other parts of the Trade Area. ¥ Cupertino has more jobs than employed residents, leading to a net inflow of workers (31% of people employed in Cupertino live in San Jose, 16% live in Cupertino, and 34% elsewhere in Santa Clara County). This daily inflow creates a significant opportunity for well-located properties in Cupertino to be positioned as destination-oriented retail development. ¥ In contrast to the City itself, a smaller number of persons work in the Trade Area than the total number of employed residents. Because the Trade Area’s leakage is minimal, people living outside the Trade Area must be shopping in the Trade Area. ¥ Daytime workers generate demand for purchases near their workplace, especially meals eaten during the workday. Additional daytime or to/from work shopping opportunities are created when shopping alternatives are near to or on the path of travel to/from workplaces. Due to the balanced overall Trade Area, some of the new sales needed to support new retail development would need to be retained in the City, instead of occurring elsewhere in the Trade Area. Since this process depends on shifting spending patterns and providing store types targeted to local demographics, BAE provided estimates in a range of “low” and “high.” The 85 14 “low” estimate assumes modest additional recapture of leaking sales, while the “high” assumes a shift in spending patterns with well-located and well-merchandised new store types. Summary of Demand Estimates Low High Through 2020 Demand Through 2020 (Units/Sq.Ft.)NA NA Demand Adjustments (a)NA NA Less: Entitled Projects NA NA Net Demand NA NA Through 2035 Demand Through 2035 (Units/Sq.Ft.)334,000 521,000 Demand Adjustments (a)- - Less: Entitled Projects 176,000 176,000 Net Demand 158,000 345,000 Notes: Sources: City of Cupertino; BAE 2013. Retail Implications for General Plan Amendment Making “high altitude” decisions about the amount and character of retail development and redevelopment opportunities in Cupertino over the coming years is a primary goal of this General Plan update process. By way of background, there are eight projects with a retail component that are under construction, approved, or planned in Cupertino. These projects, summarized in Table H-1 of BAE’s Market Study, will bring a total of approximately 352,600 net new square feet of retail to the City. The Study recommends that the following should be considered: ¥ Cupertino’s strong demographics (e.g. families with high incomes and education levels) constitute a strong base of potential support for renovated or new retail facilities. ¥ The City has relatively few younger households and singles, indicating potential support for smaller residential units (both for-sale and rental). The development of this sort of housing stock, attracting younger residents, would shift retail demand. ¥ Retail in Cupertino must cater to a more diverse base of customers than reflected by the City resident profile alone. ¥ The highly compensated workforce that provides a potential strong base of demand for housing closer to work and for retail sales during the workday is somewhat tempered by onsite food service and other amenities offered by major employers such as Apple. The leakage study draws an empirical conclusion that if stores in categories leaking sales were to be opened, those sales could be recaptured in the City. The degree to which this can be 86 15 achieved will depend on competitive factors and availability of real estate with the correct location and site attributes for these particular sorts of stores. From an empirical perspective, the market analysis suggests that there is no additional need for increased retail allocations beyond the existing 701,500 square feet to meet potential demand during the planning period. However, the Vallco Shopping Center represents additional available square feet of existing retail that could redeveloped or re-allocated (depending on how it is redeveloped) to support efforts to attract additional retailers to Cupertino and increase the City’s share of retail sales within the Retail Trade Area. The Retail Sales and Leakage Analysis also comments that: “(n)one of the shopping centers in Cupertino are ‘lifestyle’ centers, although Cupertino Village, The Oaks, and Vallco Shopping Center have certain elements of “lifestyle” retail. This newer type of retail, which combines upscale, specialty retail, dining, and entertainment in one shopping experience, has recently been developed elsewhere in the Bay Area.” Exemplified by Santana Row in San Jose and Bay Street in Emeryville, the Main Street project planned for Cupertino appears intended add a similar type of experience to the City’s retail inventory.” With respect to Vallco specifically, the Mall represents a mixed picture for Cupertino: Its anchor department stores and entertainment options appear to draw shoppers to the City, but the poor performance of the remainder of the Mall contributes to Cupertino’s weakness in comparison goods shopping and destination retail. Vallco is the City’s greatest potential redevelopment opportunity with implications for recapturing leaking retail sales, and creating a so-called lifestyle or mixed-use environment. Vallco will be addressed in greater detail later in this Report. The purpose of this Report is to comment on how the various study areas might be positioned or redeveloped to attract new and to retain existing retail in the City, notwithstanding the proposed or in-development projects listed above. It should be noted that an impression could be created that Vallco alone could recover retail sales that might be leaking from Cupertino. In its present form, Vallco is not a viable retail project. Additionally, competitive market forces and infrastructure are not taken into consideration in this empirical analysis. Alternatives to Vallco’s present condition are discussed later in this Report. 87 16 HISTORY, METHODOLOGY AND KEY RETAIL TERMINOLOGY History By way of background, a brief history of how retail has evolved over the past century will provide context for this Report and its findings. In the early 20th century, cars were a rarity. Most towns and cities had downtown districts that served as the community’s commercial hub and were characterized by a massing of retail that evolved to serve the community’s needs. Towns often had their own homegrown department stores that sold a wide variety of goods. The best known examples of these include Emporium and May Co. on the West Coast, Dayton’s and Marshall Field in the Midwest, and Filene’s and Macy’s in the Northeast. These were department stores in the truest sense, having separate departments under one roof for a variety of goods including clothing and shoes, electronics, housewares, books and records, pets, home goods, and the like. When retail was clustered in a downtown or town square environment, there was not a need for today’s ubiquitous suburban shopping center. In contrast, by the 1950’s, the automobile became commonplace, and started a trend towards suburbanization. The need for shopping centers was born. Over a period of time, these malls replaced downtown shopping districts in the increasingly decentralized urban landscape. As the advent of shopping malls began to erode the downtown shopping district’s market share, discounters began to erode the traditional department store’s market share. Wal-Mart and K-Mart started nationwide expansions. Even traditional department store companies began to enter this world, perhaps the most notable example being Dayton-Hudson’s Target division. At the same time, the suburban regional mall would often be anchored by department store chains that expanded their market share by focusing on suburbs. The next step in the evolution away from traditional department stores was the advent of retailers who became more efficient by specializing in a particular “department.” Clustered together in what have come to be known as power centers, these “big box” and “category killer” stores were more convenient, focused narrowly on one category, but offered a wide variety of merchandise within that category, developed supply and distribution advantages extending from their narrower focus, and offered everyday low prices. They also started killing off the departments in the department stores. In-turn, department stores increased their focus on soft goods, thereby limiting the overall variety of merchandise and giving the consumer fewer reasons to visit. Like with many businesses, department store chains began to consolidate in order to increase scale, decrease expenses, and maintain competitiveness … or simply to avoid going out of business all together. By extension, the number and variety of regional mall anchor tenants contracted, and by the 1990’s the contraction and consolidation trend of regional malls was in full swing. In some instances, even traditional department stores (Kohl’s being one example) began to abandon malls and join the category killers in power centers. With fewer anchors, so- called “category killer” tenants finding each other in power centers, and the advent of the 88 17 exurb, fewer and fewer truly successful regional malls and even fewer downtown shopping districts remained. Some department stores including Macy’s, Sears, and JC Penney have evolved away from their all-things-under-one-roof model to more closely resemble commodity retailers. In other words, their product offerings are less distinguishable from what could be purchased in a variety of other places and through a variety of retail channels. Furthermore, with the exception of chains such as Nordstrom, Bloomingdale’s, Neiman Marcus and the like, department stores have ceased to distinguish themselves for their service and environment. With the homogenization of department stores has come the demise of many regional malls. Certainly, there are many high-performing malls including Valley Fair in San Jose and Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto. There are far more that are similar to Vallco or nearby Westgate Shopping Center that have fallen by the wayside. As retail has evolved to today’s commodity versus specialty norm, some of these will be revitalized or redeveloped altogether while others will not. [1] Commodity and Specialty Retail As downtown shopping districts and regional malls declined, and big box, category killer retailers proliferated, today’s “commodity” versus “specialty” paradigm was born. [2] At it’s essence, today’s environment is about convenience and price versus experience. Commodity retail goods and services are those goods and services that are purchased and consumed on a regular basis from "primary" household funds, largely without emotional attachment by the consumer, and at retailers and retail shopping centers offering the consumer the combination of low price and convenience most suited to the consumer’s needs at a particular moment. Examples of commodity retailers include local convenience stores to drug stores, grocery stores, discounters and warehouse stores. A "commodity shopping center’s" primary purpose is the aggregation of a number of commodity retailers in one location, allowing for convenient cross-shopping. While habits may be developed over time (eg. shopping at the same grocery store), consumers’ tend to view these retailers as interchangeable and do not to have a strong connection to a commodity retailer’s brand or to a commodity shopping venue. For the most part, internet shopping is an option most consistent with purchasing commodity goods and services (see more in the discussion of omnichannel retail below). 89 18 Specialty retail goods and services, by contrast, are those goods and services that are purchased on an optional basis by consumers using "discretionary funds” (ie. funds not designated for basics like rent, food, and transportation), and selected and often consumed during “free” or “discretionary” time (ie. when not working or tending to daily responsibilities). Successful specialty shopping venues deliver a unique and attractive combination of tenant mix and environment (ie. a sense of place), often reflecting the character of consumers in the market or trade area in which they operate. Equally as important, these specialty shopping areas lend themselves to extended consumer stays. An emotional "feeling" or “pleasure” derived from the overall shopping "experience” is an important part of the consumer’s point of reference. Successful specialty shopping venues, regardless of format, deliver a unique combination of "product" (ie. shops) and “place” (ie. physical and conceptual environment), unique and attractive to the consumer within the market or trade area in question. The term “comparison goods,” which are goods that consumers do not purchase on a frequent basis (ie. daily or weekly), and are more likely to cause consumers to compare price, quality, and features than everyday items is often used interchangeably with “commodity” goods. Shoppers are often willing to travel a greater distance to patronize destination retailers. Commodity and specialty retailers, and shopping districts and malls can fit the definition of “destination” retail. The distinction lies in the intent or desire to spend more time shopping to better understand the product or choice of products as opposed to specialty retail, which is specifically limited to instances where the shopping experience and environment are key, and quite likely involve an entertainment or dining component. The distinction may also be nuanced: For example, in the case of Whole Foods, the Apple Store, or Bass Pro sporting goods, each sells commodities, however, the product and brand positioning, merchandising strategies, and environment or “theater” are specialty in nature. Active and Inactive Uses Another important way to think about retail is in terms of active and inactive uses. “Active uses” refers to situations where shoppers or pedestrians interact with built spaces even if they don’t go inside to buy a good or service. Examples would include specialty retailers, restaurants, some grocery or drug stores, and even a karate studio, art gallery, or real estate agency. 90 19 By contrast “inactive uses” refer to situations where the flow of a retail district is broken so there is a significant gap or in some other manner so that pedestrians don’t interact with the built environment. Even active uses with limited hours may become inactive uses when they close and become “dark” during non-business hours. Examples include offices, medical facilities, auto repair, big box stores without outward-facing interactive displays (e.g. Costco, some supermarkets and drug stores, some big-box retailers). Inactive uses can also be created through poor design. Gravity Side of the Trade Area The “gravity side of the trade area” is defined as the general direction in the trade area from which residents and daytime workers enter the trade area and to which they travel in order to leave the area. From an operational definition perspective, much if not most retail goods and services in Cupertino are located along Stevens Creek Blvd. and on the streets providing access to I-280. The intersections of these streets are particularly important (eg. Stevens Creek and Wolfe, and Stevens Creek and De Anza). This means that the “gravity side” of the trade area in Cupertino can generally be defined as the area running along Stevens Creek between Wolfe and Stelling, and along Wolfe and De Anza between Stevens Creek and Homestead Road. Omnichannel Retail Retail is now conducted through many channels (eg. traditional stores, catalogs, on-line, via mobile devices, television, etc.). Omnichannel retail refers to the trend where the consumer experience across these multiple retail channels is made seamless and consistent. 91 20 Omnichannel consumers frequently use more than one channel simultaneously. For example, a consumer might do research using a price check app or looking up product reviews while looking at a product in a traditional retail store. Likewise, omnichannel retailers will track customers across the various channels they utilize (catalog and on-line shopping, or on-line and mobile shopping for example) increasing sale opportunities and more precisely targeting marketing. Social media provides an opportunity to build relationships with consumers by constructing a detailed customer profile and capitalizing on merchandising and advertising initiatives. “Simply put, it’s the notion that consumers use more than one channel (web, catalog, mobile, store) to make a purchase. The idea reflects the fact that consumers don’t see channels, they seek solutions: either a retailer satisfies a need or it doesn’t. Increasingly, consumers use the digital channels to make a purchase decision even if that purchase is ultimately completed in a store. “An omni-channel go-to-market model is an idea whose time has come, at least according to Macy’s Chairman, CEO, and President Terry Lundgren, who recently stated on the National Retail Federation’s blog: ‘We talk a lot at Macy’s about omnichannel retailing. Our customer is multi-dimensional. She is busy at work and out with friends. She always has her mobile device in her hand. She’s active on Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and a dozen other social media sites… We want that customer to be able to interact with Macy’s no matter where she is or how she shops. It makes no difference to us whether she buys something in our store or online… or whether she is shopping from her desktop computer or her Droid or her iPad. Macy’s best customers are those who shop us in-stores and online. We have a whole series of strategies in place to drive our store customers to the Web, and our online customer to the stores…Today’s customer is not monolithic. And that’s the way we are approaching our customer.’” [3] A November, 2012 “Shopping Centers Today” article summarizes omnichannel nicely: “The idea is to favor no single retail channel (brick-and-mortar, mobile phone, catalogs) but instead to sell things to people whenever, wherever and however they want. Omnichannel retail is about providing a uniform experience and top-notch service in every exchange with the customer.” The article goes on that distribution channels that once operated separately (ie. something ordered from a catalog or online would be delivered to a customer’s house), are merging so that real estate is now part of the picture (ie. something ordered may be picked up the same or the next day at a local outlet). [4] Omnichannel strategies work differently for commodity as opposed to specialty retailers. For example, multiple retail channels might be used by a consumer to research and assist in purchasing a particular commodity like a television, or to push out or target a promotion. By contrast, a specialty retailer might use onnichannel strategies to drive customer traffic to a bricks-and-mortar store, restaurant, or shopping district. Applicable to both commodity and specialty retailers, the availability and use of multiple retail channels allow consumers to be better informed. A byproduct of this better educated consumer is retail salespeople’s product and competitor knowledge must match this better-informed consumer. Today’s retail environment is challenging. Deborah Weinswig, a Citibank retail analyst, points out that omnichannel retail also creates retailer-landlord opportunities by combining the touch and feel of the brick-and-mortar experience with the excitement and impulse factor of 92 21 web/mobile shopping (eg. tweet/food trucks, crowdsourcing). She goes on to point out that retailers’ response to “tech titans” like Amazon have been insufficient when measured by retailers having more than three times the sales of the tech titans, but half the market cap, half the net income, and one fifth the cash. While the tech titans are schooling retailers and gaining mindshare, brick-and-mortar retailers are fighting back. For example, Kohl’s was the first to fully allocate costs to its online business, getting a clearer picture of the profitability of its online business. Kohl’s also uses analytics to identify the stores that will be most profitable for “ship- from-store” and “same-day delivery,” possibly from as few as 100 of Kohl’s 1,100+ stores. When interviewed for this study, the Macy’s real estate director pointed out that Macy’s is investing heavily in its web presence. L ifestyle and Hybrid Centers With respect to so-called lifestyle and hybrid commodity-specialty projects, ULI’s Professional Real Estate Development manual states: “Early lifestyle centers successfully combined desirable retail shops with appealing architecture and a variety of outdoor settings spawning the lifestyle center. [… ] These early centers were, in part driven by a trend in which small specialty retailers faced a shortage of high quality specialty retail space at the same moment that regional mall failures were accelerating. The dominant new commodity retail and shopping center formats had, in fact, left small store specialty retailers with few reliable anchors, and, developers with no clearly defined shopping center template to replicate, spawning the ill-defined and somewhat chaotic lifestyle center concept. Most malls failed to function as places conducive to social interaction and connection to community […] Roy Higgs noted a ‘Need to create a powerful and different sense of place. This is especially true of mixed-use developments where, very often, it is the space between the buildings that requires more design attention.’” The same text notes that hybrid commodity-specialty projects “…are generally a risky option for a shopping center developer because the elements of price and convenience that underlie optimal commodity shopping center development generally weaken the elements of better product and place-making essential to well-executed specialty retail centers. Likewise, the higher costs and place-making principles central to specialty retail, degrade the price/convenience equation essential to commodity retailers.” [5] 93 22 SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF STUDY AREAS The general plan amendment, sometimes called a GPA, will focus on identifying land use, economic development, and urban design changes for seven study areas, shown on the following map: The study areas together comprise 121.12 acres and contain approximately 1.9 million square feet of existing commercial improvements, 126 hotel rooms, and 423 residential units. The study areas range in size from approximately one acre (the Mirapath site study area) to over 60 acres (the Vallco Shopping District study area). Each study area is located east of Highway 85 in areas with existing commercial or office development, mostly adjacent to high volume traffic corridors: Stevens Creek Boulevard, Interstate 280, and Homestead Road. Most of these sites are developed with existing uses. While complete demolition and redevelopment of these sites is one possible approach, new development facilitated by the GPA could also consist of either redevelopment of existing buildings, selective demolition of existing structures and replacement with new construction, or new infill development adjacent to existing uses. Detailed descriptions of the study areas presented in the September, 2013 “Settings and Opportunities Report” are augmented here with an analysis and discussion of each site’s utility and the steps necessary to implement successful retail development or redevelopment. 94 23 Study Area #1 – Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire The Cupertino Inn and the Goodyear Tire study area, comprised of two parcels totaling 3.21 acres, includes both the Cupertino Inn and the Goodyear Tire store located at the northwest corner of I-280 and De Anza Boulevard, both owned by John Vidovich. The Cupertino Inn is a full service boutique business hotel that offers 125 rooms as well as event facilities. The Goodyear Tire store is an auto service center offering tire, oil change and other automotive care services. The study area is adjacent to the Homestead Square Shopping Center that is being redeveloped with a 24-hour Safeway as the anchor tenant. The site is effectively already a mixed-use site by virtue of having adjacent hospitality and retail components. The location adjacent to a major arterial and a freeway on-ramp makes it less desirable for residential development. From a retail potential perspective, the site is more notable for adjacent retail redevelopment than it is as a redevelopment site in and of itself. The adjacent 15-acre Homestead Square Shopping Center is presently being redeveloped. The boxes are fully leased to Safeway at 55,000 square feet (planned opening April, 2014), Ross 22,000 square feet, Michaels 25,000 square feet, Steinmart 32,000 square feet, ULTA 13,000 square feet, and FedEx 6,000 square feet. Chase Bank will occupy a 5,000 square foot pad, and there will be 12,000 square feet of shops. A 17,000 square foot Rite Aid pharmacy is open and operating, and most of the other tenants will take possession in the 1st quarter of 2014. A site plan follows. Ownership feels the site is unique as it is one of the last power center development opportunities in the Valley with all surface parking. 95 24 The same owner owns the adjacent property occupied by a Goodyear retail outlet. Goodyear’s lease will not be renewed, and an application for this project is expected to be submitted to the City for review. The Goodyear parcel is intended for redevelopment as a 10 to 11-story hotel project with ground floor retail that is expected to act as an amenity for the hotel, and potentially additional hotel rooms as well as a conference center. There is a reciprocal access agreement between Vidovich and Homestead Square Shopping Center presently being redeveloped by its owner, the Sobrato Organization. This agreement does not impose any use restrictions upon the Study Area parcels. Real Estate Evaluation The study area is tucked into the corner of North De Anza Boulevard and I-280 without direct access, making it a destination as opposed to a convenience-oriented site from a retail perspective. Access to and from the site and circulation between the Study Area and Homestead Square Shopping Center is limited to the established reciprocal rights with the adjacent projects. Since there is a lack of retail space and land for development of additional retail space in the immediate area, especially north of I-280 and continuing to El Camino Real, this barrier to entry makes this Study Area more viable for retail development than it would be in an easier to build environment. Retail Market Evaluation Given the limited retail development opportunities in the area discussed above, and adjacency to what will be one of the two dominant retail projects in Cupertino located north of I-280, the Study Area has good long-term prospects for continued operation as a retail development. Service and food uses that serve the hotel’s clientele may act as a bridge between the Study Area and Homestead Square. Potential uses consistent with creating this “bridge” might include full-service sit-down restaurants, service uses such as cleaners, salon or spa, or a fitness studio. If the study area were to be developed more intensely, for example with a 10-11 story 96 25 hotel with a meeting center, the need for convenience retail, restaurants, and service uses would be even more acute. In the case, a clearly-marked, appealing, and safe path-of-travel between the study area and adjacent Homestead Square Shopping Center, and the inclusion of both sit-down and convenience restaurant and service uses in particular should be encouraged. Site Evaluation The only access to/from the subject site is from southbound De Anza; no northbound access is available because of an unbroken median on De Anza. Additional access through adjacent Homestead Square is established by a reciprocal access agreement. Circulation via Celeste Court is restricted by the locked gate between the Cupertino Inn and the adjacent self-storage facility and apartment complex. Parking appears to be adequate for existing uses, however, no plans were available for review in connection with any planned redevelopment of the Goodyear Tire site. Place-making Considerations Given present uses and the project's de facto location behind the primary retail project, uses are placed on the Study Area as well and as functionally as could be as expected. No plans were available for review for any planned redevelopment of the Goodyear Tire site. The hotel has public meeting and gathering areas and a pool area within its facility. Project monument signage is deteriorating and inconspicuous due to being obscured by landscaping. Overall, the facility is dated. Stakeholder Feedback The owner’s representative is desirous of adding density for redevelopment of the hotel as a taller building with additional amenities such as a rooftop bar/lounge. If no additional hotel allocation were to be made as part of this process, the existing hotels in the City would continue to enjoy an artificial cap on room supply, and, by extension, higher room rates resulting from the constrained supply of rooms. Study Area #2 – City Center This Study Area, located along Steven’s Creek Boulevard between Torre Avenue and De Anza Boulevard, is comprised of eight parcels totaling 12.51 acres and encompasses the City Center Towers, private open space, City Center Apartments, Park Center Apartments, and surface (240 stalls) and structured (3 levels down and 2 levels up) parking facilities. This mixed-use development includes a variety of components including residential, office, commercial and retail space. The City Center study area incorporates a mix of uses ranging from office to residential with a small amount of retail that principally serves tenants within and near the Study Area. The various uses include the City Center Towers (169,400 square feet of office space) with some ancillary retail uses (approximately 7,000 square feet not including Apple’s cafeteria which is located just outside the Study Area boundary), Cupertino Park, City Center Apartments (99 units), Park Center Apartments (120 units), and surface and structured parking. Adjacent uses are also mixed residential and commercial, including the Kimpton Cypress Hotel (224 rooms) and Cali Mill Plaza that offers café style outdoor seating, and additional Apple leased office space. 97 26 Prometheus, the owner, has a conceptual proposal for the redevelopment of the surface parking lot adjacent to the office towers into a 400,000 square foot 10-story office building with 4 levels of below-grade parking and an additional 4 levels of parking to the existing parking garage. No additional retail is anticipated as a part of those plans, although there could be some service-retail depending on tenant needs. Any parking afforded to any retail would need to be in structures, further reinforcing that any retail would be limited as a tenant amenity. The 7,000 square feet of existing retail that is immediately adjacent to, although outside of the Study Area defined above, will remain. 98 27 Real Estate Evaluation The Study Area is located on Stevens Creek Boulevard between South De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe Road in the center of Cupertino's business and retail core, and close to the Civic Center. The existing office product’s primary competition is located at the southeast corner of Stevens Creek and North De Anza Boulevards where there is a sizable inventory of garden office space. The Study Area contains no retail space, but there is a small amount of retail space as well as a boutique hotel immediately adjacent to the west. Despite being mid-block and median-bound for access purposes, the small amount of retail has reasonable long-term viability given its small size and primary purpose of serving the Study Area. However, the retail has little synergy with other nearby projects, and has no orientation to or visibility from adjacent streets. It should be noted that Apple is the major office tenant. Apple’s employee commissary, located adjacent to the project site, features extremely reasonable prices, good food quality and variety, and inviting indoor and outdoor dining areas, capturing much Apple-generated foodservice demand. This "closed architecture" further limits retail potential on-site. Retail Market Evaluation Uses most appropriate for the site include office, residential, and retail that serves the daytime office population. For retail, convenience-oriented or lifestyle uses would fare best (e.g. restaurant, salon, health club, convenience or sundry store). Restaurants with a nighttime gathering element (e.g. a bar or more casual sit-down restaurant with a bar component), in particular, might do well. Apple’s commissary and other services to employees limit the viability of other retail and especially restaurant users establishing themselves at this site. Site Evaluation The limited retail offerings on the block have no visibility from Stevens Creek Boulevard or side streets. The project’s main entrance from Stevens Creek Boulevard is mid-block and median- 99 28 bound. Secondary access is available from Torre Avenue and by way of other internal streets. Right-in right-out access is available on South De Anza Boulevard. Daytime parking demand appears to be accommodated on-site, though the designated retail parking is not in close proximity to the on-site retail. Place-making Considerations Fundamentally, City Center is not a retail site. The project would need to be redesigned to create a retail statement, and better access and wayfinding signage would need to be provided to attract customers from outside of the Study Area. Only limited retail can be supported by City Center's office and residential population alone. Attractive outdoor and public gathering areas have been developed at City Center as well as on adjacent projects. Clearly, thought has been given to public gathering areas, with some providing protection from the elements. Some wayfinding signage is provided, however, it is not oriented to retail uses. Materials and amenities such as public seating areas are provided, and are of good quality. Functionality Evaluation Trucks block internal streets and by extension vehicular circulation when making deliveries. This impacts all site users and in some cases makes for less than ideal (or even unsafe) conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. Study Area #3 – Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Study Area #4 – Mirapath While the PG&E and Mirapath sites are two separate Study Areas, for purposes of this Report, because they are adjacent and would function as one site for retail development purposes, they will be discussed as if they were one Study Area. These adjacent Study Areas are located on the city’s northern border with Sunnyvale and are surrounded by industrial, low- to medium- density residential, and an adjacent small neighborhood-serving strip retail center located at the southeast corner of Homestead Road and North Blaney Avenue. If the two sites were to be developed together, the overall site may be appropriate for mixed-use development with both commercial and residential uses. If this approach were undertaken, careful consideration should be given to planning the retail component with access and visibility and access in mind. In the case of PG&E, the Study Area includes an approximately 21.91-acre parcel of land used as a regional customer service center, training facility, and equipment staging and storage facility. There is a large amount of vacant land. By way of background, PG&E is comprised of two entities: A publically traded corporation, and a public trust. This land is held by the trust, complicating matters if and when PG&E might initiate a sale of the Study Area land. The Mirapath Study Area encompasses one 0.98-acre parcel owned and operated by Mirapath, a data entry and lab infrastructure provider. The parcel fronts North Blaney Avenue and backs up to the PG&E Study Area. Existing improvements consist of a single-story building in front with a two-story structure behind. 100 29 Real Estate Evaluation The Study Area is located in a predominantly residential area that, with the exception of the site’s current use and small adjacent commercial uses is characterized by low to medium density residential development. Existing power centers such as Target in Cupertino and Sunnyvale and Costco in Santa Clara presently serve the Cupertino Trade Area. Despite barriers to development such as its “inside” location, poor freeway access (although there would be freeway visibility for well-positioned signs), and need for mitigations on the surrounding residential area, the site may be viable for development of a big box commodity retail use such as Costco or Wal-Mart if for no other reason than the supply constraints on adequately sized sites for these users in the Trade Area. Emphasis should be placed on this site having potential viability due to its size and supply constraints, and not because it possesses site attributes that otherwise would make it attractive for retail development. The appropriateness of placing large-scale retail abutting non- or less-compatible uses will likely be considered should such development be proposed on this site. Retail Market Evaluation The only viable use for the Study Area would be a destination big box user, such as a Costco (which has expressed interest) or Wal-Mart. Perhaps two smaller big box users such as Winco and Dick’s, both of which are presently expanding their presence in the Bay Area, sharing the site in lieu of the big box would make some sense. In either scenario, some smaller-scale users that frequently co-locate with these large anchors might then become viable co-tenants depending on site planning constraints. If not for the capacity constraint posed by the lack of large developable sites in the trade area, this site would not be considered for retail development. That it has been considered reinforces that market demand for new 101 30 development in the Trade Area is likely greater than supply of large developable sites or as allowed by current zoning regulations. Rezoning the Mirapath study area from ML (light industrial) to CG (general commercial) almost certainly makes sense. This property is small, fronts a thoroughfare, and is adjacent to another commercial use (the small shopping center to the north). Allowing this study area the flexibility to evolve into a small office or convenience retail use almost certainly would have greater utility for the owner, be more compatible with surrounding uses, and yield a higher residual land value than would a light industrial use. Site Evaluation Site access and visibility are poor. The site could have some freeway visibility if well placed and large enough signs were to be permitted. Visibility from Homestead Road is poor and limited from North Blaney Avenue. The small corner strip center at the hard corner of Homestead and Blaney means that the site has a mid-block location on both arterials, with no signal on either. These significant impediments to site access could be rectified through the integration of the corner strip center into the Study Area and/or the addition of traffic signals on both arterials (likely required traffic mitigations). The Mirapath Study Area’s value is primarily to provide a secondary access point to the PG&E Study Area. Required significant traffic mitigations should be expected, possibly further complicating access. As entitlements and land use designations are considered, treating both Study Areas and the corner strip center as one integrated site is recommended. Despite barriers to entry, and given the site’s mid-block position with no direct freeway connection, depth, and poor visibility, a Costco or other large destination retailer with strong drawing characteristics would likely be the only sort of use that might succeed in breaking this site free for retail development. Study Area #5 – Cupertino Village Located at the southwest corner of Homestead and Wolfe Roads, the Cupertino Village Study Area lies at the northern end of Cupertino at the city’s border with Sunnyvale. Cupertino Village is comprised of three parcels totaling 12.51 acres and is home to an 113,200 square foot shopping center directly across from the proposed Apple Campus 2. Cupertino Village is a multi-cultural center with over 40 retail businesses including 99 Ranch Market, Starbucks, Joy Luck Place restaurant, and the Duke of Edinburgh Pub and Restaurant. Adjacent uses include hotels (directly south, reciprocal access with the Study Area), small office uses, and multi- and single-family residential. Apple plans to build their second campus (Apple Campus 2) directly across Wolfe Road. With this in mind, Cupertino Village serves an important role in the northeast part of the City, particularly in light of the Apple Campus 2’s coming development. Cupertino Village, no doubt, would be a desirable housing site, and housing would likely yield a higher residual land value than would retail. If repurposing the site for residential development were ever desired, the loss of this retail amenity may not be in the best interest of the community and should be carefully considered. 102 31 Owner Kimco has worked on redevelopment plans for the Study Area since 2009, with a majority of its activity in the last year. Entitlements allow for a total of 25,000 square feet of new retail in two structures known as Retail A and B, and a new parking structure to increase parking capacity. 103 32 Over the last 12 months, Kimco has refreshed the architecture of the buildings, acknowledging Apple Campus 2 across the street, while trying to work within the previous entitlements. Ownership recognizes that this center has been extremely successful as an Asian-oriented shopping center with both a commodity/daily-needs and a lifestyle component, and acknowledges strong retail performers such as 99 Ranch. The renovation will have to be sensitive to existing customer base while also attempting to capture some of the value represented by Apple Campus 2 as well as the younger demographic in the area. There is an opportunity to diversify the tenant base with new buildings (e.g. quick service restaurant or other daily good amenities). The renovation is now anticipated to update the look and feel of the center and try to attract a broad mix of tenants who compliment the many Asian-oriented tenants presently on site. Reinvestment is planned to update older facades, bringing them to current standards and using new materials, cleaning up building lines, and opening up gateways for a more modern appearance. The renovated site will seek to make common areas more conducive for “hanging out” with seating areas and other features. Real Estate Evaluation The Study Area is located at one of the major intersections between I-280 and El Camino Real, and has close freeway access. Other competing retail areas include Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road (Vallco Shopping Center if redeveloped), Ranch 99 located at South De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road, and the El Camino Real retail corridor in Sunnyvale. The site is well positioned given project spacing between Stevens Creek and El Camino Real, and Vallco's present condition. The site’s location across Wolfe Road from the planned Apple Campus 2 is a singular strength as well as an identifying feature for the project. Retail Market Evaluation Cupertino Village and the Marketplace are perhaps the closest examples in the City to a so- called lifestyle center. The Asian community serving tenant mix has proven to be a strong one, with daily-needs convenience-oriented users, foodservice and specialty tenants, and hospitality. An expansion of the Ranch 99 market should be explored, along with additional daily needs uses such as a drug store, boutique foodservice, and service uses (eg. cleaners, salon, office supply or stationary, etc.) due to the proximity to the new Apple campus and adjacent hospitality uses. Site Evaluation The site has good visibility from all directions, though it is somewhat obscured in places due to landscaping. Access is good with right-in right-out access on both Homestead Road and Wolfe Roads, and access to and from all directions being possible at the signalized access point at the Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue intersection, and signalized U-turns at the Homestead and Wolfe Roads intersection. There are significant barriers to building new shopping centers in Cupertino. The combination of daily needs, foodservice, and hospitality users is well suited for this corner, particularly in light of the newly proposed Apple campus. Site Plan Recommendations Cupertino Village is well located at a prime signalized intersection. Parking, visibility, and access are all good. Internal circulation can be a bit difficult due to tight drive aisles, and the 45-degree orientation of buildings to the street grid. Ranch 99 parking is routinely impacted 104 33 during the afternoon peak shopping period, though parking on the south portion of the project is generally more available. A pedestrian bridge across Wolfe Road to the Apple Campus 2 would be an excellent amenity for both the Study Area and Apple. The owner points out, we believe correctly, that the main question is how to maximize density on the site while maintaining balance with the surrounding uses and the community. Place-making Considerations As discussed, the 45-degree orientation makes parking and circulation less efficient than it otherwise might be, and its design further complicates widening the sidewalks in front of retail spaces that currently are not wide enough to accommodate outdoor seating areas and comfortable strolling through the various retail offerings. There are some nice courtyard and outdoor seating areas with protected promenades in some areas but not in others. Generally, there is inadequate protection from the elements. Little to no wayfinding signage makes the already difficult circulation even more of a challenge, however, it should be noted that tenant signs are prominent. Landscaping also hinders visibility in places. Outdoor seating is generally provided by tenants for the use of their customers, but the lack of project seating and uniformity of outdoor amenities is a lost opportunity for keeping customers on site and cross- shopping. There is neither a particularly strong sense of place nor any historic façade, however, it should be noted that the "Town & Country" environment is a pleasant one, and the Ranch 99 front elevation heralds back to the era in which the center was originally built. Cupertino Village’s more contemporary design should add curb appeal and be more compatible with the Apple Campus 2, however, incorporation of design elements showcasing the project’s (and the region’s) town-and-country roots might be worthy of consideration. Functionality Evaluation The loading area behind Ranch 99 is unattractive and perhaps dangerous with delivery trucks parked haphazardly and making deliveries, preventing motorists from easily maneuvering in the same space. Some improvements are planned with the planned renovation of the shopping center. These changes may provide some relief. Study Area #6 – Vallco Shopping Mall Vallco is addressed at length in the next section of this Report. Study Area #7 – Stevens Creek Office Center This approximately 6.99 acre Study Area, located along Stevens Creek Boulevard (between Saich Way and North Stelling Road), is improved with 108,500 square feet of office and 5,000 square feet of retail space (a small retail strip tenanted by Peet’s Coffee and Panera Bread). The existing buildings are one to two stories with on-site amenities such as covered parking, common areas, and a gym for office workers. The Study Area is directly between a Whole Foods to the west and a small retail redevelopment project immediately east. Additionally, a Target is located across Saich Way. Single-family residential neighborhoods are located to the north and northwest of the Study Area, a YMCA is located immediately north of the site, and there is other garden office space in the immediate area. Stevens Creek Office Center is already a mixed-use project with adjacent office and retail uses. The site might be desirable for residential 105 34 development, more dense office development, additional retail development, or a combination of any or all of these uses. With respect to a mixed-use redevelopment of the site, particular attention should be given to access, parking, and visibility for the retail component of the site. Real Estate Evaluation Stevens Creek Office Center Study Area, centrally located in the City, is an older garden office development that, while appearing a bit dated, the owners try to maintain in a first class manner: Siding was recently replaced, and roof and mechanical systems are reported to have considerable remaining useful life. The project has a successful small retail component with Peet’s Coffee and Panera Bread. An adjacent property, Saich Way Station (see “New Retail Project” on the aerial above), has been fully entitled for redevelopment as a retail center, and a leasing campaign is underway. That project will likely have two restaurants with the balance being non-food uses. This redevelopment project is notable as it provides access from the Study Area to Saich Way (a signalized intersection), and also due to the integration of the Study Area’s retail with retail on the hard corner. Because of this adjacent project, the Study Area may be a candidate for further repositioning as a retail project, particularly if cross access with Whole Foods could be established. It should be noted that this connection was explored and rejected during the development of the Whole Foods project in 2005 due to grading difficulties. This concept could be explored again in connection with a complete renovation of the Stevens Creek Office Center. Retail Market Evaluation In its present configuration, the site is best suited for daytime population-serving retail uses such as restaurant (quick-serve or full-service), and service uses. There is some competing quick 106 35 serve restaurant space (Starbucks, Noah’s Bagels) at the southwest corner of Stevens Creek and North De Anza Boulevards, and a number of commodity box stores in the immediate area (TJ Maxx, Party City, Home Goods). Once the adjacent retail redevelopment project is built, the Study Area will enjoy ingress and egress on Saich Way, have all turning movements available at the signal at Stevens Creek and Saich Way, and no longer be “median bound.” This improved access and the Target co-tenancy will be key attributes for which commodity retailers who prefer positioning stores near Target, and daily-needs retailer such as a drug stores. Consequently, all of these uses would become potential retail uses for this Study Area. For these reasons, continuation of the retail portion of Stevens Creek Office Center as it is presently configured, or a partial or complete redevelopment of the Study Area as a retail project are both viable options. Site Evaluation The site has good visibility from both eastbound and westbound traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard with right-in right-out access from Stevens Creek Boulevard and from all turns on Alves Drive at the north end of the project (providing access back to Saich Way and the signalized intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard). The Study Area’s overall parking ratio is 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable space, and the retail in particular is under parked and of poor design and circulation (e.g. narrow and dead-end drive aisle), reliance on compact stalls, and lack of reciprocal access to adjacent retail to the east. As discussed above, the proposed retail redevelopment project immediately adjacent to the Study Area will have a reciprocal access and parking agreement with the Study Area, significantly improving access and circulation to the site. This new site plan will alleviate some 107 36 of the issues just noted. In addition to other reasons noted here, these improvements make the Study Area a potential candidate for redevelopment as a retail project. Taking advantage of the improved access, circulation, and parking will be key to maximizing the Study Area’s potential. If the site remains primarily an office project, there is probably little that could be done except restriping stalls to maximize stall size (given the limited area available for parking) and posting signs stating parking is limited to 30 or 60 minutes (limiting, for example, students using Panera as a long-term homework hangout) as well as improving way-finding signage. If the balance of the site is to be redeveloped as retail, then creating entry gateways from both Stevens Creek and Saich Way, and an overall site plan that maximizes visibility and parking, while simultaneously simplifying circulation would be of utmost importance. In either scenario, creating delivery zones to minimize congestion caused by double-parked trucks is important. Place-making Considerations The Study Area is a well-maintained suburban garden-style office project. Any opportunity to create pedestrian and/or auto paths of travel between the Study Area and the new retail project to the east and the Whole Foods to the west should be encouraged. The retail portion of the Study Area benefits from attractive outdoor areas, however, the outdoor area’s orientation does a better job of creating “curb appeal” to Stevens Creek Boulevard than it does providing as appealing an amenity as it might, making it less appealing to users than a more protected area might be. The introduction of additional protection from the elements as well as some protection from street noise could make the outdoor area more pleasant in the summer months and more usable during cooler, rainy seasons. Buildings and retail parking areas are well identified, but wayfinding signage for the overall Study Area as well as signage directing traffic through the project to the Alves Drive exit is missing. While it impacts the adjacent retail redevelopment project and not the Study Area, it is worth noting an opinion from an individual knowledgeable of that project’s entitlement process that policy makers appear to believe that retailers will locate where they want them to, and cited under-parked retail on the hard corner of Stevens Creek and Saich Way as an example (while this may be parked to code, it nonetheless may be underparked from a demand perspective). That these spaces will be leased should not be taken as evidence that the site plan is ideal or functional, but rather as evidence of a general undersupply of retail space in the City. These tenants will be looking for opportunities to relocate, and there will be ongoing implications for leasing the balance of the project. Conversely, the City required cross-access with the Study Area that it is reported to do elsewhere in the City. While this sort of cross-access will not necessarily make Stevens Creek a walkable shopping environment, it does foster a better overall retail environment, albeit occasionally to the betterment or detriment of a given landowner. Functionality Evaluation Both the retail and the office portions of the project are congested and under parked. The lack of service and loading areas leads to delivery trucks double parking, adding to congestion. Continuity of Place Evaluation The Study Area’s owner has evaluated redeveloping the property, evaluating a variety of uses from mid-rise office to residential to a variety of retail concepts. Like with many such 108 37 evaluations, the allowed density has a significant impact on whether a particular redevelopment scenario might be justified by the required investment, and to take development, leasing, and construction risk as opposed to maintaining the status quo given the project’s occupancy and rental rates. To date, the status quo has prevailed. 109 38 VALLCO SHOPPING MALL This Study Area, located on either side of Wolfe Road between Stevens Creek and I-280 and outlined below in a black dashed line, is comprised of 16 parcels. Ownership is split among seven owners and includes the Vallco Shopping Mall, and adjacent commercial and mixed-use properties. The Study Area is adjacent to the recently entitled Main Street project, the under construction Rose Bowl project, and to office space owned and used by Apple. It is immediately south of the proposed Apple Campus 2 and the Cupertino Village study area, both of which are located just north of I-280. This Study Area has historically been the commercial heart of Cupertino, however, Vallco itself has suffered for many years. The Vallco Shopping Mall consists of 14 parcels and contains the 1.3 million square foot mall anchored by Macy’s, Sears, and JC Penney. Various pads comprising the mall are either owned or operated on a long-term basis. There are various opportunities for this Study Area to be explored including: 110 39 ¥ Identify a viable, community-based strategy for revitalizing the current Vallco Mall and broader Study Area so that it remains a regional shopping destination, ¥ Explore opportunities to create a walkable, vibrant, mixed-use “downtown” within the Vallco Shopping District that can serve Cupertino residents, workers and visitors, ¥ Explore the possibility of incorporating public or recreational uses, ¥ Ensure future development is more cohesive by creating better connections, architectural relationships, common spaces and parking between individual properties/ownerships, and ¥ Consider creating a specific plan with specific detail and directions for future infrastructure improvements. Background and History The mall was originally constructed between 1974 and 1979. In 1988, the lower level was converted to retail from a former parking lot at a $20 million cost, increasing the total store count from 140 to 190. [6] The construction type is structural steel and concrete block frame, with masonry and concrete exterior. Despite these efforts, increased competition from other regional malls such as Stanford Shopping Center, and in particular Valley Fair which opened 1986 began to take market share from Vallco. Thereafter, while its competitors renovated, expanded, and re-tenanted to meet market demands, Vallco languished with incomplete development, defaults from prior ownerships, prolonged and unrealized redevelopment plans, management changes, and other set-backs. After beginning in the 1990s, the emptying of the mall continued into the mid 2000’s. One widely and commonly-cited reason for Vallco’s decline was a mismatch between Vallco’s mid- range stores and Cupertino and the surrounding area’s growing affluence and changing ethnic makeup, however, this only tells part of the story. The Balance of the story lies in the competitive nature of regional mall operation, leasing, and management: Vallco was unable to compete with the much larger and more sophisticated operators of Stanford and Valley Fair. [6, 7] Real Estate Attributes The Vallco Shopping Mall is centrally located in both the City of Cupertino and the Trade Area at the NWC of Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road. This is the second busiest intersection south of I-280 in Cupertino after Stevens Creek and De Anza. The Vallco site is bordered Stevens Creek, Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, and I-280. [8] ¥ Stevens Creek Boulevard (31,845 ADT, 2007) is an east-west six-lane divided arterial that connects western Cupertino to downtown San Jose (via West San Carlos Street). 111 40 Stevens Creek Boulevard provides access to SR 85, I-280 and Lawrence Expressway via interchanges. ¥ Wolfe Road (27,390 ADT, 2009) is a four-to-six-lane north-south roadway that bisects Vallco Shopping Mall, provides access to I-280 via a partial cloverleaf interchange. North of Stevens Creek Boulevard the roadway is designated as an arterial in the City of Cupertino General Plan; south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, called Miller Avenue, it is designated as a major collector. It extends north to the City of Sunnyvale and south to the City of Saratoga. ¥ Vallco Parkway (2,880 ADT, 2009), a less than 1/2 mile six-lane, east-west roadway, connects Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue. Several entitled development projects border Vallco Parkway including JC Penney, Rose Bowl, and Main Street. Vallco Parkway’s lane configurations will be modified in conjunction with these development projects to four travel lanes with some on-street parking, and two additional traffic lights will be added at Finch Avenue (Main Street) and at the new entrance to the Main Street garage between Finch and Tantau Avenues. ¥ I-280 (159,000 ADT, 2012) borders the north boundary of Vallco Shopping Mall. I-280 provides easy access from Cupertino to San Jose to the east, and to Peninsula communities and San Francisco to the north. ¥ Public transportation serves the Vallco site. VTA, VTA Express, and VTA Limited bus service are all offered with stops at the Mall. Fundamental Site Attributes The Vallco Shopping Mall has excellent visibility from all directions as well as visibility of the project’s approximately 80’ foot tall monument sign which can be seen from I-280. Access is available from both Stevens Creek (right in, right out only), and Wolfe Road (RIRO, slip lanes north of the pedestrian bridge, and a signalized access point south of the pedestrian bridge). Internal circulation allows access to all major parking lots and structures as well as access under Wolfe Road. Parking of 4,886 stalls is provided in a combination of surface lots and parking structures. The overall parking ratio for the project is 3.8:1,000 s.f. of GLA. Land Use Designations, Zoning and Land Use Policies Policy 2-30: Maintain and enhance as a regional commercial area (including hotel), office, and entertainment center with supporting residential development at up to 35 du/acre. Create a master plan to define the mix of land uses. Encourage daytime and nighttime activities. Development agreement expired in 2006. Height limits of 60’ if a retail component, and 45’ if no retail component. Focus on better integration with surrounding uses. Source: Cupertino General Plan, 2005 Land Use: South Vallco Park Special Center (in 2005 General Plan) Heart of the City Specific Plan South Vallco Master Plan 112 41 Current Land Use Future Land Use Note (a): Mixed-Use development now under construction Source: South Vallco Master Plan Zoning: P (Regional Shopping), and P (CG, ML, O, Hotel, Regional Shopping, Res) Source: Heart of the City Specific Plan (a) 113 42 Competitive Landscape The area along Stevens Creek from ¼ mile east of Wolfe to ¼ mile west of De Anza represents the focal area for retail in Cupertino. There are no projects in the immediate area that compete directly with Vallco. Valley Fair and Santana Row (approx. five miles east), Westgate Mall (approx. three miles southeast), Sunnyvale Town Center (approx. four miles north), and Stanford Shopping Center (approx. thirteen miles northwest) represent the next closest regionally- oriented retail projects. Valley Fair, San Jose/Santa Clara Westfield’s Valley Fair Shopping Center opened in 1986. Presently 1,477,393 square feet, the Mall is home to 272 retailers including Nordstrom, Macy’s, Apple and Cartier producing $494.9 million in annual sales from over 16 million annual customer visits. Valley Fair is often cited as the highest performing mall in California. A new food court called the Dining Terrace opened in November, 2013, and a Bloomingdales is under consideration as a new anchor. Per the Macy’s representative, the Valley Fair Macy’s is one of their highest grossing stores in the United States. Macy’s is discussing locating a new Bloomingdale’s unit at Valley Fair. Westfield is exploring a 200,000 square foot expansion to accommodate Bloomingdale’s and a movie theater. Westfield recently remodeled its food court and created what it now calls a “dining terrace.” 114 43 This amenity creates a place for people to gather, mingle, and linger. Lighting, materials, and the inside-outside connection expand the open environment during warmer seasons. Banquettes, tables that can be moved together, and internet stations allow visitors with various needs (groups, families, couples) to patronize the dining terrace. Santana Row, San Jose Opened in 2003, Santana Row is a 647,000 square foot mixed-use project with retail, hospitality, office, and residential components. There are over 3,500 parking stalls supporting the 70 shops, 20 restaurants, the 212 room Hotel Valencia, 622 rental units, 219 condominium units, and 65,000 square feet of office space. Westgate Center, San Jose A former regional mall that fell out of favor in the late 1980’s to early 1990’s, Westgate Center has been “demalled” and presently operates as a 645,000 square foot power center with over 50 tenants including anchors Wal-Mart, Target, Nordstrom Rack, Burlington Coat Factory, Ross Dress for Less, and Old Navy. 115 44 Sunnyvale Town Center, Sunnyvale Originally built in 1979, the 36-acre site has recently been redeveloped into an outdoor, Main Street-style project anchored by Target (located on a podium over parking area 4) and Macy’s. The project’s 2007 plans called for 275,000 s.f. of office, 933,000 s.f. of retail (including Macy’s, Target, and a 2,624 seat cinema), and 292 housing units. Plagued in recent years by a highly public foreclosure, the site has emerged from receivership. 116 45 Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto Originally built in the mid-1950’s, Stanford Shopping Center has evolved into a regional mall with 1,364,000 square feet of retail space and restaurants with 140 stores including anchors Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, and Nordstrom. According to an October 24, 2013 San Francisco Business Times article, the owner made an application for a major remodel that will create four new shop buildings totaling about 140,000 square feet located where Bloomingdale's presently operates. Bloomingdale's will relocate to Fleming’s former location, and Fleming’s has already moved to a new building. The total GLA of the mall, which generates approximately $5.4 million in sales taxes annually, will stay roughly the same. [9] 117 46 Vallco Site Area Vallco Shopping Mall contains a total of approximately 50.60± acres, of which 32.04± acres are owned by the anchor tenants, and 21.13± acres are owned by Vallco Shopping Mall, LLC. [10] The various mall ownerships listed here as well as adjacent owners are shown on the following map: Parcel Owned Site Area 316-20-089 (Macy's) 6.942 Acres 316-20-080 (Sears) 12.410 Acres 316-20-094, -095 (JCPenney) 12.684 Acres Subtotal - Anchor Parcels 32.036 Acres 316-20-099, -100 4.965 Acres 316-20-081 (Sears Lease) 4.379 Acres 316-20-096, -097, -098 9.219 Acres Subtotal - Mall Parcel 18.563 Acres Total Owned Site Area 21.126 Acres Total Center Site Area 50.599 Acres 118 47 Vallco Leasing Makeup Vallco Shopping Mall’s tenant make up is summarized in the following chart [11] and the leasing plan that follows: Component GLA Area Macy's 176,962 SF Sears 280,185 SF J.C. Penney 202,360 SF AMC Theaters 80,500 SF Total Anchor GLA 740,007 SF (58%) In-Line 436,523 SF Food Court 11,073 SF Restaurants 29,960 SF Major Tenants 59,238 SF Subtotal-Mall Shop GLA 536,794 SF (42%) Total Center GLA 1,276,801 SF (100%) Total Owned GLA 617,294 SF (48%) 119 48 Development, Ownership, and Repositioning History Vallco Fashion Park opened in September 1976. Among its unique features were several “parks” in the Mall's main walkway, each showcasing aspects of local history, the Ice Capades Chalet (one of two year-round skating rinks in Santa Clara County) which operated for almost ten years before encountering trouble in 1986, and the Tilt Family Entertainment Center which opened in 1990. TIAA held a loan on the property at the same time that Jacobs Group, who had an interest in Vallco (the JG Cupertino entity), was winding down its retail portfolio. Jacobs had cleared out the Mall’s lower level with the idea of creating additional parking, resulting in lower net operating income at just the time the Mall was beginning to have significant issues competing with newly opened Valley Fair. TIAA foreclosed and subsequently came to own both the fee and leasehold interests. Shortly after the foreclosure, Douglas Wilson was appointed as the receiver (they acted in this role from August 2002 until June, 2003). During this time, John Nguyen approached on behalf of an investment consortium led by Alan Wong, Emily Chen, and John Nguyen. The group offered significantly over book value, and a deal was ultimately struck for a sale at $72 million. At the same time as the Mall was in escrow, in order to fulfill its fiduciary obligation to maximize the value of the receivership estate, the receiver formed a backup redevelopment plan that included hiring Callison as architect of record. [12,13] 120 49 Among various options explored, the receiver investigated converting Wolfe Road to be one lane in each direction with 60-degree parking, demalling the project and having tenants facing the streets, relocating JC Penney onsite west of Wolfe Road, and addressing the pedestrian bridge which was viewed as a major impediment to pedestrian flow and hence the success of the Mall. Additional issues that were investigated but never resolved were the community’s ties to the ice rink and complications from Sears owning land under the Mall. Alan Wong, Emily Chen, and John Nguyen ultimately acquired the subject property and adjacent land parcels (Rose Bowl, Northwest, and Northeast) for a reported price of $67,000,000. The sale closed in June 2003. After acquiring the center in May, 2003, the Wong, Chen, and Nguyen team undertook to convert and upgrade the regional mall into a specialty center with an international tenant mix including entertainment, additional restaurants, and a new food court. One of the changes made to Vallco as part of these new renovations was to completely close the first of the mall's two levels in 2005, leaving the focus on the second floor. A few new tenants were recruited over the next few years including a 16-screen AMC Theater that was added on a podium level above the existing retail space, new retail space, and two parking structures that added 1,652± parking spaces. Unfortunately, by 2006, Vallco had the lowest occupancy rate (24%) of any mall in the area. 121 50 Alan Wong, Emily Chen, and John Nguyen sold the Rose Bowl, Northeast, and Northwest parcels to Evershine, the owner/developer of Marketplace Center immediately southwest of the subject Sears (across Stevens Creek Boulevard). The reported purchase price for the land was $50.0 million. Surface parking lost on the sale of these parcels was replaced by the construction of new parking garages at the subject center. These additional parking garages were intended to permit more intense development on other parcels, including the adjacent "Rose Bowl" site, a 50-unit detached home project on the “Northwest Development” parcel, and a hotel on the “Northeast Development” parcel (all planned, but only the Rose Bowl site was eventually developed). In addition to the Alan Wong, Emily Chen, and John Nguyen purchase, a new venture partner, Orbit, reportedly invested $33.0 million ($22.5 million in cash and $10.5 million in a note) for an 85 percent interest in the Cupertino Mall ownership entity. The proceeds were reportedly used to clean up mechanics liens, pay down the loan, establish an interest reserve, and recapitalize the project. In 2006, United Commercial Bank loaned Cupertino Square, LLC $195 million to further recapitalize the project and to provide development funds. In July 2007, Orbit Resources acquired the Mall, and Vallco Fashion Park's name was changed to Cupertino Square, and managing agents were switched from Landmark Property Management to Jones Lang LaSalle. Renovation of the mall that began in 2005 continued, and by 2009 two new parking structures, a 16-screen AMC movie theater, a food court, and Strike Bowling (at the former location of Tilt Family Entertainment Center) had been added. In September 2008, the two owners of the complex filed for bankruptcy to prevent the primary financier Gramercy Capital from foreclosing on their property. By September 2009, Vietnamese food processing company Son Son Co. purchased Cupertino Square for $64 million in an all- 122 51 cash deal, and restored the name Vallco Shopping Mall. Vallco also hosts the every-Friday Pacific Coast Farmers' Market in the parking lot behind JC Penney. [14, 15] Ground Lease Discussion As noted, three parcels comprising portions of the subject property are on ground leases. The details of these leasehold interests are as follows: [16,17] ¥ The first ground lease (APN 316-20-081) dated 8/26/88 with Sears as the ground lessor and the mall owner as the ground lessee, is for a 4.38±-acre parcel of land, expiring November 30, 2074. The annual rent of $290,628 is flat over the lease term. The land subject to this ground lease is improved with approximately 52,000 square feet of mall shops. ¥ A second ground lease dated 8/22/06 was consummated with JC Penney as the ground lessor and the mall owner as the ground lessee to construct an additional 45,000± square feet of retail space adjacent to JC Penney. The ground lease commenced November, 2006 with a term of 30 years and three ten-year options to extend at an annual rent of $320,000 per year, with ten percent increases every ten years. At expiration, JC Penney may require the demolition of any improvements, and conversion back to parking. ¥ Cushman Wakefield was also provided with an unexecuted (draft) lease for a second ground lease by the mall owner for a 0.36±-acre parcel owned by Sears. The commencement date was reported to be November 2006, with a 50-year term, and five five-year options at an annual rent of $189,656, increasing eight percent every five years during the term and options. Based on the draft, unsigned leases, California Pizza Kitchen and Islands restaurants each planed to lease stand-alone restaurant buildings that mall ownership planned to construct, but which were never built. It is assumed this lease was never consummated. Title Review Discussion As part of the process of developing alternative scenarios and recommendations, thousands of pages of recorded documents were reviewed. These documents give insight about development intent, certain tenant’s lease rights, and restrictions placed on the project. Following are the key findings: Master Ground Lease for Mall Development Originally the developer structured the Vallco Shopping Mall development on a ground lease with a related developer entity as the ground lessee commencing on 9/1/74 with a term of 47 years plus two options to extend for 20-years each. On 10/22/98, a Memorandum of Ground Lease with a term from 11/1/98-10/31/58 was recorded showing TIAA as the ground lessor, and JG Cupertino (Jacob’s Group) as the ground lessee with JG having a purchase option. These two interests merged on 6/12/03 when the new John Nguyen-led ownership group purchased 123 52 the fee and leasehold interests in the Mall from TIAA. These combined interests were transferred to the present owner, Vallco Shopping Mall LLC, on 9/11/09. Construction Operating Restrictions Easements Agreement (COREA) The COREA, dated 2/19/75, initially was between Vallco Fashion Park Venture (the development entity), Federated (Bullocks, briefly Emporium, now Macy’s), and Sears. Macy’s is the successor- in-interest in a sub-ground lessee with a 27-year term commencing on or about 12/1/74 with one 20-year and four 10-year options to renew. The COREA provides among other things for the following: ¥ A 60-year term extendable to up to 99-years if the majors continue to operate. ¥ Easements across all tracts for vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation. ¥ The parties can each redesign their own parcels, with each anchor having exclusive right to design its entry court to the Mall. ¥ The establishment of minimum and maximum buildable areas and parking ratios for each parcel. ¥ Use restrictions requiring operation as a first class regional mall, and establishing a list of restricted uses which appear typical of shopping center governing documents. ¥ A developer requirement to continuously manage and operate the Mall, and for the anchor tenants to operate continuously for a minimum number of years (all since expired). ¥ A provision that all parties are required to modify the COREA. First Amendment to COREA The First Amendment to COREA, dated 8/1/75, established minimum and maximum buildable areas, parking ratios, and a developer requirement to use best efforts to maintain at least 65% occupancy between Sears and Bullocks (now Macy’s). Second Amendment to COREA An amended and restated COREA was dated 12/1/75. A complete copy was not available for review. Third Amendment to COREA Dated 9/14/76, the third amendment established construction and financing schedules of performance, parking ratios, and parking locations. Fourth Amendment to COREA Dated in August, 1980, the fourth amendment established buildable area minimums and maximums and updated parking ratio as well as a provision for a bus stop in the common areas adjacent to Sears. Fifth Amendment to COREA Dated 2/15/84, the fifth amendment memorialized Federated’s interest being assumed by Carter Hawley Hale (Emporium). (CHH was later purchased by Federated, reverting that interest back to Federated.) Sears Documents ¥ On 2/19/75, Sears granted the developer an easement co-terminus with the COREA to develop parking areas, and a connection between Sears and the Mall. ¥ A ground lease by Sears to Westland dated 8/26/88 terminating the earlier of 11/30/74 or 124 53 when COREA terminates with a right of first refusal by the ground lessee to purchase the fee. ¥ Lease of the lower level by Sears to Westland. Development Agreement A Development Agreement dated 10/8/74 between the City and the original Mall developer provided for the following: ¥ Construction of 1,028,436 square feet of net rentable area. ¥ Rose Bowl site to be developed for office uses at a 0.37 FAR. ¥ The granting by the City of air rights over Wolfe Road for the construction of a pedestrian bridge, and for the construction of two levels of underground parking. ¥ Provision for the construction of a rapid transit station adjacent to I-280. General Plan Amendment A General Plan Amendment dated 7/1/91 and a Development Agreement dated 8/15/91 between the City and Westland were approved with a term of 15 years expiring August 14, 2006 (in 2005, the agreement was extended to August 15, 2009) and contained the following terms: [18] ¥ The General Plan Amendment (2-GPA-89) increased the designated development capacity for the Shopping Center by 260,000 net rentable square feet, which, taken together with the available capacity under existing approvals, provided for 535,000 square feet of future development on the Property and the Rose Bowl site (for a total build-out of 1,645,700 square feet of net rentable space). At least 80,000 square feet of the total 260,000 square feet of additional net rentable square feet authorized under 2-GPA-89 were to be reserved for use by a “Single User.” This single user became AMC Theaters which leases 80,500 square feet ¥ Cinema: A cinema complex was approved for the Shopping Center subject to the conditions attached to Application 9-U-90 which allowed for a 2,500 seat cinema to be built adjacent to the Sears store or a 3,500 seat cinema may be built on the Westside Site (these locations are noted on Exhibit B attached to the development agreement). A cinema would reduce the total build out authorized under the Master Use Permit by 100,000 square feet. A fourth amendment to the development agreement recorded 2/9/06 permitted the 2,500 seat AMC Theater. ¥ Parking: Additional parking to accommodate future development was required to be provided at a ratio of 1 parking space for every 248 square feet of gross leasable floor area of retail space. Additional parking requirements are established in the COREA as noted above. ¥ Ice Rink: The developer was required to operate and maintain the ice rink facility at no cost to the City. If the developer expanded the center by 100,000 square feet of new net rentable space during the term of the development, the continued operation of the ice rink would become a permanent condition. If 100,000 net new square feet are not added, the developer would only be responsible for operating the ice skating rink for the term of the development agreement. The ice rink is excluded from the maximum GLA calculation. ¥ Park and Ride: The developer agreed to establish a shared use park and ride area for 75 spaces. ¥ Child Care: The developer agreed to operate or cause to be operated a child care facility within the Shopping Center throughout the term of the development agreement. ¥ The Rose Bowl parcel was rezoned to P (CG, ML, Office, Hotel, Regional Shopping); 125 54 however, the rezoning maintained the retail, office, industrial use, and the hotel use option available under the prior planned development zoning for the Rose Bowl Parcel. On August 23, 2004 Resolution 6269 was passed calling for the approval of an architectural and site review for 138,760 square feet, 204 residential units and a parking structure on the Rose Bowl site. On the same date, the City Council recommended the approval of a use permit permitting the development to construct 204 residential units (for-rent condominiums) and a parking structure. The Architectural and Site Approval was completed by the Cupertino City Council on March 15, 2005. A fifth amendment to the development agreement recorded 2/9/06 permitted development of the Rose Bowl site with 138,760 s.f. of retail and 204 dwelling units. Tenant Leases Various leases are on record with the following terms noted: ¥ TGIF: TGIF’s lease commenced 9/1/74 and expires 8/31/21 with two 20-year options to extend. A separate memorandum of lease shows TGIF’s lease dated 11/29/76 commencing 12/21/77 and running for a term of 20-years with one 5-year option to extend. It is unclear which is correct, however, Friday’s still operating would support a theory that it is the former. ¥ AMC Theaters: AMC executed a lease on 5/5/05 for 15 years with three 5-year options and one 4½-year option. The lease includes the following provisions: o A protected area requiring AMC’s approval for changes of any parking areas west of Wolfe Road including the then newly built parking deck, and all pedestrian access to and from the parking areas, but allowing the landlord rights to certain future building areas (lease § 26). o A requirement for the landlord to continuously operate the property as a shopping center. o Restrictions on the sale of movie concession food or beverage within 50 feet of AMC’s premises, in common areas, or in parking areas, on so-called noxious uses typically restricted in shopping center governing documents (but allowing Lucky Strike bowling alley), and on a health club. ¥ Lucky Strike: The bowling alley executed a lease on 12/11/06 for 38,000 square feet of space for a term of 15 years from 1/1/07 to 12/31/22 with three 5-year options to renew. ¥ Ross Dress for Less: Ross executed a lease on 7/21/92 for 10 years plus three 5-year options. The lease requires the mall to remain retail in nature, and no so-called noxious uses in defined protected areas. Ross has since relocated out of the mall. ¥ The Bay Club: The Bay Club’s lease dated 3/15/11 has a term of 15-years 4-months plus options to renew for three 5-year periods. The lease establishes part of the common areas as protected areas requiring Bay Club’s approval for modifications, and an exclusive for a health club on Sears’ lands. ¥ Sprint: Sprint has two leases for cell towers, each commencing in 2002 with a 15-year initial term plus two 5-year options to renew. Stakeholder Interviews and Discussion – Anchor Tenants Macy’s Todd B Scheffler, Macy’s Director of Real Estate responsible for the area including Cupertino, was interviewed regarding Vallco. Like with all chain retailers, market share and goodwill are 126 55 important considerations for Macy’s. Macy’s cites a legacy customer that shops at its Vallco unit as well as low operating costs, and a low book value which allows relatively flat sales (+/- 1-2% from year to year) that are “moderate not killer” to produce a positive EBITDA and contribution to the parent company. Macy’s sees itself as a partner in the community; giving back to the community is a stated policy initiative. The Company feels it is important to remain open where goodwill has been built over time and they are vested in the community. Mr. Scheffler noted the Chairman is a merchant for whom aligning the Macy’s brand and merchandising with market demand and serving its legacy customer are key. It was confirmed that the Vallco store does better than Macy’s at Sunnyvale Town Center, but much lower sales than Valley Fair. Macy’s self-characterized as a conservative company concerned with operating department stores rather than being in the real estate business. While no plans to do so were expressed, if choosing a store to close between Vallco and Sunnyvale, Sunnyvale would be the more obvious choice. With respect to Vallco specifically, notwithstanding the focus on operations as opposed to real estate, Macy’s is keenly aware that its long-term control has real value. From an operational perspective, there is always an eye to market share and goodwill, and the potential impact closing a long-established unit might have on its overall market position. Since the store makes money, the tendency is not to consider closure, however, if there were an opportunity for a meaningful capital event, and if there were an opportunity to transfer the Vallco business to another location, a closure would be evaluated by the company. Macy’s believes they get some AMC and some JC Penney cross-shopping, but that the project really is no longer a shopping center in the traditional sense. The common areas are a vacuum with no energy or amenities, and it is not a place to socialize or walk. With respect to redevelopment strategies, the answer was that everything is plan-specific. For example, Macy’s understands that the underutilized parking next to its store is a development opportunity. Citing a potential increase in customer traffic and that traffic generates sales, Macy’s indicated it would look at any opportunity to increase customer traffic and to optimize the site including a mixed-use redevelopment plan, a demalling strategy that would bring in larger box retailers, or an open air environment with inviting common area. Macy’s previously agreed to permit the undeveloped triangular parcel north of its store to be developed as residential and for a parking deck supporting the mall and the to be built AMC Theater (see Grammercy site plan) with the thought that the additional development would be good for the project and for Macy’s. A 6th Amendment to the COREA would have established fee interest transfers, but was never consummated. While the residential portion was never built, the added parking infrastructure does serve Macy’s customers’ needs. Grammercy documents indicated that a never executed 6th Amendment to the COREA called for Macy’s to receive $2.3 million as consideration for a new REA that extending through 2075. Macy’s reportedly indicated that a store remodel would be explored if a major interior mall model were to be undertaken. At the time, the store upgrade was estimated to be a $5 million investment. By way of comparison, the Macy’s store at Westfield’s Eastridge Mall (13 miles from Cupertino) was in similar condition to Vallco before being renovated in 2005 (an AMC 127 56 theater was also added as part of that repositioning). The Eastridge Macy’s post-renovation sales reportedly increased 40%. [19] Citing their positive anticipation about Sunnyvale Town Center (which had Macy’s along with other retail, office, restaurants, and residential uses), Macy’s reiterated its interest in evaluating any redevelopment plan that would increase traffic, and that, at this point, there is no disposition initiative. Clearly disappointed with Sunnyvale Town Center and frustrated with delays caused by ongoing legal maneuvering, the Macy’s representative stated there is “nothing wrong with their Sunnyvale store except it needs a mall.” Similarly, Macy’s is not happy with Vallco, and believes the current owner, who is not experienced with regional malls, purchased the property for its redevelopment potential and appreciation value rather than to operate as a Mall. Sears Jim Terrell, Vice President of Real Estate, and Robyn Alexander, Associate General Counsel - Real Estate, both of Sears Holding Company, and Ivor E. Samson of Dentons discussed Vallco on behalf of Sears. Sears self-reports as the second largest holder of retail real estate in the United States after Wal-Mart. Sears does not see Vallco as a cohesive project because, among many things, work needs to be done on the mall portion of the project, the site is bisected by Wolfe Road, and deferred maintenance. These factors make Sears reticent to reinvest in its store at this time. In contrast to Sears reticence today, Grammercy documents indicate that Sears invested $4MM of its own capital in the store in 2005, when the Vallco Sears was the second highest grossing store in its district with sales of $35 million (as compared with average sales of $38.8 million over the prior 5 years). As part of the unconsummated 6th Amendment to the COREA, Sears was reported to have received $1 million which they were required to invest in their space. [20] We note that Sears has since given up considerable market share in the Peninsula sub-market with the closure of both its Mountain View and San Mateo stores. Sears first and foremost wants to understand how its property is key to any redevelopment of Vallco. Stating they would be cooperative, they cautioned they intend to maintain control over their real estate, they do not want any planning process to result in a redevelopment plan they do not like, they want to retain the flexibility to improve their parcel with the highest and best use whatever that might be, and they want to participate in any conversation that might be happening with a developer who might be in the wings (which they believe to be the case). There was little interest expressed in either relocation or a store closure. The Sears representative commented that Sears is not in the business of creating redevelopment proposals, and they would like to hear more about what the City would like to see at Vallco. Sears was interested in understanding whether Successor Agencies would be permitted to exercise power of eminent domain in the public interest since the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in the state. Sears feels the community embraces its store in Cupertino, and without citing specific sales or 128 57 other parameters, confirmed that the store contributes well. Any redevelopment analysis would take into account added value with respect to both real estate and operations with a view to the long term and how the property will be positioned far (say, 20 years or more) in the future. Bay Club was cited as an example of a nice addition, but also one that does not fit well with the mall in its present iteration. Sears also pointed out that the impact of construction on operations would need to be taken into consideration; while there may be a sales lift after a remodel, sales are negatively impacted during the remodeling process that can easily take up to 24 months. Sears’ perception is that others are “envious” of Sears having the largest parcel within Vallco and more than ample parking. While possessing good real estate and store level economics, Macy’s is viewed by Sears as disadvantaged when compared with Sears. Sears is concerned that its parking stands alone, and that any redevelopment scenario should have each parcel stand alone with respect to parking. Sears would consider newly created shared parking (including structured parking) where that shared parking is advantageous to Sears and where Sears is not being asked to “subsidize” parking for the balance of the project. We do note that the operating documents state that all parking is to be in common among all parcels of the shopping center. Sears will certainly also evaluate key retail real estate fundamentals such as ingress/egress, traffic flow, visibility, and compatible uses. JC Penney Bradley Syverson, VP Real Estate and Area Research, and April Webster, Real Estate Manager were interviewed about JC Penney’s Vallco store. Once operating as both a store and as a stockroom for local catalog sales, Penney’s building contains 213,000 s.f. while only 130,000 s.f. is merchandised today for retail sales. Penney would like to see a dramatically improved retail project, and would like to have 120,000-130,000 s.f. of selling area (130,000-140,000 s.f. of gross floor area). While the surrounding mall environment is severely lacking, the store performs well. JC Penney has reinvested in the Vallco store over the past two years including the addition of a home department and other shops within the store. Book value would have increased with this reinvestment. Sales were quoted at $22 million in 2012 which is attributed to JC Penney’s strong franchise with local consumers, and favorable site attributes such as good visibility and easy access and parking. With respect to redevelopment of the property, Penney would entertain any reasonable proposal including a mixed-use alternative. They would be concerned about the size of a retail component as part of such a project, like many retailers wanting to be part of a critical mass large enough to be a destination attraction for customers. According to Grammercy, in 2005, the Vallco JC Penney (Penney’s only unit in Silicon Valley) generated $2 million in net income, placing it in the top 18% of all JCP stores nationally and 2nd among the 14 stores within the Bay Area. Sales in 2005 were $32 million with average sales of $30.9 million over the prior 5 years, and the store reportedly maintained profitability despite on-going construction. JC Penney invested $3.5 million in 2005 to remodel the store’s interior, 129 58 and would have received $400,000 towards that effort per the unconsummated 6th Amendment to the COREA. [21] It is well known that JC Penney is repositioning itself in the retail marketplace. The Company’s stated goal is to monetize its fee ownership of 12+ acres, however, they would like to continue operating in the market and at Vallco. Both a sale-leaseback or an on-site relocation would meet the Company’s dual objectives. With respect to the sort of transaction that Penney’s would consider, if the value being paid for the real estate were to be significantly more than income from operations, store closure would be considered, however, like Macy’s and Sears, the Company’s goal is to be an operator of retail stores and not a real estate investment company. Accordingly, any buy vs. sell or relocation vs. closure analysis would weigh heavily towards store results, take into account Penney’s low occupancy cost, and be mindful of Bay Area real estate costs creating a high barrier to entry at another location. The Bay Club Per Peter Berkowitz, the Bay Club opened in 2012 as Sears’ sub-tenant. Membership is reported to be growing nicely, and due to a combination of the Club’s upscale market positioning and Cupertino having a significant daytime in-migration of workers, the Club draws from a wider radius than might otherwise be assumed. An interesting observation is that shoppers will go from Cupertino to Valley Fair and Santana Row, but Vallco does not have a compelling offering for anyone to think of it as a destination. The Club’s parent company maintains a keen interest in how the intersection of Stevens Creek and Wolfe is developed. Stakeholder Interviews and Discussion – Rose Bowl KCR, a family held development company and the Rose Bowl developer, has operated retail projects in Cupertino since the mid to late 1990’s. They own and oversaw the repositioning of The Marketplace, and continue to do ground-up as well as value-add project which they manage themselves. The Marketplace is successful: Marukai’s only Northern California store is a top performer, Elephant Bar does well despite selling more food than alcohol, and most other tenants are reported to be doing well with solid customer counts. The Rose Bowl, a mixed-use project KCR purchased with entitlements in place and located at the SEC of Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway, will have 204 residential rental units and 60,000 s.f. of retail space when complete. Retail space will face Vallco Parkway and Wolfe Road with three access points (one off Wolfe, two off Vallco). Structured retail parking is to have a 10:1,000 s.f. ratio which, while not the stated intent, would allow for the project to be predominantly restaurant. 130 59 The mix is purported to have mainstream uses such as full service and QSR restaurants, dessert shops, and neighborhood-serving retail such as a dry cleaner and other daily needs, convenience oriented tenants. Tenants are beginning in inquire in connection with the anticipated Apple Campus 2. With respect to the Mall, KCR also owns the triangular parking lot north of JC Penney, with a business-oriented hospitality use in mind for the property. Changes in general plan designation as well as limited freeway visibility are viewed as the primary development risks. KCR believes there is a real opportunity to reposition as a mixed-use project. KCR has been approached about taking on the Mall and has declined. S takeholder Interviews and Discussion- Other Note: Many of those interviewed asked that their comments be held in confidence. Identifying remarks and references have thusly been eliminated. ¥ A common sentiment was that Vallco presents a huge opportunity if all parties can be brought to the table. A stakeholder hoped that after years of neglect, the City is finally recognizing the need for involvement in change at Vallco, and there is popular support for different uses. ¥ While it is quite dated, a shopping center developer felt there is an opportunity to position Vallco as a community shopping center driven by daily needs and convenience, and that if Vallco were to go through a significant reinvestment, it would only be good. ¥ An interviewee familiar with Sears commented that Sears’ position that its real estate is valuable, and not wanting to “subsidize anyone else” is consistent with its approach elsewhere. A number of people familiar with Vallco pointed out that if those controlling 131 60 restrictions in the COREA and leases were pushed towards a common position, one of the biggest obstacles to redeveloping Vallco would be removed. ¥ Another interviewee noted that in order for Santana Row to work, residential was required to justify development and open space costs, and to create a place people want to be. Yet another view was that the City is culpable for Vallco’s present situation, particularly when Vallco is contrasted with how progressive neighboring cities have been (for example, Santa Clara with Related Company of California’s Santa Clara project near the new 49ers Stadium ). ¥ According to a broker with considerable experience in the Cupertino market, Vallco is challenged by being roughly midway between Valley Fair and Stanford Shopping Center. Consistent with this opinion that Vallco will never be able to compete with either of these highly successful projects given the highly competitive nature of the regional mall leasing business: Larger landlords with multiple shopping centers are able to condition offering tenants spaces in highly desirable projects (ie. Valley Fair) upon tenants also leasing spaces in less desirable projects. Furthermore, they are able to withhold spaces from tenants who might open in a competing project, and this is precisely the issue that Vallco might face if it were to try to reinvest itself as a traditional regional mall. Westfield likely views Vallco as a nuisance, but one that needs to be addressed nonetheless. On the plus side, the entertainment value of the ice rink and AMC was acknowledged. Redevelopment issues include restrictions (governmental, and controlling documents such as the COREA), and the anchors’ naturally slow-moving internal decision making processes. The site is thought to have significant potential for other than retail uses: High-density housing and office space for companies associated with Apple in particular. The question was raised about whether retail might, in fact, yield the lowest residual land value of the available options. ¥ An interviewee with familiarity about both Vallco and other regional malls in the Trade Area was aware of a group that did not move forward to purchase Vallco when Grammercy was marketing the project because it did not have enough leverage to attract tenants, and further had doubts that a third party regional mall operator (ie. a company working for a fee but who would never own Vallco) such as General Growth would leverage its relationships or trade a willingness to lease a desired tenant space in other in-demand projects as a trade for locating a store in Vallco. ¥ Vallco operates in a trade area that is relatively mature. It was pointed out that strong projects in all major categories already serve the Trade Area that includes Cupertino: Valley Fair is an outstanding regional mall, Westgate Shopping Center is a strong commodity-oriented power center, and Santana Row has grown into an established and high-performing specialty center. Another interview reiterated that Westfield, owner of both Valley Fair and Oakridge Shopping Center, has a vested interest in making sure Vallco remains a third-rate mall. In so doing, it holds significant market share in the Trade Area as the dominant landlord for mall tenants wanting to serve the Trade Area. ¥ A decision needs to be made about whether the project should be turned into a power center with box tenants that can absorb a lot of square footage, a specialty project, a mixed-use project, or something completely different. An executive with a national 132 61 retail development firm commented that the biggest challenge with a project like Vallco would be to balance redevelopment economics with defining the project’s place in the market: The investment needed to buy out tenant interests, tear down the project, and rebuild it into something new would likely never work given rents that might be achieved. A corresponding recognition that a complete repositioning may necessitate “going backward” before “going forward” was also expressed. Overcoming retailers’ perceptions of Vallco will be another challenge. A leasing team that can leverage tenant relationships to get the opportunity to tell the “right story” – the pitch and the hook – about rebranding the project and why tenants need to locate at Vallco rather than going elsewhere would be necessary just to start the process. The tenant attraction process will likely be a years-long endeavor, and likely take 5-7 years to “get it right.” A traditional transaction-oriented leasing team (eg. a broker or institutional 3rd party leasing team) would find the assignment extremely frustrating. Accordingly, an adaptive reuse of the existing project would only be viable with a forward-thinking owner possessing a combination of a clearly articulated, long-term vision and the determination and deep pockets to match. ¥ Santana Row is often invoked to describe a vision of a desired project. Santana Row’s success is attributed to the mix of retailers, service uses, and restaurants. The 640,000 square foot project can be thought of as follows: One third of the project is Crate & Barrel, The Container Store, Best Buy, and a theater. The next largest space is Club One at 30,000 square feet, H&M at 26,000 square feet, 8,000 square feet, and then quickly 2,500 square foot spaces. With restaurants mixed through the project, the opportunity was in creating the right groupings of tenants in districts-within-the-project. For example, Olin functions as a unit with a gym, office, emphasis on fast casual rather than sit down dining where families might go, moms and strollers and mommy & me classes, and park events. Olson is sleepier with two restaurants and service tenants such as a bank, dental office, and hair salon. Santana Row acts as the project’s “Main Street” with a mix of fashion, street retail and restaurants. A fashion tenant would not be appropriate for Olin or Olsen Streets whereas Dry Bay would not be for Santana Row. A sense of place was created through common area design, but also through architecture and, in particular, tenants having unique storefronts. The project’s biggest weakness is the lack of a traditional anchor tenant. ¥ A project’s DNA and its tenants’ DNA need to match: Some tenants will have a so-called “comfort zone” in a regional mall and not in a Main Street environment. In contrast to Santana Row’s more experimental approach, Valley Fair tends to seek retailers with the biggest consumer franchises and the most ubiquitous names. While Santana Row may never win the back to school shopper, it will win on where you want go on Friday night. ¥ Every retail project either works or does not work in its unique context and with its unique set of circumstances. Understanding that a “Santana Row” will not work everywhere is important. An important analog was drawn between Vallco and Santana Row: Neither project is easy to lease, and projects need a clear marketing statement/message to be successful, and a messenger capable both of communicating that message and going toe-to-toe with competing project’s leasing strategies. 133 62 ¥ From a leasing strategy perspective, keeping a project cutting edge is important. The “right” tenant mix needs to take priority over the notion that longevity guarantees future longevity: Just because a tenant has been in a project for a long time doesn’t mean it is appropriate to keep that tenant. Taking a step back and making a merchandising- appropriate decisions about tenant mix is essential. Refreshing storefronts and constantly improving the tenant mix also conveys the message that something new continues to happen. ¥ Finally, the concept that every great retail center or street has its “anti-center” or “anti- street” was introduced. For example, Valley Fair has Santana Row. Beverly Center has The Grove. Santa Monica Place has the Third Street Promenade. Fifth Avenue has SoHo. There will likely never be an opportunity to “beat” Valley Fair, but there may be an opportunity to become the anti-Valley Fair Strategies for Repositioning Vallco Shopping Mall Vallco is being affected by the consolidation of retailers, increasing dominance of super- regional malls, the introduction of new retail shopping channels, and a variety of other forces. While Vallco enjoys a good location in the Trade Area, it lacks identity compared to alternative shopping venues. The BAE Retail Sales and Leakage Analysis suggests that a strong regional retail environment and balanced sales in the Trade Area (Cupertino’s annual retail sales are $10,483 as compared to $13,404 for Santa Clara County) constrain opportunities for additional capture of Trade Area resident spending through new retail development in Cupertino itself. We believe this same strong regional retail environment might, in fact, give Cupertino the opportunity to consolidate additional retail in the City given its compelling location and Vallco’s fundamentally excellent location; Vallco presents a unique opportunity to create a new retail nexus, although not necessarily in its present format. As discussed earlier, mid-range department stores have evolved into commodity retailers. Vallco’s anchors are effectively commodity retailers, however, the nature of a regional mall is more specialty in nature. Vallco has already evolved in the direction of a hybrid projects as is evidenced by its legacy anchors, which generate reasonable sales, and the beginning of a specialty offering in the form of The Bay Club and AMC Theaters. The following literature review and discussion of analogous projects will help explain that Cupertino and Vallco are not unique, and that the forces impacting Vallco are happening to many malls nationwide. Literature Review A literature review written by Maryia Hodge while a graduate planning student at San Jose State University summarizes issues some key concepts relevant to redeveloping Vallco as part of a downtown area. [22] Original sources are cited where possible. ¥ Excess supply of retail space has shifted retail dollars to new centers without creating additional demand, leading to the decline of older centers. As long ago as 2002, it was 134 63 noted that of the more than 2000 enclosed malls in the U.S., approximately 15 to 20 percent are headed for closure. [23, 24] ¥ While shopping center owners may opt for cosmetic improvements, retail researcher Mark Eppli states that giving a decaying mall a facelift or introducing a new department store is unlikely to stem the tide of decline. What is needed is a more serious reconsideration of the relationship between the site and its surrounding community. [25, 26] ¥ Barnes observed that regional shopping centers with uncertain and shifting identities lacked the ability to appeal to increasingly value-conscious consumers who had alternative channels such as factory outlet stores, catalogs, internet sales, and big-box stores. In addition, a “do-it-yourself” mentality drove customers from traditional retailers to warehouse stores. Meanwhile Robbins argues that by creatively rethinking public space and urbanism, decaying malls can be transformed into “genuine places in the older areas of our spreading suburban environment.” [27, 28] These observations support the theory that today’s retail landscape is a dichotomy of price and convenience-oriented commodity retailers, and specialty retailers congregated in appealing environments. Not coincidentally, shoppers are choosing alternatives to enclosed regional malls in part because those malls lack an identifiable sense of place. ¥ Retail alternatives, or specialty projects where consumers enjoy spending their discretionary time and income, have become a major focus. Formats that add entertainment and cultural uses, or unconventional uses such as mixed-use centers, educational facilities, medical clinics, or a variety of other uses are increasingly common and sought after. Fitzgerald and Leigh agree that downtown shopping may be poised for a recovery, noting that “shoppers who used to buy in malls are now more willing to shop on ‘Main Streets.’” [29] ¥ Two important notes about successful downtowns are as follows: o They must have active streets with pedestrian-oriented retail, a concentration of residents to promote activity, effective design that blends new and established development, o The successful downtowns that were studied all had either a university, a historic district, or were a state or provincial capital, suggesting that other conditions that increase density and contribute to a sense of place must be present. Caution is cast at so-called “new urbanism,” suggesting that “the loss of vitality in the suburbs in a primarily cosmetic way, opting for the appearance of cities but avoiding those essential urban traits...” does not work. [30, 31] Retrofitting Suburbs: Instant Cities, Instant Architecture, and Incremental Metropolitanism Harvard Design Magazine, Ellen Duhnam-Jones and June Williamson [32] The authors hypothesize that cities evolving over time (“incremental urbanism”) is not preferable to "instant urbanism" where large-scale development (as much as any real estate 135 64 development can be instant) rises in place of a no longer viable project. They also point out that instant urbanism often is more sustainable. Growth trends that have resulted in once far flung suburbs now being more centrally located, California's transit and housing policies, rising land values, and few significantly large undeveloped sites are all trends supporting instant urbanism. Shopping centers that are no longer competitively or financially viable are excellent candidates for instant urbanism because they are typically well located, they offer the opportunity to crate a project of some scale, and they offer opportunities to support infill as opposed to exurban growth strategies. Two excellent examples cited in the report are Belmar in Colorado and Santana Row in San Jose. As large-scale redevelopments are undertaken, a number of issues should be taken into consideration: For example larger parcels are needed in order to justify the inclusion of open/public spaces in projects (the economics behind this assertion are discussed in the Vallco alternatives). Larger projects also help justify the costs of structured parking, and can be financially more predictable leading to financial structures with better terms. The inclusion of an office component creates jobs-housing balance as well as a "networked urbanity" that would be more appealing to the sort of younger knowledge workers who commute to but do not live in Cupertino. The authors note that incremental urbanism where the urban landscape has evolved over time tends to have quirks that can contribute to place making and a "cool factor," and that experimenting with a diversity of architecture should be considered as a part of any instant urban project. Converting Obsolete Malls CoStar, October 3-17, 2012 [33] In late 2012, Co-Star published a series of three articles on demalling America. As has already been noted, the articles point out that as anchor tenants merge and contract, dominant regional malls are faring better than secondary malls and do a better job attracting tenants. This trend is particularly important in light of many retailers trending towards smaller stores, exacerbating vacancy rates in weaker projects, and providing opportunities to augment tenant mix in stronger ones. The dominant malls' success is often at the expense of outmoded centers such as Vallco. The article asserts that 10% of the approximately 1,000 regional malls in the US will fail by 2022 and repeats the quip: “Shopping centers aren’t overbuilt, they’re merely under- demolished.” Malls are typically well located, and are designed for a shorter lifespan than other types of real estate such as housing and office (retail is routinely remodeled as customers are attracted to “new and shiny”). Malls need to provide a mix of shopping, dining and entertainment experiences, and whether with this in mind or not, many malls are being redesigned as town squares. Projects and stores that are not refreshed in a regular basis tend to fare far worse. Distressed malls often reflect financing issues. We agree with the author’s assertion that while painful on a case-by-case basis, that the culling of weaker properties from the market is a healthy process. A fundamental decision needs to be made about whether to reposition a mall or to demolish and start over. Regardless, a major repositioning represents key opportunities for visionary 136 65 planning, political leadership, and the owner. There are positive externalities such as a well- executed project helping lure desired employers and their highly desirable workers that should be considered as well. Execution is difficult: In order to obtain financing, tenants need to be lined up in advance, and the authors point out that successful mall repositionings involve a combination of deleveraging, demalling, and deep pockets. These observations have been repeated by some stakeholders whose interviews are summarized in this report. Analogous Redevelopment Projects In a larger context, Vallco is certainly not the only regional mall to suffer a significant decline in the 1990’s. There are several analogs of regional malls in the United States, and one in particular in the South Bay that declined and subsequently were successfully redeveloped. Most of these projects have been repositioned as commodity projects, as hybrid projects with both commodity and specialty characteristics, or as mixed-use projects. The distinctions between commodity and specialty, and active versus non-active space (outlined above) provide a paradigm for discussing these analogous projects, and how Vallco Shopping Mall might be repositioned or redeveloped. Following are examples of former regional malls that became defunct around the same time as Vallco’s decline. Each was subsequently successfully redeveloped. Belmar (formerly Villa Italia), Lakewood, Colorado [34, 35] Belmar opened as Villa Italia in 1966 and flourished into the early 1980’s when a gradual decline precipitated by a slow economy, poor maintenance and competition began. When the center closed in 2001, three of its four anchors had left. Wanting to build an “urban mall,” the developer decided to divide the 104-acre property into a 22 city block, 3.5 million square foot mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly downtown district including a 900,000 square foot open-air mall, 269,000 square feet of offices, green areas, and 1,300 for-sale single-family residences, townhouses, and condominiums and apartments. 137 66 The site had a good location with good visibility and high-density neighborhoods nearby, and the Villa Italia Mall had had a history of producing strong sales. The developer commented: "Initially, the property was developed on a grant lease, which had an underlying owner plus 140 subtenants. We had to figure out how to consolidate all those subinterests -- each with veto power -- into one. It was a huge undertaking that took several years and overlapped the actual development process. It was certainly different from buying 100 acres of cornfield." Another challenge was the issue of incremental development: "It would be wonderful if we could have just dropped in, demolished everything, and started from scratch -- had it all done at once. It doesn't work that way; it comes in increments. It's more evolutionary. You have to manage this constantly evolving site, as well as residents' expectations. It's going to be a few years before it comes into its own." Even though it is still a work in progress, Belmar already has become a bustling, vibrant downtown district for Lakewood, which had no such district before the renovation effort began. It represents the cumulative will of the city of Lakewood and its residents, who clamored for a downtown and an identity for the city. Village San Antonio Center, Mountain View Located at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and San Antonio Road, developer Merlone Geier, describes Village San Antonio Center as follows: [36] The site encompasses approximately 229,000 square feet of retail buildings on 16 acres of improved land. The property was developed over time with the initial construction 138 67 taking place over fifty years ago. Formerly anchored by Sears, the current site/building configuration is representative of what was designed in the 1950’s with an expansive parking lot ranging from the adjacent streets to the building storefronts. Over time both the buildings and parking lot have begun to show their age. [The following aerial shows the pre-development plan.] The newly approved Village San Antonio Center is an infill based residential and retail redevelopment consisting of approximately 311,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, 330 residential units, and associated sub-grade, on-grade and roof-top parking. It is anticipated that the project will contain a grocery store (+/- 65,000 square feet), a pharmacy (+/- 17,000 square feet), 330 residential units, three to four restaurants (+/- 4,000–9,000 square feet), one or more large format retailers (+/-175,000 square feet), and numerous small shop/office/retail spaces located throughout the project. The size and density of the residential building is consistent with the scale of the adjacent office building located behind the project. The approved redevelopment of San Antonio Center aims to be sustainable, innovative, and of long-term benefit to the City of Mountain View. Additionally, the redevelopment will likely kick-start a renaissance of the overall 56 acre San Antonio regional retail center. The project’s central location provides convenient citywide access from public transportation, as well as nearby higher density residential neighborhoods, mitigating dependence on arrival by car. 139 68 In addition, the vertical orientation and density of the project conserves land, resources and reduces impact on the city’s infrastructure. If developed as a conventional single- story retail center, a project of this magnitude would occupy over 40 acres of land, in contrast to San Antonio Center’s 16 acre site area. The fundamental design goals of the project are: i) to create a vibrant retail and residential project that is responsive to the adjacent context; ii) create a unique sense of place through the development of iconic architectural elements and amenities; iii) provide public open plazas; and iv) provide an active pedestrian oriented shopping and dining experience. Englewood City Center (formerly Cinderella City), Englewood, Colorado [37] Cinderella City Mall originally opened in the 1960’s. By the mid 1980’s, new and newly renovated malls began to compete for market share and also brought new designs and new tenants, causing Cinderella City to appear dated. By the mid 1990’s, anchors began to close, Foley's being the first and Montgomery Ward being the last at the end of 1997. The remaining approximately 100 tenants followed suit, often relocating to competing projects. 140 69 During the following years, the city of Englewood would create, revise, and reject in excess of 30 redevelopment plans, ranging from complete demolition and turning the land into a park, to keeping the structure and converting it to an art museum. In 1998, a final plan was adopted to rehabilitate the area with transit-oriented development. Catalyzed by a future Regional Transportation District (RTD) light rail station, Englewood planned on remaking the former mall site as a "downtown", complete with luxury apartments, mixed-use retail and residential buildings, and "big box" stores such as Wal-Mart, Office Depot, and The Sports Authority. Sherman Oaks Galleria, Sherman Oaks, California [38] The three-level mall opened at intersection of Ventura and Sepulveda Boulevards in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley in 1980 with department store anchors Robinsons to the south and May Company to the north. Pacific Theatres' Pacific 4 occupied the uppermost level of the project. The Galleria became famous in the early 1980’s as the center of teenage mall culture and a well-known teenage hangout as well as being immortalized in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” and “Valley Girl.” In 1993, Robinsons and May Company merged, and both stores in the mall were converted to Robinsons-May, the north store becoming a Men's and Home store, and the south store becoming a Women's and Children's store. The next decade saw business at the Galleria decline. In January, 1994, the Galleria closed for 11 days for repairs following the 141 70 Northridge earthquake, and although the Galleria reopened quickly, Robinson-May its south store for four years; many smaller stores on that floor closed. During that closure, the Galleria suffered due to having only one main anchor store. Closures continued through the late 1990’s. The Galleria closed in April, 1999 for a major renovation and reopened in 2002 as an open-air center. The only remnant of the original mall is the court where ArcLight Cinema is located, on the uppermost level of what was previously the southern Robinsons-May store. The majority of the remaining mall was turned into offices. Toady’s retail tenants include Urban Home, DSW Shoe Warehouse, 24-Hour Fitness, Paul Mitchell-The School, and restaurants including The Cheesecake Factory, P.F. Changs China Bistro, El Torito Grill, and Fuddruckers. The Sherman Oaks Galleria also houses over 3,500 office workers on site daily as well as over 9,500 employees populating the neighboring Douglas, Emmett offices. The Sherman Oaks Galleria has over 3,500 parking spaces. Vallco Repositioning Alternatives The retail sales and leakage analysis suggests that injections of sales for general merchandise, where the sales are primarily derived from Target and the three Vallco Shopping Mall anchors, is an indicator that while Vallco has significant inline shop vacancy, and is underperforming relative 142 71 to more upscale traditional malls such as Valley Fair or Stanford Mall, the anchor stores still function as a regional draw drawing shoppers from outside Cupertino. Put differently, Vallco represents a mixed picture for Cupertino: Its commodity and specialty anchors both drawing shoppers to the City while the moribund in-line component contributes to Cupertino’s weakness in comparison goods shopping and destination retail. The questions about Vallco is whether there is an opportunity to create a meaningful destination (ie. specialty) retail environment combined with what essentially amounts to commodity anchors, and whether this environment be a purely retail one, or retail as part of a mix of uses that might include residential, office, and/or hospitality. To this end, the demand daytime workers generate from purchases near their place of work, especially meals eaten during the workday, or shopping done on the way to or from work could move Vallco towards a tipping point that might influence its redevelopment. The public sector could play a meaningful role in the repositioning process. For example, using a power of eminent domain to gain control of all or a part of a project, or to eliminate covenants standing in the way of development are powerful tools. Sears’ attorney, Ivor Samson, noted that while redevelopment agencies have been disbanded in California, it has yet to be established if Successor Agencies will be permitted to exercise a power of eminent domain in the public interest. The public sector also has the ability to invest in projects and to eliminate barriers to redevelopment, for example through bonding tax increment, or through thoughtful land use designations and zoning. Three of the key General Plan Amendment goals are: ¥ Goal 2: Identify and analyze potential increases to commercial (retail), office, mixed-use and hotel development allocations within the study areas. ¥ Goal 3: Enhance and improve the overall commercial experience in Cupertino by retaining existing business and attracting new companies. ¥ Goal 4: Revitalize the Vallco Shopping District so it becomes a cohesive, vibrant shopping and entertainment destination that serves both the region and the local community. Two repositioning scenarios have been created for Vallco Shopping Mall. The purpose of the two repositioning scenarios outlined below will be to inform the decisions to be made in response to these goal statements. Repositioning Scenario 1: An ideal mix appealing to Cupertino and extended trade area customers without regard to entitlement or site constraints This first scenario describes an ideal mix which might appeal to Cupertino’s citizens as well as to residents of the larger Trade Area, and does not take into account required approvals or encumbrances presently in place in the Study Area. Vallco Shopping Mall is governed by a COREA, a document that establishes building and parking requirements, and use requirements and restrictions among other things (see details above). In addition, various tenant leases contain exclusive use clauses and further restrictions 143 72 on competing uses as well as changes to the Mall’s common areas. For purposes of this alternative scenario, we are assuming that none of these restrictions exist. By way of background the following findings from the BAE Market Study and Retail Sales and Leakage Analysis will inform this first repositioning scenario: ¥ Vallco operates in a defined Trade Area where retail demand and offerings are relatively balanced, even though they are not balanced within the City of Cupertino proper. ¥ Cupertino proper continues to outpace the surrounding area in terms of income and education levels. ¥ Those employed in Cupertino tend to have higher incomes than in the surrounding areas. ¥ Cupertino has a strong housing market with high median home prices reflecting demand outstripping supply. ¥ Demand significantly exceeds supply of office space. Another large corporate campus is a reasonable expectation for Cupertino in the future. ¥ The City’s existing office space tends not to be configured for the sort of collaborative working environments presently in favor. ¥ Occupancy and average room rate trends lead to the conclusion that hotel demand outstrips supply. An October, 2013 community workshop and an online forum were conducted to gather resident input about the various Study Areas, and about the Vallco Study Area in particular. A polling exercise revealed preferences for various site characteristics: ¥ Stevens Creek: Wide sidewalks and narrow setback of buildings from those sidewalks, outdoor seating areas, rich landscaping (which also recycles storm-water and runoff), enhanced public transportation infrastructure (including bus rapid transit and improved shelters), incorporation of small plazas and parklets, and a mix of uses with retail on the ground floor of residential and office buildings. ¥ Wolfe Road: A mix of uses with street-facing commercial uses with higher densities than those preferred for Stevens Creek. Wolfe Road was the preferred location for a traditional indoor shopping mall, however, a traditional shopping mall generally was not preferred. A block exercise was also conducted. In this exercise, participants where asked to use color- coded blocks to create redevelopment scenarios with desired attributes. An example of this exercise looked like the following: 144 73 The following characteristics were frequently cited in the block exercise: ¥ Remake Wolfe Road into a “Main Street” with retail and other commercial uses fronting the street. ¥ Design the project so that Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway become the dominant retail corner. ¥ Incorporate enhanced landscaping, seating, etc. into the streetscape. ¥ Increase connectivity within the site and with adjacent projects (ie. Rose Bowl, Main Street), and mobility for pedestrians and bicycles. ¥ Consolidate parking on the north end of the site closest to the freeway, thereby hiding the parking and creating a noise barrier. ¥ Consolidate office near the freeway for the same reasons as parking. ¥ Create an indoor-outdoor environment including outdoor destination features such as public spaces and parks within the project. ¥ Increase densities including a mix of uses with residential or office uses over ground floor retail. A few specific uses were called out in addition to general references to retail, residential, hotel, and office. These included creating nightlife, retaining Sears and AMC, and adding a bigger mix of restaurants. A few interesting ideas were generated by individual groups. These included keeping Sears in its present configuration as a defense against high rise development; having big-box retailers face Wolfe Road with parking behind the stores; consolidating residential on the part of the Study Area east of Wolfe Road; and, creating residential along the west border of the Study Area as a buffer between the Study Area and existing single family homes to the west. 145 74 Two groups cited specific projects: The Grove and Museum Square in Los Angeles, and nearby Santana Row. Common elements shared among these projects include the creation of a retail street or even a street grid, and increased densities including the integration of other uses such as office, hospitality or residential. Implications of Suggestions The criteria cited by the various groups logically lead to a number of other considerations. For example, Wolfe Road carries 27,390 cars daily. Wolfe Road being a main arterial providing access to I-280 may be at odds with significant traffic calming and it becoming a retail "Main Street." In order to be a "Main Street," traffic calming, on-street parking, creating a narrower thoroughfare (perhaps by removing the median and narrowing lanes to 10½ feet), and other features aimed at enabling pedestrians to see, cross, and access shopping options on the other side of the street would need to be implemented, taking into account balancing traffic and place-making objectives. In addition, the Apple Campus 2 is anticipated to add a significant amount of traffic to Wolfe Road between I-280 and Vallco Parkway: The Apple EIR (Appendix B, p. 38) estimates that the Apple Campus 2 will generate 35,106 net new daily vehicle trips when at full occupancy. Over 50% of the morning and evening peak hour trips will be through the Wolfe Road Main Driveway north of I-280, and it is anticipated that Wolfe Road to Vallco Parkway to Tantau Avenue will be a key alternate route, increasing today’s Wolfe Road traffic counts. Circulation and turning movements will need to be studied in order to accommodate the additional Apple traffic as well as the additional traffic generated by a redeveloped Vallco project. Since access and parking are key to the success of any suburban, auto-oriented retail project, even a densely planned one, the impact of increased Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway traffic counts on these site attributes will need to be studied as well. Related to Wolfe Road and Vallco Parking design is improving connectivity with other adjacent or nearby projects. One of Vallco's most notable attributes is the pedestrian bridge connecting the portions of the project on either side of Wolfe Road, and the bridge could continue to serve this purpose regardless of how the project is redeveloped. The bridge could also be reengineered as an open bridge similar to the following picture of a similar amenity in Century City in Los Angeles. 146 75 Additional connections will need to be made between the portions of Vallco on either side of Wolfe Road and the Rose Bowl site, the office site on the NEC of Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road, and eventually to the Main Street project to the east. Whether additional pedestrian bridges are constructed or crosswalks are created, there will be significant cost associated with crossing these streets as well as accommodating the paths of travel and way-finding signage for the various non-Vallco projects east of Wolfe Road. Many groups also mentioned improved access to public transportation. Curb cutouts for bus loading and shelters will need to be considered when designing the overall site plan. Decisions about creating a transit hub, and whether to integrate that hub with the Apple Campus 2, will also need to be considered. Among other options, many of the groups called for site configurations that would necessitate large parts or even the entire existing mall being significantly reconfigured or even razed including both large format retailers and shop space facing Wolfe Road. The process of reconfiguring an existing mall is often referred to as “demalling.” Nearby Westgate Shopping Center in San Jose is an excellent example of a former regional shopping center that was demalled. Westgate originally opened in 1960, but starting in the late 1980’s and continuing through today has been reconfigured mostly with outward-facing commodity retailers such as Ross Dress For Less, Nordstrom Rack, Target, Old Navy, Any Mountain, Michaels, Hancock Fabrics, Party City, and a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market that replaced Safeway in 2012. Many groups indicated a desire for increased open space. The Vallco land has a basis which could be defined in the simplest terms as the purchase price plus investment made in the project less depreciation. Any owner or developer will be looking for a return on any investment they might make. In the case of a redevelopment, that would mean a return on the basis plus any investment anticipated to be made. Open space by definition would not be developed with income-producing assets, but would require investment to create amenities such as seating, landscaping, play areas and the like. This open space would also have associated maintenance expenses in perpetuity. Thus, in order to achieve any particular desired return on investment, the open space either requires a subsidy, or it places a higher burden on the balance of the property that is to be developed. In order to accommodate this higher burden, the balance of the property will need to be of greater density than might otherwise be required, however, expected income is a function of supply and demand for the sort of space that is built, and not of a “build it and they will come” wish. There is another balancing act with respect to construction costs: Costs increase significantly once buildings can no longer be block or wood frame construction, so if taller buildings are required in order to achieve enough leasable area to offset the loss of buildable land that has been dedicated to open space such as parks, some combination of yet more density and/or higher rents might be required in order to offset these increased construction costs. To the extent the market supports higher buildings and greater density (ie. users are interested in these spaces and will pay rents needed to justify their construction), allowing greater heights and densities may improve development pro-formas and by extension incent the demolition of Vallco in favor of a complete redevelopment. Many groups indicated a desire for parking to be hidden, and several groups designated parking areas to be adjacent to I-280. Another option to hide parking is to create structured parking either above or below ground, either of which are significantly more expensive to build than surface parking (subterranean parking is yet more expensive than above-ground structures). Cost is not the only consideration when planning parking. Retail places a premium on convenience. Visible and easily accessible parking combined with a proximate path of travel 147 76 to and from the retail shops contribute to “convenience.” Parking on the far north end of the site would not meet these important criteria. Parking for The Grove, a destination regional shopping center mentioned above, is primarily housed in one large parking structure. This structure has the unique characteristic of being extremely well designed in terms of ease of use and vertical transportation for vehicles and pedestrians alike. It is also situated in the geographic middle of the Grove, minimizing the proximity issue previously mentioned. Virtually all groups indicated a desire for a mix of uses. Mixed-use projects for a variety of reasons are inherently more complex to design, build, and manage than single use projects. For example, in projects where a retail use occupies the ground level and residential or office uses occupy upper levels, there will likely need to be structured parking, vertical transportation (ie. stairs, elevators, escalators), and separation of public and private facilities. Residents do not want to share parking with retail shoppers, so parking entrances, parking areas, and vertical transportation must be segregated from the same facilities for retail customers and shop- keepers. While this segregation also addresses security issues, there will likely be a need for additional on-site security to satisfy residents and shoppers alike. Both vehicle and pedestrian circulation patterns will need to take into account separate residential/office and retail driveways and visitor lobbies, each with their own identity. Loading docks, trash, utilities, and other building systems will also need to be segregated, further complicating design and adding cost to construction. 148 77 Type and Size of Project, Likely Uses The Vallco Shopping Mall land is a unique, large piece of property in an area with high land values (the nearby Main Street site was purchased by Sand Hill Property Company for $65 million or almost $85.76 per square foot in 2008). High land values reflect high demand and higher rents. Few large tracts of land are available for redevelopment at any price, and while the price paid for the Main Street site may or may not have been too much, it can certainly be concluded that land in Vallco’s immediate area is valuable. A dense, mixed-use project incorporating a variety of uses is likely a financially viable option for this valuable site. Demolishing most or all of the existing improvements will most likely be deemed the best alternative, and would also be the easiest path to creating an indoor-outdoor environment. For example, an “ideal project” (i.e. one conceived for purposes of this Repositioning Scenario 1) might have three distinct areas: Wolfe Road as a retail “Main Street”, an office, hospitality, and residential component west of Wolfe Road, and a commodity retail project east of Wolfe Road is one possible configuration. Following are some specific attributes: ¥ Create a retail boulevard along Wolfe Road. ¥ Narrow Wolfe Road and add on-street parking, wider sidewalks, and enhanced street- scape and landscaping. ¥ Place retail and perhaps office or residential entrance lobbies so they face Wolfe Road (and create easy paths of travel from parking facilities). ¥ Determine if the existing anchor tenants would or would not be a part of a redevelopment plan. ¥ Separate big-box tenants from multi-family and office components, perhaps with retail east of Wolfe on land presently owned by JC Penney, and office, residential, and hospitality west of Wolfe Road. ¥ Consider incorporating uses such as a university satellite or extension campus, or ambulatory medical uses. ¥ Consider from a design and engineering perspective if AMC can remain in-place (ie. “in the air”), or if an on-site relocation would be necessary. ¥ Create an interior circulation system to route visitors to and from parking facilities serving the specific uses they had come to patronize. ¥ Create residential development near existing residential suites and the least compatible commercial use (i.e. commodity retail) east of Wolfe Road, adjacent to existing commercial uses. Note, however, in the alternative a good argument could be made that office or residential uses designed to tie into the new Apple Campus 2 should be assembled east of Wolfe Road. Retail Tenant Mix Two mutually-distinct retail components are likely: a Main Street specialty component and a big-box commodity component. The retail fronting Wolfe Road would likely be made up of considerably smaller shop tenants and eating and drinking establishments than the retail presently in Vallco Shopping Mall. Displays and seating areas on wide sidewalks would be encouraged and protection from the elements integrated into the design. Retailers and restaurants would serve the dual purpose of catering to Cupertino’s large daytime worker population and offer an expanded offering in the evenings for residents. While predominantly 149 78 specialty in nature, some daily-needs (i.e. serving, commodity) retail should be particularly encouraged to cater to the weekday users. This retail would be expected to compete favorably with the planned retail on Main Street because of the higher traffic on Wolfe Road. The focus of retail along Wolfe Road might sound reminiscent of Santana Row, however, it should not be thought of in those terms. Santana Row is a unique environment, located at a major intersection (with far more traffic than Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road), near two major freeways, and in the retail nexus of one of the more successful regional malls in the United States. In other words, it is simply different. The Wolfe Road retail offering would be much smaller than Santana Row, need to integrate with adjacent non-owned projects such as the Rose Bowl and Main Street, and more likely to resemble a nearby downtown as is found in Campbell, Los Altos, Mountain View, or Palo Alto’s University and California Avenues. These users could be assembled in the land presently occupied by JC Penney and its parking facilities, thereby creating a project-within-a-project which would have a distinct commodity retail identity. Segregating destination retail from other uses would have the benefit of minimizing retail-oriented vehicle trips and parking impacts on residential or office uses. At the same time, overlapping parking facilities for the commodity retail component and the Wolfe Road specialty retail component are feasible. The retail sales and leakage analysis revealed that, with respect to commodity retail, the Trade Area has a balanced retail offering, while Cupertino actually leaks retail dollars to other parts of the Trade Area. Introducing commodity retailers might help recapture some sales as well as capturing other sales from outside the Trade Area. Place-Making Considerations The creation of the three distinct areas as described above, Wolfe Road as a retail “Main Street,” an office, hospitality, and residential component west of Wolfe Road, and a commodity retail project east of Wolfe Road, would inform place- making considerations. The location and size of enhanced street-scape and open spaces within the projects would be one key consideration. Likewise, integrating these amenities into the various districts, and with the uses within those districts (and even with other nearby projects) by creating vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle paths-of-travel, and way-finding signage will be critical. 150 79 Apple Campus 2 The Apple Campus 2 is designed to accommodate over 14,000 employees at full occupancy. A redeveloped Vallco site will need to take this significant project into account. For example, while there are benefits to placing a destination retail project on the other side of Wolfe Road from office and hospitality uses, the area east of Wolfe Road might be better designated for office and hospitality, rather than for retail, in order to create the most convenient proximity of these uses to the Apple Campus 2. Another option would be to extend Wolfe Road’s “Main Street” district onto Vallco Parkway. Regardless of how a redeveloped Vallco is designed, creating a “front door” that invites integration with the Apple Campus 2 should be a key site planning consideration. Development and Entitlement Issues Creating certainty with respect to required approvals and the process for obtaining them will be key to the Study Area’s redevelopment. The Vallco Study Area is already zoned for a mix of uses, however, reconciling the highest and best mix of uses with corresponding allocations for those uses will remove a barrier to the Study Area’s evolution. Likewise, removing or streamlining the need for conditional use permits, stating key desired design criteria and articulating the required community outreach and approval process (ie. design review, planning commission, or City Council) will have a positive impact on development planning efforts. 151 80 Repositioning Scenario 2: Assume market factors such as competing projects and legal limitations such as those contained in the COREA and land use regulations As discussed, Vallco operates in a retail environment dominated by Valley Fair and Santana Row, Westgate Shopping Center, Stanford Shopping Center, and other downtowns and Main Street areas such as Downtown Los Altos, and perhaps Sunnyvale Town Center once it’s redevelopment has been completed. The area in which Vallco is located is governed by the South Vallco Master Plan. While zoning allows for a mix of uses including regional shopping, general commercial, office, hotel and residential, a development agreement allowing for the development of certain of these uses has expired. The project is governed by the COREA, as amended, as well as various lease restrictions and other agreements. These documents establish building and parking requirements, and use requirements and restrictions among other things. In addition, various tenant leases contain exclusive use clauses and further restrictions on competing uses as well as changes to common areas of the projects. Type and Size of Project Mike Rhode, Vallco’s general manager, commented when interviewed that the only way to solve Vallco is to purchase the anchors. Based on our interviews with the anchors, we do not believe this purchase is likely to be achieved, however, we are aware of at least two redevelopment schemes that have been developed over the past decade that incorporate the anchors. The past schemes are notable because each involved some level of discussion and negotiation with the anchor tenants whose approval would be required in order to move forward with a plan. In other words, they establish that the anchors were willing to discuss a redevelopment. The stakeholder interviews with Sears, Macy’s, and JC Penney all confirmed that the majors remain open to and willing to discuss a redevelopment strategy today. Furthermore, assuming a mutually agreeable plan can be designed, cooperation is in each of the anchor tenant’s best interest. Probably the biggest hindrance to such a conversation happening is the current owner’s lack of experience, obvious credentials, and apparent interest in executing a redevelopment plan. This alternative analysis will assume that ownership is interested in pressing forward with a redevelopment. 152 81 Receiver’s Plan c. 2002 Grammercy Plan c. 2007 Both of these plans call for a mixed-use environment, but neither address what is almost certainly an excess of retail space on-site, nor today’s moribund atmosphere (i.e. retaining or rebuilding existing infrastructure). As noted in Maryia Hodge’s paper, trends today are favoring alternative formats and even the resurgence of downtowns in certain circumstances. Cupertino has never had a downtown per se, however, Belmar, Mountain View, and Englewood are all examples of creating a downtown-esque environment where none had previously existed by establishing a critical mass of commercial and residential uses. In each case, density becomes the magnet. Uses and Tenancy There are other product mix and tenant merchandising decisions that will need to be made. For example, the importance of incorporating an Asian-theme to reflect the community’s demographic and ethnic makeup, relocating JC Penney to the west side of Wolfe Road (freeing the entire portion of the Study Area located east of Wolfe Road for redevelopment), idenfiying the most appropriate mix of retail and non-retail uses, and taking the Apple Campus 2 into account are all critical to formulating a redevelopment plan for Vallco. While the City of Cupertino’s residents are 63.1% Asian, Santa Clara County is only 31.7% Asian. The retail sales and leakage analysis observed that while Cupertino is leaking sales to the defined Trade Area, that Trade Area is relatively balanced with respect to sales leakage. This balance would indicate that if Vallco is seen as a regional destination, the project’s makeup certainly might include a variety of tenants catering to the needs and tastes of the large Asian community, however, it should not be a so-called “Asian center” per se. Relocating JC Penney to the west side of Wolfe Road accomplishes two goals: It is consistent with JC Penney’s stated desire to monetize their land holding while still maintaining a downsized presence in the project, and it frees 19.07 acres of land east of Wolfe Road for redevelopment (4.27 owned by the mall, 2.12 by KSR, and 12.68 by JC Penney). There are relatively few, if any, well located land parcels in Santa Clara County of this size, and the residual land value would be expected to be quite high. The BAE Market Study identifies demand for office, hospitality, and residential uses. Demand for younger knowledge workers, referring to residential opportunity, was specifically mentioned. 153 82 The 19-plus acre site could support a significant amount of office, housing, or both. Hospitality uses could be easily incorporated on either side of Wolfe Road. From a use perspective, all of these uses would complement the Apple Campus 2. Also, it is our understanding that the Apple Campus 2 is designed only to meet current needs, and there will be additional future office demand. First class, high density for-sale or for-rent housing will certainly be in demand, and given that this sort of housing is not ideal for families, it may be a palatable proposition to the community given sensitivity to overburdening the local school system. Land East Versus West of Wolfe Road With the hypothesis that the land east of Wolfe Road is highly desirable for development, and that it could actually be freed for such development, addressing the portion of Vallco west of Wolfe Road becomes the key topic. Parking, and especially structured parking, is expensive to create. There are significant existing parking facilities on the west and north sides of the existing mall, so to the extent these facilities do not need to be relocated or rebuilt, the cost of a significant rehabilitation to the project becomes financially more manageable because returns will be that much easier to achieve. In either scenario, the climate in Silicon Valley is normally temperate year round, and thus conducive to creating an open-air environment. Integrating this open-air environment with what would become AMC’s “skybox” location will need to be addressed in the design development phase of the project, but we believe it may be deemed possible from a structural perspective. An open-air environment will also make establishing connections with adjacent projects easier. The amount and mix of tenants west of Wolfe Road is an important consideration. Given the 128,789 square feet of retail space planned for the Main Street project, we recommend that the 536,794 square feet of mall/shops space be reduced significantly. Without doing site planning exercises and corresponding pro-formas, which were not a part of the scope of work for this Report, it is difficult to determine the ideal amount of space. There are two most likely scenarios: A demalling, which would combine a JC Penney on-site relocation as shown on the 2002 plan with ±100,000 square feet of shop space (this is intended as a starting place from which to determine the ideal amount of space) on an axis between Sears and Macy’s combined with some commodity retail (e.g. Ulta Cosmetics, a pet retailer, or Best Buy or Office Depot’s new smaller concepts). Additionally, some Wolfe Road-facing retail could be integrated into the new design. An alternative scenario would be to combine the shop space with non-retail uses such as office or hospitality. Regardless of what scenario is undertaken, it is likely that the project’s GLA will actually be reduced. This reduced mall GLA would allow the development of outparcels without putting an undue burden on existing parking facilities. Retail Tenant Mix Vallco already has two full service restaurants: TGI Fridays and Alexander’s Steakhouse, however, neither is well integrated into the Study Area’s existing pedestrian flow. The Mall’s food court is not compelling with respect to atmosphere or selection of food operators. Creating a path of travel for Friday’s and Alexander’s as well as augmenting the food offerings will be key to a successfully revitalized Study Area’s success. Valley Fair’s dining terrace might 154 83 give guidance to the sort of quick-serve food uses that should be considered. Likewise, borrowing from Santana Row’s restaurant success should be studied. In both cases, the food uses are designed to integrate with the surrounding uses, either through adjacency or by literally spilling out of their spaces onto adjacent sidewalks. Regardless of the amount of retail to be included in a revitalized project, fashion will be an important part of the project’s identity. The BAE Market Study notes that the lack of clothing and apparel-related stores is due in part to the lack of destination retail centers in Cupertino, and, in part, from competition with Valley Fair and other fashion-driven projects. Fashion tenants could run the range from ubiquitous national tenants such as Gap Inc., Osh Kosh, Abercrombie & Fitch, Hollister, Zara, Bebe, Sketchers, or Juicy Couture. Alternatively, attention could be focused on a cluster of active lifestyle concepts such as The North Face, Columbia, or Under Armor. While not offering the same credit, a decision about whether to include local or regional tenants will help create the project’s identity, and differentiate it from other competing projects…creating an all-important message. In urban areas, high costs and other barriers to entry have limited the development of commodity retail projects, so there is significant pent-up demand. If a demalling strategy were to be pursued, candidates for larger spaces might range from Ulta Cosmetics to commodity tenants such as a pet superstore, or Office Depot’s new smaller concept. As no major electronics stores exist in Cupertino (although Sears carries a large variety of appliances), the project might present an opportunity for Best Buy’s new smaller concept store. Other categories might include value-oriented soft-goods retailers like Ross Dress for Less, DSW, H&M, or Uniqlo as their rollout matures. Alternative uses might help give the project a unique identity. Apple, possibly the most sophisticated omnichannel retailer in the world, is headquartered in Cupertino, and does operate a company store at its headquarters that is open the to the public and is promoted as “the only place in the world that sells Apple logo t-shirts, caps and accessories,” however, the closest Apple Store is located at Valley Fair Shopping Center. Vallco’s proximity to Apple’s headquarters might present Apple with the opportunity to consider opening an Apple flagship store that ties into Apple’s HQ. Another example might be including other healthy lifestyle alternatives to compliment The Bay Club, such as a pilates studio, or even incorporate an open air climbing gym, which might be today’s analog to the ice rink and merry-go-round of yesteryear. Whatever the alternative uses, they should have the multiple roles of promoting the uniqueness of Vallco, giving the customer reason to visit and to linger, and of being active uses that engage the consumer and the community. Place-Making Considerations Creating a project with a sense of “place” requires thoughtful decisions regarding use of storefront design, store and project signage, way-finding signage, materials, lighting, tenant mix and location, indoor-outdoor connections, and amenities such as seating, light, and shade. While authenticity should be a consideration, we do not believe there is any particular emotional connection between the consumer and Vallco that is worthy of preserving. In this case we would recommend NOT maintaining “continuity of place,” and instead suggest that an exterior remodel is an important component of any repositioning strategy as it would convey 155 84 the all-important message that “there is something new here” to consumers. An excellent example of such an exterior remodel strategy is the Sherman Oaks Galleria: Before After A large-scale redevelopment east of Wolfe Road combined with the Rose Bowl project, the Main Street project, and an overhaul of Vallco’s infrastructure west of Wolfe Road gives rise to opportunities to create connectivity between all projects, and to create a “city center” for the community. On a smaller scale, careful consideration must be given to tenant placement, configuration of indoor-outdoor areas and parklets where patrons might be encouraged to gather and linger, protection from the elements, store and way-finding signage, and use of inviting materials throughout the various projects in and adjacent to the Study Area. The Mall’s “back of house” is relatively well designed in that it allows for deliveries and loading, trash service, truck path-of-travel and the like without significant impacts on the project or the public. These facilities will still likely need to be redesigned as part of a remodeling effort so as not to interfere with neighbors, a new site plan, or with newly introduced non-retail uses. Finally, JC Penney is a mid-market department store that generally does not have the same top-of-mind association with newly gentrified retail and mixed-use projects. Creating an identity that is fresh, appealing, and reflective of the community’s demographic makeup, and not diluted by these brands will be a balancing act. We believe that focus on a broad mix, fresh alternative uses, a mixed-use environment, and attention to place-making consideration will help overcome this hurdle. Development and Entitlement Issues Most importantly, in order for a redevelopment to take place, the property needs a basis that makes reinvestment possible. The present owner’s purchase price was $64 million. This price equates to $4.48 million in net operating income at a 7.0% cap rate, or $3.84 million at a 6% cap. Actual net operating income today is unknown, but in 2007 it was just under $2 million. Note that gross income was significantly higher, but the high vacancy level required the owner to pay for operating expenses that ordinarily would be reimbursed by retail tenants, which typically operate on “triple net” or “NNN” leases where the tenant reimburses the landlord for operating and maintaining costs, insurance, and property taxes. If occupancy levels were to increase, top-line income would rise at the same time that the share of operating expenses the owner needs to pay would decrease. 156 85 Significant reinvestment will be required to reinvigorate the Mall. While grossly oversimplifying the economic model, the following gives some perspective about the required investment: In 2002, the receiver estimated that a $51 million investment would be required (not including land or demolition costs) to execute its redevelopment plan (site plan above). The CPI (probably a conservative measure for purposes of calculating construction costs) has risen 30% since that time, equating to over a $66 million investment today, again not including the cost of land, demolition, or concessions to tenants who hold approval rights over changes to the Mall. The net operating income required to support the original basis plus this level of investment would be $9.1 million at a 7.0% cap, or $7.8 million at a 6% cap. In other words, a significant investment, a leasing plan that increases net operating income from $2 million, and the time and expertise to achieve all three are required. In addition to creating a financially viable development plan, approvals will need to be sought to execute that plan. It is not known at this time what mix of uses or tenants might be sought, however, the area has the potential, with the Rose Bowl and Main Street projects, and close proximity to Apple’s headquarters, to form the basis of a commercial City Center for Cupertino. Absent being able to use its power of condemnation or to provide a public funding mechanism, removing barriers to development is a key contribution the City could make in this instance. The area has already been designated for multiple commercial uses including retail, office, hospitality, and for residential uses. The City has a history of creating allocations for these various uses. The economy and the real estate market ebb and flow over time making one sort of use more or less commercially viable at any given time. It is recommended that the City set aside allocations in the Vallco Shopping District that will allow a developer to create various development scenarios with the knowledge of what is achievable from an entitlement perspective. Execution will be important. The owner will need to partner with a leasing team and a management company that are experienced lessors and operators of regional retail and larger- scale mixed-use projects. The leasing partner will also need to be able to compete effectively against Westfield which has a vested interest in a Vallco redevelopment not taking place. The anchor tenants with approval rights over changes to the project have a balancing equation to consider: What is the right balance of concessions with the upside of anchoring a once-again vigorous project. The owner-developer will need to carefully negotiate these tenant approvals to allow for both the financial and planning aspects of the project to be successful. Any partner should have relationships with the anchor tenants, as there are some significant issues to overcome. For example, it is our understanding that due to a co-tenancy provision in AMC’s lease, the Mall’s vacancy rate reduces AMC rent to a fraction of its contracted rent. AMC’s sales are reported to be strong. AMC thusly has a vested interest in the status-quo since it is quite possible that not enough incremental customer traffic could be generated, even by a successful redevelopment, to make up for the differential between its present minimal occupancy cost and the rent called for in its lease. A strategy for gaining AMC’s needed approvals might be to amend their lease, replacing their contracted rent schedule with a blending of their contract and their current rent. 157 86 NON-VALLCO RELATED STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW FEEDBACK A number of interviewees commented on City characteristics. These comments ranged from recognition of the City’s generally high education levels to its Asian-influenced ethnic makeup. One pointed out that some retailers will think that incomes and education levels are too high to consider opening in Cupertino, including some general merchandise and grocery discounters (examples might include dollar stores or Grocery Outlet). ¥ It was also noted that contrary to development trends in some surrounding areas (for example, Merlone Geier’s Mountain View project), the City does not have much dense mixed-use development that is substantial in scale, well-designed, and well-built. This lack of mixed-use product was viewed as curious given apparent redevelopment opportunities like The Oaks. Another observed that Cupertino is a hidden gem, and has the potential to benefit from business growth as Sunnyvale “was supposed to.” One Cupertino property owner commented that density would help economic development, but feared the ramifications of having that comment attributed to him and his employer’s holdings. ¥ A retail real estate professional knowledgeable about the Cupertino retail market noted that De Anza, Stevens Creek, and Homestead have the traffic counts needed for retail development, while another noted that the De Anza corridor is viewed as being well located for retail development, however, traffic is so great on De Anza that retailers would lose impulse visits because potential customers do not want to fight the congestion. ¥ Many stakeholders commented that residents do not like change. A stakeholder observed that Cupertino is home to one of the world’s highest profile companies, that Cities evolve (neighboring cities like Santa Clara are embracing opportunities brought by high-profile high-tech companies), and that an opportunity is being missed not even trying to meet today’s housing and amenity demand created by younger knowledge workers. More than one person acknowledged the fear that any new housing will have a detrimental impact on schools, and one wondered why contributions for new school facilities were not part of conditions of approval for new residential projects (it should be noted that SB50 limits the City’s role in imposing additional school impact fees over those allowed by AB2926). Some stakeholders identified concerns about government and the development process that are seen broadly through the Bay Area. For example: ¥ Several stakeholders expressed views that the Planning Commission and the City Council were not aligned about supportiveness to change. Some held the view that the Planning Commission has been supportive of new development, but this view was not uniformly held with respect to the rest of City government. ¥ Some stakeholders felt the City was good to work with on the entitlement process and obtaining approvals, while others expressed reservations. 158 87 ¥ Other stakeholders commented that staff and Council often had a different vision than developers, and by way of example noted that the City’s hesitation in approving the Biltmore project at its fully allowed density was disappointing. ¥ The perception City government opposes significant development despite demand. ¥ A concern that policy-makers have a comprehensive knowledge of real estate and development. ¥ A view that developers are market driven, and policy-makers would benefit to developers’ analysis of what the City needs, and their market-based point-of-view of development economics. Other stakeholder comments more specific to Cupertino included: ¥ A desire that the decision-makers be more open minded about allowing the City to grow economically. ¥ A concern the City is reluctant to approve new office space because ABAG would then allocate additional RHNA numbers to meet jobs-housing balance requirements. ¥ Confusion was expressed about whether City government or the community has a preference not to grow in a significant way. It was noted that if there were not resistance to new development, there would be opportunities all along Stevens Creek and De Anza for both commercial and residential redevelopment. ¥ A perception the City lets itself be bullied into decisions. The example cited was Main Street being approved with senior housing, but soon after the housing component was approved by the decision-makers, that housing being converted to market-rate at the developer’s request. ¥ A perception that decision-makers over-weigh concerns of conservative residents who do not want change. This person also indicated that the people who take the time to go and speak at Council meetings are generally those that don’t like the project or some aspect thereof. Supporters do not take the time to go to hearings. ¥ One stakeholder suggested that older citizens don’t want any change, citing as an example (perhaps as a stereotype) an older citizen who appeared before the Council to request signs only be in English. Finally, a number of stakeholders offered opinions about prospects about Cupertino and about some of the Opportunity Sites specifically: ¥ While it is a nice idea not to be car-dependent, it is unrealistic to think [the Trade Area] will detach from the car, so there will need to be retail catering to impulse shopping that is well designed with clear retail identity and easy parking for customers arriving by car and not some other means. ¥ Traditional retail requires a low FAR (0.25 at most). The best case for land values for this FAR would be $50-60 PSF which is substantially below market for other uses. For example, the 3-acre southwest corner of El Camino Real and Wolfe sold in 2012 for $110 PSF. In order for retail to be developed, need to zone property for retail and keep that property zoned for retail, or owners will hold out for more money for a different use. ¥ A number of stakeholders expressed optimism that Cupertino has many opportunities going forward. Future development can be built around Apple’s highly identified presence in the City. 159 88 ¥ The City’s central location in Silicon Valley makes it a prime opportunity for redevelopment as compared with other cities. Other opportunities cited include: ¥ Providing places for young talent to live and to enjoy the community is important to the City’s evolution. The line at BJ’s was seen as showing how few places there are in the City to go out after work. The City needs more gathering places. It is hoped that Main Street will help fill this void. ¥ Economics for building hotels don’t yield a much higher residual land value than retail. While a five star hotel might be desired, select service models are more profitable and easier to finance. A 2.0-2.5 acre site where a hotel can share parking with office would make a good hotel development opportunity. ¥ Forever 21 was rumored by one stakeholder to have commented that they would not come to Vallco even if they were given free rent. This comment is no doubt a reflection of the project’s condition and lack of tenancy and less a comment on the desirability of Cupertino per se. If Vallco were to be redeveloped and retailers had a reasonable expectation of co-tenancy, stores like Forever 21 would be expected to at least evaluate whether the project and area met their criteria for a new store opening ¥ Transit in particular would allow for opportunities for growth while minimizing traffic impacts. 160 89 RECOMMENDATIONS Cupertino was originally conceived and planned as an auto-oriented, suburban environment. This suburban model is evolving as population and population density increases, and as once distant suburbs find themselves increasingly at the center of population centers. As Cupertino decides if and how it intends to embrace increased density and mixed-use projects (an increasing trend in real estate development and redevelopment in the Bay Area and beyond), careful consideration should be given to retail design (location, visibility, access and circulation, signage, parking, appropriate convenience attributes, etc.) with an eye to ensuring that design trends do not trump basic functionality. This applies both to commodity and to specialty retail projects. Shopping patterns generally are not limited by city or county borders. Cupertino residents have many alternatives for both commodity and specialty retail venues that are close to but not necessarily within the City limits. Trader Joe’s is one excellent example. Significant successful retail exists along El Camino Real in Sunnyvale, at Westgate Shopping Center in San Jose, Valley Fair and Santana Row at the intersection of Stevens Creek and Winchester (and I-880 and I-280), and downtown districts in Los Altos, Mountain View, Los Gatos, and Palo Alto. ¥ The City government and residents alike are widely viewed as being conservative about approving new development projects, particularly projects with residential components. We recommend using the feedback from the community process that has been a part of this planning effort, and additional workshop(s) as needed including elected officials, planning and economic development staff, the community, and retail development professionals aimed at creating a mission and values statement about retail development and redevelopment in Cupertino, and whether capturing retail sales presently occurring outside the City limits is desired. Such a statement would provide a consistent baseline against which project sponsors can plan, and staff and Council can evaluate and approve projects. This statement could also guide how retail projects should be designed in order to be competitive with offerings outside the City limits if that is desired. ¥ We believe that Cupertino is well located and could attract additional retail. The Opportunity Sites that are the subject of this report have been evaluated for such development. We recommend that other sites that were not part of the scope of this report also be evaluated. The Oaks is one example. ¥ In order to better understand what attributes will be required for successful retail developments in Cupertino and to augment this report, we recommend evaluating the factors that make Westgate Mall, Valley Fair/Santana Row, and other nearby shopping districts frequented by Trade Area residents appealing to patronize. A well-designed intercept survey or on-line poll might suffice. ¥ There is a lack of destination-oriented specialty “lifestyle” and “downtown” areas within the City’s borders. For example, while sit-down restaurants exist, they are generally not in a project or a district where one might park, stroll, cross-shop other merchants, and “hang out.” Cupertino Village may be one of the best examples of a successful destination- oriented specialty project within the City’s borders (despite it actually being a hybrid with commodity-tenant Ranch 99 market in the project). 161 90 ¥ Some projects have potential to be community-gathering spots, however, they do not appear to be as well patronized as possible. The Oaks is a good example. In these cases, careful consideration of potential audiences and project design may help reinvigorate a stalled project. ¥ There are some blockbuster retail projects in close proximity to Cupertino. Santana Row is one good example. Not every project is for every city. The suitability of a retail project for any given community is a comment on how market forces have evolved over time. It is not a negative comment on the community that does not have a particular facility, even if that facility is desired. Focus on planning retail projects that are best suited to serve the local community’s needs as opposed to replicating facilities found elsewhere (and which are unique to those facility’s individual circumstances) should be a primary planning focus. ¥ Many communities have leanings or policies about requiring retail on the ground floor of mixed-use, and especially residential, projects. Sometimes this retail space is well executed and serves an important purpose. Just as often, it is not as successful as it was envisioned. As discussed in this report, retail succeeds or fails based on demand, and the relative competitiveness of its location and site attributes (especially visibility, access, and parking) as compared with other options. Because residential uses result in higher residual land values than retail, the retail component of mixed-use projects is frequently designed principally with housing and not retail in mind. We assume that the City, the project sponsor, the retailer, neighbors and the community, and customers all want well designed projects that are both aesthetically pleasing and functional (and without vacancy resulting principally from lack of demand or poor design). We recommend that ground floor retail in mixed-use projects be evaluated for its appropriateness on a case-by-base basis, taking location and demand into consideration. We also recommend that when such a retail component is deemed appropriate, that project sponsors be required to retain experts (whether a retail architect, site planner, or other retail consultant) to advise on the size, location, site attributes, and layout/design of the retail component. Redeveloping Vallco will take significant effort on the owner and the City’s part, and the mall is unlikely to be successful without a significant redevelopment effort. Following are our recommendations for Vallco: ¥ Understand owner Son Son Co’s motivation for purchasing the property, and its long-term plans for the property. A significant effort may be required in order to engage the owner and to build a rapport. ¥ Understand Sears’ long-term plans for its property, the extent to which Sears might want to redevelop its parcel and how, and in what ways Sears may or may not be interested in cooperating with a redevelopment effort. ¥ Sears’ attorney brought up an interesting point about whether Successor Agencies will be permitted to exercise their power of eminent domain in the public interest post-dissolution of redevelopment. Hire land use counsel to provide guidance on this point. Depending 162 91 upon the outcome of this investigation, explore the feasibility of contemning the COREA or certain provisions thereof which impede obtaining approvals necessary to activate a redevelopment of the Mall. ¥ Open a conversation with Apple about it’s interest in the Mall property, and if it is interested the nature of that interest. ¥ Create a vision for Vallco Shopping Center (and do not hesitate to “Think big!”) to be memorialized in a specific plan with the following goals in mind: o Start thinking about the area comprised of Vallco, the Rose Bowl, Menlo Equities, and Main Street as a downtown district. o Identify the amount and type of retail desired for the Vallco property. Retail will likely result in a lower residual land value than office or residential uses, so making clear what portions or how much of the land needs to remain retail and the configuration of that retail (i.e. on the ground floor of a mixed-use development, traditional surface-parked shopping center, etc.) will lead to development underwriting that recognizes some of the land will be used for less than its highest and best use (i.e. most valuable use). Articulate desired uses for the portion of Vallco east of versus west of Wolfe Road. o Create certainty with respect to an approval process: Create clearly articulated design criteria, FAR’s and massing guidelines, and timelines for obtaining approvals. When a developer can see a clear path from underwriting and acquisition to approvals and commencement of construction, it can more easily evaluate the feasibility of a development in terms of anticipated market conditions. o Focus on pedestrian-friendly environments, active ground floor uses, and outdoor uses. o Ensure cohesion throughout the specific plan area by creating better connections, architectural relationships, common spaces and parking between individual properties/ownerships. Address streetscape improvements, reconfiguration of Wolfe Road, and connectivity. Explore Mello Roos districts for improvements and infrastructure. o Be realistic about what visibility, access, circulation, and parking facilities will be required in order for a proposed project to compete with other shopping destinations frequented by target customers. ¥ Every revitalization projects needs a champion! Have the City Council become the project’s advocate. ¥ Be patient, and know when to say: “No!” The plan articulated in a specific plan may or may not be feasible in today’s market and economic climate. Any redevelopment will be something the community will live with for decades, so waiting a few years for the right set of circumstances to converge is preferable to the wrong project today. 163 92 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. ULI - Professional Real Estate Development The ULI Guide to the Business, 2012, By Richard Peiser, David Hamilton 2. ULI - Professional Real Estate Development The ULI Guide to the Business, 2012, By Richard Peiser, David Hamilton 3. Gaming Google: The Growing Importance of Omni-Channel, RSR Research, Brian Kilcourse, March 1, 2011 www.rsrresearch.com/2011/03/01/gaming-google-the-growing- importance-of-omni-channel/ 4. Shopping Centers Today, November, 2012 5. ULI - Professional Real Estate Development The ULI Guide to the Business, 2012, By Richard Peiser, David Hamilton 6. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007 7. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallco 8. Apple Campus 2 Environmental Impact Report 9. October 24, 2013 San Francisco Business Times 10. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007 11. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007 12. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007 13. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallco 14. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007 15. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallco 16. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007 17. Grammercy Capital Corporation Offering Memorandum for Cupertino Square Mall, September, 2007 18. Cupertino Square Appraisal prepared by Cushman Wakefield, September, 2007 19. Grammercy Capital Corporation Offering Memorandum for Cupertino Square Mall, September, 2007 20. Grammercy Capital Corporation Offering Memorandum for Cupertino Square Mall, September, 2007 21. Grammercy Capital Corporation Offering Memorandum for Cupertino Square Mall, September, 2007 22. Maryia Hodge while a planning student at San Jose State University 23. J. Thomas Black, Libby Howland, and Stuart L. Rogel, Downtown Retail Development: Conditions for Success and Project Profiles (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute, 1983). 24. Kevin Mattson, “Antidotes to Sprawl,” in Sprawl and Public Space: Redressing the Mall, ed. David J. Smiley (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts; New York, N.Y.: Distributed by Princeton Architectural Press, 2002). 25. Lee S. Sobel, Ellen Greenberg, and Steven Bodzin, excerpt from “Greyfields into Goldfields: Dead Malls Become Living Neighborhoods” in Greater Philadelphia Regional Review (Fall 2002). 26. William Ivey, foreword to Sprawl and Public Space: Redressing the Mall, ed. David J. Smiley (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts; New York, N.Y.: Distributed by Princeton Architectural Press, 2002). 27. Mark Robbins, “Redressing the Mall,” in Sprawl and Public Space: Redressing the Mall, ed. David J. Smiley (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts; New York, N.Y.: Distributed by Princeton Architectural Press, 2002). 164 93 28. Nora Ganim Barnes, “The Restructuring of the Retail Business in the US: The Fall of the Shopping Mall,” Business Forum 27, no. 1 (Winter 2005). 29. Joan Fitzgerald and Nancey Green Leigh, Economic Revitalization: Cases and Strategies for City and Suburb (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002). 30. Pierre Filion, Heidi Hoernig, Trudi Bunting, and Gary Sands, “The Successful Few: Healthy Downtowns of Small Metropolitan Regions,” Journal of the American Planning Association 70, no. 3 (Summer 2004). 31. Benjamin R. Barber, “Civic Space,” Sprawl and Public Space: Redressing the Mall, ed. David J. Smiley (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts; New York, N.Y.: Distributed by Princeton Architectural Press, 2002). 32. Retrofitting Suburbs: Instant Cities, Instant Architecture, and Incremental Metropolitanism, Harvard Design Magazine, Ellen Duhnam-Jones and June Williamson 33. Converting Obsolete Malls, CoStar, October 3-17, 2012 34. Urban Land, July 25, 2013 35. The Town Paper, Fall 2005 36. Merlone Geier, The Village at San Antonio marketing materials 37. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_City 38. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Oaks_Galleria 165 13GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES REPORT SECTION II | VISION FRAMEWORK Draft 2040 Community Vision Cupertino aspires to be a balanced community with quiet and attractive residential neighborhoods; exemplary parks and schools; accessible open space areas, hillsides and creeks; and a vibrant, mixed- use “Heart of the City.” Cupertino will be safe, friendly, healthy, connected, walkable, bikeable and inclusive for all residents and workers, with ample places and opportunities for people to interact, recreate, innovate and collaborate. 166 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES REPORT SECTION II | VISION FRAMEWORK 14 Guiding Principle #1: Develop Cohesive Neighborhoods Ensure that all neighborhoods are safe, attractive and include convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to a “full-service” of local amenities such as parks, schools, community activity centers, trails, bicycle paths and shop- ping. Guiding Principle #4: Enhance Mobility Ensure the efficient and safe movement of cars, trucks, transit, pedestri- ans, bicyclists and disabled persons throughout Cupertino in order to fully accommodate Cupertino’s residents, workers, visitors and students of all ages and abilities. Guiding Principle #2: Improve Public Health and Safety Promote public health by increasing community-wide access to healthy foods; ensuring an adequate amount of safe, well-designed parks, open space, trails and pathways; and improve safety by ensuring all areas of the community are protected from natural hazards and fully served by police, fire, paramedic and health services. Guiding Principle #5: Ensure a Balanced Community Offer residents a full range of housing choices necessary to accommodate the changing needs of a demographically and economically diverse popu- lation, while also providing a full range of support uses including regional and local shopping, education, employment, entertainment, recreation, and daily needs that are within easy walking distance. Guiding Principle #3: Improve Connectivity Create a well-connected and safe system of trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, sidewalks and streets that weave the community together, enhance neighborhood pride and identity, and create access to interesting routes to different destinations. Guiding Principle #6: Support Vibrant, Mixed-Use Businesses Ensure that Cupertino’s major mixed-use corridors and commercial nodes are vibrant, successful, attractive, friendly and comfortable with inviting active pedestrian spaces and services that meet the daily needs of resi- dents and workers. 167 15GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES REPORT SECTION II | VISION FRAMEWORK Guiding Principle #7: Ensure Attractive Community Design Ensure that buildings, landscapes and streets are attractively designed and well maintained so they can complement the overall community fabric by framing major streets and offering desirable and active pedestrian spaces. Guiding Principle #10: Preserve the Environment Preserve Cupertino’s environment by enhancing or restoring creeks and hillsides to their natural state, limiting urban uses to existing urbanized areas, encouraging environmental protection, promoting sustainable design concepts, improving sustainable municipal operations, adapting to climate change, conserving energy resources and minimizing waste. Guiding Principle #8: Embrace Diversity Celebrate Cupertino’s diversity by offering a range of housing, shopping and community programs that meet the needs of the full spectrum of the community, while ensuring equal opportunities for all residents and workers regardless of age, cultural or physical differences. Guiding Principle #11: Ensure Fiscal Self Reliance Maintain fiscal self-reliance in order to protect the City’s ability to deliver essential, high-quality municipal services and facilities to the community. Guiding Principle #9: Support Education Preserve and support Cupertino’s excellent public education system by partnering with local school districts and De Anza College to improve school facilities and infrastructure, developing quality City facilities and programs that enhance learning, and expanding community-wide access to technology infrastructure. Guiding Principle #12: Ensure a Responsive Government Continue to be a regional leader in accessible and transparent municipal government, promote community leadership and local partnerships with local and regional agencies, and remain flexible and responsive to chang- ing community needs. 168 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT  Meeting: April 1, 2014    Subject:  Proclamation for National Volunteer week    NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET      169 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: April 1, 2014    Subject  2014 Arbor Day Proclamation.    Recommended Action  Present proclamation.    Discussion  The commitment of the Council, the community, and staff to promote a healthy and  sustainable urban forest earned the City the designation of “Tree City USA” in 2013.  The City became one of 3,400 communities nationwide and one of 150 communities in  California to achieve this distinction.  In December 2013, an application was submitted to the Arbor Day Foundation for a  Growth Award.  The Tree City USA Growth Award is awarded by the Arbor Day  Foundation to recognize higher levels of tree care by participating Tree City USA  communities. The Growth Award highlights innovative programs and projects,  increased commitment of resources for urban forestry, and provides an opportunity to  share new ideas and successes across the country.  The City earned this award in 2013  in the category of tree planting and maintenance. In addition, Tree Division staff have  worked to elevate the City to the top 10% of Tree City USA agencies in California.   _____________________________________    Prepared by: Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works  Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works   Approved for Submission by:  David Brandt, City Manager  Attachments:    A – 2013 Growth Award  170 171 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT  Meeting: April 1, 2014    Subject:  Teen Commission annual update    NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET      172 DRAFT MINUTES  CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL  Special Meeting    Monday, March 17, 2014     CITY COUNCIL MEETING    PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  At 3:10 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the City Council meeting to order in the  Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA and led the  Pledge of Allegiance.    ROLL CALL  Present:  Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Rod Sinks, and Council members Barry  Chang and Orrin Mahoney. Absent: Council member Mark Santoro.     ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ‐ None    ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS    1. Subject:  Senate Constitutional Amendment 5 (SCA‐5)    Recommended Action:  Staff recommends that City Council provide direction on the  City’s position on proposed legislation       Written communications for this item included: an amended staff report; emails  from Janet Chin and Richard Dai; copy of article from The Sacramento Bee; copy of  staff memo and joint press release from Senator Hernandez and Assembly Speaker  Perez.    Mayor Wong, reading from an article in The Sacramento Bee dated March 17, 2014,  explained that at the request of Senator Ed Hernandez, Assembly Speaker John A.  Perez has halted efforts to overturn California’s Prop. 209 and sent the measure back  to the State Senate without taking any action in the lower house.     173 Monday, March 17, 2014  Cupertino City Council   Mayor Wong reviewed the staff report and also noted a joint press release from  Senator Hernandez and Assembly Speaker Perez, dated March 17, 2014 regarding  the current status of SCA‐5.     Vice Mayor Sinks noted that the Cupertino Legislative Committee comprised of  Mayor Wong and he discussed this issue after reaching out to legislators and  concurred to bring a recommendation to City Council opposing SCA‐5.    Council member Chang asked City Attorney Carol Korade if he could vote on this  issue since he had gone on record stating his opposition of SCA‐5 and had been  involved in asking people to come to speak on the issue. He noted he would listen to  both sides but that his vote was clear.     Korade responded that since this would be defined as a common law conflict of  interest, Chang would need to determine whether he was able to listen to both sides  and objectively vote after having already made certain statements.     Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to limit the speaker time to one minute and  allow time at the end for follow‐up questions from Council and deliberation after  everyone has spoken.  The motion carried with Chang voting no and Santoro absent.      The following individuals spoke (or were represented by another speaker) in  opposition of SCA‐5.    Chris Zhang   Alex Li  Richard Dai, on behalf of Fair  Education Alliance (FEA)  Wei Liu  Xin Ai  Fred Chao  Jack Sun  Bei Qin  Sean Yao  Julia Zhao   Charles Liu  Misty Zhang  Lu Cui  Ignatius Ding  Alice Zhang  Ying Liu  Tarun Galagali, on behalf of Ro  Khanna  Anuradha Singh  Weiping Li  Greg Caressi  Hari Chardra  Yunus Mohammad  Dimitry  Betty Gee  Olga  Hao Wang  Rachael Wang  Lin Zhang  Cicie Chan  Ken Marquis Jr.   174 Monday, March 17, 2014  Cupertino City Council   Rishi Kumar  Mahesh Pakala  Yogi Chugh  Sue Chen  Ming Zhou  Sipuan Zhang  Wanda Xiang  Shaozhong Wang  Michael Hunsweck  Feng Hu  Angela Wang  Mandy Luo   Ping Luo  Louis Tseng   Jackie Chen  Jie Jean Wei  Adam Min  Jian Fei  Qiong Zheng  Shuge Luo  Xinchuan Huang  Jennifer Xu  Qiao Sang  Xiaoping Wendy Hu  Rachel Wu  Selina Chang  Helen Qian  Hannah Liu  Huang Bing Qing  Neelima Mane  Shuishey Liu  Hiu Jia  Li Hsiu Lin  Suling Huang  Sally Xiao  Joyce Ye  Dong Han    Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to have staff write a letter on behalf of the  City Council to Senator Ed Hernandez, Assembly Speaker John A. Perez, and any  other appropriate people noting the following points:     • Thanking them for taking the legislation off the table   • Acknowledging the input of the 60+ citizens who all spoke against the  legislation   • Express concern about any similar future attempt to overturn the key  elements of Prop. 209   • Encourage increased spending on higher education to allow more  opportunity for all students    The motion carried with Santoro absent.    ADJOURNMENT    At 4:50 p.m., Mayor Wong adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, March 18 beginning at  5:15 p.m. for a closed session regarding conference with Labor Negotiator (Government  Code 54957.6, Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA  followed by discussion of regular business items beginning at 6:45 p.m.  175 Monday, March 17, 2014  Cupertino City Council   ___________________________   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, then click Archived Webcast.  Videotapes are available at the  Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777‐2364.      176 DRAFT MINUTES  CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL  Special Meeting  Tuesday, March 18, 2014    CITY COUNCIL MEETING    ROLL CALL  At 7:00 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the City Council meeting to order in the  Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA.    Present:  Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Rod Sinks, and Council members Barry  Chang, Orrin Mahoney, and Mark Santoro. Absent: None.       CLOSED SESSION    1.  Subject:  Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code 54957.6); Agency  designated negotiators: Director of Administrative Services, City Manager, and  Dania Torres Wong; Employee organizations: Operating Engineers Local No. 3  Union; Cupertino Employeesʹ Association; Unrepresented (Management and  Confidential) Employeesʹ Compensation Program; Appointed Employeesʹ  Compensation Program.    At 5:15 p.m. Council recessed to a closed session, and reconvened in open session at  7:00 p.m. in the Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino,  CA. Mayor Wong announced that Council met with labor negotiators, obtained  briefing and gave direction. No action was taken.     PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  At 7:00 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong reconvened the City Council meeting in the  Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA and led the  Pledge of Allegiance.      177 Tuesday, March 18, 2014  Cupertino City Council   ROLL CALL     Present:  Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Rod Sinks, and Council members Barry  Chang, Orrin Mahoney, and Mark Santoro. Absent: None.        CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS  2.   Subject:  Library Commission annual update    Recommended Action:  Receive update       Written communications for this item included the Library Commission work  program and a PowerPoint presentation.     Jerry Liu, Chair of the Library Commission introduced Commissioner Adrian Kolb,  Children’s Supervising Librarian Claire Varesio, and staff Liaison Nidhi Mathur,  and reviewed the annual update via a PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Varesio  highlighted various Library programs.    Council received the update.     POSTPONEMENTS ‐ None    ORAL COMMUNICATIONS    Steve Elich spoke on behalf of Citizens for Responsible Trails to advocate fiscal  responsibility on trails, use of existing infrastructure, and minimal neighborhood  impact, and was concerned that the Mary Avenue Footbridge invitation noted the  bridge as “connecting the north and south sections of the Stevens Creek Trail.” He  submitted a group press release and noted a Friends of Stevens Creek Trail meeting on  March 28 at West Valley Elementary in Sunnyvale.    CONSENT CALENDAR    Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar  with the exception of item number 3 which was pulled for discussion. Ayes: Chang,  Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.     3.   Subject:  Approve the February 25 City Council minutes    Recommended Action:  Approve the minutes     178 Tuesday, March 18, 2014  Cupertino City Council   Bullet 4 on page 4 was amended to read: “In buildings 1, 3, 4 and the clock tower,  use slate tile roofing material that resembles a variegated color combination similar  to the Chinese multi‐color slate or other comparable color palette”     Santoro moved and Mahoney seconded to approve the minutes as amended. The  motion carried unanimously.     4.   Subject:  Approve the March 4 City Council minutes    Recommended Action:  Approve the minutes       5.   Subject:  Accept Accounts Payable for period ending February 7, 2014    Recommended Action:  Adopt Resolution No. 14‐128 accepting Accounts Payable  for period ending February 7, 2014       6.   Subject:  Accept Accounts Payable for period ending February 21, 2014    Recommended Action:  Adopt Resolution No. 14‐129 accepting Accounts Payable  for period ending February 21, 2014       7. Subject:  Ratify the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to provide Law  Enforcement Agency Access to the California Identification System (CAL‐ID) for a  change to the cost allocation formula    Recommended Action:  Ratify the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for CAL‐ ID and authorize the City Manager to execute the signature addendum and any  other necessary documents       8.   Subject:  Authorize the addition a new position category and change the title of two  positions in the salary schedule for Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation  Program    Recommended Action:  Adopt Resolution No. 14‐130 amending the Unrepresented  Employees’ Compensation Program and salary schedule     Description: The City currently has identified modifications needed to the  Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program and salary schedule which sets  forth all positions established for that group     9.  Subject:  Approve the destruction of records from the Parks and Recreation (Senior  Center and Quinlan Community Center) and Human Resources departments    Recommended Action:  Adopt Resolution No. 14‐131 approving the destruction of  records       179 Tuesday, March 18, 2014  Cupertino City Council   10. Subject:  Professional services contract with AECOM to complete the Climate Action  Plan (CAP)    Recommended Action:  Approve professional services contract to complete the  Climate Action Plan (CAP)       SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES ‐ None    PUBLIC HEARINGS    11. Subject:  Second reading of Cupertino Municipal Code amendments to Chapter  16.58, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, relating to plug in electric vehicle  charging systems; and Chapter 1.08 relating to the right of entry    Recommended Action:  Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 14‐ 2117: ʺAn ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter  16.58 of Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code and adopting the 2013 California  Green Building Standards Code with certain modifications relating to plug in  electric vehicle charging systems and amending Chapter 1.08 of Title 1 of the  Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the right of entryʺ       Mayor Wong opened the public hearing.  There were no speakers and the Mayor  closed the public hearing.     Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to read Ordinance No. 14‐2117 by title only  and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes:  Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent:     Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to enact Ordinance No. 14‐2117 with the  following amendment to read in all locations: “Pre‐wiring shall include the  installation of appropriately sized conductors and adequate electrical capacity to  serve a Level 2 EVSE.” Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes:  None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.     ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS ‐ None    REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF    12. Subject:  Cupertino Water Conservation    Recommended Action:  Accept Staff Presentation       Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation.   180 Tuesday, March 18, 2014  Cupertino City Council     Assistant Director of Public Works Roger Lee reviewed the staff report via a  PowerPoint presentation. Sustainability Manager Erin Cooke highlighted current  and future City water conservation initiatives and sector specific programs to help  conserve water across the community. San Jose Water Company Director of  Government Relations John Tang said that San Jose Water is actively working  towards implementing a water conservation plan which is contingent on the  authorization order from the Governor.    City Manager David Brandt noted upcoming meetings with the Director of the  Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) regarding transportation in the West Valley  and the Council meeting on Monday, March 24, beginning at 2:00 p.m. regarding the  Work Program.    Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various  community events.     ADJOURNMENT  At 7:57 p.m., Mayor Wong adjourned the meeting to Monday, March 24 beginning at  2:00 p.m. for a Council Work Program study session, Community Hall Council  Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA.      _______________________________   Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy 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, then click Archived Webcast.  Videotapes are available at the  Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777‐2364.          181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 RESOLUTION NO.    A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF  CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN  THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED  FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD  ENDING    March 21, 2014    WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated  representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and  to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and    WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required  by law.    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby  allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as  hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “A”.  CERTIFIED:                                   Sheila Mohan, Interim Finance Director     PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the  City of Cupertino this _____day of ____________, 2014, by the following vote:    Vote                Members of the City Council    AYES:  NOES:  ABSENT:  ABSTAIN:      ATTEST:                                                       APPROVED:    _________________________                     ________________________  Grace Schmidt, City Clerk                         Mayor Gilbert Wong, City of Cupertino  217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT  Meeting: April 1, 2014    Subject  Renew the voluntary cap of $28,000 for campaign expenditures in the 2014 City Council  election.     Recommended Action  Adopt the attached resolution setting a voluntary expenditure cap of $28,000 for the  election of 2014.     Description  Beginning in 1997, the City Council has set voluntary campaign expenditure limits for  each election.  There will be no expenditure limit, voluntary or otherwise, unless the  Council takes action to set a limit for the 2014 election.    Discussion  If a limit is established for the 2014 election, it would be voluntary and would have no  force of law.  If candidates indicate in writing their intention to abide by the limitation,  a black diamond will be printed by their names in the sample ballot.       First‐class postage costs have increased from $.41 to $.49 since May of 2007, and  Cupertino’s population has increased by 1,871 from 2010 to 2014 to a total of 58,302.         ELECTION YEAR VOLUNTARY  EXPENDITURE LIMIT  NOTES  1997 $15,000   1999 $20,000 Rancho Rinconada  Annexation  2001 $20,000   2003 $20,000   2005 $26,000 Postage increases  Garden Gate and Monta  Vista Annexations  229 2007 $26,500 Postage increases  2008 Special Election $26,500   2009 $28,000 Postage increases  2011 $28,000 Postage & population  increases      _____________________________________    Prepared by:  Grace Schmidt, City Clerk  Approved for Submission by:  David Brandt, City Manager  Attachments:    A – Draft Resolution  230 RESOLUTION NO. 14‐    A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL   ADOPTING A VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE LIMIT FOR THE   NOVEMBER 4, 2014 ELECTION    WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11‐070 which established a voluntary  expenditure limit of $28,000 for the November 2011 election.    WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, a General Municipal Election will be held to fill vacant  seats, and the City Council also wishes to apply an expenditure limit of $28,000 to that election.      NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:     1) Candidates for City Council are requested to limit their campaign expenditures to  $28,000 for the City Council election of 2014.     2) Any non‐monetary contribution is deemed to be a campaign expenditure made by  the receiving committee on the date of receipt, and it counts against the voluntary expenditure  limits established by this resolution if an expenditure for equivalent goods or services would have  been a campaign expenditure described in Attachment A. The amount of the expenditure shall be  the fair market value of the contribution on the date of receipt.      3) In the event that any candidate wishes to abide by the campaign contribution limit  requested by the City Council, he or she may file with the City Clerk a written notice of his or her  intent to limit his or her campaign expenditures to $28,000 for the 2014 election, and such intent  will be indicated in the official voter’s pamphlet.    4)       The cost of printing and translating Candidate Statements shall not be counted  against the voluntary expenditure cap of $28,000.     5)    The provisions of this resolution have no force of law.    PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of    Cupertino this 1st day of April, 2014, by the following vote:      Vote  Members of the City Council  AYES:      NOES:      ABSENT:    ABSTAIN:      ATTEST:      APPROVED:       ______       ______________________  Grace Schmidt, City Clerk    Gilbert Wong, Mayor, City of Cupertino  231            Attachment A      Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Title 2, Division 6  California Code of Regulations, Chapter 5, Section 18540           1. Expenditures related to mailing or distribution of campaign literature, signs,  buttons, bumper stickers and similar items, shall be allocated to the next election  following the date(s) on which the expenditures were made or, if the election is held  on the date when the expenditures were made, to the election held on that date.  2. Expenditures related to publications in broadcast, print or electronic media shall be  allocated to the next election following the date(s) specified in the contract for  broadcast, publication, or dissemination or, if the election is held on the date  specified for publication, broadcast, or dissemination, to the election held on that  date.   3. Expenditures related to telephone banks, including costs of design and operation,  costs of installing or renting telephone lines and equipment, toll charges, personnel  costs, rental of office space, and associated consultantsʹ fees, shall be allocated to the  next election following the date(s) on which the expenditures were made or, if the  election is held on the date when the expenditures were made, to the election held  on that date.   4. Expenditures on professional services, including fees and costs of campaign  consultants and pollsters, shall be allocated to the next election following the date(s)  on which the expenditures were made or, if the election is held on the date when  the expenditure was made, to the election held on that date. In the event that a  contract for professional services allocates specific fees and costs to particular  elections, the terms of the contract will govern allocation of expenditures to each  election. If a contract provides for a bonus payment should the candidate win a  particular election, the bonus payment is an expense of the election whose result  triggers the payment obligation.   5. Overhead expenditures, including expenditures related to the lease of office space,  payments for utilities, rental or purchase of office equipment and furnishings,  miscellaneous supplies, costs of internal copying and printing, monthly telephone  charges, personnel costs, and candidate or staff travel expenses, shall be allocated to  the next election following the date(s) on which the expenditures were made or, if  the election is held on the date when the expenditures were made, to the election  held on that date.   6. Expenditures related to campaign fundraising shall be allocated to the election for  which the funds were raised. If fundraising expenditures cannot be assigned in this  232 manner to a particular election, fundraising expenditures shall be allocated to the  next election following the date(s) on which the expenditures were made or, if the  election is held on the date when the expense was incurred, to the election held on  that date.   7. Unless there is a clear indication to the contrary, campaign expenditures not  described in subdivisions (a)(1) through (a)(6) shall be allocated to the next election  following the date(s) on which the expenditures were made or, if the election is held  on the date when the expenditure was made, to the election held on that date.  Refunds of any expenditure on goods or services not provided to or used by the  campaign shall be credited to the election for which the expenditure would  otherwise have been allocated.  8. The candidate shall maintain records establishing that his or her allocation of  campaign expenditures was consistent with this resolution.  233 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: April 1, 2014    Subject  Parcel Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Apple Campus 2.     Recommended Action  Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Parcel Map and Subdivision  Improvement Agreement pursuant to the Draft Resolution (Attachment A).    Description  Map:      Parcel Map for Apple Campus 2  Property Owner:  Campus Holdings, Inc.  Location:  Area bounded by East Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue,  I‐280, North Wolfe Road including properties located on the east  side of North Tantau Avenue.  (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 316‐06‐033;  316‐06‐038; 316‐06‐039; 316‐06‐045; 316‐06‐046; 316‐06‐048; 316‐06‐049;  316‐06‐050; 316‐06‐051; 316‐06‐052; 316‐06‐053; 316‐07‐044; 316‐07‐045;  316‐07‐046; 316‐09‐019; 316‐09‐027; 316‐09‐028; 316‐18‐012; 316‐18‐025;  316‐18‐026; 316‐18‐027; 316‐18‐035)    Background  The project site consists of seventeen (17) parcels bounded by East Homestead Road,  North Tantau Avenue, I‐280, North Wolfe Road including properties located on the east  side of North Tantau Avenue.       On October 15, 2013, City Council approved a 176.2 acre industrial/residential  development consisting of five (5) parcels which include office, research and  development buildings.  In addition to the new office, research and development  buildings, the applicant is also proposing associated parking facilities, a 120,000 square  foot, 1,000‐seat corporate auditorium and a 100,000 square foot fitness center.  This  approval included a Vesting Tentative Map to allow a subdivision of property from  seventeen (17) parcels to five (5) parcels.          234 Discussion  As required by the Subdivision Map Act, the Parcel Map (Attachment B) being  presented substantially conforms to the approved tentative map.  Approval of this map  is administrative per Subdivision Map Act Section 66458.    Subdivision improvements include:   • construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveways, street lights, bus stops,  pavement and the removal and replacement of street trees and other landscaping  along the project’s frontage on North Wolfe Road, North Tantau Avenue, East  Homestead Road and portions Pruneridge Avenue;   • installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of North Wolfe Road and the  Project Driveway and at Vallco Parkway and the Main Street Garage driveway;   • traffic signal modifications at the intersections of North Wolfe Road/Pruneridge  Avenue, North Tantau Avenue/Pruneridge Avenue, Vallco Parkway/Tantau  Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd/Tantau Avenue;   • installation of landscaped median islands on East Homestead Road and North  Tantau Ave;    • modifications to turn pockets at Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard,  Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue and De Anza Boulevard/Homestead  Road;    • modifications to facilities located outside of the City of Cupertino’s jurisdiction  including improvements to the Interstate 280/Wolfe Road interchange, Interstate  280/Tantau Avenue overcrossing, the southbound onramp to Interstate 280 at  Lawrence Expressway, the Interstate 280 and Lawrence Expressway northbound  connector at Stevens Creek Boulevard, and improvements to Calvert Drive  between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway.    Upon City Council approval of the Parcel Map and the Subdivision Improvement  Agreement, and prior to recordation of the map, Public Works will collect all fees and  surety required by the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Attachment C).  Some of  these various fees include:  • Storm Drain Fee         $1,176,942  • Adaptive Traffic Signal system along De Anza             $50,000   • Wolfe Road Transportation Study      $1,000,000  • Parkland Contribution       $8,270,994  • Lawrence Expy/Saratoga Ave Left Turn Pocket Contribution  $1,000,000  • Sunnyvale Neighborhood Cut Through Traffic  and Parking Study Contribution        $575,000  • Santa Clara Neighborhood Cut Through Traffic  and Parking Study Contribution        $325,000      235 Public Works will ensure the Parcel Map is not recorded until all of the appropriate  easements onsite have been vacated by the necessary parties, the Pruneridge Avenue  street vacation requirements have been met and the street vacation has been recorded  with the County of Santa Clara.    ____________________________________  Prepared by:  Chad Mosley, Associate Civil Engineer   Reviewed by:  Timm Borden, Director of Public Works  Approved for Submission by:  David Brandt, City Manager  Attachments:      A – Draft Resolution  B – Final Map  C – Subdivision Improvement Agreement    236 RESOLUTION NO. 14‐___    A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO  APPROVING A STREET IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND PARCEL MAP  FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 176.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY  LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 280, WEST OF NORTH TANTAU AVENUE,  EAST OF WOLFE ROAD AND SOUTH OF EAST HOMESTEAD ROAD FROM 17  LOTS INTO 5 LOTS   (APN Nos. 316‐06‐033, 316‐06‐038, 316‐06‐039, 316‐06‐045, 316‐06‐046, 316‐06‐048,   316‐06‐049, 316‐06‐050, 316‐06‐051, 316‐06‐052, 316‐06‐053, 316‐07‐044, 316‐07‐045,   316‐07‐046, 316‐09‐019, 316‐09‐027, 316‐09‐028, 316‐18‐012, 316‐18‐025, 316‐18‐026,   316‐18‐027 and 316‐18‐035)    Parcel Map:  Apple Campus 2 Development  Applicant:  Apple, Inc.  Property Owner: Campus Holdings, Inc.    WHEREAS, on October 15, 2013, the City of Cupertino City Council certified  an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopted CEQA Findings and a  Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the “Apple Campus 2” project  (Project) and approved a Vesting Tentative Map (TM‐2011‐03) for the Project; and    WHEREAS, a Parcel Map and Street Improvement Agreement, in the form  attached as Attachment C to the staff report for the Project have now been prepared  in accordance with the Cupertino Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act; and    WHEREAS, the Parcel Map is technically correct and has been reviewed and  approved by the City Engineer and Director of Community Development as required  by Section 18.16.190 of the City Municipal Code, and substantially conforms to the  approved Vesting Tentative Map; and     WHEREAS, the Parcel Map and Street Improvement Agreement have  therefore been filed for City Council approval.    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:    The City Council hereby approves the Street Improvement Agreement and  Parcel Map, and authorizes execution of the Street Improvement Agreement and any  and all documents in connection with the Parcel Map and Street Improvement  1 237 2 Agreement, and authorizes the City Clerk to accept all street dedications shown on the  Parcel Map.     PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, this  1st day of April, 2014, by the following vote:    Vote:   Members of the City Council    AYES:     NOES:   ABSENT:   ABSTAIN:       ATTEST:     APPROVED:                       Grace Schmidt, City Clerk    Gilbert Wong, Mayor, City of Cupertino      238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 Page 1 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Cupertino City Clerk’s Office 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER GOVERNMENT CODE §6103 Space above this line for Recorder’s use. STREET IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT City of Cupertino - Apple Campus 2 This Street Improvement Agreement (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into this day of , 2014 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation of the State of California (“City”), and APPLE INC., a California corporation (“Developer”). RECITALS A. Developer has a legal and equitable interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 176 acres located within the City and generally bordered by East Homestead Road on the north; adjacent properties to the east of North Tantau Avenue on the east; Interstate 280 and The Hamptons apartment community on the south; and North Wolfe Road on the west (APN Nos. 316 06 033; 316 06 038; 316 06 039; 316 06 045; 316 06 046; 316 06 048; 316 06 049; 316 06 050; 316 06 051; 316 06 052; 316 06 053; 316 07 044; 316 07 045; 316 07 046; 316 09 019; 316 09 027; 316 09 028; 316 18 012; 316 18 025; 316 18 026; 316 18 027; 316 18 035) (the “Property”). The Property is owned by Campus Holdings, Inc. (“CHI”), a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Developer. CHI and Developer have entered into an agreement for Developer to develop and occupy the Property. As evidenced by the signature of its authorized representative below, CHI has acknowledged its approval of this Agreement and the terms and conditions set forth herein. Pruneridge Avenue extends through the Property on a roughly east/west alignment. On October 15, 2013, the Cupertino City Council adopted a resolution indicating the City’s intent to vacate the portion of Pruneridge Avenue that lies within the boundary of the Property, and pursuant to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of November 19, 2013 and executed by and between the City and CHI, CHI has a legal and equitable interest in such portion of Pruneridge Avenue which, upon the City’s vacation of the same, will be included as part of the Property. B. In 2011, Developer submitted applications for development of the Apple Campus 2 Project, which proposed the redevelopment of a then existing office park into a single, unified campus consisting of the construction of 3.42 million square feet of office, research and development buildings, 120,000 square foot corporate auditorium, 100,000 square foot corporate fitness center, 25,000 square foot valet parking reception, 92,000 square feet of utility plants, and associated parking and ancillary buildings (the “Project”). The Project applications included an application to subdivide the Property into five parcels in accordance with and as more particularly described in the Map (the “Subdivision”). 246 Page 2 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 C. On October 15, 2013, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the various applications and approved a Vesting Tentative Map for the Project, including conditions of approval. Vesting Tentative Map Conditions of Approval #4 and #5 required that Developer enter into this Agreement to ensure that certain off-site improvements (“Improvements”) would be constructed and fees paid. Because of the size and nature of the Project, there are numerous Improvements, including several Improvements located outside the jurisdiction of the City, and the City and Developer acknowledge that effectively and efficiently constructing the Improvements will require coordination with outside agencies, cooperation among the parties, and the need for appropriate sequencing to minimize disruption. The City and Developer also entered into a Development Agreement, effective December 20, 2013, to both vest development rights for the Project as well as to ensure a coordinated and cooperative implementation of the Project. D. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and City’s local ordinances and regulations relating to subdivision maps, Developer has presented to City for approval a final subdivision map prepared by [__________] and dated [______] (the “Map”) for the Subdivision. E. Developer has prepared certain plans and related specifications (as more particularly identified in Exhibit D attached hereto, the “Improvement Plans”) for construction, installation and completion of the Improvements. The Improvement Plans have been prepared at a conceptual level, and City has approved them for purposes of determining the approximate costs of the Improvements. F. The Improvement Plans include Improvements to be located in the City of Cupertino, as well as in certain other jurisdictions. Developer has entered into discussions with responsible agencies in these jurisdictions in order to confirm the general scope, design and anticipated cost of the Improvements, including discussions with the California Department of Transportation, Valley Transportation Authority, County of Santa Clara and Cities of Santa Clara and San Jose, but these agencies have not yet given final approval for the Improvement Plans. Pursuant to Tentative Map Condition of Approval #4, if Developer, despite its best efforts, is unable to make sufficient progress with a responsible agency to obtain approval of the Improvement Plans, the Developer may still obtain construction permits for the Project if Developer provides adequate funding to cover such extra - jurisdictional Improvements to be held in an escrow account for the benefit of the City, or Developer provides another form of security pursuant to Section 4 below. Developer has made such best efforts, yet as of the Effective Date, the responsible agencies have not approved the Improvement Plans. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of City’s approval of the Map, and in order to insure satisfactory performance by Developer of its obligations under the Subdivision Map Act, the Cupertino Municipal Code, and the conditions of approval appurtenant to City’s approval of the Map, City and Developer agree as follows: 1. DEVELOPER’S OBLIGATION TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS 1.1 Completion of Improvements. Developer, at its own expense, and in compliance with all provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, the Cupertino Municipal Code, the Map and any amendments thereto, and all other applicable laws, and pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement, shall furnish, install, and construct all of the Improvements in substantial conformance with the Improvement Plans. For those Improvements to be located within the jurisdiction of the City, the determination of the City Engineer shall be final as to whether any material or workmanship meets the Improvement Plans 247 Page 3 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 and specifications and standards as set forth in this Section 1.1. For those Improvements to be located outside the jurisdiction of the City, such determination shall be made by the applicable official within said agency, as determined by that jurisdiction. If City believes the material or workmanship of any Improvements do not meet the Improvement Plans or specifications and standards, it shall identify any deficiencies in writing and propose specific cures. To the extent there are disagreements regarding the completion of the Improvements, City and Developer shall meet and confer prior to City pursuing the remedies available to City under this Agreement. 1.2 Compliance with Laws. For those Improvements within the City, Developer, at its expense, shall construct, or cause its contractors and subcontractors to construct, the Improvements in accordance with: (i) the City of Cupertino Standard Details and Specifications; (ii) the Standard Specifications of the California Department of Transportation, where applicable; (iii) the Standard Specifications of the Cupertino Sanitary District, where applicable; and (iv) all applicable State, Federal and local laws, rules and regulations, including applicable Labor Code requirements. Wherever the words “State” or “California Division of Highways” are mentioned in the State Specifications, it shall be considered as referring to the City of Cupertino; also wherever the “Director” or “Director of Public Works” is mentioned, it shall be considered as referring to the City Engineer. For those Improvements within the City, in case of conflict between the State Specifications and the specifications of City and/or the Cupertino Sanitary District, the specifications of the City and/or the Cupertino Sanitary District shall control; provided, however, Improvements within the City that are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans shall comply with the Caltrans standards. 1.3 Repair and Replacement of Damaged Public Facilities. Developer shall, at its own expense, repair or replace all public improvements, public utility facilities, surveying monuments and other public facilities located within the City that are destroyed or damaged as a result of any work under this Agreement. Developer shall promptly notify the City Engineer of such damage and shall obtain the City Engineer’s approval of all repair and replacement work. 1.4 Developer’s Responsibility Until City’s Acceptance. Until City (or the applicable responsible agency) accepts the Improvements, Developer shall be responsible for the care and maintenance of such Improvements and shall bear all risks of loss or damage to the Improvements. Neither City nor any responsible agency shall have any liability for any accident, loss or damage to the Improvements prior to their completion and acceptance by City (or by the applicable responsible agency). City’s (or the applicable responsible agency’s) acceptance of the Improvements shall not constitute a waiver of any defects in the Improvements or Developer’s obligation to repair such defects as provided in Section 8 of this Agreement (or other agreement with the applicable responsible agency). 1.5 Timing of Installation and Completion. Developer shall install and complete the Improvements to be located within City and subject to the City’s jurisdiction by not later than three (3) years following the Effective Date, or within such longer period as provided in Section 22 below, or as may be specifically authorized in writing by the City Engineer pursuant to Section 1.6 of this Agreement. In the event Developer fails or refuses to complete the Improvements within the specified period of time, for those Improvements located within the jurisdiction of the City, City (after complying with the notice requirements set forth in Section 17.3 and expiration of applicable cure periods, except in the event of an immediate threat to public health and safety in which case only telephonic notice shall be required), may draw upon the security provided pursuant to Section 4 and use such funds to complete the Improvements in whatever manner City shall decide. If (i) Developer does not commence such 248 Page 4 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 Improvements within the notice period provided in Section 17.3, and thereafter diligently pursue them to completion, and (ii) City completes or causes such Improvements to be completed, then City may recover any and all costs incurred thereby from Developer, or Developer’s surety, or both, or by drawing upon the security provided pursuant to Section 4. No final inspection shall be granted nor street improvements accepted unless all of the requirements for safety purposes such as sidewalks, handicap ramps, street lights, and the like have been installed. 1.6 Time Extensions. The City Engineer, in his or her reasonable discretion, may approve in writing a request for extension of the time required for construction of the Improvements upon Developer’s showing of good cause. Good cause may include third-party permitting agency delays in issuing permits required for the work of Improvements, including CalTrans permitting delays, as well as delays for enforced delay as defined in Section 22. Developer agrees that it shall not be unreasonable for City to disapprove an extension request based on third-party permitting agency delays, if the requested extension together with any previously approved extension(s) would extend the outside date for construction of the Improvements set forth in Section 1.5 above to a date which is more than five years following the Effective Date. In approving a request for time extension, the City Engineer may impose reasonable related conditions, such as requiring Developer to furnish new or modified security guaranteeing performance of this Agreement, as extended, in an increased amount necessary to compensate for any projected increase in the estimated total cost of Improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. 1.7 Permits. Developer, at its own expense, shall obtain and comply with the conditions of all necessary permits and licenses for the construction of the Improvements and give all necessary notices and pay all fees and taxes required by law. 2. DEDICATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS OF WAY As specified on the Map, Developer/CHI shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to City the real property/easements shown on the Map, which is incorporated herein by reference (the “Dedicated Property”). Subject to Developer’s performance of each and every covenant and condition of this Agreement and the Map and all other applicable conditions of approval (or City’s written waiver thereof), City agrees to accept the Dedicated Property. Developer agrees not to revoke these offers of dedication, and to keep said offers open until City accepts the Dedicated Property. Developer further agrees to deliver to City at the time of City’s acceptance of the offers of dedication such other executed conveyances, reconveyances of security instruments, and other instruments necessary to convey clear title as herein required. Developer, at Developer’s sole cost and expense, shall provide to City at the time of City’s acceptance of each dedication of the Dedicated Property: (i) a preliminary title report issued by a title insurance company for the Dedicated Property , and (ii) a standard policy of title insurance in form approved by City and issued by a title insurance company approved by City insuring City’s interest in the Dedicated Property and showing that the Dedicated Property is free and clear of all mechanics liens and liens of any mortgages, deed of trusts or lease lease-back financings. 3. INSPECTION AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 3.1 Access for Inspections. Developer shall at all times maintain proper facilities and safe access for inspection of the Improvements by the City Engineer and his or her designees. 249 Page 5 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 3.2 Completion and Acceptance. With respect to those portions of the Improvements located within the City of Cupertino, upon completion of such Improvements in compliance with the Improvement Plans and all applicable City and other governmental standards, as determined by the City Engineer, the City Engineer shall certify completion thereof. The City shall accept the Improvements within 30 days of the City Engineer’s certification of completion of the Improvements. If City believes the material or workmanship of any Improvements do not meet the Improvement Plans or specifications and standards, it shall identify any deficiencies in writing and propose specific cures. If there are disagreements regarding the completion of the Improvements, City and Developer shall meet and confer prior to City pursuing the remedies available to City under this Agreement. Developer shall bear all costs of inspection and certification for acceptance. With respect to those portions of the Improvements located outside of the City, the process for acceptance thereof shall be determined by the applicable responsible agency. Acceptance by the City Engineer or other applicable responsible agency official shall not constitute a waiver by City or such other responsible agency of any defects in the Improvements. 4. SECURITY 4.1 Required Security. Prior to execution of this Agreement, Developer shall provide the following security to City in a form acceptable to City: (a) Faithful Performance. Security for faithful performance in the aggregate amount set forth in Exhibit A to guarantee performance of construction and installation of all Improvements (“Performance Security”). This amount is equal to 100% of the estimated cost of construction and installation of all Improvements. If the estimated costs of construction increase, Developer shall increase the amount of the Performance Security to cover such increased costs. If the estimated costs of construction decrease, City shall release the amount of the Performance Security due to such decreased costs. (b) Labor and Materials. Security to ensure payment to all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, suppliers and materialmen performing work or supplying materials for the Improvements in the aggregate amount set forth in Exhibit B (“Labor and Materials Security”). This amount is equal to 100% of the estimated cost of construction and installation of all Improvements. If the estimated costs of construction increase, Developer shall increase the amount of the security to cover such increased costs. If the estimated costs of construction decrease, City shall release the amount of the Labor and Materials Security due to such decreased costs. 4.2 Form of Security. Developer shall provide as security, bonds executed by a surety company authorized to transact a surety business in the State of California and approved by City as to sufficiency or other security meeting the requirements of this Section. In the event that Developer fails to faithfully perform the covenants and conditions of this Agreement, or to make any payment, or any dedication of land, or any Improvements herein required, City shall call on the surety to perform Developer’s obligation under this Agreement or otherwise compensate City for all costs, liability and expenses arising from Developer’s failure to do so. In lieu of a surety bond, Developer may elect to secure Developer’s performance under this Agreement by depositing with the City: (i) cash; (ii) a cashier’s check or a certified check payable to the order of the City of Cupertino; (iii) irrevocable standby letter of credit; or (iv) certificates of deposit 250 Page 6 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 acceptable to City and meeting the requirements of Government Code Section 66499 (b) and the requirements set forth in Section 4.2.1 below. Such cash, checks, certificates of deposit, or letter of credit shall be in the aggregate amount set forth in Exhibits A and B. If Developer fails to faithfully perform the covenants and conditions of this Agreement, or to make any payment, or any dedication of land, or any Improvements herein required, City may, after giving Developer written notice required by Section 17.3, apply the proceeds of said security to cure such failure to perform or make such payment or dedication. 4.2.1 Requirements for Certificates of Deposit. Certificates of deposit provided pursuant to this Section must meet all of the following requirements: (i) each CD must be on an original bank form (i.e. screen prints, photocopies, faxes, etc. are not acceptable), be non-negotiable (“non- negotiable” must be imprinted on the CD), and show the interest rate and maturity date of the CD; (ii) each CD must be made payable to the City of Cupertino; (iii) the initial term of each CD must be at least 90 days with an automatic renewal provision; (iv) each CD must list Developer as the depositor; (v) interest will be paid directly to the depositor at maturity, not the City of Cupertino and interest must not be capitalized or added to the CD account at any time; and (vi) each CD must be issued by a Local Bank whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or an FDIC insured bank with a local branch (“FDIC” must be imprinted on the CD). “Local Bank” means a bank within the County of Santa Clara or an affiliated out of County bank. The City’s Department of Public Works will maintain control over the CDs until completion of the Improvements and expiration of the Warranty Period. If Developer refuses or fails to complete construction of the Improvements or perform repairs to any Improvements as required by this Agreement, the Director of Public Works, following written notice to Developer required by Section 17.3 and expiration of any applicable cure periods, may use funds from the CD(s) to pay the costs of construction or repair. 4.3 Release of Security. No release of surety bond, cash deposit, check, certificate of deposit or letter of credit shall be made except upon approval of the Director of Public Works. Recognizing the numerous Improvements and potentially long build-out timeframe, the City shall make good faith efforts to release the applicable security instrument on a phased basis as discrete components of the Improvements are completed. The schedule for release of security is as follows: (a) Performance Security. There shall be a phased release of ninety percent (90%) of the Performance Security provided pursuant to Section 4.1(a) as each of the Improvements, or discrete component thereof, is satisfactorily completed, as determined by the Director of Public Works, or applicable person at any other agency that will be assessing completion of Improvements located outside of City. (b) Warranty Security. Notwithstanding Section 4.3(a) above, Developer shall maintain a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the faithful performance bond or alternative security required by Section 4.1(a) above (“Warranty Security”) for a period of one (1) year following the date of City’s final acceptance of the Improvements (“Warranty Period”) to cover the costs to correct or replace any defective work done by Developer or its contractors or subcontractors or defective materials supplied by Developer or its contractors or subcontractors. City shall release the Warranty Security upon expiration of the Warranty Period, correction of all deficiencies, and settlement of all claims filed during 251 Page 7 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 the Warranty Period related to work, labor or materials provided by Developer or its contractors or subcontractors. (c) Labor and Materials Security. The Labor and Materials Security provided by Developer pursuant to Section 4.1(b) shall be released on the date which is six (6) months following City’s completion of the Improvements, or discrete component thereof, provided that all deficiencies have been corrected and no claims against such bond or alternative security have been filed. If claims against such bond or alternative security have been filed within that time period, the City shall retain the bond or other security provided pursuant to Section 4.1(b) in an amount equal to the total amount claimed by all claimants for whom liens have been filed and of which notice has been given to City, plus an amount reasonably determined by the City Engineer to be required to assure the performance of any other obligations secured by the security. The balance of the security shall be released upon settlement or release of all claims and obligations for which the security was given. If there are multiple claimants, the City shall release the security as claims and obligations are settled or released. (d) Security Provided to Other Jurisdictions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Developer enters into one or more agreements with other responsible agencies to address construction of Improvements located outside the City and Developer provides to such other agencies performance and labor and materials security to cover such Improvements, then City will reduce the required amount of the Performance Security and the Labor and Materials Security, as applicable, by the amount of security that the City required for the Improvement at issue. In no event shall the Performance Security and Labor and Materials Security be reduced below the amount necessary to meet the performance, labor and materials and warranty assurances under Sections 4.3(a), (b) and (c) above for the remaining work within the City. 5. PAYMENT OF REQUIRED FEES 5.1 Permits and Licenses. Developer, at its sole expense, shall obtain all necessary permits and licenses for the construction and installation of the Improvements, give all necessary notices (other than those notices required to be given by the City or other agency), and pay all fees required by the November 19, 2013 Development Agreement between City and Developer (“Development Agreement”), and Section 5.2 of this Agreement. 5.2 Fees. Developer shall be responsible for payment of the fees set forth in Exhibit C, and all of the following. For the fees set forth in this Section 5.2, City shall draw upon the deposit that Developer paid to City prior to the Effective Date and any increases to such deposit (the “Deposit”). City shall draw upon such Deposit to cover City’s time and materials for the following, plus, in the case of the inspection and map checking fees described in (a) and (c) below, an additional ten percent (10%) of the direct costs to cover City’s administrative costs and expenses: (a) Inspection Fees. Developer shall pay any and all necessary direct expenses for inspection, checking, and the like incurred by City in connection with the design, installation and construction of the Improvements. Should construction costs vary 252 Page 8 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 materially from the estimate upon which said sum is calculated, the City Engineer shall notify Developer of any additional sum due and owing as a result thereof. (b) Storm Drainage Fee. Developer shall pay a storm drainage charge for the Project in accordance with the requirements established in Resolution 4422, March 21, 1977, as modified by subsequent resolutions of the City Council after such date. (c) Map Checking Fee. Developer shall pay a fee for office checking of the final map and field checking of street monuments, in compliance with the Cupertino Municipal Code. (d) Park Fee. Developer shall pay such fees and/or dedicate such land to the City, relating to park impacts as required under Section 3.7 of the Development Agreement. 6. INTENTIONALLY OMITTED 7. STREET TREE INSTALLATION At Developer’s expense and in conformance with City standards, Developer shall plant street trees as shown on the Improvement Plans, at such time as deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. The variety, number and location of trees are subject to City’s prior approval. 8. MAINTENANCE AND WARRANTY 8.1 Warranty Period. With respect to those portions of the Improvements located within the City of Cupertino, Developer guarantees and warrants such Improvements and agrees to remedy any defects, damages, or imperfections in the Improvements arising from faulty or defective materials or construction of the Improvements for a period of one (1) year after City’s final acceptance of such Improvements. With respect to those portions of the Improvements located outside the City, the warranty period shall be determined by the applicable responsible agency, but in the absence of any such requirement, Developer shall guarantee and warrant such Improvements for the same 1-year period provided for above with respect to Improvements located within the City of Cupertino. 8.2 Warranty repairs and replacements. If, within the Warranty Period (defined in Section 4.3 (b)), the Improvements or any part of the Improvements fail to fulfill any of the requirements of this Agreement or the Improvement Plans or public health and safety necessitates a modification of or departure from the constructed Improvements, Developer shall repair, replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory parts of the Improvements without delay and at no cost to City or such other applicable responsible agency. Developer’s obligation under this Section shall include the repair, replacement, or reconstruction of all irrigation systems and all trees, shrubs, ground cover and landscaping for the required one-year period. If (a) Developer fails to commence repairs within thirty (30) days of the date of delivery of written notice from City, or (b) City determines that public safety requires repair before Developer can be notified, City, at its sole option, may perform the required repair itself. Developer agrees to pay the cost of any repairs City performs pursuant to this Agreement. In addition to any other rights and remedies City may have, the City may, at its option, draw upon the Warranty Security described in Section 4.3(b), and/or recover City’s cost as a lien against the Property. 253 Page 9 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 9. SANITARY DISTRICT; GOVERNMENT COSTS Developer shall file with City, upon execution of this Agreement, a letter from the Cupertino Sanitary District stating that Developer has submitted plans for review by the District and that sanitary sewers are available to serve all lots within said Project. Developer shall file with the City upon execution of this Agreement, substantial evidence that Developer and CHI have complied with all provisions of Section 66493 of the California Government Code pertaining to any liens on the Property for taxes or special assessments. 10. UTILITIES Developer shall pay to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, AT&T, and/or appropriate utility companies, any and all fees required for installation of overhead and/or underground wiring circuits to all electroliers within said property and any and all fees required for undergrounding as provided in Ordinance No. 331 of City when Developer is notified by either the City Engineer, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, AT&T, or appropriate utility companies that said fees are due and payable. 11. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION 11.1 Indemnity. Neither City nor any of its elected officials, officers, employees, agents or contractors shall be liable for any injury to persons or property occasioned by reason of the acts, omissions, negligence or willful misconduct of Developer, its agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement. Developer further agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, and its elected officials, officers, agents, employees and contractors from and against any and all present and future liabilities, obligations, orders, claims, demands, causes of action, damages, fines, penalties or loss of any sort, including but not limited to attorney fees and litigation expenses, to the extent arising out of or in connection with, or alleged to arise out of or in connection with, acts or omissions of Developer, its agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement, including all present and future liabilities, obligations, orders, claims, demands, causes of action, damages, fines, penalties or loss to the extent arising out of or in connection with, or alleged to arise out of or in connection with, the design and construction of the Improvements or with Developer’s actual or alleged failure to comply, and require its contractors and subcontractors to comply, with all applicable laws, rules and regulations with respect to the work of Improvements, including applicable Labor Code requirements. This indemnification and agreement to defend and hold harmless shall extend to injuries to persons and damages or taking of property resulting from the design or construction of the Improvements, and in addition, shall extend to injuries to adjacent property owners as a consequence of the diversion of waters resulting from the design or construction of drainage systems, streets and other public Improvements. 11.2 No Assumption of Liability. Acceptance by City of the Improvements shall not constitute an assumption by City of any responsibility for any damage or liability for which Developer has agreed to indemnify City pursuant to this Section 11. City shall not be responsible for the design or construction of the Improvements or any part thereof, regardless of any negligent action or inaction taken by City in approving the Improvement Plans or Map, unless the particular Improvement design was specifically required by City over written objection by Developer, indicating that the particular Improvement design was dangerous or defective and Developer suggested an alternative safe and feasible design, submitted to the City Engineer before approval of the particular Improvement design. 254 Page 10 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 11.3 Developer’s Continuing Obligation. After City’s acceptance of the Improvements, Developer shall remain obligated to correct or eliminate any defect in design or dangerous condition created by defects in design or construction, provided however, that Developer shall not be responsible for routine maintenance of the Improvements after the final acceptance thereof by City or other responsible agency. This Section shall remain in full force and effect for ten (10) years following City’s acceptance of the Improvements. Subject to Section 11.2, Developer acknowledges and agrees that Developer shall be responsible and liable for the design and construction of the Improvements and other work done pursuant to this Agreement and that City shall not be liable for any acts or omissions in approving, reviewing, checking, correcting, or modifying any Improvement Plans or related specifications or in approving, reviewing or inspecting any work or construction. The Improvements security shall not be required to cover the provisions of this Section beyond the Warranty Period specified in this Agreement. City may require Developer to provide proof of insurance consistent with the requirements set forth in Section 12 (or self-insurance, if Developer is Apple Inc.) if repairs to, or replacement of, any Improvements becomes necessary as a result of a defect in design or dangerous condition created by defects in design or construction during the 10-year period specified in this Section. 12. INSURANCE Commencing on the Effective Date and continuing through the expiration of the Warranty Period for all Improvements (or such longer period as necessary to ensure that all deficiencies have been corrected and all claims related to any Improvement have been settled or satisfied), Developer shall maintain in full force and effect a policy or policies of insurance naming City and the members of the City Council of the City of Cupertino individually and collectively, and the officers, agents and employees of City individually and collectively, as additional insureds (all of the foregoing, collectively, the “Indemnitees”). Such policy or policies shall provide bodily injury, property damage, and contractual liability coverage to the City and all other Indemnitees covering all of the work to be performed by, for, or on behalf of, Developer pursuant to this Agreement. All policies of insurance must be on an occurrence basis, and said policy or policies shall provide that the coverage afforded thereby shall be primary coverage to the full limit of liability stated in the declarations, and if City or any other Indemnitee have other insurance, self-insurance or joint self-insurance against the loss covered by said policy or policies, that such other insurance, self-insurance or joint self-insurance shall not be called upon to cover a loss covered under the insurance carried by Developer. Each insurance carrier shall be authorized to do business in the State of California and have a Best’s Insurance Rating of A, Class VII or better. Each of said policies of insurance shall provide coverage in the following minimum amounts: for general liability for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage $2,000,000 each occurrence, with an aggregate limit of not less than $4,000,000. Developer shall file with the City Engineer at or prior to the time of execution of this Agreement by Developer a certificate of insurance coverage reasonably satisfactory to City. In the event of cancellation of coverage, Developer shall promptly replace the required coverage so that no lapse in insurance occurs and provide a certificate of insurance of the new coverage to the City Engineer. In the event that the Improvements are situated in or affect the area of jurisdiction of a separate municipality or political subdivision of the State of California, the required insurance shall also name the other jurisdiction(s) as additional insured, if requested by the other jurisdiction(s). 255 Page 11 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 Notwithstanding the above, so long as Developer is Apple Inc., Developer may self-insure the above insurance obligations. 13. MAPS AND/OR IMPROVEMENT PLANS Developer shall provide City with the following maps and/or plans at Developer’s expense: A. A mylar blackline and three (3) prints of the fully executed Map. B. A mylar blackline and three (3) prints of fully executed Improvement Plans. C. A scan in raster format of all executed Improvement Plans and the Map. D. One (1) ½ size prints of fully executed Improvement Plans and Map. 14. ASSIGNMENT Developer shall not assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, provided that the assignee assumes all obligations of Developer under this Agreement, including without limitation security requirements, pursuant to an instrument in form reasonably acceptable to City and all other provisions of this Section are satisfied. Consent shall not be required if assignment is to an Affiliate (defined below) of Apple Inc., however, any assignment by Apple, Inc. to an Affiliate shall be made pursuant to a written assignment and assumption in form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney. As used herein “Affiliate” means an entity that controls, is controlled by or under common control with Apple Inc. Any attempted or purported assignment in violation of this Section shall be null and void and have no force or effect. The sale or other disposition of the Project or the Property or any part thereof shall not relieve Developer of its obligations under this Agreement, unless City has consented to the assignment of this Agreement pursuant to this Section. If Developer or CHI intends to sell the Project or the Property or any portion of the Project or the Property to any other person or entity, Developer may request a novation of this Agreement and substitution of Improvement security. Any such novation or Improvement security substitution shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney in his or her discretion. 15. RECORDATION OF AGREEMENT Within ten (10) days after the full execution of this Agreement, City shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County and shall deliver a conformed copy indicating recording information to Developer; provided, however, that in no event shall City record this Agreement prior to approval of the Map by the City Council. By recordation of this Agreement, it is the parties’ intent to provide notice to future purchasers that the obligations and conditions set forth herein shall run with the land. 16. COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon the heirs, administrators, successors, assigns and transferees of the parties. Upon any sale or division of the Property by CHI or the Developer, the terms, covenants, conditions and restrictions of this Agreement shall apply to each parcel, and the 256 Page 12 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 owner or owners of each parcel shall succeed to the obligations imposed upon Developer by this Agreement. 17. DEFAULT, BREACH, AND REMEDIES TO CITY 17.1 Default. Default of Developer shall include, but not be limited to: (a) Developer’s failure to complete construction of the Improvements within the time specified in Section 1.5; (b) Developer’s failure to timely cure any defect in the Improvements; (c) Developer’s failure to perform substantial construction work on any discrete component of the Improvements for a period of 20 consecutive calendar days after commencing work on such discrete component and receiving notice from City that interruption in the performance of such work is resulting in adverse impacts on the health, safety or welfare of the City or the surrounding communities or its or their residents; (d) Developer’s insolvency, the appointment of a receiver for Developer’s assets, the filing of any voluntary or involuntary petition in bankruptcy by or against Developer that is not discharged within 30 days; (e) The commencement of a foreclosure action against the Property or any part thereof, or any conveyance thereof in lieu of or in avoidance of foreclosure; or (f) Developer’s failure to perform any other obligation under this Agreement, including without limitation the obligation to comply, and require its contractors and subcontractors to comply, with all applicable laws, rules and regulations with respect to the work of Improvements, including applicable Labor Code requirements, as set forth in Section 1.2 above. 17.2 Remedies Cumulative. Subject to the terms of this Section 17.2, City reserves all remedies available at law or in equity for breach of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement, and all such remedies shall be cumulative and not alternative. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to the right to compel specific performance of this Agreement and to seek recovery of damages, City shall have the right, to draw upon or use the appropriate security to mitigate City’s damages in the event of default by Developer. City’s right to draw upon or use the security is in addition to any other remedy available to City. City agrees to draw upon or attempt to draw upon such security prior to initiating legal or equitable action to recover damages or obtain specific performance. The parties acknowledge that the estimated costs and security amounts may not reflect the actual cost of construction of the Improvements and, therefore, City’s damages for Developer’s default shall be measured by the cost of completing the required Improvements. City may use the sums provided by the security for completion of the Improvements in accordance with the Improvement Plans. 17.3 City Performance at Developer’s Expense. In the event that Developer fails to cure any default, or fails commence and diligently pursue efforts to cure any default, under this Agreement 257 Page 13 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 within thirty (30) days after City delivers written notice of such default to Developer and Developer’s surety, Developer authorizes City to perform the obligations for which Developer is in default and agrees to pay the entire cost of such performance by City. 17.4 Surety Liability and Use of Materials. In the event that City elects to perform the obligations for which Developer is in default, City may take over the work and complete the Improvements by contract or by any other method City deems appropriate, at the expense of Developer, and Developer’s surety shall be liable to City for any excess cost or damages to City resulting therefrom, or City may otherwise use the security set forth in Section 4. In such event, City, without liability for so doing, may take possession of and use any materials, appliance, plant and other property that are owned by Developer and are located at the work site and are necessary to complete the Improvements. 17.5 Developer Payment of City Costs. In the event that Developer fails to perform any obligation under this Agreement, Developer agrees to pay all costs and expenses incurred by City in securing performance of those obligations, including but not limited to fees and charges of architects, engineers, attorneys and other professionals, and costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees, provided City submits reasonable documentation of such fees and charges. 17.6 No Waiver. City’s failure to take enforcement action with respect to a default, or to declare a breach, shall not be construed as a waiver of that default or breach or any subsequent default or breach by Developer. 18. DEVELOPER NOT AGENT OF CITY Neither Developer nor any of Developer’s employees, agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be agents of City or of any other responsible agency in connection with the performance of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement. 19. DEVELOPER TO WARN PUBLIC Until final acceptance of the Improvements, Developer shall give good and adequate warning to the public of any condition that has the potential to be hazardous, and shall take reasonable actions to protect the public from such condition. 20. NOTICES Except as otherwise specified herein, all notices, demands, requests or approvals to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be made in writing, and sent to the Parties at their respective addresses specified below or to such other address as a Party may designate by written notice delivered to the other parties in accordance with this Section. All such notices shall be sent by: (a) personal delivery, in which case notice is effective upon delivery; (b) certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon receipt if delivery is confirmed by a return receipt; (c) nationally recognized overnight courier, with charges prepaid or charged to the sender’s account, in which case notice is effective on delivery if delivery is confirmed by the delivery service; or (d) postage prepaid registered or certified mail, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered on the second business day after the deposit thereof with the U.S. Postal Service. 258 Page 14 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 City: City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino CA 95014 Attention: Public Works Director With copy to: City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino CA 95014 Attention: City Attorney Developer: Apple Inc. 1 Infinite Loop, M/S 21-1AC2 Cupertino, California 95014 Attention: Apple Campus 2 Project Manager 21. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement by Developer and City. 22. ENFORCED DELAY; EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PERFORMANCE Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where delays in performance or failures to perform (other than obligations to make monetary payments which shall not be subject to this Section 22) are due to, and a necessary outcome of, war, insurrection, strikes or other labor disturbances, walk-outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, restrictions imposed or mandated by other governmental entities (including new or supplemental environmental regulations), enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, judicial decisions, inability to obtain materials, power or public facilities, or similar basis for excused performance which is not within the reaso nable control of the party to be excused. A party’s financial inability to perform shall not be a ground for claiming an excusable delay. The party claiming an excusable delay shall notify the other party of its intent to claim an excusable delay, the specific grounds of the same and the anticipated period of the excusable delay within thirty (30) days after the occurrence of the conditions that 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 the excusable delay shall last no longer than the conditions preventing performance. Upon the request of either party hereto, an extension of time for the performance of any obligation whose performance has been so prevented or delayed will be memorialized in writing. The term of any such extension shall be equal to the period of the excusable delay, or longer, as may be mutually agreed upon. Notwithstanding the foregoing, difficulty in obtaining financing for the Project or the Improvements whether due to changes in the market, economic downturns, or otherwise shall not excuse Developer’s delay or failure to perform any obligation of Developer under this Agreement. 23. NONDISCRIMINATION Developer, its agents, employees, contractors and subcontractors shall not discriminate in any way against any person on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, sexual orientation, actual or perceived 259 Page 15 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 gender identity, disability, ethnicity, or national origin in connection with or related to the performance of this Agreement. 24. GOVERNING LAW AND ATTORNEY FEES This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules that may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities). Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed and heard in courts with jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. If City sues to compel Developer’s performance of this Agreement, or to recover damages or costs incurred in completing or maintaining the work on the Improvements, the party prevailing in such litigation shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs and expenses of litigation from the other party, provided the party recovering attorneys’ fees and other costs provides reasonable documentation of such costs. 25. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 26. INTEGRATED AGREEMENT; AMENDMENTS IN WRITING This Agreement, including Exhibits A through D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, together with the Development Agreement, represents the full and complete understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and all preliminary negotiations and oral or written agreements with respect thereto are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by a written instrument signed by both City and Developer. 27. HEADINGS; CONSTRUCTION; STATUTORY REFERENCES The headings of the sections and paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be used to interpret this Agreement. This Agreement is the product of negotiation between the parties. The language of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against any party. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in interpreting this Agreement. All references in this Agreement to particular statutes, regulations, ordinances or resolutions of the United States, the State of California, or the City of Cupertino shall be deemed to include the same statute, regulation, ordinance or resolution as hereafter amended or renumbered, or if repealed, to such other provisions as may thereafter govern the same subject. 260 Page 16 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 28. COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Exhibits: Exhibit A - Schedule of Required Performance Security Exhibit B - Schedule of Required Labor and Materials Security Exhibit C - Schedule of Fees and Deposits Exhibit D - Improvement Plans [Signatures on next page] 261 Page 17 of 17 OAK #4841-4983-3240 v12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and City have caused this Street Improvement Agreement to be executed by their respective, duly authorized officers as of the date first written above. Approved as to form: By:__________________________ Carol Korade, City Attorney CITY: City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation By:________________________________ Timm Borden, P.E. Director of Public Works [Notary acknowledgement required] DEVELOPER: Apple Inc., a California corporation By:_______________________________ [Notary acknowledgement required] Print Name:________________________ Title:______________________________ By the signature of its duly authorized representative below, Campus Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby acknowledges and consents to the foregoing Street Improvement Agreement. Campus Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation By:_________________________________ Print Name:__________________________ Title:________________________________ 262 Exhibit A - Schedule of Required Performance Security Drawing Package Description Jurisdictional Agencies where Improvements are Located Civil Engineer of Record Security Amount SW-S1A Wolfe Road Widening City of Cupertino Arup $ 1,439,530 SW-S3 Package #3 Streetscape Improvements City of Cupertino Luk and Associates $ 12,217,863 Apple Mitigation A East Homestead Road at N. De Anza Blvd City of Cupertino Sandis $ 507,363 Apple Mitigation E, F, G, H I-280 Interchange at Wolfe Rd. and Wolfe Rd. overpass ADA upgrades Caltrans in care of City of Cupertino Sandis $ 3,670,000 Apple Mitigation K VTA Bus stop at Wolfe Road near Stevens Creek Blvd City of Cupertino Sandis $ 118,080 Apple Mitigation L, M, J, S, T South Wolfe, South Tantau, Vallco, & Stevens Creek Blvd Improvements City of Cupertino Sandis $ 1,579,663 Apple Mitigation N-Q Calvert Drive Road Widening/Stevens Creek Blvd City of San Jose Santa Clara County City of Santa Clara Santa Clara Valley Water District Sandis $ 2,153,764 Apple Mitigation P Northbound I-280 and Lawrence Expressway Offramp at Stevens Creek Blvd City of San Jose Santa Clara County City of Santa Clara Sandis $ 709,531 Apple Mitigation R Southbound I-280 and Lawrence Expressway Onramp at Stevens Creek Blvd and frontage improvements City of San Jose County of Santa Clara Sandis $ 1,980,000 Apple Mitigation U Stevens Creek at N. De Anza Blvd City of Cupertino Sandis $ 88,421 Apple Mitigation V Tantau Bridge Improvements over I-280 Caltrans in care of City of Cupertino Sandis $ 480,000 263 Drawing Package Description Jurisdictional Agencies where Improvements are Located Civil Engineer of Record Security Amount SW-S1A Wolfe Road Widening City of Cupertino Arup $ 1,439,530 SW-S3 Package #3 Streetscape Improvements City of Cupertino Luk and Associates $ 12,217,863 Apple Mitigation A East Homestead Road at N. De Anza Blvd City of Cupertino Sandis $ 507,363 Apple Mitigation E, F, G, H I-280 Interchange at Wolfe Rd. and Wolfe Rd. overpass ADA upgrades Caltrans in care of City of Cupertino Sandis $ 3,670,000 Apple Mitigation K VTA Bus stop at Wolfe Road near Stevens Creek Blvd City of Cupertino Sandis $ 118,080 Apple Mitigation L, M, J, S, T South Wolfe, South Tantau, Vallco, & Stevens Creek Blvd Improvements City of Cupertino Sandis $ 1,579,663 Apple Mitigation N-Q Calvert Drive Road Widening/Stevens Creek Blvd City of San Jose Santa Clara County City of Santa Clara Santa Clara Valley Water District Sandis $ 2,153,764 Apple Mitigation P Northbound I-280 and Lawrence Expressway Offramp at Stevens Creek Blvd City of San Jose Santa Clara County City of Santa Clara Sandis $ 709,531 Apple Mitigation R Southbound I-280 and Lawrence Expressway Onramp at Stevens Creek Blvd and frontage improvements City of San Jose County of Santa Clara Sandis $ 1,980,000 Apple Mitigation U Stevens Creek at N. De Anza Blvd City of Cupertino Sandis $ 88,421 Apple Mitigation V Tantau Bridge Improvements over I-280 Caltrans in care of City of Cupertino Sandis $ 480,000 Exhibit B - Schedule of Required Labor and Material Security 264 Exhibit C - Fees Deposits Fee and Description Mitigation Measure/Development Agreement Reference Fee Amount Storm Drain Fee Development Agreement Section 3.11, COA 66 $ 1,176,942 Implement a Traffic-Adaptive Traffic Signal System along De Anza Blvd between Homestead Road and Rainbow Drive TRANS -13c $ 50,000 Contribute towards Planned Transportation Projects to Improve Traffic Operations TRANS - 22 $ 1,292,215 I-280 Trail Contribution PLAN-3 $ 250,000 Wolfe Road Transportation Study Development Agreement Section 3.14 $ 1,000,000 Parkland Contribution*Development Agreement Section 3.7, MM PLAN-1 $ 8,270,994 Create Left-Turn Lane at Saratoga Ave/Lawrence Expressway** Development Permit COA 99; TM Permit COA 49 $ 1,000,000 Funding of Potential Neighborhood Cut- Through Traffic and Parking Intrusion Monitoring and Mitigation Program Development Permit COA 96; TM Permit COA 47 $ 850,000 * Under the Development Agreement, Apple could elect to purchase, designate, and dedicate to the City an alternative Park Parcel, in which case the City would refund a portion of this fee to Apple. ** These funds will be deposited to the account of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department 265 Exhibit D -Street Improvements Agreement Plans (Reference drawings on file at City of Cupertino) Enabling Site Works – Package #1A (Dated: 10/31/13)- Arup & Olin Streetscape and Roadway Improvements- Package #3 (Dated: 03/07/14)-Luk & Associates/ Kimley Horn & Associates Map-­‐  Apple Transportation Mitigation- Sandis   LSA- Campus Locations and Study Locations -Figure V.1-1 (Dated: 03/04/13)- Sandis Apple Mitigation A- East Homestead Road at N. De Anza Boulevard (Dated: 02/28/14-Sandis Mitigation E,F,G,H,R,N,Q,P (Dated: 02/25/14)- Sandis Mitigation K- Wolfe Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard (Dated: 02/10/14)- Sandis Mitigation Intersection L-M- Tantau Avenue Cupertino, Ca (Dated: 01/31/14) Mitigation N-Q And Calvert Drove Road Widening Stevens Creek Blvd. (Dated: 01/03/14- Sandis I-280 Lawrence Expressway Off Ramp at Stevens Creek Boulevard (Dated: 01/03/14)- Sandis Mitigation R (Dated: 02/25/14)- Sandis Mitigation U- Stevens Creek Boulevard at N. De Anza Boulevard (Dated: 02/24/14)- Sandis Mitigation V (Dated: 02/24/14)- Sandis 266 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: April 1, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014-15 allocations for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program, Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) and CDBG Annual Action Plan (Action Plan). Subject Conduct the first of two Public Hearings; and Recommended Action 1. Continue final approval of fiscal year 2014-15 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program, Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) funding allocations and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Annual Action Plan to April 15, 2014 to complete the 30-day public review period as required by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This is the first of two required public hearings regarding the use of fiscal year 2014-15 CDBG funds and the CDBG Annual Action Plan as required by HUD. Description A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on December 18, 2013 inviting applicants to apply for grant funding for the upcoming fiscal year 2014-15. The RFP deadline ended on January 24, 2014. Immediately following the RFP deadline period the Housing Commission began their initial rating and ranking of grant applications at their regular meeting held on February 13, 2014. At the February 13, 2014 Housing Commission meeting each applicant was provided an opportunity to present their application to the Housing Commission. In addition a special Housing Commission meeting was held on February 24, 2014 in order for the Housing Commission to finalize their grant application funding recommendations to the City Council. Discussion During the Housing Commission rating and ranking meetings in February 2014 the City of Cupertino was estimating a fiscal year 2014-15 CDBG entitlement grant amount of $330,000. Attachment C provides a fiscal year 2014-15 grant application summary including the Housing Commission’s CDBG, HSG and BMR AHF funding 267 Page 2 of 6 2014-15 Allocations for CDBG, HSG, BMR AHF and CDBG Annual Action Plan April 1, 2014 recommendations to City Council and is based on the estimated CDBG entitled grant amount of $330,000. On March 19, 2014 the City of Cupertino was notified that the estimated fiscal year 2014-15 entitlement amount will be $310,943. Due to the difference in CDBG funding, Attachment B provides the adjusted fiscal year 2014-15 grant funding recommendations based on the final CDBG entitlement amount of $310,943. The agencies on the recommended funding list have been informed of the revised grant amount. In February 2008, the City Council voted to move to a two-year funding cycle for public services to reduce the amount of time non-profit agencies spend preparing applications for funding. However annual public hearings are still required by HUD to review the CDBG Action Plan and finalize CDBG allocations. Fiscal Year 2014-15 will be year one of a two-year funding cycle for awarded CDBG public service grant applications, HSG grant applications and BMR AHF grant applications. Agencies who are awarded in fiscal year 2014-15 and who remain in good standing will receive a one year contract amendment for fiscal year 2015-16. CDBG capital housing project applications will remain on a one year funding cycle. The City of Cupertino is obligated per HUD to have two CDBG public hearings each year to review funding and review the Action Plan. Fiscal year 2014-15 will be the City of Cupertino’s twelfth year as an entitlement jurisdiction receiving a CDBG grant directly from HUD. HUD regulations require that eligible housing activities selected for funding must benefit very low and low-income households or eliminate a blighted area or address an urgent (emergency) community need and must also meet a national objective. In addition, only certain types of eligible activities qualify under the CDBG regulations. Examples of eligible activities are: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program • Public improvements • Public service activities • Affordable housing developments • Property acquisition for affordable housing • Rehabilitation of affordable units As a result, of the changes to the CDBG entitlement funding for fiscal year 2014-15, the City of Cupertino estimates it will have a total of up to $820,943 in CDBG funds eligible to allocate. The estimated total of $820,943 in CDBG funds for fiscal year 2014-15 includes the 2014-15 entitlement amount of $310,943, $10,000 program income (PI) generated from loan repayments, and $500,000 of available uncommitted funds from the prior fiscal year 2013-14. The funding sub-categories in the CDBG funds include: Administrative Funds CDBG administrative funds cannot exceed 20% of the estimated 2014-15 entitlement amount ($310,943) and PI ($10,000). Therefore, an estimated total of $64,188 is proposed 268 Page 3 of 6 2014-15 Allocations for CDBG, HSG, BMR AHF and CDBG Annual Action Plan April 1, 2014 to be allocated for administrate costs to cover salary and benefits for staff, who assist with the operation of the CDBG program. Public Service Funds CDBG public service funds cannot exceed 15% of the 2014-15 entitlement amount ($310,943) and PI ($10,000). Therefore, an estimated amount of $48,141 is proposed to be allocated toward eligible public service activities. Eligible public service activities must benefit low-income households. Examples of eligible public service activities can include childcare, emergency services, fair housing services and senior legal services. CDBG Capital Housing Projects The remainder of the 2014-15 CDBG entitlement grant funds (65%) or $208,612 is available to be allocated toward eligible CDBG capital housing projects. Also for fiscal year 2014-15, an estimated $500,000 of uncommitted funds from the prior fiscal year 2013-14 is available to be allocated for eligible CDBG capital housing projects, thereby increasing the total amount available to be allocated for eligible CDBG capital housing projects to $708,612. Based on fiscal year 2014-15 Housing Commission CDBG capital housing project funding recommendations, $557,000 out of $708,612 available is recommending for funding. During the course of fiscal year 2014-15 staff will continue to seek opportunities to expend the remaining $151,612 of available CDBG capital housing project funds. Eligible CDBG project activities can include purchase of land for affordable housing, rehabilitation of qualifying units, construction of affordable units and public improvements in low-income neighborhoods. For a number of years the City Council has appropriated approximately $40,000 from the General Fund to fund human service agencies. Formal agreements and monitoring are required for this program, but the requirements are less stringent than for federal funding. The Housing Commission reviews HSG applications at the same time as the CDBG applications and makes funding recommendations to the City Council. If the Council reduces or increases HSG funding for fiscal year 2014-15, HSG grant applicant amounts will be reduced or increased proportionately. General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) The Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) receives its revenue from the payment of housing mitigation fees from office, commercial, industrial and residential development. The Housing Commission reviews BMR AHF applications at the same time as the CDBG applications and makes funding recommendations to the City Council. Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) Charities Housing – 19935 Price Avenue This year a new grantee, Charities Housing, has requested funding in the amount of $125,817.50 to fund acquisition and operations of 19935 Price Avenue for a period of 15 269 Page 4 of 6 2014-15 Allocations for CDBG, HSG, BMR AHF and CDBG Annual Action Plan April 1, 2014 years. The City originally provided both CDBG and Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) grants and loans for a total of approx. $1,662,210.70 for acquisition and rehab to Senior Housing Solutions (SHS) for the property on Price Avenue. The Price Avenue property is a 5-bedroom residential dwelling unit providing very low-income rental units to five seniors. Charities Housing, another local non-profit housing organization, is proposing to acquire SHS, which would include acquiring their properties and outstanding loans/debts. Charities Housing is requesting a total financial subsidy from the City of Cupertino in the amount of $251,635 which equates over the next two year funding cycle (fiscal year 2014-15 and fiscal year 2015-16) to $125,817.50 per year. Charities Housing is flexible in receiving $125,817.50 per year over the next two fiscal years. Attachment D provides a detailed description of the property and the funding request. If Charities Housing is awarded they will acquire the 19935 Price Avenue home from SHS and assume all of the existing grant and loan obligations. Charities Housing would also perform all property management functions going forward. The 19935 Price Avenue home provides much needed rental senior housing to extremely low-income households in Cupertino. The City’s 2007-2014 Housing Element and CDBG Consolidated Plan identify extremely low-income and senior housing as a high priority. If the City of Cupertino decides not to subsidize Charities Housing there is a possibility that the property could be resold and there may not be enough equity in the property to pay off all existing obligations. The City will also have to review and implement other methods of achieving goals to house extremely low-income households. The Housing Commission recommended funding this request. Below is a summary of adjusted fiscal year 2014-15 CDBG, HSG and BMR AHF funding recommendations based off an estimated CDBG entitlement amount of $310,943. Details including full grant descriptions are included in Attachment F. No. Adjusted Fiscal Year 2014/15 Grant Application Summary (Based off FY 2014/15 Est. $310,943 CDBG Entitlement Amount) Adjusted FY 2014/15 Housing Commission Funding Recommendations 1 CDBG Public Service Applications: (Two-Year Funding Cycle) a Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity - Fair Housing Services $ 9,148.00 b Live Oak Adult Day Services – Senior Adult Day Care $ 14,923.00 c West Valley Community Services - Community Access to Resource and Education (CARE) $ 24,070.00 d Faith In Action Silicon Valley Rotating Shelter - Rotating Shelter Program $ - Sub-Total $ 48,141.00 270 Page 5 of 6 2014-15 Allocations for CDBG, HSG, BMR AHF and CDBG Annual Action Plan April 1, 2014 No. Adjusted Fiscal Year 2014/15 Grant Application Summary (Based off FY 2014/15 Est. $310,943 CDBG Entitlement Amount) Adjusted FY 2014/15 Housing Commission Funding Recommendations 2 CDBG Capital/Housing Project Applications: (One-Year Funding Cycle) a Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley - Housing Repair and Rehabilitation Program $ 57,000.00 b Habitat for Humanity - Home Repair Program $ - c Cupertino Community Housing For The Disabled, Inc. - Le Beaulieu Rehabilitation $ 500,000.00 Sub-Total $ 557,000.00 3 CDBG Program Administration: (One-Year Funding Cycle) a Administration $ 64,188.00 Sub-Total $ 64,188.00 4 General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Applications: (Two-Year Funding Cycle) a Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County - Long-Term Care Ombudsman $ 6,500.00 b Maitri - MTH Direct Client Services $ 12,000.00 c Senior Adults Legal Assistance - Legal Assistance to Elders $ 9,800.00 d Faith In Action Rotating Shelter - Job Development Program $ 7,700.00 e United Way of Silicon Valley - 211 Santa Clara County $ 4,000.00 Sub-Total $ 40,000.00 5 Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) Applications (Two-Year Funding Cycle): a West Valley Community Services - Affordable Placement Program $ 109,000.00 b Project Sentinel - Landlord/Tenant Rental Mediation $ 30,000.00 c Charities Housing - 19935 Price Avenue Acquisition and Rental Subsidy $ 125,817.50 Sub-Total $ 264,817.50 TOTAL $ 974,146.50 Next Steps As mentioned earlier, this is the first of two required public hearings regarding the use of fiscal year 2014-15 CDBG funds and the CDBG Annual Action Plan as required by HUD. The second Council hearing for the final approval of fiscal year 2014 – 2015 271 Page 6 of 6 2014-15 Allocations for CDBG, HSG, BMR AHF and CDBG Annual Action Plan April 1, 2014 CDBG, HSG and BMR AHF funding allocations and Action Plan to complete the 30-day CDBG Action Plan review period is scheduled on April 15, 2014. Prepared by: Christopher “C.J.” Valenzuela, Senior Housing Planner Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: Attachments: David Brandt, City Manager A. Draft Resolution B. Adjusted Fiscal Year 2014-15 Grant Application Funding Summary C. Fiscal Year 2014-15 Grant Application Funding Summary D. Fiscal Year 2014 -15 Draft CDBG Annual Action Plan E. Description of Charities Housing Funding Request – 19935 Price Avenue F. Fiscal Year 2014-15 Housing Commission Funding Recommendation Grant Descriptions 272 394\09\1488508.2 3/17/2014 RESOLUTION NO. 14‐    A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING  THE 2014‐15 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM, GENERAL FUND HUMAN SERVICE GRANTS  (HSG) PROGRAM, BELOW MARKET‐RATE (BMR) AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND  (AHF) AND CDBG 2014 – 2015 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN       WHEREAS, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 provides that funds  be made available for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; and     WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino wishes to apply for funds as an Entitlement  Jurisdiction under said Act; and     WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino estimates receiving a $310,943 CDBG entitlement grant  to be allocated for fiscal year 2014‐15; and    WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino estimates allocating $10,000 in CDBG program income  for fiscal year 2014‐15; and    WHEREAS, The City of Cupertino estimates allocating up to $500,000 of available  uncommitted CDBG funds from the prior fiscal year 2013‐14 for fiscal year 2014‐15; and    WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is required to submit a CDBG Annual Action Plan for  fiscal year 2014‐15 prior to being allowed to expend funds.     NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino makes the certifications  required by 24 CFR Sections 91.225 and  570.303 as contained in the CDBG Annual Action Plan  for fiscal year 2014‐15; and     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino hereby approves the CDBG  Annual Action Plan for fiscal year 2014‐15; and      BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino hereby approves the fiscal year  2014‐15 funding recommendations as detailed in Attachment B to the City Council staff report  dated April, 15, 2014 entitled “2014‐15 Allocations for CDBG, HSG, BMR AHF and CDBG  Annual Action Plan”; and     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CDBG, HSG and BMR AHF grant allocations will  be decreased/increased based on final budget allocations; and     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to submit the  2014‐15 CDBG Annual Action Plan approved by the City Council to HUD; and  273 394\09\1488508.2 3/17/2014   BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby  authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreements for 2014 ‐15 CDBG, HSG and BMR AHF  funds.     PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of  Cupertino this 15th day of April, 2014 by the following vote:      Vote  Members of the City Council    AYES:     NOES:    ABSENT:   ABSTAIN:     ATTEST:       APPROVED:                     Grace Schmidt       Gilbert Wong  City Clerk       Mayor, City of Cupertino  274 No.Adjusted Fiscal Year 2014/15 Grant Application Summary(Based on Est. $310,943 FY 2014/15 CDBG Entitlment Amount) Est. FY 2014/15  Funds Available   FY 2014/15  Funding Requests  FY 2014/15 Adjusted Housing Commission  Funding Recommendations  FY 2014/15 Est. Balance of Available Funds After Funding Recommendations   FY 2013/14 Funding Allocations 1CDBG Public Service Applications:(Two‐Year Funding Cycle)aEden Council for Hope and Opportunity ‐ Fair Housing Services $                       9,590.00  $                           9,148.00  $                8,560.00 bLive Oak Adult Day Services – Senior Adult Day Care $                     15,843.00  $                         14,923.00  $              15,098.00 cWest Valley Community Services ‐ Community Access to Resource and Education (CARE)50,000.00$                     24,070.00$                         34,000.00$               dFaith In Action Silicon Valley Rotating Shelter ‐ Rotating Shelter Program $                     30,000.00  $                                     ‐   $                           ‐   Sub‐Total $                48,141.00 $                   105,433.00  $                         48,141.00 $                                     ‐   $              57,658.00 2CDBG Capital/Housing Project Applications:(One‐Year Funding Cycle)aRebuilding Together Silicon Valley ‐ Housing Repair and Rehabilitation Program $                     57,000.00  $                         57,000.00  $              65,000.00 bHabitat for Humanity ‐ Home Repair Program$                   100,000.00  $                                     ‐   $                           ‐   cCupertino Community Housing For The Disabled, Inc. ‐ Le Beaulieu Rehabilitation  $                   600,000.00  $                       500,000.00 $                           ‐   Sub‐Total $              708,612.00 $                   757,000.00  $                       557,000.00 $                       151,612.00 $              65,000.00 3CDBG Program Administration: (One‐Year Funding Cycle)aAdministration$                     64,188.00  $                         64,188.00 $              71,486.00 Sub‐Total $                64,188.00 $                     64,188.00  $                         64,188.00 $                                     ‐   $              71,486.00 uoa$,$,$,$$,4General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Applications: (Two‐Year Funding Cycle)aCatholic Charities of Santa Clara County ‐ Long‐Term Care Ombudsman  $                       6,500.00  $                           6,500.00  $                5,000.00 bMaitri ‐ MTH Direct Client Services$                     12,000.00  $                         12,000.00 $              10,000.00 cSenior Adults Legal Assistance ‐ Legal Assitance to Elders$                       9,800.00  $                           9,800.00 $                9,800.00 dFaith In Action Rotating Shelter ‐ Job Development Program$                     10,000.00  $                           7,700.00 $                           ‐   eUnited Way of Silicon Valley ‐ 211 Santa Clara County$                       4,000.00  $                           4,000.00 $                           ‐   Sub‐Total $                40,000.00 $                     42,300.00 40,000.00$                         ‐$                                   24,800.00$              5Below Market‐Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) Applications (Two‐Year Funding Cycle):aWest Valley Community Services ‐ Affordable Placement Program $                   109,000.00  $                       109,000.00  $            100,000.00 bProject Sentinel ‐ Landlord/Tenant Rental Mediation$                     30,000.00  $                         30,000.00 $              30,000.00 c*Charities Housing ‐ 19935 Price Avenue Acquisition and Rental Subsidy $                   125,817.50  $                       125,817.50 $                           ‐   Sub‐Total $           5,700,000.00 $                   264,817.50  $                       264,817.50 $                    5,435,182.50 $            130,000.00 TOTAL$           6,560,941.00 $                1,233,738.50  $                       974,146.50 $                    5,586,794.50 $            348,944.00 Note:* Charities Housing would acquire property from Senior Housing Solutions (SHS) and provide rental subsidy to low‐income senior households residing at the 19935 Price Avenue peroperty annually for the next 15 years.  275 No.Fiscal Year 2014/15 Grant Application Summary(Based on Est. $330,000 FY 2014/15 CDBG Entitlement Amount) Est. FY 2014/15  Funds Available   FY 2014/15  Funding Requests  FY 2014/15 Housing Commission  Funding Recommendations  FY 2014/15 Est. Balance of Available Funds After Funding Recommendations   FY 2013/14 Funding Allocations 1CDBG Public Service Applications:(Two‐Year Funding Cycle)aEden Council for Hope and Opportunity ‐ Fair Housing Services $                       9,590.00  $                           9,590.00  $                8,560.00 b Live Oak Adult Day Services – Senior Adult Day Care $                     15,843.00  $                         15,843.00  $              15,098.00 cWest Valley Community Services ‐ Community Access to Resource and Education (CARE)50,000.00$                     25,567.00$                         34,000.00$               dFaith In Action Silicon Valley Rotating Shelter ‐ Rotating Shelter Program $                     30,000.00  $                                     ‐   $                           ‐   Sub‐Total $                51,000.00 $                   105,433.00  $                         51,000.00 $                                     ‐   $              57,658.00 2CDBG Capital/Housing Project Applications:(One‐Year Funding Cycle)aRebuilding Together Silicon Valley ‐ Housing Repair and Rehabilitation Program $                     57,000.00  $                         57,000.00  $              65,000.00 bHabitat for Humanity ‐ Home Repair Program$                   100,000.00  $                                     ‐   $                           ‐   cCupertino Community Housing For The Disabled, Inc. ‐ Le Beaulieu Rehabilitation  $                   600,000.00  $                       500,000.00 $                           ‐   Sub‐Total $              721,000.00 $                   757,000.00  $                       557,000.00 $                       164,000.00 $              65,000.00 3CDBG Program Administration: (One‐Year Funding Cycle)aAdministration$                     68,000.00  $                         68,000.00 $              71,486.00 Sub‐Total $                68,000.00 $                     68,000.00  $                         68,000.00 $                                     ‐   $              71,486.00 4General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Applications: (Two‐Year Funding Cycle)aCatholic Charities of Santa Clara County ‐ Long‐Term Care Ombudsman  $                       6,500.00  $                           6,500.00  $                5,000.00 bMaitri ‐ MTH Direct Client Services$                     12,000.00  $                         12,000.00 $              10,000.00 cSenior Adults Legal Assistance ‐ Legal Assitance to Elders$                       9,800.00  $                           9,800.00 $                9,800.00 dFaith In Action Rotating Shelter ‐ Job Development Program$                     10,000.00  $                           7,700.00 $                           ‐   eUnited Way of Silicon Valley ‐ 211 Santa Clara County$                       4,000.00  $                           4,000.00 $                           ‐   Sub‐Total $                40,000.00 $                     42,300.00 40,000.00$                         ‐$                                   24,800.00$              5Below Market‐Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) Applications (Two‐Year Funding Cycle):aWest Valley Community Services ‐ Affordable Placement Program $                   109,000.00  $                       109,000.00  $            100,000.00 bProject Sentinel ‐ Landlord/Tenant Rental Mediation$                     30,000.00  $                         30,000.00 $              30,000.00 c*Charities Housing ‐ 19935 Price Avenue Acquisition and Rental Subsidy $                   125,817.50  $                       125,817.50 $                           ‐   Sub‐Total $           5,700,000.00 $                   264,817.50  $                       264,817.50 $                    5,435,182.50 $            130,000.00 TOTAL$           6,580,000.00 $                1,237,550.50  $                       980,817.50 $                    5,599,182.50 $            348,944.00 Note:* Charities Housing would acquire property from Senior Housing Solutions (SHS) and provide rental subsidy to low‐income senior households residing at the 19935 Price Avenue peroperty annually for the next 15 years.  276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 Page 1 of 2 2014-15 Allocations for CDBG, HSG, BMR AHF and CDBG Annual Action Plan April 1, 2014 Description of Charities Housing Funding Request – 19935 Price Avenue Included in the fiscal year 2014-15 BMR AHF funding recommendations from the Housing Commission to the City Council is the affordable housing property located at 19935 Price Avenue. In 2009, Senior Housing Solutions, Inc. (SHS) a local non-profit housing organization acquired and managed an affordable housing property located at 19935 Price Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 with assistance from the City of Cupertino and Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (HTSCC). The City of Cupertino provided a combination of loans and grants for acquisition and rehabilitation from two funding sources which included the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). Between loans and grants the City of Cupertino provided a total of $1,662,210.70 to SHS toward the Price Avenue home. The HTSCC also provided an additional $100,000 loan to SHS. See table below which provides a summary of all loans and grants for 19935 Price Avenue. The Price Avenue home is a five-bedroom, three-bath, single family residential (SFR) dwelling unit currently being rented to extremely low-income seniors. The HTSCC has a provision in their loan agreement with SHS that the property must be rented to extremely low-income households. There are no project based or individual tenant based Section 8 Housing Vouchers associated with this property and therefore the property is currently running at a deficit. The Section 8 Housing Voucher program provides rental assistance to low-income households. In Santa Clara County, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara County administers the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program. A low-income household pays about a third of its income in rent to the landlord, and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara County pays the rest of the rent up to a certain limit directly to the landlord. In 2013, Charities Housing another local non-profit housing organization notified the City of Cupertino that SHS was experiencing financial hardship as an organization and 335 Page 2 of 2 2014-15 Allocations for CDBG, HSG, BMR AHF and CDBG Annual Action Plan April 1, 2014 Charities Housing is considering acquiring a total of eleven SHS properties in six different cities along with SHS financial obligations. Charities Housing is in the process of conducting a financial assessment of all SHS properties and financial obligations which includes the property in Cupertino located at 19935 Price Avenue. Upon Charities Housing conducting a physical needs assessment and financial assessment of 19935 Price Avenue property they have identified that the property is currently operating at a financial deficit and needs additional operating reserves, maintenance and repairs. Therefore, Charities Housing is requesting a total financial subsidy from the City of Cupertino in the amount of $251,635 which equates over the next two year funding cycle (fiscal year 2014-15 and fiscal year 2015-16) to $125,817.50 per year. Charities Housing is flexible in receiving $125,817.50 per year over the next two fiscal years. The $251,635 of total financial subsidy would include one-time upfront costs in the amount of $33,665 associated with the acquisition of the property from SHS and also include an additional $217,970 which would provide fifteen years of financial operating subsidy and reserves to ensure that the property remains in its current use. This item was also taken to the Housing Commission on both February 13, 2014 and February 24, 2014. The Housing Commission has recommended that the City Council fund Charities Housing in the amount of $251,635 or $125,817.50 per year over the next two year funding cycle. The current estimated balance of the BMR AHF is approximately $5,700,000. If Charities Housing is awarded they will acquire the 19935 Price Avenue home from SHS and assume all of the existing grant and loan obligations. Charities Housing would also perform all property management functions going forward. The 19935 Price Avenue home provides much needed rental senior housing to extremely low-income households in Cupertino. The City’s 2007-2014 Housing Element and CDBG Consolidated Plan identify extremely low-income and senior housing as a high priority. If the City of Cupertino decides not to subsidize Charities Housing there is a possibility that the property could be resold and there may not be enough equity in the property to pay off all existing obligations. The City will also have to review and implement other methods of achieving goals to house extremely low-income households. 336 Page 1 of 4 2014-15 Allocations for CDBG, HSG, BMR AHF and CDBG Annual Action Plan April 1, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014-15 Housing Commission Funding Recommendation Grant Descriptions Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Public Service Grants: Name of Organization: Eden Council for Hope and Opportunities (ECHO) Name of Program: Fair Housing Services 2014 -15 Annual Goal: Perform 15 unduplicated fair housing investigative cases and audits of suspected discrimination. Project Description: Provide fair housing assistance throughout the City of Cupertino, including conducting presentations, counseling housing providers and investigating allegations of discrimination. 2014-15 Funding Recommendation: $9,148 Name of Organization: Live Oak Adult Day Services Name of Program: Senior Adult Day Care 2014 -15 Annual Goal: Serve 11 unduplicated frail, dependent, low-income Cupertino seniors. Project Description: Provides services for seniors at-risk of being institutionalized. Provides specialized programs such as recreation, mental stimulation, companionship and nutritious meals to seniors. 2014-15 Funding Recommendation: $14,923 Name of Organization: West Valley Community Services (WVCS) Name of Program: Community Access to Resource and Education (CARE) 2014 -15 Annual Goal: Serve a total of 100 unduplicated households by providing case management and support services. Project Description: The CARE program incorporates both case management and wrap around services to help at-risk and vulnerable household’s mange crisis and provide stabilization to help them move towards self-sufficiency. The target population of the CARE program includes low-income seniors, families with children, at-risk youth and adults. The CARE program includes case management, access to food pantry and emergency financial assistance. 2014-15 Funding Recommendation: $24,070 337 Page 2 of 4 2014-15 Allocations for CDBG, HSG, BMR AHF and CDBG Annual Action Plan April 1, 2014 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Capital/Housing Projects: Name of Organization: Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley (RTSV) Name of Program: Housing Repair and Rehabilitation Program 2014 -15 Annual Goal: Repair homes to 6 unduplicated Cupertino households. Project Description: Provide home safety repairs, mobility and accessibility improvements with the primary consideration being the correction of safety hazards. 2014-15 Funding Recommendation: $57,000 Name of Organization: Cupertino Community Housing For The Disabled, Inc. Name of Program: Le Beaulieu Rehabilitation 2014 -15 Annual Goal: Rehabilitate 15 units within the Le Beaulieu property by addressing health and safety hazards, energy efficiency, security and property upgrades. Project Description: The proposed rehabilitation help would preserve the property for long-term use by addressing critical building needs, lowering operate expenses, and raising the quality of life for residents. The scope of work would include, but not be limited to; preventative maintenance including addressing groundwater seepage, coating outdoor decks with non-slip material, addressing front walkways and parking areas, addressing wear-and-tear in unit interiors by refacing cabinets and repairing flooring. 2014-15 Funding Recommendation: $500,000 General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG): Name of Organization: Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Name of Program: Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 2014 -15 Annual Goal: Provide advocacy by contacting 224 unduplicated Cupertino residents and investigate and resolve 16 complaints. Project Description: Provide advocacy for Cupertino residents in long-term care facilities to ensure they have a voice in their own care and treatment. The program will receive, investigate and resolve any complaints associated with the care of the long-term care facility residents. 2014-15 Funding Recommendation: $6,500 338 Page 3 of 4 2014-15 Allocations for CDBG, HSG, BMR AHF and CDBG Annual Action Plan April 1, 2014 Name of Organization: Maitri Name of Program: MTH – Direct Client Services 2014 -15 Annual Goal: Maitri will provide transitional housing to 16 unduplicated households. Project Description: Provides transitional housing and related supportive services to low-income victims of domestic violence who are at high risk of becoming homeless and/or suffering further abuse to themselves and their children. 2014-15 Funding Recommendation: $12,000 Name of Organization: Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) Name of Program: Legal Assistance to Cupertino Elders 2014 -15 Annual Goal: Serve 40 Cupertino seniors. Project Description: Provides free legal services to low-income seniors at the Cupertino Senior Center. Legal services provided are in the area of consumer complaints, housing, elder abuse, and simple wills. 2014-15 Funding Recommendation: $9,800 Name of Organization: Faith In Action Silicon Valley Rotating Shelter Name of Program: Job Development Program 2014 -15 Annual Goal: Provide job development placement services to 6 unduplicated homeless men. Project Description: Partner with Santa Clara County Project Uplift, Santa Clara County Adult Education, NOVA and Goodwill, Work To Future Programs to provide bus passes, job training, interviewing skills and job placement to participants. 2014-15 Funding Recommendation: $7,700 Name of Organization: United Way of Silicon Valley Name of Program: 211 Santa Clara County 2014 -15 Annual Goal: Intake a total of 223 calls through the 211 program. Project Description: 211 is a free phone number and online database that connects Californians quickly and effectively to existing health and human service programs, joblessness support and disaster response information. The 211 phone number is a available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 339 Page 4 of 4 2014-15 Allocations for CDBG, HSG, BMR AHF and CDBG Annual Action Plan April 1, 2014 2014-15 Funding Recommendation: $4,000 Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF): Name of Organization: West Valley Community Services (WVCS) Name of Program: Affordable Housing Placement Program 2014-15 Annual Goal: Place 15 unduplicated low-income households into either a BMR for-sale or rental unit within the City of Cupertino. Manage waiting list, monitor units, perform orientations and assist with marketing. Project Description: West Valley Community Services is responsible for the monitoring, screening and placement services for the City of Cupertino’s Below Market-Rate (BMR) for-sale and rental housing units. They maintain a waiting list for qualified applicants and provide services to those placed in the BMR affordable units. 2014-15 Funding Recommendation: $109,000 Name of Organization: Project Sentinel Name of Program: Landlord/Tenant Mediation 2014-15 Annual Goal: Intake 60 calls, open 15 cases landlord/tenant mediation cases and counsel 15 households. Project Description: Provides information and dispute resolution services to tenants, mobile home owners and landlords. Answers questions and helps to resolve disputes such as deposits, repairs, rent increases and nonpayment of rent. Provides free counseling services. 2014-15 Funding Recommendation: $30,000 Name of Organization: Charities Housing Name of Program: 19935 Price Avenue Acquisition and Rental Subsidy 2014-15 Annual Goal: Charities Housing would acquire property from Senior Housing Solutions (SHS). Provide rental subsidy to 5 low- income senior households annually. Project Description: The Price Avenue home is a five-bedroom, three-bath, single-family residential (SFR) dwelling unit providing low- income rents to seniors. Recommendation: $125,817.50 340 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: April 1, 2014 Accept resignation of Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioner Ashish Kolli and Public Safety Commissioner Lily Lim, and direct staff to fill the unscheduled vacancies. Subject a) Accept resignation of Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioner Ashish Kolli, set application deadline date of Friday, May 30 at 4:30 p.m. and schedule interview date for Tuesday, June 10 beginning at 5:00 pm to fill the unscheduled vacancy; Recommended Action and b) Accept resignation of Public Safety Commissioner Lily Lim and set application deadline date of Friday, May 30 at 4:30 p.m. and schedule interview date for Tuesday, June 10 beginning at 4:00 pm; or c) Accept resignation of Public Safety Commissioner Lily Lim and fill the unscheduled vacancy from applicants interviewed in January. Commissioner Ashish Kolli has notified Council and staff of his resignation effective March 19, 2014 which creates an unscheduled vacancy with a partial term ending January 2015. Discussion Commissioner Lily Lim has notified Council and staff of her resignation effective March 21, 2014 which creates an unscheduled vacancy with a partial term ending January 2016. Cupertino Resolution No. 10-048 states that: • Posting for unscheduled vacancies shall be posted no earlier than 20 days before nor later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs, and at least 10 working days before appointment. • If a vacancy occurs for an unexpired term and interviews for appointment to that advisory body have been conducted within the previous ninety days, the 341 unexpired term may be filled from those applications following the required posting of the vacancy. There are thirteen applications on file from people who interviewed for the Public Safety Commission in January 2014. If Council chooses to select from this pool of applicants, an appointment must be made before April 27. Both vacancies would be posted on April 2 which meets the 10 working days requirement. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk Reviewed by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Approved for Submission by: Attachments: David Brandt, City Manager A – Ashish Kolli Resignation email B – Lily Lim Resignation email 342 Multiple files are bound together in this PDF Package. Adobe recommends using Adobe Reader or Adobe Acrobat version 8 or later to work with documents contained within a PDF Package. By updating to the latest version, you’ll enjoy the following benefits: • Efficient, integrated PDF viewing • Easy printing • Quick searches Don’t have the latest version of Adobe Reader? Click here to download the latest version of Adobe Reader If you already have Adobe Reader 8, click a file in this PDF Package to view it. 343 Kirsten SquarciaSubject:FW: Resignation from Public Safety Commission   From: Lim, Lily [mailto:Lily.Lim@finnegan.com] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 5:10 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro Cc: Andy Huang (andy@hxlscorp.com); Capt. Kenneth Binder Subject: Resignation from Public Safety Commission   Dear Mayor Wong, Vice Mayor Sinks, and Council Members Chang, Mahoney, and Santoro,  It has been a pleasure serving on the Public Safety Commission for the last two years.  Due to family reasons, I must  unfortunately submit my resignation.  Recent events, including my daughter suffering a broken bone under such  suspicious circumstances while in the custody of my ex‐husband that she and my son were both put into protective  custody because of the high risk of harm to them from their dad, make it difficult for me to carry out the remainder of  my term as Public Safety Commissioner.  I have enjoyed the opportunity immensely, and hope to interact and serve the community again in the future.  Best regards,  Lily Lim     Lily Lim Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 3300 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203 650.849.6600 | fax 650.849.6666 | Lily.Lim@finnegan.com | http://www.finnegan.com/lilylim/        This communication may contain information that is attorney‐client privileged, attorney work product, proprietary, confidential, or  otherwise exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any other dissemination, distribution, use  or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender  immediately by telephone or by return e‐mail and delete it from his or her computer.     This e-mail message is intended only for individual(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you believe you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your mailbox. Thank you. 344 - 1 - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: April 1, 2014 McClellan Ranch Preserve Environmental Education Center and Blacksmith Shop Relocation Project – receive report on bids, award a construction contract to lowest responsive and responsible bidder, authorize contingency budget, authorize the first amendment of the agreement with Siegel & Strain Architects for construction support services, and approve a Deed Restriction on the property as required by the grant funding. Subject 1. Award a contract for the construction of the subject project to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Romkon, Inc., in the amount of $1,798,000; Recommended Actions 2. Authorize a construction contingency budget of $270,000, approximately fifteen (15%) of the construction contract value, to address unforeseen conditions during construction; 3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute the first amendment to the current consultant services agreement with Siegel & Strain Architects for construction support services for an amount not to exceed $80,000 for a total contract amount of $280,000; 4. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute and record a Deed Restriction granting a right of entry and a limitation of use for an environmental classroom facility in order to receive grant funds. The FY 2012-13 CIP included funding for several projects at McClellan Ranch Preserve (MRP), including an Outdoor Gathering Shelter and the Blacksmith Shop Relocation. On October 2, 2012, Council approved funding for the Environmental Education Center (EEC) and authorized staff to contract with an architect for the design of the facility and to include the Outdoor Gathering Structure project. Siegel & Strain Architects was selected to provide architectural services for the project. The design team and staff have since been working to develop the design, produce the construction documents, and prepare an estimate of probable cost for the project. Background The schedule and urgency for the EEC project was tied to the opportunity to gain the benefit of a Roberti-Z’berg-Harris Urbanized Area Need-Basis Program grant partially funding the project—the agreement for which requires the project to be complete by the end of calendar year 2014. 345 - 2 - As designed, the EEC building will accommodate current and future anticipated education programs. It will be physically located in proximity with the existing buildings on the site. The canopied outdoor gathering space will be attached to the building, enabling classes and other events to be held in conjunction with the classrooms or independently. The Blacksmith Shop Relocation project was added to the project package in order to consolidate and minimize the disruption to the site. In addition, Council approved the funding in the FY 2012-13 CIP for the McClellan Restroom and Site Access Upgrades and the Environmental Education Center – Solar PV System. These two projects were also incorporated into the collective construction project package. The complete construction project package includes: the EEC, the Outdoor Gathering Shelter, the Restroom and Site Access Upgrades, the EEC Solar PV System, and the Blacksmith Shop Relocation. The project was first issued for bids in July 2013 and bids were opened in August. All bids received were significantly over the Architect’s Estimate and, in addition, the 3 lowest bids were found to be non-responsive due to various document deficiencies. On September 9th , the City Manager rejected all bids due to the high value of the bids received and that the lowest three bids were determined to be non-responsive. On November 19, 2013, Council appropriated additional funding to the project in the amount of $1,000,000, directed staff to amend the project to include an additional restroom in the EEC building, and to re-advertise the project for bids, as recommended, in the January/February 2014 timeframe. The McClellan Ranch Preserve Environmental Education Center and Blacksmith Shop Relocation Re-bid Project was advertised on January 17, 2014 and bids were received 5 weeks later on February 25 Discussion th . Eight bids were received from the companies listed below: Bid Results Romkon Inc. $1,798,000.00 Bidder Base Bid Amount Engineer’s Estimate $1,820,000.00 EVRA Construction, Inc. $1,850,000.00 S&H Construction Inc. $1,908,000.00 Pacific-Mountain Contractors of Ca, Inc. $1,999,998.82 Sausal Corporation $2,040,400.00 Zovich & Sons Inc. $2,249,000.00 Tucker Construction Inc. $2,315,200.00 Southwest Construction & Property Management $2,597,000.00 346 - 3 - Evaluation of Lowest Bidder: Romkon, Inc. (Romkon) submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $1,798,000. Staff has reviewed the bid documents, including the required Statement of Qualifications, for the lowest bidder and recommends that they are awarded the contract. The City requires that bidders submit their bid documents in two envelope s, “A,” which contains the first components of the bid, including the bid amount, bond, and a list of subcontractors; and envelope “B,” which contains the Statement of Qualifications. Envelope “B” is generally opened only for the lowest responsive bidder. All bidders must provide a Subcontractors List, which satisfies the Public Contract Code requirement to list subcontractors with a proposed work value over 0.5% of the total bid amount, including their names and business locations. The City further requires the contractor’s license number, trade, and the dollar value for each listed subcontractor. Romkon’s bid did not include the contractor license numbers or dollar values. Public Contract Code section 4101 permits the City to provide the apparent low bidder 24-hours after bid opening to supplement its subcontractor information, other than the name and location of the businesses. Staff notified Romkon of the omissions and Romkon timely provided an amended Subcontractor List which added the license numbers and dollar values for all listed subcontractors. The original Subcontractor List also contained slight spelling errors and alternate locations of business for two of the listed subcontractors. The City Attorney has determined that these are considered minor irregularities that may be waived. Staff further evaluated Romkon’s Statement of Qualifications, including relevant experience for the project, and determined that they are a responsible bidder. Bid Protest: The bid documents provide that anyone who wishes to protest the bids do so before 3:30 p.m., on the third calendar day after bid opening. The City received one protest from EVRA Construction, Inc. (EVRA), the second lowest bidder. EVRA challenged Romkon’s bid on the following grounds: 1) irregularities in the subcontractor list, including Romkon’s failure to provide contractor license numbers, and the value of the subcontractors bid; and 2) that they (EVRA) could not find California Contractors State License Board listings for three of the subcontractors. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Romkon timely supplemented its subcontractor list, curing EVRA’s concern as to the adequacy of the list. Moreover, once Romkon provided the license number information, staff verified the name spelling, business locations and license status for each of the subcontractors. These issues are deemed to be minor irregularities that may be waived. Staff advised EVRA of the outcome of the City’s investigation and determining Romkon’s bid responsive. 347 - 4 - EVRA subsequently, after the bid protest period was closed, raised a third concern—that Romkon’s bid as expressed in text did not match the numerical amount. Bidders are required to submit their bid amount in two forms—numerical and in written language. Romcon’s numerical bid is “$1,798,000” and their written language amount is “One Million Seven Ninety Eight Thousand.” The written version of the number does not have the word “hundred” after “seven.” Nonetheless, staff finds no other interpretation of the written language amount other than that written numerically. While the written language version is unconventional, it is not necessarily wrong or inconsistent with the numerical amount. Staff finds the issues raised by EVRA are minor irregularities that may be waived and, as such, the protest has no merit. As a result, staff recommends award of the construction contract to Romkon, Inc. Should Council award this project to Romkon, the start of work at the site is anticipated to begin on approximately June 2, 2014, with a completion date in March 2015. Subsequent to the rejection of the bids in September 2013, staff has been communicating with the California Department of Parks and Recreation grant manager about flexibility in the project completion deadline for grant reimbursement. The grant manager has indicated that there is some flexibility in the project completion deadline. Staff will be submitting required documentation as it is available to be in conformance with the program requirements, making every effort to maximize the reimbursement. Next Steps As a nature preserve, the site is the home to many birds, including raptors, and other wildlife. The delay in the start of construction at the site is to avoid the highest period for wildlife nesting/breeding/nurturing, which could otherwise halt the construction work in observance of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prescribed activity and noise protection zones. Every attempt has been made to minimize this from happening, however due to the time of year there is always a potential for breeding and nesting activity to disrupt construction. If this were to happen it could affect the project completion date. Staff is working with the grantor on the possibility of a delay and the options for managing the potential impact on the grant reimbursement. Budget: Budget and Costs The adopted project budget, including the $251,000 State grant and $1,000,000 in additional funding appropriated in November 2013, is as follows: 348 - 5 - Environmental Education Center $ 2,400,000 Outdoor Gathering Shelter 125,000 Blacksmith Shop Relocation 400,000 Restroom and Site Access Upgrade 110,000 EEC – Solar PV System Total Project Budget: $ 3,085,000 50,000 Project Cost Summary: The proposed budget to proceed with the project is noted below: Design Fees $ 410,200 Environmental, Permitting, Services, Admin. 85,000 Construction Contract 1,798,000 Construction Contract Change Order Allowance 15% 270,000 Construction Contract Management, Inspection, Testing 313,500 Project Contingency 208,300 Total Project Cost: $ 3,085,000 To proceed with the project, Staff requests that Council approve several other components listed below. Related Actions Construction Administrative Support: Staff recommends that Council approve a first amendment to the current consulting services agreement with Siegel & Strain Architects, the design team lead, to provide construction support services, such as submittal reviews, construction progress reviews, and preparation of record drawings. The recommended cost is not to exceed $80,000 for the Siegel & Strain Architects and their sub-consultant team, for a total contract amount of $280,000. Deed Restriction: This project is eligible to receive a state grant. The 2002 Resources Bond Act Roberti-Z’berg- Harris Urbanized Area Need-Basis Program grant requires the recordation of a Deed Restriction on the property to insure that the property is used for the purpose consistent with the grant. The California Department of Parks and Recreation is the public agency authorized to oversee the grant process. Grant funding is provided for the acquisition and development of neighborhood, community, and regional parks and recreation lands and facilities, and Cupertino’s grant is specifically for construction of an environmental classroom facility as a venue for environmental study. The Deed Restriction shall remain in full force and effect and shall bind the Owner and all assigns of successors for the period from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2031. The proposed Deed Restriction and legal descriptions for these actions are provided as Attachments. 349 - 6 - Implementation of the Environmental Education Center project will support the city’s sustainability goals. The building will achieve minimum standards consistent both with CalGreen and the City’s Green Building Ordinance of attaining a LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) Silver-equivalent rating. Sustainability Impact Fiscal Impact The current budget for this project is sufficient for implementation and the recommended actions. The anticipated cost for operating and maintenance of the facility over the five years following completion of the project is approximately $20,000 per year. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works Project Manager Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: Attachment: David Brandt, City Manager A – Draft Amendment to the Agreement B – Draft Resolution C – Deed Restriction Document 350 Page 1 of 3 Amendment No. 1 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement FIRST AMENDMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND SIEGEL & STRAIN ARCHITECTS FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR MCCLELLAN RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER AND OUTDOOR GATHERING SHELTER This First Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Siegel & Strain Architects, for reference dated April 2, 2014 , is by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and, Siegel & Strain Architects, a California corporation, whose address is 1295 59TH Street, Emeryville, CA 94608; phone no. 510-547-8092; e-mail: hsiegel@siegelstrain.com (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On November 16, 2012, an agreement was entered into by and between City and Siegel & Strain Architects, (hereinafter "Agreement"). B. City and Siegel & Strain Architects 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: TERM section of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: The services and/or materials furnished under this Agreement shall commence on November 26, 2012, and shall be completed before July 31, 2015, or as extended by agreement. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED section of the agreement is modified to read as follows: Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A". titled “ Scope of Services” Revised which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE section of the agreement is modified to read as follows: The Services of Consultant are to be completed according to the schedule set out in Exhibit B, titled “Schedule of Performance “ Revised, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. COMPENSATION section of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: The compensation to be paid to Consultant for professional Services and reimbursable expenses shall be a not to exceed Two Hundred Forty Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars ($ 248,177) for Basic Services inclusive of Reimbursable Expenses. An Additional Services allowance of Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Three Dollars ($ 31,823) 351 Page 2 of 3 Amendment No. 1 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement is also included for potential Services that would exceed the basic scope. Such Additional Services shall only be performed upon advance written authorization by City. Total Fees shall not exceed Two Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($ 280,000). The rate of payment is set out in Exhibit C, titled “Compensation” Revised, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. 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. 352 Page 3 of 3 Amendment No. 1 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed. Siege & Strain Architects CITY OF CUPERTINO A Municipal Corporation By By ____________________________ Director of Public Works, Timm Borden Title Date____________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ City Attorney, Carol Korade ATTEST: By _____________________________ City Clerk, Grace Schmidt Total Amount $ 280,000.00 Amendment Amount $ 80,000.00 Account No. 420-9133-9300 353 Amendment No. 1 Page 1 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Revised CONSULTANT shall perform professional services as detailed in the following sections related to the planning, design and construction of the McClellan Ranch Environmental Education Center and Outdoor Gathering Shelter located at the 22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino. SECTION 1. GENERAL A. General PROJECT Description: The PROJECT involves the design and construction of an environmental education center facility with outdoor gathering shelter. The City of Cupertino (hereinafter “CITY”) will be the end user of the facility. The Environmental Education Center is envisioned, budget allowing, as a building approximately 2,400 square feet containing 2 classrooms/multipurpose rooms; restrooms; a wet lab/kitchenette; a library/resource center; display space; and office space for the City Naturalist and interns. We expect to include a large covered porch as well. Another planned element is a large, approximately 600 square feet, covered Outdoor Gathering Shelter area that will serve as a sheltered space for outdoor education and other activities. The building shall be designed to a minimum LEED Silver. The amount available for construction of the PROJECT, including contingencies for design, bidding and price escalations, but excluding compensation to CONSULTANT, construction management consultant is $800,000. EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS (“CONSTRUCTION BUDGET”). CONSULTANT shall provide architectural design services for the PROJECT, CONSULTANT may also provide construction administration services and LEED certification services if authorized by Additional Services. B. General Performance Requirements: 1. The performance of all services by CONSULTANT shall be to the satisfaction of the CITY, in accordance with the express terms hereof, including but not limited to the terms set out in detail in this scope of services and the standard of care provisions contained in this AGREEMENT. 2. The CITY’s Department of Public Works shall manage the design and construction of the PROJECT and this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT shall receive final direction from the CITY’s Director of Public Works or his/her authorized designee (hereinafter collectively “CITY”) only. The CITY shall resolve any conflicting direction from other groups, departments or agencies. 3. CONSULTANT shall coordinate this scope of services with the CITY as well as with other CITY consultants and contractors, as needed or as directed by the CITY. CONSULTANT shall schedule meeting and prepare meeting agendas and minutes for all PROJECT meetings during the design phase under the scope of work. All minutes of meetings are due to the CITY within five (5) working days 354 Amendment No. 1 Page 2 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices after the meeting. CONSULTANT shall provide copies of such documentation to the CITY, and as directed by the CITY, to other appropriate agencies and entities. CONSULTANT shall coordinate all responses to comments through the CITY. 4. The CITY shall direct CONSULTANT with respect to programming and functionality of the PROJECT space. The CITY shall approve design milestones and cost estimates from Conceptual Design, Schematic Design through Construction Documentation phases. CITY shall issue building permit for the construction. For the purpose of this AGREEMENT, direct written authorization or approval from the CITY shall mean and require the signatures of the CITY. 5. CONSULTANT shall designate and provide to the CITY the names of their team members for the PROJECT. The team members shall be satisfactory to the CITY. The team members shall include Henry Siegel as CONSULTANT’s Principal-in- charge for the duration of the PROJECT. CONSULTANT shall not substitute any team members without the prior approval of the CITY. 6. CONSULTANT’s services shall be performed as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly process of the work. The schedule for the performance included in EXHIBIT B, may be adjusted by mutual agreement. 7. CONSULTANT shall manage its SUBCONSULTANTS, and administer the PROJECT. CONSULTANT shall consult with the CITY, research applicable design criteria, and communicate with members of the PROJECT team. 8. When the CITY determines that the PROJECT requirements have been sufficiently identified, CONSULTANT shall prepare and update a PROJECT schedule for the CITY at the beginning of each TASK as defined in SECTION 2 - “SCOPE of SERVICES” of this EXHIBIT A. The PROJECT schedule shall identify milestone dates for decisions required of the CITY, design services furnished by CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT’s SUBCONSULTANTS, dates of reviews and approvals required by all governmental agencies that have jurisdiction over the PROJECT, deliverables to be furnished by CONSULTANT, completion of documentation provided by CONSULTANT, commencement of construction and substantial completion of the construction of the PROJECT, and as identified in the exhibits under this AGREEMENT. 9. CONSULTANT shall submit design and construction documents to the CITY, according to SECTION 2 – “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, of this EXHIBIT A for purposes of evaluation and approval by the CITY. The CITY including the Department of Public Works Engineering and City Facilities and Department of Parks and Recreation will review the design during each phase. CONSULTANT will meet with the CITY for progress review at various stages of the PROJECT. CONSULTANT will be responsible for causing the appropriate SUBCONSULTANT(S) to attend any meetings included in this SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall make revisions to the design and construction documents as required for each task in a timely manner. 355 Amendment No. 1 Page 3 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices 10. CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY, as requested by the CITY, in connection with the CITY’s responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the PROJECT, including submitting to the CITY’s Building Department for a building permit. 11. CONSULTANT shall design project to meet LEED Silver in performance. The CITY may require the CONSULTANT to apply and accomplish LEED Silver Certification, this will include registration of the project from design through to construction, the Consultant shall only provide this certification work if authorized as Additional Services. 12. CONSULTANT shall consider the value of alternative materials, building systems and equipment, together with other considerations based on program, LEED, budget and aesthetics, in developing the design for the PROJECT. 13. CONSULTANT shall prepare and make presentations to explain the design of the PROJECT at various occasions to representatives of the CITY, as directed by the CITY according to SECTION 2 – “SCOPE OF SERVICES” of this EXHIBIT A. In addition CONSULTANT will be required to attend and prepare presentation materials for a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting and a City Council meeting to present the design. These meeting are scheduled for the first part of January 2013. 14. CONSULTANT shall prepare and present to the CITY an Organization Chart, Directory, and Communication Flow Chart at the PROJECT Kick-Off Meeting. This meeting shall introduce team members, establish routes of communication, and discuss the participants' roles, responsibilities, and authority. 15. CONSULTANT shall submit written requests for all information and official documents related to the PROJECT to the CITY. 16. CONSULTANT shall prepare and provide a public relations package suitable for Santa Clara County AIA Design Awards and any other similar awards submission. The public relations package shall, at a minimum, include the following elements: photographs and graphic plans of the PROJECT. Two (2) copies of the public relations package, as well as digital electronic files, shall be provided to the CITY. CONSULTANT hereby grants to the CITY and its successors and assigns the sole and exclusive right to copyright, trademark and publish the public relations package in the United States and Canada and other countries of the world. Any copyright or trademark shall be solely in the name of the CITY, and the CITY shall remain the sole owner of such copyright or trademark. CONSULTANT hereby grants to the CITY the right and power to apply in its name or otherwise for such copyright or trademark or renewal or extension thereof as the CITY may deem proper and all right, title, and interest in any such copyright or trademark, renewal, or extension shall vest exclusively in the CITY and its successors and assigns. The CITY grants the CONSULTANT the right to use any and all images of the project for their own promotional efforts. 356 Amendment No. 1 Page 4 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices C. Estimate of Probable Construction Cost: CONSULTANT shall be responsible to design the PROJECT and provide an Estimate of Probable Construction Cost consistent with the following procedures and requirements. 1. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for designing the PROJECT so that the Estimate of Probable Construction Cost is less than or equal to the CONSTRUCTION BUDGET established by the CITY for the PROJECT. The Project Construction Budget shall be provided by the CONSULTANT as a summary sheet with submittal of each required Estimate of Probable Construction Cost, showing comparisons of cost evolution for the PROJECT. As the design process progresses CONSULTANT shall update and refine the Estimate of Probable Construction Cost as required in SECTION 2 – “SCOPE OF SERVICES” of this EXHIBIT A. CONSULTANT shall advise the CITY in writing of any adjustments to previous Estimates of Probable Construction Cost indicated by changes in PROJECT requirements or general market conditions. 2. Should the Estimate of Probable Construction Cost exceed the CONSTRUCTION BUDGET, CONSULTANT shall, during the design phases of the project, revise, without additional cost to the CITY, the design documents and/or Construction Documents incorporating scope and quality changes to reduce the estimated costs for construction, to within the CONSTRUCTION BUDGET. CONSULTANT shall make changes only as approved by the CITY in writing. Reductions in scope may be required to meet the CITY’s budget, and the CITY will not unreasonably withhold permission for such reductions in scope order for the CONSULTANTS to meet the budget. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the Estimate of Probable Construction Cost exceeds the CONSTRUCTION BUDGET due to any program, design or budget changes, initiated and authorized by the CITY which are beyond CONSULTANT’s control, any changes required in the design documents, shall be considered as Additional Services as noted in EXHIBIT C of this AGREEMENT. 3. In preparing the Estimate of Probable Construction Cost, CONSULTANT, in consultation with the CITY, shall do each of the following: (a) include contingencies for design, bidding, and price escalations to determine which materials, equipment, component systems and type of construction are to be included in the PROJECT, and (b) make reasonable adjustments and/or to value engineer various items in all required submittal cost estimates of the PROJECT, including alternate bids, in order to adjust the estimated construction cost to be less than or equal to the CONSTRUCTION BUDGET. 4. If bidding has not commenced within 90 days after CONSULTANT submits the Construction Documents to the CITY, CONSULTANT shall adjust the Estimate of Probable Construction Cost to reflect changes in the general level of prices in the construction industry. This will be an additional service. 5. CONSULTANT shall identify, develop and incorporate into the Construction Documents “Add or Deduct Alternate” construction cost elements that may be 357 Amendment No. 1 Page 5 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices chosen to meet the City’s budget. Alternates shall be approved by the CITY before being incorporated into the Construction Documents. 6. Should the lowest responsive bid exceed the CONSTRUCTION BUDGET by more than fifteen percent (15%), CONSULTANT shall, if directed by the CITY, submit without additional cost to the CITY, revised Construction Documents reflecting changes, approved by the CITY, to reduce the Construction Costs to within the CONSTRUCTION BUDGET. The CITY acknowledges that the CONSULTANT does not control market conditions and agrees that they may allow reductions in scope in order to meet the CITY’s construction budget. SECTION 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES TASK #1: PREDESIGN 1.1 CONSULTANT shall review the CITY obtained topographic survey of the site; and shall identify and inform the CITY of any site-related discrepancies between the survey report and any other site reports provided by the CITY that might affect the PROJECT. The topographic survey provided by the CITY must be verified as to it accuracy prior to using it for design. 1.2 CONSULTANT shall review the CITY obtained geo-technical site report; and shall identify and inform the CITY of any site-related discrepancies between the survey report and any other site reports provided by the CITY that might affect the PROJECT. 1.3 CONSULTANT shall review the CITY supplied California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) report for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Plan, Master Plan that includes part of this PROJECT. Design alternatives prepared by the CONSULTANT shall reflect the needs and findings set forth in this CEQA and in the new CEQA document that will be produced by the CEQA consultant on this PROJECT. CONSULTANT shall work with CEQA consultant to design with minimize impacts. 1.4 CONSULTANT shall review the CITY supplied Arborist Survey Report for the PROJECT. Design alternatives prepared by CONSULTANT shall reflect the needs and findings set forth in this report. 1.5 CONSULTANT shall review the CITY provided project building and site program; and shall during conceptual design phase work with the CITY to reconcile the project program and the construction budget. 358 Amendment No. 1 Page 6 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices TASK #2: Conceptual DESIGN 2.1 CONSULTANT is to complete the sub-tasks below consistent with the requirements of attached APPENDIX A, which describes in greater detail the manner in which CONSULTANT is to perform services related to Design- Submittals and reports included in this task. APPENDIX A is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. In the event of any conflict between APPENDIX A and any provision of this AGREEMENT, this AGREEMENT shall control. 2.2 CONSULTANT to begin site analysis, generate and test options such as location, massing, etc., as design alternatives. 2.3 CONSULTANT to prepare three (3) conceptual alternatives. 2.4 CONSULTANT to compare the use of modular or pre-fabricated components use on the PROJECT. CONSULTANT to assist CITY in decision to use site built construction verses modular or pre-fabricated components construction. Once a decision is made CONSULTANT to provide summary report on the decision. TASK #3: DESIGN 3.1 CONSULTANT is to complete the sub-tasks below consistent with the requirements of attached APPENDIX B, which describes in greater detail the manner in which CONSULTANT is to perform services related to Design- Submittals and reports included in this task. APPENDIX B is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. In the event of any conflict between APPENDIX B and any provision of this AGREEMENT, this AGREEMENT shall control. 3.2 CONSULTANT will make any changes necessary in the design and engineering of said contract documents to provide for the specific existing site conditions. 3.3 CONSULTANT shall coordinate and manage SUBCONSULTANTS throughout the Design phase. 3.4 CONSULTANT shall perform a first cost analysis to evaluate the CONSTRUCTION BUDGET. 3.5 CONSULTANT shall develop the Design Plans based on review comments from approved Program and Conceptual Design. 3.6 CONSULTANT shall provide all services necessary for the preparation of Design documentation for review and approval by the CITY. Said Design documentation shall be based on the CITY approved Conceptual Design and shall be of sufficient scope and detail to fix and describe the size and character of the PROJECT. 3.7 Design services to be provided by CONSULTANT shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Architectural design/documentation services, including development of all Design Documents necessary to establish the final scope, relationships, forms, size, appearance and cost of the PROJECT. b. The Design Documents shall include: the site plan, and the layout of the site. 359 Amendment No. 1 Page 7 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices c. The Design Documents shall indicate site improvements including but not limited to, landscaping, outdoor spaces and location, as well as a description of materials and equipment. d. CONSULTANT shall include, but not be limited to, color, material, and other architectural elements as necessary to complete the Design. e. CONSULTANT shall prepare preliminary code compliance review documentation per the CITY requirements. f. Package shall contain specification Table of Contents, which shall identify the major materials and systems. g. CONSULTANT shall produce and submit to the CITY for review and written approval two (2) sets of a 30” x 42” construction materials and interior finishes presentation board of the Design Project to the CITY. h. CONSULTANT shall submit for review by the CITY an Estimate of Probable Construction Cost based on the 100% Design submittal within two (2) weeks of the CONSULTANT submitting complete Design package for this phase. i. CONSULTANT shall identify bid alternates and identify value-engineered items that could be deducted from the project without jeopardizing program requirements. 3.8 CONSULTANT shall submit 100% Design Documents in accordance with APPENDIX B and the Project Schedule, set forth in EXHIBIT B of this AGREEMENT. 3.9 The CITY shall provide CONSULTANT with written comments following submission of the 100% Design Documents. CONSULTANT shall provide written responses to the comments of the CITY within no more than fifteen (15) days of receipt of the CITY’s comments. 3.10 In addition to any meetings provided for in this section, CONSULTANT shall participate in up to a maximum of three (3) design team meetings with representatives of the CITY during this Design phase, as determined by the CITY. CONSULTANT shall incorporate into the PROJECT refinements from discussions from the various team meetings and any other requests from the CITY during this phase. 3.11 CONSULTANT shall prepare design sketches and study models of the building sufficient to communicate design intent to the CITY and a broad audience when directed by the CITY. 3.12 CONSULTANT shall prepare and present the Design schemes to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council for review at a public meeting. 3.13 CONSULTANT shall proceed to the next task, Construction Documents, incorporating the Design comments required by the CITY. TASK #4: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS: 4.1 Prior to commencing development of the Construction Documents, CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit to the CITY within seven (7) working days after submittal of 100% Design package, completed under Task 3 of this 360 Amendment No. 1 Page 8 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices Section 2, the proposed construction document sheet index listing all proposed sheets and titles of all disciplines. 4.2 CONSULTANT shall coordinate and manage SUBCONSULTANTS throughout Construction Document phase; CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the CITY’s various Departments as directed by the CITY. 4.3 CONSULTANT is to complete the sub-tasks below consistent with the requirements of attached APPENDIX C, which describes in greater detail the manner in which CONSULTANT is to perform services related to Construction Document Phase, Construction Document-Submittals and reports included in this task. APPENDIX C is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. In the event of any conflict between APPENDIX C and any provision of this AGREEMENT, this AGREEMENT shall control. 4.4 CONSULTANT shall provide written responses to the comments from the CITY review of the 100% Design package within ten (10) working days of receipt of such comments. The written response shall list how and where the CONSULTANT has incorporated all comments from the CITY’s review. 4.5 In addition to any meetings provided for in Tasks 3, CONSULTANT shall attend up to a maximum of three (3) additional team meetings with representatives of the CITY, during this Construction Documents phase to discuss related issues including interior finishes selection. CONSULTANT shall incorporate into the PROJECT refinements from discussions from the various team meetings and any other requests from the CITY during this phase. 4.6 The CONSULTANT shall provide an alternative color palette for all interior finishes. 4.7 CONSULTANT shall prepare a 50% Coordination Construction Document Package (Also referred to as “Construction Document-Submittal #4a”) and a 95% Permit Construction Document Package (Also referred to as “Construction Document-Submittal #4b”) incorporating CITY’s comments from the 100% Design package as applicable. After each Construction Document package is submitted, the CITY shall provide CONSULTANT with written comments. CONSULTANT shall provide written responses to the comments from the CITY within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the CITY’s comments. CONSULTANT’s written responses shall list how and where the comments are to be incorporated or resolved by CONSULTANT for all of the CITY’s review comments. 4.8 CONSULTANT shall submit the 95% Construction Document Package with final quality control review from the CITY’s plan check review comments incorporated. CONSULTANT to also submit 95% Construction Document Package to the City of Cupertino Building Department for building permit review, this shall include all applicable reports and calculations. 4.9 Within two (2) weeks after the submission to the CITY of the 95% Construction Document Package, CONSULTANT shall submit for review by the CITY an Estimate of Probable Construction Cost based on the 95% Construction 361 Amendment No. 1 Page 9 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices Document Package. If necessary and as directed by the City, Value Engineer or bid alternatives items to reduce cost may be identified by consultant. 4.10 CONSULTANT shall prepare 100% Bid Construction Documents Package for bidding (also referred to as “Construction Document-Submittal #5a”), with the CITY’s comments from the 95% package incorporated. CONSULTANT to also submit 100% Construction Document Package to the City of Cupertino Building Department for building permit review, this shall include all applicable reports and calculations. 4.11 CONSULTANT shall respond to all Building Permit comments and make modifications necessary to obtain the building permit. 4.12 Deliverables: a. CONSULTANT shall provide 50%, 95% and 100% Construction Documents Packages. Each of the Construction Documents Packages shall be based on the Design Documents approved by the CITY. Each Construction Document Package shall set forth in detail the requirements for construction of the PROJECT per attached APPENDIX C, and shall be in accordance with the CITY’s STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. The Construction Document Packages shall include drawings and specifications that establish in detail the quality levels of materials and systems required for the PROJECT. b. Each of the Construction Document Packages shall include drawings and specifications from all disciplines, executed to a level of detail appropriate for public bidding, including plans overlaying data cabling with furniture layout as necessary, elevations reflecting relationships between ranges/furnishings and items affecting their placement, utilities, driveways, roadways, and hardscape design. c. CONSULTANT shall cause each of the Construction Document Packages to be coordinated between all relevant disciplines. d. CONSULTANT shall identify in each of the Construction Document Packages fire and life safety analysis, building construction type, exiting, exit sign location, fire extinguisher location, wall type, door widths, occupant load, placement on property, hydrant locations and fixture counts requirements. e. During the development of the Construction Document Packages, CONSULTANT shall assist, as requested by the CITY in the development and preparation of the PROJECT Manual that includes the Conditions of the Contract for Construction, Specifications, qualifications for prime and designated sub-contractors, and Bidding requirements and sample forms. CONSULTANT shall adjust its form of specification in order to include CITY’s STANDARD SPECIFICATION sections. f. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY three (3) sets of 8-½” x11” color boards in binders or foam-core material mounted with samples of principal interior and exterior finishes, colors, and products. 362 Amendment No. 1 Page 10 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices TASK # 5: BIDDING AND AWARD 5.1 CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY during bid solicitation process, as requested by the CITY. 5.2 CONSULTANT shall prepare the Construction Document Packages with the CITY’s reviews and plan check, comments incorporated, ready for bid, award and construction as per APPENDIX C. 5.3 CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY in providing bid phase services, as requested by the CITY, through award of the contract for construction of the PROJECT, the following: a. Respond to bidders’ inquiries, up to three (3) days prior to the bid opening. b. Prepare addenda to plans and specifications of the bid package, within the bid period, prior to the 72-hour CITY standards limitation. c. Attend pre-bid meeting. d. Assist in the evaluation of bids as requested by the CITY. 5.4 CONSULTANT shall update the Construction Document package to include all addenda and clarifications issued during the Bid process and shall within 10 days of AWARD of the construction Contract by City Council, provide the CITY with a Conformed set of drawings and specifications (also referred to as “Construction Document-Submittal #5b”). DELIVERABLES: a. Three (3) full size wet stamped and signed sets and Three (3) full size copies and one (1) 11” x 17” sets of the 100% Construction Documents Package(conformed set), reproducible prints, also in PDF format. b. Two (2) Technical Specifications Manuals(conformed set), stamped and signed, reproducible prints also in MS Word and PDF format c. One(1) CADD CD ROM copy of the entire construction document package for use by the CITY. 6. TASK #6: CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 6.1 CONSULTANT shall provide Construction Administration Services as set forth below for the construction of the project including additional work at the park restroom and site access upgrades that has been included in the project. 6.2 CONSULTANT shall advise the CITY, in writing, of any construction items that are not in conformance with the Contract Documents. 6.3 CONSULTANT’s responsibility to provide the Construction Administration Services commences with the award of the construction contractor for the PROJECT (“CONTRACT”) and ends at the issuance to the CITY of the PROJECT Punch List that denotes portions of the work of the PROJECT that need to be completed by the Contractor. CONSULTANT’s responsibilities also include “PROJECT COMPLETION” as noted in Task 6.16. 363 Amendment No. 1 Page 11 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices 6.4 Duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of CONSULTANT under this Task 6 shall not be restricted, modified or extended without written agreement of the CITY and CONSULTANT. 6.5 CONSULTANT shall review requests by the Contractor for additional information about the Construction Documents. CONSULTANT shall review and respond to the request within five (5) working days of receiving such request. 6.6 If deemed appropriate by the CITY in consultation with CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall prepare, reproduce and distribute supplemental Drawings and Specifications in response to requests for information by the Contractor. 6.7 Upon written request of the CITY, CONSULTANT shall prepare responses on the CITY’s behalf concerning performance of the Contractor under the requirements of the Contract Documents. Within five (5) working days of receiving a request by the CITY, CONSULTANT shall prepare a written response to such request for the CITY’s review. Upon the CITY’s approval, CONSULTANT shall deliver the response to the Contractor. 6.8 Interpretations and decisions of CONSULTANT shall be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents and shall be in writing or in the form of drawings. 6.9 CONSULTANT shall advise the CITY on claims, disputes or other matters in question between the CITY and Contractor. The CITY shall make the final determination regarding all such matters. 6.10 CONSULTANT shall attend meetings at the site (up to 15 site visits) or by phone and review Contractor’s construction set on a minimum weekly basis for the duration of the Construction Administration phase and provide site observation as the CITY determines is needed in consultation with CONSULTANT, or as otherwise agreed by the CITY and CONSULTANT for the following conditions: a. To become generally familiar with and to keep the CITY informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the PROJECT under construction. b. To endeavor to guard the CITY against defects and deficiencies in the construction of the PROJECT. c. To determine if the construction of the PROJECT is in conformance with the Contract Documents. 6.11 If additional site meetings might be necessary due to an unforeseen condition at the PROJECT construction and outside of the 15 site visits, CONSULTANT shall attend meetings requested by the CITY, and shall be entitled to Additional Services in accordance with EXHIBIT C. 6.12 CONSULTANT shall report to the CITY items that may be of concern on the construction of the PROJECT, such as deviations from the Contract Documents and from the most recent construction schedule submitted by the Contractor. 6.13 CONSULTANT shall have reasonable access to the construction of the PROJECT wherever it is in preparation or progress as appropriate to meet its obligations under this AGREEMENT. 364 Amendment No. 1 Page 12 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices 6.14 SUBMITTALS: a. CONSULTANT shall review and approve or take other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, and Product Data and for the purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. CONSULTANT’s action shall be taken within a maximum of 10 working days of receipt of each submittal of the Contractor; with an additional maximum of 5 working days if SUBCONSULTANT review is required. If a submittal requires additional review and investigation, CONSULTANT will request, and CITY will not unreasonably withhold, permission to extend the review time. b. CONSULTANT shall maintain a record of submittals and copies of submittals supplied by the Contractor. c. If in the event that professional design services or certifications by a design professional related to systems, materials or equipment are specifically required of the Contractor by the Contract Documents, the CONSULTANT shall specify appropriate performance and design criteria that such services must satisfy. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to reasonably rely upon the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the services, certifications or approvals performed by such design professionals. 6.15 CHANGE ORDERS: a. CONSULTANT shall review City prepared Change Orders for accordance with the Contract Documents. If necessary, CONSULTANT shall prepare, submit to the CITY for approval, reproduce and distribute Drawings and Specifications to describe Work to be added, deleted or modified, as provided in this Task 7.15, Paragraph b. b. CONSULTANT shall review and advise the CITY on requests by the CITY or Contractor for changes in the construction of the PROJECT. c. CONSULTANT shall make a recommendation to the CITY Director of Public Works or his/her authorized designee, who may authorize, in writing, further investigation of such change. Upon such written authorization, and based upon information furnished by the Contractor, if any, CONSULTANT shall evaluate the additional cost and time that might result from such change, including any additional CONSULTANT costs. d. CONSULTANT shall maintain all records relative to changes in the construction. Upon completion, CONSULTANT shall incorporate all modifications into record documents per Task 6.17 of this AGREEMENT. 6.16 PROJECT COMPLETION: a. CONSULTANT shall conduct up to two site observations to determine the date of Substantial Completion and the date of final completion, as defined in the STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. CONSULTANT shall receive from the Contractor and forward to the CITY, for the CITY’s review and records, written warranties and related documents required by the Contract Documents and assembled by the Contractor, and shall issue a Punch List 365 Amendment No. 1 Page 13 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices which denotes the portion of the work of the PROJECT that needs to be completed by the Contractor based upon a final observation indicating the construction of the PROJECT is in general accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. b. CONSULTANT’s observations for Final Completion shall be conducted with the CITY’s designated representative to check conformance of the construction of the PROJECT with the requirements of the Contract Documents Package and to verify the accuracy and completeness of the list submitted by the Contractor of work to be completed or corrected. 6.17 RECORD DOCUMENTS AND PROJECT CLOSE-OUT a. CONSULTANT shall review the Contractor’s checklist for completion of all required Contractor submittals and shop drawings as indicated in the Contract Documents. b. CONSULTANT shall review Contractor-supplied operation and maintenance manuals for completeness as noted in the Contract Documents. c. CONSULTANT shall review contractor warranties as noted in the Contract Documents. d. CONSULTANT shall review final pay request from Contractor for accuracy as noted in the Contract Documents. e. CONSULTANT shall review for completeness the site as-built drawings and specifications of the Contractor based upon record field Construction Documents Package maintained by Contractor during construction as noted in the Contract Documents. f. CONSULTANT shall incorporate addenda, change orders, Request for Information (RFI) and any other document revisions as well as AS-Built drawings and specifications modifications by the Contractor into a record documentation package to be provided to the CITY (also referred to as “Construction Document-Submittal #5c”). The final documentation package shall be in the form of one reproducible package and one (1) copy in an electronic format compatible with CITY systems (i.e. latest version of AutoCAD and MS Word) and PDF format. g. CONSULTANT and CONTRACTOR to complete all work necessary to achieve LEED Silver Certification if an Additional Services for this work has been authorized. TASK #7: ADDITIONAL SERVICES 7.1 Consultant Services beyond the following limits shall be provided by CONSULTANT as Additional Services only if such Additional Services are authorized in writing by the CITY in advance: a. CONSULTANT shall design project to meet LEED Silver in performance. The CITY may require the CONSULTANT to apply and accomplish LEED Silver Certification, this will include registration of the project from design 366 Amendment No. 1 Page 14 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices through to construction, the Consultant shall only provide this certification work if authorized as Additional Services. b. CONSULTANT shall provide up to two (2) reviews of each Shop Drawing, Product Data item, sample and similar submittal of the Contractor as part of its basic services. CONSULTANT shall only provide additional reviews if authorized as Additional Services. c. CONSULTANT shall provide a minimum of one (1) bi-weekly visit to the PROJECT site by CONSULTANT over the duration of the PROJECT construction as part of the basic services. These site visits shall include site meetings and observations of the Work to determine whether the construction of the PROJECT is being completed in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. d. CONSULTANT shall attend up to two (2) site visits for observation for any portion of the Work to determine final completion of the PROJECT, and the provision of a Punch List, which lists items not completed. 7.2 The following Consultant Services, if requested by the CITY in advance and in writing, shall be provided by CONSULTANT as Additional Services: a. Review of a Contractor's submittal out of sequence from the General Contractor’s submittal schedule agreed to by CONSULTANT. b. Responses to the Contractor's requests for information where such information is not available to the Contractor from CITY provided information. c. Providing consultation concerning replacement of work resulting from fire or other cause during construction. d. Evaluation of program modifications submitted by the CITY after the 50% Construction Documents phase package. e. Evaluation of substitutions of products and changes proposed by the CITY or the contractor requiring subsequent revisions to the Plans and Specifications after the 100% Construction Document package has been completed. f. Architectural Presentation models or color renderings in excess of those required by Tasks 2 through 6. g. Any other additional services not described in EXHIBIT A. 367 Amendment No. 1 Page 15 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Revised CONSULTANT shall complete all work by December 31, 2014. The following sets forth the distribution of CONSULTANT’s Schedule of Performance for each project. The CITY may approve in writing the extension of any milestone date set in this Exhibit. Task #1: Predesign 2 weeks after signing the agreement Task#2 Conceptual Design work by: 4 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task #3: Design work by: 10 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task #4: Construction Documents work by: 14 week after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task #5: Bidding and Award w/conforming set work by: 8 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task #6: Construction Administration Services/project close out and record documents when NTP is issued to Contractor for Construction 368 Amendment No. 1 Page 16 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices EXHIBIT C COMPENSATION Revised A. Maximum Compensation. The CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, including both payment for professional services, additional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($ 280,000). CONSULTANT agrees that it shall perform all of the services set forth in Exhibit A of this AGREEMENT, except for additional services required pursuant to Section 2, Task No. 7 and inclusive of reimbursable expenses, for the amount of TWO HUNDRED FOURTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN DOLLARS ($ 248,177). The maximum amount of Additional Services are authorized under Section G of this EXHIBIT C is TWENTY TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE DOLLARS ($31,823). B. Method of Payment For Task Nos. 1 through 7 CONSULTANT shall, during the term of this AGREEMENT, invoice the CITY monthly based upon a percentage of completion of each milestone set forth below in the Payment Schedule (Schedule D below) for services performed, and reimbursable expenses incurred if applicable, in completing that milestone under this AGREEMENT. (Hereinafter “Invoice.”) Provided CONSULTANT has completed the services and incurred the reimbursable expenses covered by the Invoice in accordance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT, as determined by the CITY, the CITY shall pay CONSULTANT the amount shown on the Invoice within thirty (30) working days of receipt of the Invoice. The Invoice shall be based on the percentage of milestone completed, and it shall describe the topics and tasks completed during the Invoice period in accordance with the Budget Schedule and Payment Schedule set forth below. The Invoice shall list work completed and reimbursable expenses if applicable, in accordance with the Budget Schedule and Payment Schedule set forth below. CONSULTANT also shall include supporting documents for any reimbursable expenses. The Invoice shall also show the total to be paid for the Invoice period. 369 Amendment No. 1 Page 17 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices C. Budget Schedule The Budget Schedule for this AGREEMENT shall be as follows: Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Predesign $ 6,737 Task #2: Conceptual Design $ 23,701 Task #3: Design $ 33,905 Task #4: Construction Documents $ 104,421 Task #5: Bidding and Award w/conforming set $ 8,629 Task #6: Construction Administration Services/ as built drawing $ 70,784 Task #7: Additional Services $ 31,823 TOTAL $ 280,000 CONSULTANT shall not exceed any of the specified budget amounts for any Task without prior written authorization from the CITY. The CITY may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the Tasks listed above provided the total AGREEMENT amount does not exceed TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($280,000). 370 Amendment No. 1 Page 18 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices D. Payment Schedule The Payment Schedule for this AGREEMENT shall be as follows: TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Predesign 100% Task #2 – Conceptual Design a. Submission of Design Submittal No. 2 80% b. City signed Schematic Design Approval 20% Task #3 – Design a. Submission of Design Submittal No. 3 80% b. City signed Design Approval 20% Task #4 – Construction Documents a. Submission of 50% Construction Document Submittal No 4a 50% b. Submission of 95% Construction Document Submittal No 4b 30% c. Submission of 100% Construction Document Submittal No. 5a 10% d. City signed Issued for Construction Document Submittal 10% Task #5 – Bidding and Award a. Within 30 days of the City advertising for bids 50% b. Receipt of conformed set of drawings Submittal No. 5b 50% Task #6 – Construction Administration a. During Construction Phase 85% b. Submission of Final Documentation Package to CITY Record Documents (AS-Built) Submittal No. 5c and Project Close-Out 15% Task #7 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. 371 Amendment No. 1 Page 19 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices E. Subconsultant Services. CONSULTANT is directly responsible for any payment for SUBCONSULTANT work on this PROJECT. SUBCONSULTANT work on this PROJECT is included in the Budget Schedule shown above and shall be billed to the CITY by CONSULTANT as part of the Basic Services. F. Reimbursable expenses. Reimbursable expenses are included in CONSULTANT’s lump sum compensation, including, but not limited to, any expenses related to CONSULTANT’s internal plan checks, CAD test prints, 8 1/2” x 11” copies or fax copies. Plotting and Printing for public distribution will be the responsibility of the CITY. There are no separate reimbursable expenses for Basic Services performed under Tasks 1-7 of EXHIBIT A. G. Additional Services. CONSULTANT shall not perform Additional Services without prior written authorization of the CITY. Additional Services shall be separately negotiated to be paid on a lump sum or a time and material basis at the rates set forth herein, as authorized by the CITY. The CITY has set aside the sum of THIRTY ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY THREE DOLLARS ($31,823) for the payment of Additional Services. The CITY shall not authorize and CONSULTANT shall not perform any Additional Services that result in charges in excess of the above amount. CONSULTANT shall submit an Invoice to the CITY for payment on a monthly basis for authorized Additional Services rendered during the previous month. In the event Additional Services are authorized, CONSULTANT shall submit Invoices in accordance with the CONSULTANT hourly rate schedule attached to this EXHIBIT C. The rates shown in the EXHIBIT C-1 sall stay in effect during the full term of the contract. The CITY shall pay Additional Services Invoices as provided in this EXHIBIT C. 372 Amendment No. 1 Page 20 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices EXHIBIT C-1 CONSULTANT HOURLY RATES FOR ADDITONAL SERVICES Siegel & Strain Architects Principal $185 Project Manager $145 Project Architect $125 Project Designer $125 Senior CAD / Designer $110 Intermediate CAD / Designer $100 Junior CAD / Designer $75 Quality Control $125 Support Staff $70 373 Amendment No. 1 Page 21 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices APPENDIX A: TASK 1 Predesign and TASK 2 Conceptual Design TASK 1 Predesign General: A. Purpose: To describe the documents to be evaluated and reviewed prior to the start of Conceptual Design. B. This APPENDIX shall be used as a guideline for performance of the professional services in this Agreement and shall not reduce the CONSULTANT’s responsibilities as identified in Exhibit A or elsewhere in the AGREEMENT. In the event of any conflict with Exhibit A, the Exhibit A supersedes this Appendix. Site Analysis Review - Submittal Checklist: A. PREQUISITE ITEMS: 1. Review of CITY provided Guidelines and Program Documents. 2. Review of CITY Municipal Code, Zoning Regulations & adopted model codes. 3. Review of CEQA Report. 4. Review other reports and data. TASK 2 Conceptual Design General: A Purpose: To describe the content of topics to be decided during the Conceptual Design Phase and documented in the Conceptual Design submittal to the CITY during and at the conclusion of this phase of the project. B Content: Conceptual Design-Submittal corresponds to 100% complete Conceptual Design Documents. C CONSULTANT’S deliverables include but are not limited to this checklist’s items/topics during the Conceptual Design Phase. This APPENDIX shall be used as a guideline for performance of the professional services in this Agreement and shall not reduce the CONSULTANT’s responsibilities as identified in Exhibit A or elsewhere in this AGREEMENT. In the event of any conflict with Exhibit A, the Exhibit A supersedes this Appendix. 374 Amendment No. 1 Page 22 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices Submittal Format: A. Conceptual Design-Submittal shall be one (1) full size drawing set of 22”x34” plans and PDF format. B. Summary report on site built construction verses modular or pre-fabricated component use. Conceptual Design Submittal Checklist (Design-Submittal No. 1): A. PREREQUISITE ITEMS: 1. Review of reports, data and documents for the preparation of Conceptual Design. 2. Provide three (3) conceptual design concepts for City Approval. -- END OF APPENDIX A – 375 Amendment No. 1 Page 23 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices APPENDIX B: TASK 3, Design General: A. Purpose: To describe the content of topics to be decided during the Design Phase and documented in the Design submittal to the CITY during and at the conclusion of this phase of the project. B. Content: Design-Submittal No. 3 corresponds to 100% complete Design Documents. C. CONSULTANT’S deliverables include but are not limited to this checklist’s items/topics during the Design Phase. This APPENDIX shall be used as a guideline for performance of the professional services in this Agreement and shall not reduce the CONSULTANT’s responsibilities as identified in Exhibit A or elsewhere in this AGREEMENT. In the event of any conflict with Exhibit A, the Exhibit A supersedes this Appendix. Submittal Format: A. Design-Submittal No. 3 shall be one (1) full size drawing set of 22”x34” plans and PDF format. B. Design Estimate of Probable Construction Cost based on the 100% completed Design package, shall be submitted as MS Excel and PDF format. Design Submittal Checklist (Design-Submittal No. 3): A. PREREQUISITE ITEMS: 1. Approval of Conceptual Design Phase (Design-Submittal No. 2) by the CITY, including floor plan and massing and authorization to begin Design Phase. 2. To Do List for Design: a. Preliminary schedule of utility information for all systems and equipment. b. Preliminary Catalog cuts and layout requirements of major equipment. c. Identification of design/build systems (if any). d. Identification of special storage areas and associated design criteria. e. Inventory of existing items to be reused. B. ARCHITECTURAL drawings shall include: 1. Site Plan 2. Floor Plans – a. Showing all programmed and ancillary areas. 376 Amendment No. 1 Page 24 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices b. Showing location of restroom, kitchen and major equipment spaces 3. Roof Plan 4. Building Section(s) 5. Typical Wall Sections (interior/exterior) 6. Building Elevations 7. Key Interior Elevations a. Showing Finish Materials b. Outline Finish Color & Materials Schedule – Min. of two (2) options. 8. Reflected Ceiling Plan grids (if applicable) 9. Materials List. 10. Title 19, 24, UBC, handicapped, etc. checklist C. CIVIL drawings and written statement shall include: 1. Rough grading - Show existing and new. (Recommended Min. Scale 1" = 30')(Include existing items to remain, bldg. pad, boundaries, easements, setbacks, floodplain, etc.) 2. Roadways. Preliminary horizontal layout only. 3. Written statement of proposed design. 4. Preliminary drainage layout. 5. Off-Site utility coordination – may need to be completed earlier to study alternates. 6. Preliminary site utilities layout including points of connection, if applicable. D. STRUCTURAL: 1. System selection finalized. 2. Foundation. a. Bay size and story heights. b. Type of construction. c. Identify special areas based on preliminary information. 3. Review of completed soils report & verification of compliance of Structural systems. 4. Written of proposed design. E. MECHANICAL (HVAC): 1. System selection proposed. 2. Identify special areas and heights based on preliminary information. (i.e., Mechanical Rooms, Penthouses, etc.) 3. Preliminary building load calculations for rough sizing of equipment. 4. Written statement of proposed design. F. PLUMBING/PROCESS PIPING: 1. System selection proposed. 2. Special areas identified based on preliminary information. 3. Preliminary fixture list. 4. Written statement of proposed design. 377 Amendment No. 1 Page 25 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices G. ELECTRICAL: 1. Systems Selection: a. Power - Conceptual single line diagram. 2. Identify special Areas and sized (i.e., Elec. Equipment Rooms, Telephone/ Communication Rooms, transformer pad and locations, etc.) 3. Written statement of proposed design. H. LOW VOLTAGE: 1. Fire Alarm System. 2. Audio/Visual System. 3. Security System (Door Alarm, Card access, CCTV). 4. Cable TV. 5. Telephone and Data Communications. 6. Written statement of proposed design. I. GREEN BUILDING (LEED): 1. LEED Rating System Scorecard J. OTHER DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS: 1. Site Development Application, and requested documentation. 2. Environmental Clearance Application, and requested documentation. 3. Meet all Departments review requirements as requested. -- END OF APPENDIX B -- 378 Amendment No. 1 Page 26 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices APPENDIX C: TASK 4, Construction Documents TASK 5, Bidding and Award General: A. Purpose: To describe the content of submittals required by the CITY during and at the conclusion of this phase of the project. B. Content: Construction Document-Submittal Nos. 4a, and 4b correspond to 50%, and 95% complete Construction Documents as defined below. Construction Document-Submittal No. 5a corresponds to the Bid Package (100% Construction Document) as defined below, 5b corresponds to the Issued for Construction Package and 5c corresponds to AS-Built package. C. CONSULTANT’S deliverables include but are not limited to this checklist’s items/topics during the Construction Documents Phase. This APPENDIX shall be used as a guideline for performance of the professional services in this Agreement and shall not reduce the CONSULTANT’s responsibilities as identified in Exhibit A or elsewhere in this AGREEMENT. In the event of any conflict with Exhibit A, the Exhibit A supersedes this Appendix. Submittal Format: Construction Document-Submittal Nos. 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b and 5c shall be submitted on. 22”x 34” for plans and 8.5”x11” double sided for Technical Specifications Manual. Bond prints of all plans will be included with each Submittal. A. One (1) - full size drawing sets & One (1) - ½ size drawing sets (11” x 17”) for each Construction Document Submittal or as directed by the CITY. At 95% and at 100% Construction Documents submittal CONSULTANT shall also submit four (4) full size drawings sets, two (2) 11” x 17” sets and two (2) double sided for Technical specifications Manuals for the City of Cupertino Building Department building permit review. Any technical calculations or documents, supply three (3) stamped and signed copies and a pdf. B. Consultant shall submit one (1) CD-ROM containing all drawing in PDF format and AutoCAD version as identified in the related submittal checklist 379 Amendment No. 1 Page 27 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices C. CONSULTANT shall include detailed Technical Manual from all disciplines. The Technical Manual shall be submitted on MS Word in Palatino Linotype font @ 11pts and a PDF format. Submit one (1) hardcopy and one (1) CD-ROM for all Design-submittals as identified in the related submittal checklist . D. Construction Cost Estimate at 95% Construction Document Submittal ( Construction Document-Submittal No. 4b) shall be submitted as MS Excel and PDF formats. 50% Construction Document Submittal Checklist (Construction Document-Submittal No. 4a) A. PRE-SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST 1. Address all CITY comments on Design Package (Design-Submittal No. 3) submittal. a. Final adjustments to equipment schedule/utilities b. Final approval of all design systems c. Final input on all outstanding issues d. Approval by CITY of interior finishes and color palette 2. Hardware keying/style requirements 3. Provide all input regarding construction contract, conditions, and project procedures and administration (Division 1) 4. Incorporation of CITY LPS Exterior Lighting Installation policy B. ARCHITECTURAL: 1. Title 24 Energy Calculation Sheets/Drawings 2. Site Plan 3. Code Compliance Plan(s). Showing rated corridors, exit signs, Occupancy Classification, etc. 4. Floor Plans - Brought to level of completion showing: a. All areas and their uses b. All doors, windows and special doors. Door numbers c. All major dimensions d. Major Building Sections and Wall Sections e. All built-in items f. Shelving and fixed units locations (cabinetry, etc.) 5. Roof Plans a. All penetrations b. Gutters and downspouts c. Roof slopes 6. Interior Finishes. All major items specified at this stage a. Colors with locations b. Materials c. Schedules d. Outline Finish Color & Materials Schedule – Min. of two (2) options 1. Building Sections 380 Amendment No. 1 Page 28 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices 2. Major Wall Sections (Interior & Exterior) i. Indicating all heights ii. Indicating all materials 3. Building Elevations i. Indicating all materials ii. Indicating all finishes, i.e. sandblasted concrete 4. Exterior Details 5. Door and Window types schedules 6. Wall types 7. Interior Elevations i. Showing Finish Materials 8. Reflected Ceiling Plans - Final Layouts a. Lighting b. Exit signs (ceiling and wall mounted) 9. Coordinated plans showing all systems of all disciplines in the same plane and review conflicts 10. All equipment specified requiring electrical connections to electrical. (Electrical design to be based on this information) 11. Technical Specifications Manual–Table of Contents C. CIVIL: 1. Grading Plans - with cut and fill calculations 2. Site utilities. (on & off-site) 3. Horizontal control and vertical control 4. Erosion Plan 5. Site Improvements 6. Technical Specifications Manual D. STRUCTURAL: 1. Foundation Plans a. All footing depths (Input needed for elevators, sumps, depressions, etc.) b. All major penetrations 2. Framing Plans a. All major members sized (Input needed for elevators, stairs, ducts, etc.) b. All major openings shown 3. Major Sections 4. All schedules: foundation, beam, columns, waffle slab, etc., with general sizes shown 5. Start details. Some typical details shown 6. Technical Specifications Manual 381 Amendment No. 1 Page 29 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices E. MECHANICAL (HVAC): 1. Floor Plans 2. Major and minor duct runs (sized) 3. Main piping runs 4. Catalog cuts of all equipment or preliminary schedule 5. Equipment room layouts and sections and pad requirements 6. Typical details 7. All motors to electrical (locations & sizes) 8. Items requiring emergency power 9. Load calculations 90% complete 10. Technical Specifications Manual F. PLUMBING 1. Fixture and equipment list 2. Coordinate power and emergency power requirements with electrical 3. Plumbing Plans showing major services and toilet room layouts 4. Floor Plans (Showing following piping layouts): a. Domestic b. Drainage - including slopes - locations, sizes and inverts for sanitary and storm connections at building to be done earlier 5. Start Schedules 6. Coordination of items affecting structure 7. Equipment room layouts and pad requirements 8. Technical Specifications Manual G. ELECTRICAL: 1. Site Plan a. Site lighting 2. Floor Plans (locate but no circuits): a. Lighting - including night lighting & emergency lighting b. Power plans. Diagrammatic wiring layout c. Misc. systems plans 3. Fixture list 4. Equipment room layouts and pad requirements, working toward final 5. Technical Specifications Manual J. LOW VOLTAGE: 1. Fire Alarm System 2. Audio/Visual System 3. Security System (Door Alarm, Card access, CCTV) 4. Cable TV 5. Telephone and Data Communications 382 Amendment No. 1 Page 30 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices 6. Technical Specifications Manual K.. FIRE PROTECTION: 1. Technical Specifications Manual 2. Routing diagram K. GREEN BUILDING (LEED) include: 1. LEED Rating System Scorecard 95% Construction Document Submittal Checklist/ Plan Check-set (Construction Document- Submittal No. 4b) A. ARCHITECTURAL: 1. Site Plan - Complete 2. Floor Plan(s) - Complete 3. Room Finish Schedule, Door Schedule including hardware groups, Window Types Schedule and Details - Complete 4. Building Sections - Complete 5. Wall Sections - Complete 6. Building Elevations - Complete 7. Exterior Details. All details on the drawings essentially complete 8. Interior Elevation Complete except for minor coordination with any unfinished interior details 9. Interior Details. All details on the sheet essentially complete 10. Reflected Ceiling Plan(s) - Complete 11. Final Color and Material Schedule 12. Technical Specifications Manual - Complete 13. Size and location of major floor, roof & wall openings 14. Identify full height partition/fire walls/smoke drafts 15. Establish system information for envelope T-24 energy calculations B. CIVIL: 1. Layout and grading - Complete 2. Cut and fill - Complete 3. Site utilities - Complete 4. Details: All drawings essentially complete 5. Technical Specifications Manual – Complete 6. Site Plan: Computed site improvements layout. Include precise locations of major elements relative to benchmarks, floodplain, corners, etc. computer plot of roads parking and building if required. Issue to other disciplines for background. Show grading, boundaries and fencing. 7. Flatwork - Complete 383 Amendment No. 1 Page 31 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices 8. Finished grading - Complete C. STRUCTURAL: 1. Foundation plans with most penetrations - Footing depths updated 2. Framing plans with most penetrations updated - Complete 3. Major Sections - Complete 4. Misc. Structural Details. All details essentially complete 5. Technical Specifications Manual – Complete 6. Foundation outline 7. Floor Framing Plan(s)/Structural grid 8. Roof Framing Plan (Typical Bay Sized) 9. All loads defined 10. Lateral defined and major elements located D. MECHANICAL (HVAC): 1. Floor Plans - Essentially complete 2. Schedules - Essentially complete 3. Details - Essentially complete 4. Control Diagrams - Complete 5. Details Sheets a. Details that only effect mechanical - Started b. All others - Complete 6. Title 24 Calculations 7. Technical Specifications Manual – Complete 8. Major equipment size & locations. Loads to Architectural, Structural and Electrical 9. Major penetrations/plenums/ducts 10. Preliminary utility requirements to plumbing - gas, water, drainage E. PLUMBING 1. Floor Plans - Complete 2. Schedules and Diagrams - Complete 3. Details - Complete 4. Final motor loads coordinated w/ Electrical 5. Title 24 Calculations 6. Technical Specifications Manual – Complete 384 Amendment No. 1 Page 32 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices G. ELECTRICAL: 1. Site Plan and Details - Complete 2. Floor Plans – All devices, fixtures, outlets, and equipment circuited and located. - Complete 3. Fixture Schedule and lighting control diagrams - Complete 4. Panel Schedule Equipment room layouts and details - Complete 5. Details: All included for review Complete 6. Energy use calculations (Title 24) - Complete 7. Load calculations - Complete 8. All coordination with utility companies complete - Complete 9. Technical Specifications Manual - Complete H. LOW VOLTAGE: 1. Fire Alarm System – Complete 2. Audio/Visual System – Complete 3. Security System (Door Alarm, Card access, CCTV) – Complete 4. Cable TV – Complete 5. Telephone and Data Communications – Complete 6. Technical Specifications Manual 7. Fire Alarm System 8. Audio/Visual System. Requirements identified in program by CITY, system laid out in CD’s 9. Telephone and Data Communications. Requirements identified in program by CITY, system laid out in CD’s I. FIRE PROTECTION: 1. Head location – Complete 2. Technical Specifications Manual – Complete J - GREEN BUILDING (LEED) drawings and technical specifications manual include: 1. LEED Rating System Scorecard 2. LEED Project Registration Form and support information if an Additional Services has been authorized for this work 3. Written statement of proposed design, including alternative solutions, cost analysis of LEED Alternatives, evaluation criteria of LEED credits propose if an Additional Services has been authorized for this work 385 Amendment No. 1 Page 33 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices 100% Construction Document Submittal Checklist / Issued for Bid (Construction Doucment- Submittal No. 5a) ALL DISCIPLINES: A. PREREQUISITE ITEMS: 1. Address all CITY comments on all previous Submittals 2. CITY to select all the following to incorporate in Technical Specifications Manual a. Testing Laboratories b. On-Site Representative c. Special inspection/testing d. Add Alternates e. Allowances Amount B. REQUIREMENTS - Submittal Checklist Construction Document-Submittal No. 5a (CD/Bid Package) 1. Complete all drawings and Technical specification Manual 2. Obtain approval from the CITY for ADD & DEDUCT Alternates 3. Coordinate Consultant in-house and with ALL other disciplines 4. Review all Code, Agency, Essential Service Facilities requirements 5. Title 24 Energy Calculations for submittal to the CITY 6. Submit drawings and specifications to the CITY for final approval & authorization to bid C. REQUIREMENTS - Construction Documents/Bid Packages: For General Contract Bid and Pre-Bid Packages to be sent to the City, include the following: 1. Drawings (stamped and wet-signed by California Licensed Architect/Engineer) 2. Project Manual (incorporating CITY provided Sections) (Stamped and wet signed cover sheet) D. GREEN BUILDING (LEED) drawings and technical specifications manual include: 1. LEED Rating System Scorecard E. ARCHITECTURAL: 1. Site Plan – Complete 2. Floor Plan(s) – Complete 3. Room Finish Schedule, Door Schedule including hardware groups, Window Types Schedule and Details – Complete 4. Building Sections – Complete 5. Wall Sections – Complete 6. Building Elevations – Complete 7. Exterior Details. All details on the drawings essentially complete 8. Interior Elevation. Complete except for minor coordination with any unfinished interior details 9. Interior Details. All details on the sheet essentially complete 10. Reflected Ceiling Plan(s) – Complete 386 Amendment No. 1 Page 34 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices 11. Final Color and Material Schedule 12. Technical Specifications Manual – Complete F. CIVIL: 1. Layout and grading - Complete 2. Cut and fill - Complete 3. Site utilities - Complete 4. Details: All drawings essentially complete 5. Technical Specifications Manual – Complete 6. Site Plan: Computed site improvements layout. Include precise locations of major elements relative to benchmarks, floodplain, corners, etc. computer plot of roads parking and building if required. Issue to other disciplines for background. Show grading, boundaries and fencing. 7. Preliminary drainage layout 8. Off-site utility coordination: may need to be completed earlier to study alternatives 9. Preliminary site utilities layout including points of connection, if applicable 10. Flatwork - Complete 11. Finished grading - Complete G. STRUCTURAL: 1. Foundation plans with most penetrations - Footing depths updated 2. Framing plans with most penetrations updated - Complete 3. Major Sections - Complete 5. Misc. Structural Details. All details essentially complete 6. Technical Specifications Manual – Complete 7. Lateral defined and major elements located H. MECHANICAL (HVAC): 1. Floor Plans - Essentially complete 2. Schedules - Essentially complete 3. Details - Essentially complete 4. Control Diagrams - Complete 5. Details Sheets a. Details that only effect mechanical - Started b. All others - Complete 6. Title 24 Calculations 7. Major penetrations/plenums/ducts 8. Technical Specifications Manual - Complete 387 Amendment No. 1 Page 35 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices J. PLUMBING 1. Floor Plans - Complete 2. Schedules and Diagrams - Complete 3. Details - Complete 4. Title 24 Calculations 5. Technical Specifications Manual – Complete K. ELECTRICAL: 1. Site Plan and Details - Complete 2. Floor Plans – All devices, fixtures, outlets, and equipment circuited and located. - Complete 3. Fixture Schedule and lighting control diagrams - Complete 4. Panel Schedule, Equipment room layouts and details - Complete 5. Details: All included for review Complete 6. Energy use calculations (Title 24) - Complete 7. Load calculations - Complete 8. All coordination with utility companies complete - Complete 9. Technical Specifications Manual L. LOW VOLTAGE: 1. Fire Alarm System – Complete 2. Audio/Visual System – Complete 3. Security System (Door Alarm, Card access, CCTV) – Complete 4. Cable TV – Complete 5. Telephone and Data Communications – Complete 6. Technical Specifications Manual 7. Fire Alarm System. Requirements identified in Design, laid out in CD’s 8. Audio/Visual System. Requirements identified in program by CITY, system laid out in CD’s 9. Telephone and Data Communications. Requirements identified in program by CITY, system laid out in CD’s M. FIRE PROTECTION: 1. Head location - Complete 2. Technical Specifications Manual – Complete, identifying Fire Protection Assemblies 388 Amendment No. 1 Page 36 of 36 Siegel & Strain Architects Agreement Exhibits & Appendices Issued for Construction Package Checklist (Construction Document-Submittal No. 5b) ALL DISCIPLINES: A. PREREQUISITE ITEMS: 1. Address all addenda, clarifications and value engineering comments incorporated into set. B. REQUIREMENTS – Issued for Construction Documents Package: 1. Three (3) full-size composite set of Drawings (stamped and wet-signed by California Licensed Architect/Engineer), and three (3) full-size copies and one (1) ½ size copies. 2. Composite set of the Project Manual (incorporating CITY provided Sections) (Stamped and wet signed cover sheet). 3. One (1)CD-ROM copy in an electronic PDF format of the entire submittal and one (1) CD-ROM copy of the base sheets of all disciplines in AutoCAD (latest version compatible with City’s version) and project manual in MS Word. As-Built Construction Package Checklist (Construction Document-Submittal No. 5c) ALL DISCIPLINES: A. PREREQUISITE ITEMS: 1. Address all addenda, clarifications, change orders and site Record Field set from contractor comments and revisions incorporated into set B. REQUIREMENTS – Issued for Construction Documents Package: 1. Composite set of Drawings (stamped and wet-signed by California Licensed Architect/Engineer). 2. Composite set of the Project Manual (incorporating CITY provided Sections) (Stamped and wet signed cover sheet). 3. One (1)CD-ROM copy in PDF format of the entire submittal and one (1) CD-ROM copy of the base sheets of all disciplines in AutoCAD (latest version compatible with City’s version) and project manual in MS Word. -- END OF APPENDIX C -- 389 RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND RECORD A DEED RESTRICTION ON MCCLELLAN RANCH PRESERVE PROPERTY WHEREAS, on July 1, 2011, the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Office of Grants and Local Services conditionally approved Grant RU-43-001A Roberti-Z’berg-Haris-Urban Needs Basis grant (Grant) for the City of Cupertino, and WHEREAS, the recordation of a Deed Restriction on the Property is a condition of the Grant. The duration of the Deed Restriction shall remain in full force and effect and shall bind the City for the period described in the Deed Restriction, from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2031, and WHEREAS, the restriction grants a right of entry and a limitation of use to an environmental classroom facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute and record the Deed Restriction. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st day of April, 2014, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor 390 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Office of Grants and Local Services PO Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Attn: Natalie Bee DEED RESTRICTION I. WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Owner(s)” is/are recorded owner(s) of the real property described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”); and II. WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation (hereinafter referred to as “DPR”) is a public agency created and existing under the authority of section 5001 of the California Public Resources Code (hereinafter referred to as the “PRC”). And III. WHEREAS, Owner(s) (or Applicants) applied to DPR for grant funds available pursuant to the 2002 Resources Bond Act , Roberti-Z'berg-Harris - Urban Needs Basis Program for A development project in the City of Cupertino to construct an environmental center and outdoor exhibit space on the Property; and IV. WHEREAS, on _July 1, 2011 , DPR’s Office of Grants and Local Services conditionally approved Grant RU-43-001A , (hereinafter referred to as “Grant”) for A development project in the City of Cupertino to construct an environmental center and outdoor exhibit space on the Property, subject to, among other conditions, recordation of this Deed Restriction on the Property; and V. WHEREAS, but for the imposition of the Deed Restriction condition of the Grant, the Grant would not be consistent with the public purposes of the 2002 Resources Bond Act, Roberti- 391 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Z'berg-Harris - Urban Needs Basis and the funds that are the subject of the Grant could therefore not have been granted; and VI. WHEREAS, Owner(s) has/ve elected to comply with the Deed Restriction of the Grant, so as to enable Owner(s), to receive the Grant funds and perform the work described in the Grant; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the issuance of the Grant funds by DPR, the undersigned Owner(s) for himself/herself/themselves and for his/her/their heirs, assigns, and successors- in-interest, hereby irrevocably covenant(s) with DPR that the condition of the grant (set forth at paragraph(s) 1 through 5 and in Exhibit B hereto) shall at all times on and after the date on which this Deed Restriction is recorded constitute for all purposes covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the Property that are hereby attached to the deed to the Property as fully effective components thereof. 1. DURATION. (a) This Deed Restriction shall remain in full force and effect and shall bind Owner(s) and all his/her/their assigns or successors-in-interest for the period running from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2031. 2. TAXES AND ASSESMENTS. It is intended that this Deed Restriction is irrevocable and shall constitute an enforceable restriction within the meaning of a) Article XIII, section 8, of the California Constitution; and b) section 402.1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code or successor statue. Furthermore, this Deed Restriction shall be deemed to constitute a servitude upon and burden to the Property within the meaning of section 3712(d) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, or successor statue, which survives a sale of tax-deeded property. 3. RIGHT OF ENTRY. DPR or its agent or employees may enter onto the Property at times reasonably acceptable to Owner(s) to ascertain whether the use restrictions set forth above are being observed. 4. REMEDIES. Any act, conveyance, contract, or authorization by Owner(s) whether written or oral which uses or would cause to be used or would permit use of the Property contrary to the terms of this Deed Restriction will be deemed a violation and a breach hereof. DPR may pursue any and 392 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 all available legal and/or equitable remedies to enforce the terms and conditions of this Deed Restriction. In the event of a breach, any forbearance on the part of DPR to enforce the terms and provisions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of enforcement rights regarding any subsequent breach. 5. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of these restrictions is held to be invalid, or for any reason becomes unenforceable, no other provision shall be affected or impaired. Dated: ______________________, 20 ____ Business Name (if property is owned by a business): __________________________________________ Signed: ________________________________ Signed: ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ PRINT/TYPE NAME & CAPAC ITY OF ABOVE PRINT/TYPE NAME & CAPACITY OF ABOVE (GRANTEE’S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) (ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE, AS REQUIRED) **NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON THE NEXT PAGE** 393 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 State of California County of _______________ On __________________ before me, __________________________, a 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. Signature ______________________________ (Seal) 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 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: April 1, 2014 Subject Interim Parking Plan at the Civic Center. Recommended Action Accept Staff Report on interim parking improvements at the Civic Center. Discussion On March 4, 2014, Council approved an agreement for consultant services for the Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design. The master plan process is now underway, with a compact schedule of approximately ten months to conduct a large amount of public outreach, develop alternatives, and a supporting environmental review. One key goal of the master plan is to provide long-term solutions to the current parking problem. As indicated during the discussion at this Council meeting, if the concept of a parking garage is validated as an outcome of this process, the fastest it could be constructed on the site is 2 ½ years. Waiting until almost 2017 for any improvement to the current parking situation is not acceptable, so interim opportunities for improvement are being aggressively pursued in and around the Civic Center area. For the past several weeks, staff has evaluated a variety of options to reduce demand and improve availability of parking for both Civic Center patrons and employees. Assisting with this evaluation was a parking survey completed by both City and County Library employees. The reaction to the survey was valuable, with 118 responses. The questions and responses to the survey are attached for reference (Attachment B). The table below identifies the significant interim changes being considered as well as the approximate number of stalls resulting from the change if they were implemented. 1 408 Proposed Parking Measure # of spaces added or freed Cost (high/Med/Low) Challenges Designated parking for employees on portions Rodrigues, Torre & Pacifica Aves. Up to 33 Low Actual effectiveness unknown Parking stall time restrictions within Civic Center Unknown Low Possible unacceptable inconveniences to patrons and employees Reconfiguration of parking lot / removal of landscape Up to 27 High High cost and possibly removed with master plan Carpool Up to 6 Low Implementation difficult for small benefit City vehicles relocated to Service Center Up to 11 Low Implementation difficult for small benefit Employee parking at Service Center with shuttle to City Hall Up to 30 Med Implementation difficult based on dispersed work arrival and departure times. Potentially costly to operate. Lease of offsite parking near City Hall Unknown High No willing lessors to date Other opportunities, such as ongoing discussions with library staff to better understand the parking demands of library patrons, as well as planned events at Community Hall are also occurring. The goal of these discussions is to coordinate City and Library planned events so parking constraints are also being considered. 2 409 Cost, number of additional parking spaces provided, and practicality to patrons and employees are determining factors in evaluating the interim changes. Physical improvements that reconfigure the parking would be costly and would take significant time to implement; and additional time restrictions within the parking lots would require active enforcement that may result in unintended consequences and inconvenience to patrons at both City Hall and the Library. Programs such as carpooling, shuttling of employees and offsite parking of vehicles will also be followed up upon as is practical. Because all of these interim solutions lead to some amount of inefficiency and limited individual benefit, staff recommends that they be implemented one at a time as we monitor the effectiveness of each measure—beginning with the measure recommended in this report. Parking survey results indicate that designating portions of adjacent streets for employee parking may provide the best interim plan in terms of parking benefit, and as well as patron and employee convenience. Few Library patrons park on Rodrigues Avenue, the northerly portion of Torre Avenue near City Hall or on Pacifica Avenue. Designating these areas for employee parking would generally be convenient for employees and not a disruption for other patrons. Additionally, many of these on-street parking spaces, especially on Rodrigues Avenue, are being used during the day by people not working at or visiting the Civic Center. Providing employee preferential parking zones for these designated parking stalls will allow up to 33 spaces to be freed in Civic Center parking lots. This will create more parking opportunity for Civic Center patrons. Library patrons are generally not using these 33 parking spaces, and in fact many of these parking spaces appear to be used by surrounding businesses and homes. Attachment A is an aerial photo of the Civic Center area illustrating the 33 preferential parking spaces highlighted in yellow. Staff will also designate several spaces in the lot west of City Hall for one hour Permit Center parking. Direction to allow preferential parking zones on public streets will require, per the Cupertino Municipal Code, that an ordinance be adopted. If this action is taken, it will be recommended that employees at the Civic Center be issued parking stickers or hanging passes for their personal cars. All employees will be directed to first use these 33 parking spaces before parking in the Civic Center parking lot. It may also be recommended that employees volunteering to park on Pacifica Avenue qualify for incentives such as additional wellness hours. Any change to parking, except physical reconfiguration of stalls, will require monitoring to ensure that the desired results are being achieved. If the recommended 3 410 actions to not produce a sufficient improvement to the parking congestion problem, staff would return to City Council with additional more stringent parking management recommendations. Fiscal Impact If at a future time staff is directed to draft an ordinance for preferential parking as discussed in this report, there would be a limited expense for signage and striping, there would not be direct monetary cost for offering additional wellness hours for the parking stalls on Pacifica Avenue. No additional budget appropriation would be needed. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Kristina Alfaro, Interim Director of Administrative Services Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Aerial Map of Existing Parking B – 3/18/14 Survey Results 4 411 FARALLONEPACIFICATORRERODRIGUES SOMERSET LAS ONDAS WHITNEYTOWN CENTER PACIFICA 53 - Public 2 - ADA 1 - Mail Clerk 1 - Book Drop 4 - Permit Center (1 hour ) CITY HALL PARKING LOT COMMUNITY HALL PARKING LOTLIBRARY PARKING LOT 137 - Public 4 - ADA 5 - Book Drop 22 - Public Legend City Hall Parking - Proposed 2 Hour Parking 20 Minute Parking EV Charging Stations Employee Parking No Parking AnyTime Permit Center - 1 hour Parking Public Parking 10 Parking Spaces 10 Parking Spaces 8 Parking Spaces 5 Parking Spaces 2 EV Charging Stations 2 - 20 Min Parking Spaces 12 Parking Spaces 12 Parking Spaces ATTACHMENT B 412 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 1 53.39%6 3 23.73%2 8 22.88%2 7 Q1 Do y ou w ork for the City of Cupe rtino or the Library ? Answ ered: 118 Sk ippe d: 0 Tota l 1 1 8 City of Cupertino a t... City of Cupe rtino no... Santa Cla ra County Library 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % Answ er Choices Re s pons e s Ci ty of Cuperti no at Ci ty Ha l l Ci ty of Cuperti no not at Ci ty Ha l l Santa Cl a ra County L i b ra ry 413 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 1 67.29%7 2 32.71%3 5 Q2 Do y ou w ork at the Civ ic Ce nte r Location? If y e s, skip to que stion 4. If no, continue onto que stion 3. Answ ered: 107 Sk ippe d: 1 1 Tota l 1 0 7 Ye s No 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % Answ er Choices Re s pons e s Yes No 414 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 3 Q3 If y ou do not w ork at the Civ ic Ce nte r location, se le ct the day s and tim e s that y ou do v isit. Once y ou'v e answ e re d this que stion ple ase skip forw ard to que stion 12. Answ ered: 29 Sk ippe d: 8 9 7 :3 0 a m-9 :3 0 a m 9 :3 0 a m-1 1 :3 0 a m 1 1 :3 0 a m-1 :3 0 pm 415 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 2 / 3 6 8 .4 2 % 1 3 36.84% 7 4 7 .3 7 % 9 4 7 .3 7 % 9 63.16% 12 1 9 4 2 .8 6 % 6 64.29% 9 4 2 .8 6 % 6 6 4 .2 9 % 9 50% 7 1 4 5 6 .2 5 % 9 50% 8 6 2 .5 0 % 1 0 5 0 % 8 43.75% 7 1 6 7 0 % 7 60% 6 9 0 % 9 8 0 % 8 70% 7 1 0 6 6 .6 7 % 4 50% 3 1 0 0 % 6 6 6 .6 7 % 4 66.67% 4 6 8 0 %60%1 0 0 %6 0 %80% M onday T uesd a y We d n e sday T hursd a y Fri day 1 :3 0 pm-3 :3 0 pm 3 :3 0 pm-4 :3 0 pm Afte r 4:30pm 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % M onda y Tue s da y Wednesday Thursday Friday Total Re s ponde nts 7:30am -9:30am 9:30am -11:30am 11:30am -1:30pm 1:30pm -3:30pm 3:30pm -4:30pm After 4:30pm 416 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 3 / 3 8 0 % 4 60% 3 1 0 0 % 5 6 0 % 3 80% 4 5 After 4:30pm 417 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 2 8.42%8 91.58%8 7 Q4 Would y ou utilize a charging station for e le ctric only v e hicle s if m ore w e re av ailable ? Answ ered: 95 Sk ippe d: 2 3 Tota l 9 5 #Other (ple a s e s pe c ify)Date 1 No c urrent need 3 /1 8 /2 0 1 4 4 :4 3 PM 2 Does not appl y to m e.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 7 :1 6 PM 3 If th e re were c hargi ng stati ons, th a t m a y affec t m y dec i si on regardi ng the next c ar I purc hase 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 3 :3 0 PM 4 I d o n 't own /c a n 't afford an el ec tri c c ar.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 2 :2 9 PM 5 N/A 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :5 3 AM 6 I d o n 't have an el ec tri c c ar 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 4 AM 7 I d o n 't have an el ec tri c ve h i c l e 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :0 6 AM 8 T he c hargi ng stati ons a re a l ways i n use.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :4 5 AM 9 I d o n o t o wn an el ec tri c ve h i c l e 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :4 5 AM 10 I d o n o t o wn an el ec troni c c ar, I j ust thi nk th i s i s a good i dea as m o re a n d m o re p e o p l e a re b u yi ng th e m . 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 5 :2 2 PM 11 d o n o t o wn an el ec tri c ve h i c l e 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :0 8 AM 12 Don't h a ve an el ec tri c vehi c l e 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :5 5 AM 13 If a d d i ti o n a l c h a rg i n g stati ons we re a vai l abl e, I wo u l d c o n si der buyi n g a n e l e c tri c vehi c l e.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 8 PM 14 I d o n 't understa n d th i s questi on. I don't own an el ec tri c vehi c l e. Are you sayi ng "Woul d I c onsi d e r p u rc h a si ng an el ec tri c ve h i c l e i f m o re c h a rg i n g stati ons we re a vai l abl e?" If so, then possi b l y yes, b u t o n m y sa l a ry, HA! T hat's funny. El ec tri c vehi c l es are sti l l p re tty darn expensi ve and m y sal ary h a sn't kept up. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 3 PM 15 If th e c i ty gi ves m e an el ec tri c c ar, I wo u l d n e e d a d e d i c a te d c h a rg i n g p a rki ng spac e.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 7 PM Ye s No 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % Answ er Choices Re s pons e s Yes No 418 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 2 / 2 16 Yes 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 4 PM 419 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 3 Q5 If y ou curre ntly driv e to w ork, w hat othe r options w ould y ou conside r? For e x am ple , I w ould carpool or use public transportation to ge t to w ork but... Answ ered: 75 Sk ippe d: 4 3 #Responses Date 1 I woul d take the Ca l tra i n b u t th e re i s no stop near the offi c e and i t wo u l d b e very ti m e c onsum i ng.3 /1 9 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :3 9 AM 2 I b o th d ri ve and ri de m y bi ke.3 /1 8 /2 0 1 4 6 :0 3 PM 3 Wa l ki ng oc c asi onal l y. Carpool .3 /1 8 /2 0 1 4 4 :4 3 PM 4 i b i ke on oc c asi on 3 /1 8 /2 0 1 4 6 :5 9 AM 5 Publ i c transportati on i s way to o sl ow 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 6 :0 6 PM 6 I h a ve a toddl er wh o I o fte n n e e d to d ro p o ff fo r b a b ysi tti n g o n th e way to work.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 2 :4 1 PM 7 Unl ess h u m a n s c an fi gure out how to tel eport sa fe l y, I wa n t m y si n g l e c a r u se i ndependenc e.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 2 :2 9 PM 8 I n e e d to u se the c ar to pi c k up ki d s and get to a sec ond j ob fast.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 :3 8 PM 9 n o n e 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 :3 5 PM 10 I woul d use publ i c transp o rta ti o n b u t i t ta kes 1 1/2 hours to g e t to work on the bus, whereas i f I dri ve i t o n l y take s 20 m i n. 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 :3 4 PM 11 M y sc h e d u l e i s al ternati ng, and there are few peopl e wi th si m i l ar sc hedul es th a t l i ve near m y area a vai l abl e for c ar pool . Pu b l i c tra n sportati on woul d requi re at two h o u r ri d e th a t woul d not g u a ra n te e I g e t to work on ti m e, or that I wo u l d h a ve a bus to m a ke i t bac k near m y pl ac e at a d e c e n t ti m e . 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 :2 7 PM 12 b i c yc l e 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :4 7 PM 13 I d o c a rp o o l wi th m y h u sband to work a t th e l i b ra ry.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :1 9 PM 14 th e re a re n o c o n veni ent al ternati ves c om i ng from the Ea st Bay.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :5 3 AM 15 N/A 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :4 4 AM 16 Bi ke to wo rk but c an onl y d o i t som eti m es.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 4 AM 17 I work out i n the m orni ng, then go to wo rk di rec tl y fro m th e g ym . It wo u l d b e h a rd to c a rp o o l u n l e ss I c o u l d fi n d som eone to work o u t wi th. 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 3 AM 18 Publ i c transportati on 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :0 6 AM 19 I woul d use publ i c transi t a fe w days a week i f i t were free and m ore pool c ars we re a vai l i bl e.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :4 7 AM 20 I'd take a n e m p l o yees o n l y type of bus, l i ke th e b u sses o ffe re d to T ec h em pl oye e s.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :4 5 AM 21 I d o n o t h a ve any other opti ons as I c a n n o t c a rp o o l si nc e m y c h i l d re n a re g o i n g to d a y c are, and I a m u n a b l e to a l te r m y sc h e d u l e fo r a n o th e r p e rson. 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :4 5 AM 22 I woul d c arpool but need to pi c k up ki d s from sc hool /sp o rts at va ryi ng ti m es.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :4 3 AM 23 Carpool 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :3 2 AM 24 I woul d c arpool or use publ i c transp o ra ti o n a s l ong as there wa s a ve h i c l e a vai l abl e for busi n e ss u se through out the day. 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 6 :3 8 AM 25 L i b ra ry sc h e d u l e s are ve ry di fferent, and nobody has m y exa c t sc hedul e.3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :1 6 AM 26 Publ i c transportati on take s 4-5 ti m es as l o n g a s dri vi n g , so I dri ve .3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :5 5 AM 27 n o a c c e ss to publ i c transp o rta ti o n .3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :1 9 AM 420 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 2 / 3 28 I c o u l d wal k wh e n weather i s good 3 /1 4 /2 0 1 4 5 :1 8 PM 29 th e re a re n o b u s stops n e a rb y and I so m e ti m e s work u n p re d i c ta b l e h o u rs to c arpool and I don't know i f a n yone l i ves near m e. 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :5 3 AM 30 Onl y dri ve to work. Work p a rt-ti m e a n d work di fferent hours th a n o th e rs.3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 9 :4 6 AM 31 I l i ve to far to c arpool and publ i c transp o rta ti o n i s not an opti on. I have o b l i g a ti o n s that requi re m e to d ri ve m y c ar eac h day. I shoul d not be penal i ze d b e c a u se I need to dri ve m y c ar. We do not h a ve a good transp o rta ti o n system here that woul d m ake i t e a sy to u se i t. 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 8 :5 8 AM 32 I woul d c arpool to work b u t som eti m es sta y l ater at wo rk and I woul dn't want to hol d up m y c arpool b u d d y. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 5 :2 5 PM 33 n o n e 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 3 :4 2 PM 34 M y hours a re i rre g u l a r a n d b u s adds too m uc h travel ti m e 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 3 :3 3 PM 35 b i c yc l e to wo rk 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 2 :5 8 PM 36 n o n e 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 2 :5 5 PM 37 Bus Syste m i f th e re was a di rec t express b u s 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 2 :5 1 PM 38 On oc c asi o n a l l y ri de m y bi c yc l e 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :3 7 AM 39 i u sual l y c a rp o o l wi th m y wi fe. but I do dri ve fro m ti m e to ti m e b y m ysel f. I wo u l d u se publ i c tra spotati on to work b u t I l i ve 40 m i l es a way a n d p u b l i c tra n s woul d take m e a b o u t 2 h o u rs both ways. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :2 6 AM 40 I woul d c onsi der bi ki n g to work but I have c hi l d pi c k up and drop off c onsi d e ra ti o n s that do not a l i g n wi th bi ki ng to wo rk. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :1 9 AM 41 I wal k. I wo u l d c a rp o o l i f a vai l abl e from the Su n n yval e trai n stati on to Ci ty Ha l l o r fro m SF to Ci ty Hal l . 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :0 8 AM 42 T here are not any d i re c t b u s l i nes that c onnec t wi th th e tra i n stati on.3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :2 4 AM 43 I l i ve i n Sa n Fra n c i sc o and woul d defi ni tel y take a sh u ttl e i f i t was avai l abl e.3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :4 0 AM 44 I o n l y c om e i n twi c e a week and I have another j ob ri ght after m y ti m e wi th m y Ci ty so i t i s m ore c o n veni ent for m e. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 6 AM 45 Publ i c T ransp o rta ti o n 3 x a we e k i f worka b l e 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 4 AM 46 None 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :0 4 AM 47 I woul d c onsi der c arpool i f there we re i n c e n ti ves. It d o e s requi re a bi t of c oordi nati on but there are c a rp o o l o p ti o n s around where I l i ve wi th other c ol l eges. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :5 5 AM 48 Wo u l d c o n si der a shuttl e 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :3 4 AM 49 I woul d c arpool but don't know wh o i s i nterested 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :0 8 AM 50 No opti on as publ i c transp o rt woul d take an average of 3 hours to get to wo rk and there i s no one to c a rp o o l wi th. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :0 2 AM 51 p o ssi bl y c arpool 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 7 :5 5 AM 52 I a l re a d y take "al ternate" transp o rta ti o n to work so th e p a rki ng si tuati on does n o t u sual l y a ffe c t m e . I o n l y rarel y dri ve a c a r to work. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 7 :4 8 AM 53 Bi c yc l e 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 7 :4 4 AM 54 n o n e 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 7 :2 1 AM 55 None 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 8 :4 3 PM 56 Bi ki ng, wa l ki ng, bus 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 6 :3 0 PM 57 I c o u l d ri d e m y bi ke d u ri n g warm weather.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :4 8 PM 58 I h a ve 3 sm a l l c h i l d re n a n d m u st have a vehi c l e i n c ase o f e m e rg e n c y.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :4 2 PM 59 Vouc hers for usi n g p u b l i c tra n si t or al ternati ve m o d e s of transportati on. Fl exi bi l i ty i n work sc h e d u l e i f a l te rn a ti ve m eans o f c o m m u ti n g a re p u rsued. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :3 2 PM 421 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 3 / 3 60 I n e e d to h a ve m y c ar at c i ty h a l l 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 9 PM 61 Publ i c T ransp o rta ti o n , b u t i t ta ke too l ong.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 8 PM 62 Publ i c transportati on i s i n c o n veni ent (wo u l d ta ke doubl e the ti m e). I woul d c arpool i f I c oul d fi nd som eone wi th a si m i l a r work sc h e d u l e . 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 6 PM 63 I d o n 't kn o w of any o p ti o n s to si ngl e vehi c l e c om m uti ng that woul d wo rk for m e.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 6 PM 64 Publ i c transportati on wo u l d m a ke m y c o m m u te a t l e a st one hour l onger than i t i s now. T hat's not m u c h o f a n a l te rn a ti ve. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 3 PM 65 Publ i c transportati on take s 2 to 3 hrs to get to Ci vi c Ce n te r. Dri vi n g ta kes 45m i ns to 1 h r. Carpool not a n o p ti o n . 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :4 8 PM 66 wi th the publ i c transporati on we c u rre n tl y have i n pl ac e, i t woul d take m e two hours to get to work...and I l i ve i n San Jose! 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :4 8 PM 67 T el ec om m ute i f ac c ess to m a i n serve r was avai l abl e 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :4 7 PM 68 Do not dri ve to work.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 7 PM 69 No other opti ons. I am i n the fi el d a l ot and need the fl exi bi l i ty o f h a vi ng m y personal vehi c l e wi thout m onopol i zi n g a p o o l vehi c l e. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 4 PM 70 Van pool from transi t :) or pi c ku p l o c a ti o n s (SF?) Em p l o yee bi ke fl e e t fro m tra n si t 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 4 PM 71 b i c yc l e 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 3 PM 72 n /a 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 3 PM 73 I l i ve too far awa y, wo rk at di fferent ti m es oc c asi o n a l l y, and m any ti m es have m eeti ngs after wo rk o n th i s si de of town . 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 2 PM 74 p u b l i c tra n sportati on 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 2 PM 75 No publ i c transportati on avai l abl e i n m y a re a , n o c o -workers c l o se enough.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 2 PM 422 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 2 Q6 If y ou driv e to w ork, w hat are the tim e s y ou norm ally arriv e and de part? Answ ered: 90 Sk ippe d: 2 8 35.23% 31 28.41% 25 34.09% 30 0% 0 2.27% 2 8 8 3.66% 3 0% 0 7.32% 6 31.71% 26 57.32% 47 8 2 #Other (ple a s e s pe c ify)Date 1 T ues. 4:50pm , Wed. 1:50pm , T h u rs. 9:50am , Fri . 9:30am , Sat. 9:30am , Su n . 1 1 :5 0 a m 3 /1 8 /2 0 1 4 5 :5 0 PM 2 Som e eve n i n g s I depart l ater >9:00pm 3 /1 8 /2 0 1 4 4 :4 8 PM 3 5 :5 0 a m a rri ve, 3:30 pm depart 3 /1 8 /2 0 1 4 7 :0 0 AM 4 vari es: 7 :3 0 a m 9 :a m 1 2 p m 4 :3 0 p m 6 p m 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :0 7 PM 6:30am -7:29am 7:30am -8:29am 8 :3 0 a m o r l a te r 4:30pm -5:30pm 5:31pm or l ater Arriv e Depart 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % 6:30am-7:29am 7:30am-8:29am 8:30am or la te r 4 :3 0 pm-5 :3 0 pm 5 :3 1 pm or later Total Arri ve Depart 423 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 2 / 2 5 I a l so work som e days from 12:40-9:10 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 6 :3 0 PM 6 T i m i ngs are di fferent for di fferent days.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 5 :1 6 PM 7 e very other day I a rri ve at el even thi rty a m b e c a u se i t takes a b o u t a h a l f h o u r to fi n d p a rki ng when I start at noon. 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 :4 9 PM 8 T he l i brary h a s 2 shi fts, 9 :3 0 -6 a n d 1 2 -9 . I work 12-9.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :2 9 PM 9 3 :0 0 p m o r 4 :0 0 p m 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :5 6 AM 10 6 a m -4 p m 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :5 1 AM 11 6 a m to 6 :3 0 a m 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :1 3 AM 12 SunM onT ue 9:30-6:10, Wed-T h u 1 2 :3 0 -9 :1 0 p m 3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :2 2 AM 13 Depart between 3:00pm - 4:00pm 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :2 3 AM 14 I a m c o n sul tant and work o c c a si onal l y, u sual l y fo r 2 -3 h o u rs 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 3 :3 8 PM 15 3 :0 0 PM 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 2 :5 9 PM 16 7 :3 0 a m to 5 :3 0 p m 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :1 3 AM 17 Arri ve 6 :0 0 a m 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :1 1 AM 18 Al so 5:31 or l ater but c oul d onl y c hec k one 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 7 :5 9 AM 19 Depart 7pm or l ater 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 4 PM 20 a rri val ti m e vari es 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 0 PM 21 L a te Counc i l m eeti ngs I c om e i n l ater i n the m orni ng, l eave l ater i n the eve n i n g , a n d som eti m es work past 5 :3 0 p .m . 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 9 PM 424 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 3 Q7 Once parke d do y ou ty pically le av e y our v e hicle parke d all day ? Answ ered: 44 Sk ippe d: 7 4 Whe n do you le ave ? Be fo re 1 0 a m 1 0 a m -1 1 a m 11am -12pm 12pm -2pm After 2pm If no 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % 425 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 2 / 3 When do you le a v e? 6 .8 2 % 3 4 .5 5 % 2 1 5 .9 1 % 7 6 3 .6 4 % 2 8 9 .0 9 % 4 4 4 And What time do you return? 0% 0 7 .1 4 % 3 7 8 .5 7 % 3 3 14.29% 6 4 2 #Other (ple a s e s pe c ify)Date 1 Yes, on the Fri days and Sa tu rd a ys I work 3 /1 8 /2 0 1 4 5 :5 0 PM 2 I h a ven't been l eavi n g fo r l u n c h , whi c h I woul d l i ke to d o o c c a si onal l y, b e c a u se the parki ng i s so c o n g e sted that I don't want to l oose m y spac e! 3 /1 8 /2 0 1 4 4 :4 8 PM 3 l e a ve onc e fi ni sh work 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 5 :5 2 PM 4 (Exc e p t Fri d a y m orni ngs),I work at another si te n o spec i fi ed to any ti m e .3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 2 :3 8 PM 5 yes whether i t be for the regul ar day ti m e ti l si x o r e veni ng ti l ni ne.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 :4 9 PM 6 Som eti m es the l i brari ans g o o u t to c l a sses, o r to th e c o m m u n i ty to do outreac h duri ng the day, so yes, o n o c c a si on I wi l l fi nd a praki n g spac e at 12, but have to l e a ve at 2 pm and c om e bac k a t 3 p m to fi n d n o p a rki ng. 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :2 9 PM 7 I g o to h a ve l unc h outsi d e th e L i b ra ry.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :2 8 AM 8 Vari es from day to day. L e a ve/Re tu rn a n ywh e re fro m 1 1 :0 0 a m --2 :3 0 p m 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :2 3 AM And What tim e do you r e tur n? 10am -11am 11am -12pm 1 2 p m -2 p m After 2pm If no 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % Be fore 10am 10am-11am 11am-12pm 12pm-2pm After 2 pm Tota l If no 1 0 a m-1 1 a m 11am-12pm 12pm-2pm After 2 pm Total If no 426 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 3 / 3 9 On di fferent days, I have di fferent l unc h ti m es.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :2 0 AM 10 Som eti m es 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 0 AM 11 Wh e n I l e a ve for l unc h or di nner or a m eeti ng, I l eave for about 1-2 hours. Lunc h i s 1 -2 , Di nner 5-6, m e e ti n g ti m e s va ry 3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :2 2 AM 12 Depends on the day 3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :0 1 AM 13 I u sual l y l e a ve m y c ar parked al l day, but som eti m es I h a ve to l eave 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :0 2 PM 14 I a l so l eave i n th e a m when I have a p p ts anywhere from 8:30-10:30 am 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 1 AM 15 p a rked al l day 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 2 :5 4 PM 16 L e a ve onl y i f I have a n e rra n d th a t c a n n o t b e d o n e a t a n o th e r ti m e b e c a u se I know I won't fi n d a p a rki ng spot wh e n I re tu rn . I've gi ve n u p g o i n g o u t to l u n c h si nc e there i s l ac k o f p a rki ng. No one wants to c arpool to l unc h ei ther!! 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :5 4 AM 17 fo r l u n c h 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :1 3 AM 18 typi c al l y for l unc h - but not c onsi ste n t. M o st of the ti m e i t's parked al l day.3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :0 3 AM 19 T wo days a we e k I l eave b e tween 10:30 and 2:00. On e d a y I l eave at 5:30.3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :2 0 AM 20 I d o n o t u se a parki ng sp a c e m o st days.3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 7 :5 9 AM 21 yes 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 6 :3 5 PM 22 o fte n l e a ve m orni ng & re tu rn m i d d a y or afternoon & re tu rn b y l ate afternoon 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 0 PM 23 vari es 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 2 PM 24 Vari ous ti m es. In fi e l d fre q u e n tl y.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 9 PM 427 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 3 Q8 If the answ e r abov e is NO, w hy do y ou ty pically m ov e y our v e hicle ? Answ ered: 51 Sk ippe d: 6 7 Offs ite M e e ting Lunc h Pers ona l Bus ine s s Othe r (specify in box be low ) 428 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 2 / 3 5 6 .2 5 % 9 6 8 .7 5 % 1 1 75% 12 68.75% 11 6 8 .7 5 % 1 1 1 6 8 5 .7 1 % 3 6 8 3 .3 3 % 3 5 85.71% 36 80.95% 34 7 8 .5 7 % 3 3 4 2 8 7 .5 0 % 1 4 9 3 .7 5 % 1 5 100% 16 87.50% 14 7 5 % 1 2 1 6 5 7 .1 4 % 4 7 1 .4 3 % 5 85.71% 6 71.43% 5 7 1 .4 3 % 5 7 #Other (ple a s e s pe c ify)Date 1 o c c a si onal l y m o ve for offsi te m e e ti n g o r i f n o p o o l c a r i s ava i l a b l e 3 /1 9 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :4 6 AM 2 Outreac h program s o n T ues - other m eeti ngs h a p p e n a t vari ous ti m e s 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 6 :3 0 PM 3 I work at another si te Fri d a y m orni ngs.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 2 :3 8 PM 4 I c a n n o t l e a ve for l unc h bec ause i t woul d take a good hal f of i t to fi nd a parki n g spot bac k wh e n I re tu rn . 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 :4 9 PM 5 Al l of the above , b u t n o t o n a spec i fi c day.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :2 9 PM 6 I u sual l y try to not l eave bec ause I c an not fi nd parki n g when I get bac k 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :2 0 AM 7 Depends on the m eeti ngs 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 0 AM 8 See "Other" for questi o n 7 3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :2 2 AM 9 som eti m es I go to l unc h, so m e ti m e s I have a n a p p o i n tm e n t 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :0 2 PM 10 Dr appts, denti st a p p t-c a n 't sa y exac tl y what days-these peopl e do not wo rk on Fri days or M ondays 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 1 AM 11 Days I go to l unc h are va ri e d 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 5 :3 4 PM 12 M a i n l y si te vi si ts 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :5 4 AM 13 work part-ti m e 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :1 0 AM 14 DDS/Dr.Appt 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :2 3 AM 15 I u se the c arpool ve h i c l e s to take c are of c ertai n tasks l i ke p i c ki ng up i tem s or droppi ng i tem s o ff 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :2 2 AM 16 L u n c h , e rra n d s, si te vi si ts....e tc .3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :0 3 AM 17 Drop i n for c i ty b u si ness/l u n c h 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :1 1 AM 18 n /a 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 7 :5 9 AM 19 Doc tor appt 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 8 :4 9 PM 20 o th e r a s needed 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :2 8 PM 21 I'm m ai ntenanc e 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :1 4 PM 22 Oc c asi o n a l o ffsi te m eeti ng usual l y onc e a week a t th e m o st 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 0 PM M onday T uesd a y We d n e sday T hursd a y Fri day 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % M onday Tue s da y Wednesday Thurs da y Frida y Tota l Respondents Offsi te M eeti ng Lunc h Perso n a l Busi ness Oth e r (spec i fy i n b o x bel ow) 429 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 3 / 3 23 If n o p o o l vehi c l es a re a vai l abl e I use m y perso n a l vehi c l e for IT work 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 7 PM 24 i d o n 't m ove m y c a r a n d b ri n g l u n c h to work everyd a y.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 3 PM 25 a n y to al l of the above on va ri o u s days 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 2 PM 26 Vari ous ti m es. In fi e l d fre u q e n tl y.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 9 PM 430 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 2 68.29%5 6 25.61%2 1 3.66%3 2.44%2 Q9 Whe n y ou re turn from lunch or com e to the Civ ic Ce nte r in afte rnoon, w hat is av e rage am ount of tim e y ou spe nd looking for parking in a w e e k? Answ ered: 82 Sk ippe d: 3 6 Tota l 8 2 #Other (ple a s e s pe c ify)Date 1 i t ta kes roughl y twnety to thi rty m i n u te s, and that i s onl y bec ause onc e i hi t twe n ty m i nutes, I g i ve u p a n d p a rk i n a nearby n e i g h b o rh o o d a n d spri nt to work. T hen on m y l u n c h i ru n to m y c ar and spend hal f of that ti m e l ooki ng for parki n g so when i l eave after work p a st ni ne pm I'm n o t wal ki ng i n th e d a rk by m yse l f. 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 :4 9 PM 2 If I see there i s no parki n g th e fi rst go around, I gi ve u p a n d p a rk on the street.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :2 9 PM 3 Usual l y around 15 m i nutes of c i rc l i ng...3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :2 0 AM 4 If i t l o o ks ful l and I se e c a rs c i rc l i ng, I know I shoul dn't b o th e r l o o ki ng, esp. on T u e , We d a fte rn o o n s, a n d I p a rk i n the surroundi ng nei ghborhoods. 3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :2 2 AM 5 I wi l l often park far awa y on the stre e t a n d wal k bac k to th e Ci vi c Center to spend l ess ti m e l ooki ng fo r p a rki ng. 3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :0 1 AM 6 n o t a p p l i c a b l e . I work part ti m e 3 /1 4 /2 0 1 4 5 :2 2 PM 7 1 0 -2 0 m i n u te s 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 3 :5 2 PM Le s s tha n 3 0 minute s Be tw e e n 3 0 minute s to 1 ... Betw een 1 hour to 1.5 hours M ore tha n 1 .5 hours 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % Answ er Choices Responses Less th a n 3 0 m i n u te s Betwe e n 3 0 m i n u te s to 1 hour Betwe e n 1 h o u r to 1 .5 h o u rs M ore than 1.5 hours 431 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 2 / 2 8 T he probl em i sn't onl y a t l u n c h ti m e . Just to d a y at 10:45 a.m . i t took m e 2 0 m i n s to fi nd parki ng. I h a d to wai t for a Ci ty em pl oye e to l e a ve and fol l owe d th e m to ta ke thei r parki ng sp o t. In th e m e a n ti m e , th e re were absol utel y NO parki ng sp a c e s. I had c i rc l ed Ci vi c Center three ti m es a n d th e re were no parki ng sp a c e s eve n a l o n g th e p a rk or i n the street. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :5 4 AM 9 l e ss than 30 m i nutes i n th e m o rn i n g o r a fte rn o o n 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :1 0 AM 10 d e p e n d s i f there i s an event at c om m uni ty h a l l o r l i b ra ry l ot i s fu l l d u e to sc hool not bei ng i n sessi o n 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :1 1 AM 11 o n l y on the rare ti m es I d ri ve. I have neve r l o o ked for a spot for m ore than 10 m i n 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 7 :5 9 AM 12 I p a rk i n the red zo n e 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :1 4 PM 13 If I l e a ve for l unc h, I do not return to c i vi c c enter. I park at c i ty c enter on T orre Ave 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 7 PM 432 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 4 Q10 How do y ou com m ute to w ork? Answ ered: 73 Sk ippe d: 4 5 If you dr ive , w he r e do you com m ute fr om ? Frem ont/M i l pi tas San Jo se (spec i fy are i n other)Santa Cl a ra /Sunnyval e Gi l roy/M o rg a n Hi l l Saratoga/Pa l o Al to Driv e Don't Driv e 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % 433 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 2 / 4 If you driv e, w here do you commute from? 5.88% 4 52.94% 36 33.82% 23 1.47% 1 5 .8 8 % 4 6 8 0% 0 0% 0 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0 % 0 3 If you don't driv e, how do you a rriv e a t w ork? 0 % 0 33.33% 2 3 3 .3 3 % 2 0% 0 33.33% 2 6 4 0 % 2 0% 0 0 % 0 0% 0 60% 3 5 #Other (ple a s e s pe c ify)Date 1 Dri ve fro m San Franc i sc o 3 /1 9 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :4 6 AM 2 b y Va l l e y Fai r 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :0 7 PM If you don't dr ive , how do you ar r ive at w or k ? Bi c yc l e M o to rc yc l e Bu s Carpool Wa l k Driv e Don't Driv e 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % Fremont/M ilpitas Sa n J os e (s pe c ify are in other) Sa nta Cla ra/Sunnyv ale Gilroy/M orga n Hill Sa ratoga/Palo Alto Tota l Dri ve Don't Dri ve Bicyc le M otorcycle Bus Carpool Walk Total Dri ve Don't Dri ve 434 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 3 / 4 3 We st San Jose 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 6 :4 1 PM 4 Dri ve fro m Santa Cruz 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 3 :3 5 PM 5 We st San Jose, borderi ng Ca m p b e l l 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 2 :5 6 PM 6 e a st si de sa n j o se,3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 :4 9 PM 7 Cuperti no 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :4 9 PM 8 I l i ve i n Sa n ta T eresa, ri ght before M organ Hi l l .3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :2 9 PM 9 Pl easanton 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :5 6 AM 10 South San Jose 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :2 6 AM 11 Near the Cam pbel l Sa fe way 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :2 3 AM 12 San Franc i sc o 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :1 2 AM 13 L o s Al tos 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 0 AM 14 Dri ve fro m San Franc i sc o Are a 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :5 1 AM 15 South San Jose 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :4 8 AM 16 Dri ve fro m Cam pbel l 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :1 3 AM 17 South San Franc i sc o 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :0 5 AM 18 South San Jose 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 6 :4 6 AM 19 i d ri ve from c uperti no 3 /1 4 /2 0 1 4 5 :2 2 PM 20 Al m aden 3 /1 4 /2 0 1 4 3 :0 1 PM 21 Cl ose to M i l pi tas o ff o f 6 8 0 o n Hostetter 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 1 AM 22 n e a r Cam pbel l 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 5 :3 4 PM 23 7 m i l e s away i n South Sa n Jose 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 3 :3 8 PM 24 d ri ve from SF o n M o n , p a rk at m y p a re n ts 2 bl oc ks a way a n d wal k to wo rk. Leave Fri d a y bac k to SF.3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :1 3 AM 25 Bel m ont 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :3 5 AM 26 d ri ve from pl easa n to n 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :1 0 AM 27 San Franc i sc o 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :4 3 AM 28 Cam pbel l , CA 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :0 3 AM 29 San Franc i sc o 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :2 0 AM 30 South San Jose 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :1 7 AM 31 Cuperti no 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :1 7 AM 32 Cam pbel l 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :0 0 AM 33 L i ve i n Cu p e rti n o .3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 7 :5 9 AM 34 Cuperti noy 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 8 :4 9 PM 35 Cal trai n 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 8 :0 0 PM 36 Dri ve fro m San Franc i sc o 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :3 8 PM 37 Cuperti no 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :1 4 PM 38 East Ba y 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 1 PM 39 San Jo se downtown 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 9 PM 40 San Franc i sc o 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 7 PM 41 Al um Roc k Hi l l s 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 3 PM 42 Cam bri an 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 2 PM 435 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 4 / 4 43 South San Jose 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 9 PM 44 wal k 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 9 PM 45 San Franc i sc o 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 8 PM 46 Santa Cruz M ountai ns 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 5 PM 436 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 12 Q11 Applie s to any one w ho m e e ts re gularly w ith outside v isitors: How m any v isitors do y ou ty pically m e e t w ith e ach day of the w e e k? Approx im ate ly , w hat tim e of day do the y arriv e and de part? Are the se v isitors public or city e m ploy e d contractors/v e ndors? Answ ered: 26 Sk ippe d: 9 2 # of Public V is itor s M onday Tuesday 437 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 2 / 12 Wednesday Thursday Friday 438 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 3 / 12 1 2 3 4 M o re th a n 4 After 5:30pm 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % Ar r ival - Public M onday Tuesday Wednesday 439 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 4 / 12 7:30am -9:30am 9:30am -11:30am 1 1 :3 0 a m -1 :3 0 p m 1:30pm -3:30pm 3:30pm -5:30pm Thursday Friday 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % De par tur e - Public M onday 440 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 5 / 12 Tuesday Wednesday Thursday 441 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 6 / 12 7:30am -9:30am 9:30am -11:30am 1 1 :3 0 a m -1 :3 0 p m 1:30pm -3:30pm 3:30pm -5:30pm Friday 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % # of Othe r V is itor s M onday Tuesday 442 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 7 / 12 1 2 3 4 M o re th a n 4 Wednesday Thursday Friday 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % Ar r ival - City Em ploye d Contr actor s /V e ndor s 443 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 8 / 12 M onday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday 444 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 9 / 12 7:30am -9:30am 9:30am -11:30am 1 1 :3 0 a m -1 :3 0 p m 1:30pm -3:30pm 3:30pm -5:30pm Friday 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % De par tur e - City Em ploye d Contr actor s /V e ndor s M onday Tuesday 445 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 10 / 12 Wednesday Thursday Friday 446 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 11 / 12 # of Public Vis itors 22.22% 4 33.33% 6 5.56% 1 0% 0 3 8 .8 9 % 7 0 % 0 1 8 18.75% 3 31.25% 5 6.25% 1 0% 0 4 3 .7 5 % 7 0 % 0 1 6 18.75% 3 25% 4 12.50% 2 0% 0 4 3 .7 5 % 7 0 % 0 1 6 10.53% 2 31.58% 6 10.53% 2 0% 0 4 7 .3 7 % 9 0 % 0 1 9 20% 3 33.33% 5 13.33% 2 0% 0 3 3 .3 3 % 5 0 % 0 1 5 Arriv al - Public 7.69% 1 4 6 .1 5 % 6 1 5 .3 8 % 2 23.08% 3 7.69% 1 1 3 9.09% 1 5 4 .5 5 % 6 1 8 .1 8 % 2 18.18% 2 0% 0 1 1 9.09% 1 4 5 .4 5 % 5 1 8 .1 8 % 2 18.18% 2 9.09% 1 1 1 7.14% 1 2 8 .5 7 % 4 1 4 .2 9 % 2 42.86% 6 7.14% 1 1 4 9.09% 1 6 3 .6 4 % 7 1 8 .1 8 % 2 9.09% 1 0% 0 1 1 Departure - Public 0% 0 1 6 .6 7 % 2 2 5 % 3 16.67% 2 41.67% 5 1 2 0% 0 3 0 % 3 1 0 % 1 20% 2 40% 4 1 0 0% 0 3 0 % 3 1 0 % 1 30% 3 30% 3 1 0 0% 0 2 3 .0 8 % 3 0 % 0 30.77% 4 46.15% 6 1 3 0% 0 4 0 % 4 1 0 % 1 20% 2 30% 3 1 0 # of Othe r Visitors 40% 2 0% 0 0 % 0 0% 0 6 0 % 3 5 80% 4 0% 0 0 % 0 0% 0 2 0 % 1 5 7:30am -9:30am 9:30am -11:30am 1 1 :3 0 a m -1 :3 0 p m 1:30pm -3:30pm 3:30pm -5:30pm 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % 1 2 3 4 M ore tha n 4 After 5 :3 0 pm Tota l M onday T uesd a y Wednesday T hursd a y Fri day 7:30am-9:30am 9:30am-11:30am 11:30am-1:30pm 1:30pm-3:30pm 3 :3 0 pm-5 :3 0 pm Total M onday T uesd a y Wednesday T hursd a y Fri day 7:30am-9:30am 9:30am-11:30am 11:30am-1:30pm 1:30pm-3:30pm 3 :3 0 pm-5 :3 0 pm Total M onday T uesd a y Wednesday T hursd a y Fri day 1 2 3 4 M ore tha n 4 Tota l M onday T uesd a y 447 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 12 / 12 75% 3 0% 0 0 % 0 0% 0 2 5 % 1 4 75% 3 0% 0 0 % 0 0% 0 2 5 % 1 4 100% 2 0% 0 0 % 0 0% 0 0 % 0 2 Arriv al - City Employed Contractors/Ve ndors 0% 0 1 0 0 % 1 0 % 0 0% 0 0% 0 1 0% 0 0 % 0 7 5 % 3 25% 1 0% 0 4 0% 0 3 3 .3 3 % 1 3 3 .3 3 % 1 33.33% 1 0% 0 3 0% 0 0 % 0 3 3 .3 3 % 1 66.67% 2 0% 0 3 0% 0 0 % 0 5 0 % 1 50% 1 0% 0 2 Departure - City Employed Contra c tors/Vendors 0% 0 1 0 0 % 1 0 % 0 0% 0 0% 0 1 0% 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 100% 4 0% 0 4 0% 0 0 % 0 3 3 .3 3 % 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 3 0% 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 33.33% 1 66.67% 2 3 0% 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 50% 1 50% 1 2 Wednesday T hursd a y Fri day 7:30am-9:30am 9:30am-11:30am 11:30am-1:30pm 1:30pm-3:30pm 3 :3 0 pm-5 :3 0 pm Total M onday T uesd a y Wednesday T hursd a y Fri day 7:30am-9:30am 9:30am-11:30am 11:30am-1:30pm 1:30pm-3:30pm 3 :3 0 pm-5 :3 0 pm Total M onday T uesd a y Wednesday T hursd a y Fri day 448 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 3 Q12 Would y ou be w illing to park at an offsite location and w alk or shuttle into w ork if ince ntiv e s w e re prov ide d? Answ ered: 87 Sk ippe d: 3 1 If ye s , What dis tance w ould you be w illing to w alk ? 2 bl oc ks 4 bl oc ks 6 bl oc ks 1/2 m i l e N/A Ye s No 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % 449 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 2 / 3 If ye s , Wha t dis ta nc e w ould you be w illing to w alk? 51.39% 37 2 0 .8 3 % 1 5 8.33% 6 1 3 .8 9 % 1 0 5 .5 6 % 4 7 2 18.75% 3 6 .2 5 % 1 0% 0 0 % 0 7 5 % 1 2 1 6 Or, How many minutes w ould you ride a shuttle? 41.51% 22 43.40% 23 9.43% 5 5.66% 3 5 3 11.11% 1 0% 0 11.11% 1 77.78% 7 9 #Other (ple a s e s pe c ify)Date 1 Not when I wo rk at ni ght. Possi bl y I c o u l d wal k a sh o rt d i stanc e duri ng the day.3 /1 8 /2 0 1 4 5 :5 0 PM 2 d e p e n d s on how bi g the i nc enti ve i s 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 5 :2 4 PM 3 T o m uc h stuff to c arry bac k and forth. Do n 't wa n t to p a rk offsi te 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 2 :3 8 PM 4 An offsi te parki n g sol uti on woul d have to c onsi der l i brary em pl oye e s who l eave after 9 pm . Al so , a s we need ac c ess to o u r c a r d u ri n g th e d a y to m ake c l a ss vi si ts a n d g o to m e e ti n g s, I don't th i n k a shuttl e servi c e woul d be very h e l p fu l . 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :2 9 PM 5 NO 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :2 6 AM Or , How m any m inute s w ould you r ide a s huttle ? Less than 5 m i nutes 5-10 m i nutes 10-15 m i nutes N/A Ye s No 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % 2 blocks 4 bloc k s 6 blocks 1/2 mile N/A Tota l Yes No Less than 5 minutes 5-10 minutes 1 0 -1 5 minute s N/A Total Yes No 450 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 3 / 3 6 It m i g h t b e d i ffi c u l t wi th m y workout sc h e d u l e 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :2 0 AM 7 No - too m uc h work ti m e woul d be l ost.3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :0 1 AM 8 I woul d worry about sec uri ty/safety i n the dark and vehi c l e safety i n an off si te parki n g l o t 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :0 2 PM 9 woul d wal k o n l y i f not rai ni ng-no to sh u ttl e a s I need m y c a r fo r a p p ts, etc 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 1 AM 10 It woul d depend on the i nc enti ve s. It al so depends o n h o w often the shuttl e c om es 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 5 :3 4 PM 11 Unl ess i t was rai ni ng -I c arry c om puter gear 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 3 :3 8 PM 12 Can not. Have too m any o b l i g a ti o n s rel ated to c hi l dren.3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :5 4 AM 13 shuttl e from SF or m ountai n vi ew or su n n yval e trai n strati on wo u l d b e n i c e 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :1 3 AM 14 I woul dn't b e a b l e to d e p e n d u p o n a shuttl e si nc e I need to open the l obby before 7:30 a.m .3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :2 0 AM 15 Need to m eet appl i c ants and get perm i ts/c o p i e s/etc . done 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :1 1 AM 16 If your j ust stoppi ng i n to drop som ethi ng off, i t i s re d i c u l i u s to have to ri d e a shuttl e. T here sh o u l d b e som e 10 m i nute parki ng sta l l s. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 4 :0 2 AM 17 shuttl e wi l l onl y work o n d e m a n d . c o m e a n d g o a t o d d ti m e s.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :2 8 PM 18 Not an opti on 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :1 4 PM 19 T he weather i s a n o th e r fa c to r. Duri ng rai ny o r c o l d weather, I m i ght onl y b e wi l l i ng to wal k 2 b l o c ks. Al so, i f we p a rk our c ars i n an offsi te l o t, i s i t patrol ed? Parki n g i n Ci vi c Center parki ng l ot gi ves us a n i m p re ssi on our c ars a n d b y extensi on, us, a re p ro te c te d o r "safe" i n th e l o t a t n i g h t - i e : th a t i t's a p ro te c te d e n vi ronm ent. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 1 PM 20 I n e e d m y c ar for m y work, o th e rwi se I wi l l n e e d a p o o l vehi c l e to be avai l abl e for use. I'd be wi l l i ng to p a rk on Pac i fi c or si m i l a r 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 2 PM 21 A shuttl e from the trai n, a sh u ttl e fro m M a ry Ave., a sh u ttl e fro m SF - al l woul d be awe som e - i deal i f i t c o u l d b e i n c l u d e d i n "work ti m e " to benefi t em pl oye e s wi l l i ng to forgo ac c ess to thei r c ar. Al so si m i l ar benefi ts/fl exi bi l i ty fo r c a rp o o l i n g woul d be great. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 8 PM 451 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 3 Q12 Would y ou be w illing to park at an offsite location and w alk or shuttle into w ork if ince ntiv e s w e re prov ide d? Answ ered: 87 Sk ippe d: 3 1 If ye s , What dis tance w ould you be w illing to w alk ? 2 bl oc ks 4 bl oc ks 6 bl oc ks 1/2 m i l e N/A Ye s No 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % 452 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 2 / 3 If ye s , Wha t dis ta nc e w ould you be w illing to w alk? 51.39% 37 2 0 .8 3 % 1 5 8.33% 6 1 3 .8 9 % 1 0 5 .5 6 % 4 7 2 18.75% 3 6 .2 5 % 1 0% 0 0 % 0 7 5 % 1 2 1 6 Or, How many minutes w ould you ride a shuttle? 41.51% 22 43.40% 23 9.43% 5 5.66% 3 5 3 11.11% 1 0% 0 11.11% 1 77.78% 7 9 #Other (ple a s e s pe c ify)Date 1 Not when I wo rk at ni ght. Possi bl y I c o u l d wal k a sh o rt d i stanc e duri ng the day.3 /1 8 /2 0 1 4 5 :5 0 PM 2 d e p e n d s on how bi g the i nc enti ve i s 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 5 :2 4 PM 3 T o m uc h stuff to c arry bac k and forth. Do n 't wa n t to p a rk offsi te 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 2 :3 8 PM 4 An offsi te parki n g sol uti on woul d have to c onsi der l i brary em pl oye e s who l eave after 9 pm . Al so , a s we need ac c ess to o u r c a r d u ri n g th e d a y to m ake c l a ss vi si ts a n d g o to m e e ti n g s, I don't th i n k a shuttl e servi c e woul d be very h e l p fu l . 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :2 9 PM 5 NO 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :2 6 AM Or , How m any m inute s w ould you r ide a s huttle ? Less than 5 m i nutes 5-10 m i nutes 10-15 m i nutes N/A Ye s No 0%20%40%6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 % 2 blocks 4 bloc k s 6 blocks 1/2 mile N/A Tota l Yes No Less than 5 minutes 5-10 minutes 1 0 -1 5 minute s N/A Total Yes No 453 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 3 / 3 6 It m i g h t b e d i ffi c u l t wi th m y workout sc h e d u l e 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :2 0 AM 7 No - too m uc h work ti m e woul d be l ost.3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :0 1 AM 8 I woul d worry about sec uri ty/safety i n the dark and vehi c l e safety i n an off si te parki n g l o t 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :0 2 PM 9 woul d wal k o n l y i f not rai ni ng-no to sh u ttl e a s I need m y c a r fo r a p p ts, etc 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 1 AM 10 It woul d depend on the i nc enti ve s. It al so depends o n h o w often the shuttl e c om es 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 5 :3 4 PM 11 Unl ess i t was rai ni ng -I c arry c om puter gear 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 3 :3 8 PM 12 Can not. Have too m any o b l i g a ti o n s rel ated to c hi l dren.3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :5 4 AM 13 shuttl e from SF or m ountai n vi ew or su n n yval e trai n strati on wo u l d b e n i c e 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :1 3 AM 14 I woul dn't b e a b l e to d e p e n d u p o n a shuttl e si nc e I need to open the l obby before 7:30 a.m .3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :2 0 AM 15 Need to m eet appl i c ants and get perm i ts/c o p i e s/etc . done 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :1 1 AM 16 If your j ust stoppi ng i n to drop som ethi ng off, i t i s re d i c u l i u s to have to ri d e a shuttl e. T here sh o u l d b e som e 10 m i nute parki ng sta l l s. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 4 :0 2 AM 17 shuttl e wi l l onl y work o n d e m a n d . c o m e a n d g o a t o d d ti m e s.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :2 8 PM 18 Not an opti on 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :1 4 PM 19 T he weather i s a n o th e r fa c to r. Duri ng rai ny o r c o l d weather, I m i ght onl y b e wi l l i ng to wal k 2 b l o c ks. Al so, i f we p a rk our c ars i n an offsi te l o t, i s i t patrol ed? Parki n g i n Ci vi c Center parki ng l ot gi ves us a n i m p re ssi on our c ars a n d b y extensi on, us, a re p ro te c te d o r "safe" i n th e l o t a t n i g h t - i e : th a t i t's a p ro te c te d e n vi ronm ent. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 1 PM 20 I n e e d m y c ar for m y work, o th e rwi se I wi l l n e e d a p o o l vehi c l e to be avai l abl e for use. I'd be wi l l i ng to p a rk on Pac i fi c or si m i l a r 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 2 PM 21 A shuttl e from the trai n, a sh u ttl e fro m M a ry Ave., a sh u ttl e fro m SF - al l woul d be awe som e - i deal i f i t c o u l d b e i n c l u d e d i n "work ti m e " to benefi t em pl oye e s wi l l i ng to forgo ac c ess to thei r c ar. Al so si m i l ar benefi ts/fl exi bi l i ty fo r c a rp o o l i n g woul d be great. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 8 PM 454 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 1 / 5 Q13 Do y ou hav e any ide as for how to im prov e parking at the Civ ic Ce nte r? Ple ase prov ide y our ide as/sugge stions be low . Answ ered: 78 Sk ippe d: 4 0 #Responses Date 1 Ci ty e m p l o yees shoul d have p a rki ng preferenc e at the Ci ty Hal l l ot. T h e re c o u l d b e a p a ss syste m d u ri n g n o rm a l b u si ness h o u rs where others a re to wed or ti c kets fo r p a rki ng i n the Ci ty Hal l l ot i f they d o n 't have a pass (o r g u e st pass), l i ke at the Seni or Ce n te r. Or we c o u l d p a i n t p a rki ng spots fo r Ci ty e m p l o yees to m a ke them m ore noti c eabl e. We c oul d al so devel op an em pl oye e i n c e n ti ve program fo r n o t d ri vi ng to wo rk - we al ready have a p re -ta x benefi t, but we c o u l d d e vel op so m e th i n g m o re a s a n i n te rn a l re wards program . 3 /1 9 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :4 6 AM 2 Yes, Si m p l e ! Parki ng i s fo r l i b ra ry and c i ty, NOT for: 1. i ndi ans p l a yi ng c ri c ke t wheneve r th e y wa n t fo r 1 0 h o u rs! 2. peopl e parki ng and unl awfu l l y l etti ng thei r dogs ru n a ro u n d o ff-l e a sh 3. fri sbee p l a yi ng "te a m s" T h e se are the reasons th e re a re p a rki ng probl em s, peri od. 3 /1 8 /2 0 1 4 6 :1 3 PM 3 Have som eone c hec k to se e who i s usi n g o u r p a rki ng l ot. Very often l atel y staff and patrons have n o ti c e d th a t a tte n d a n c e i n th e l i b ra ry i s l o w and there i s nothi ng goi ng on i n the Co m m u n i ty Center and the parki ng l ot i s FULL. 3 /1 8 /2 0 1 4 4 :4 8 PM 4 Have d e si gnated staff parki n g a n d a ski ng that onl y l i brary & c i vi c c e n te r p a tro n s park i n l ot. Pa rk u sers c an wa l k unl ess th e y l i ve ve ry far awa y. 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 7 :2 1 PM 5 Eve ry m orni ng there i s a g ro u p o f c a rs parked at the T o rre e n tra n c e to th e l i b ra ry - I thi nk th e se are p e o p l e th a t work at the m edi c al offi c es a c ro ss the stre e t o r l i ve i n the c ondos a l so ac ross th e street - th i s shoul d be sto p p e d . At l u8nc h ti m e there i s a bi g group of Fri sb e e o r soc c er pl aye rs that d e sc end on the fi el d next to th e l i b ra ry wh i c h p ro h i b i ts us from parki n g when we wo rk the eve n i n g shi ft and have a 1 2 :3 0 p m a rri val - al so stops us fro m l e a vi ng for l unc h bec ause th e re i s neve r a n y p a rki ng when we re tu rn . Som e ti m e l i m i ts m i ght wo rk on som e parki n g spac es, but then there wo u l d h a ve to be so m e o n e a c ti vel y enforc i ng the rul es and we a l re a d y have a probl em wi th the publ i c a b u si ng the short term parki n g a n d th e h a n d i c a p p e d spac es - I'm not sure how o fte n th e p a rki ng l ot i s c hec ked for abuse rs 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 6 :3 0 PM 6 b u i l d a b i g g e r p a rki ng l ot 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 5 :2 4 PM 7 We shoul d have a m u l ti l e vel garage to al l ow m o re p a rki ng spac e.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 5 :1 6 PM 8 Need to bui l d m ore parki ng verti c al l y, woul d be ni c e to have a fe w reserved staff-onl y spots 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 5 :1 6 PM 9 p o sti ng si gns th a t p a rki ng i s for c i vi c c enter vi si tors onl y; on hol i days when the l i brary i s c l ose d th e re a re sti l l m any c a rs parked i n the l i brary parki ng l ot entranc e paral l el to pac i fi c a; perhaps fro m b u si nesse s ac ross th e street, eve n th o u g h th e i r p a rki ng l ots are not ful l . 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 2 :5 6 PM 10 Bui l d a parki ng garage under the Pl a za Fi el d.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 2 :3 8 PM 11 a p a rki ng struc ture l i ke a t M i l p i ta s. T hi s p l a c e i s soooo c ongeste d wi th peopl e c om i ng here the m i n u te th e y get out of sc h o o l . T hey d o n 't l eave unti l we c l ose , e veryday. o n th e weekends th e y get h e re fro m th e ti m e we open and don't l e a ve unti l we c l o se. T he peopl e wh o d ri ve i nto thi s p l a c e h a ve no regard for other peopl es safety b e c a u se they a re so bent on getti ng the l ast parki n g spac e th a t th e y are m ore than wi l l i n g to g i ve so m e o n e a b ru sh wi th death wh e n p a tro n s are c rossi n g th e l o t. T hi s parki n g l o t i s c om pl etel y u n safe. 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 :4 9 PM 12 p a rki ng passe s for em pl oye e s 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 :4 0 PM 13 p a rki ng struc ture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 :3 8 PM 14 M y m eeti ngs a t Ci ty Hal l are oc c assi o n a l l y and vary b y day/ti m e. I thi nk there sh o u l d b e e n fo rc e m e n t i n th e p a rki ng l ot near c i ty h a l l --l i b ra ry patrons shoul d not be abl e to uti l i ze th e se spac es. It wo u l d b e n i c e to h a ve so m e 1 0 -m i n u te p a rki ng spac es fo r fo l ks j ust n e e d i n g to d ro p o ff/p i c k up i tem s at c i ty hal l . 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 :1 2 PM 455 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 2 / 5 15 M a ke sure that the busi n e sses a c ro ss the stre e t d o n o t u se our parki ng for thei r sta ff. Wh e n th e c o m m u n i ty hal l i s b o o ked for huge eve n ts, arrange shuttl e se rvi c es o r o ff si te parki ng for those p a rti c i p a n ts; espec i al l y i f i t i s an ongoi ng event.suc h as th e ro ta ry c l ub, or c i ty c ounc i l m eeti ngs. Do not bui l d a teen c om m uni ty c e n te r a t th e l i b ra ry unti l the parki n g i ssue i s re sol ve d . 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :2 9 PM 16 Em pl oye e d e si gnated spots 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :1 9 AM 17 Bui l d a parki ng garage/stru c tu re , th i s i s i m perati ve. If at al l possi b l e , p l e a se have p a rki ng spac es re serve d fo r L i b ra ry em pl oyees j ust l i ke yo u h a ve sp a c e s reserved for Ci ty em pl oye e s. Spac es wi l l n o t b e n e a rl y enough but i t wi l l h e l p u s out. Pl ease a l so m ake su re th a t th e n e a rb y m edi c al offi c es e m p l o yees o r p a ti e n ts do not use the Li brary parki ng l ot for thei r prac ti c e. If the Ci ty wa s to d e si gnate parki ng sp a c e fo r L i b ra ry em pl oyees, I su g g e st the spac es fa c i n g th e soc c er fi el d be that a re a to p re vent the m edi c al offi c es fro m u si ng that area for thei r purpose. T h a n k yo u . 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :2 8 AM 18 Em pl oye e s onl y, I re g u l a rl y se e p e o p l e p a rk and wal k to o th e r b u si nesse s 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :2 6 AM 19 M a ybe so m e h o w va l i d a te th e p a rki ng for Ci ty Hal l em pl oyees/c usto m e rs and l i brary u sers, so th a t a t l e a st restri c t nei ghborhood use o f o u r p a rki ng l ot. 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :5 3 AM 20 Enter an agreem ent wi th other c om m erc i al parki n g l o ts for use at c ertai n ti m es i f th e d a y. Inc rease i n c e n ti ve for usi n g a l te rn a ti ve m ode of transp o rta ti o n o th e r th a n u se of a si ngl e vehi c l e c om i ng to work. 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :2 2 AM 21 Desi gnated parki n g fo r e m p l o yees o n l y, wi th p e rm i ts.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :2 0 AM 22 L i m i t p a rki ng to 2 hrs or 3 hrs a n d p ro vi de sti c kers for em pl oyees to park i n l o c a ti o n s far end of p a rki ng l ot at Ci vi c Center or Pa c i fi c a ) 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 0 AM 23 Get a parki n g g a ra g e . Contrac t wi th one of the l oc al busi n e sses to a l l o w c i ty e m p l o yees to u se thei r l o t, o r b u i l d a p a rki ng l ot at the c urrentl y u n u sed grass fi e l d south of the Li brary. 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :5 1 AM 24 I a m n o t sure that al l of those wh o p a rk here are usi ng Ci ty Ha l l fa c i l i ti e s or the l i brary.3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :4 8 AM 25 A parki ng stru c tu re n e e d s to be bui l t to ac c om m odate the i nc reasi ng vehi c l es for the l i brary and g e n e ra l b u si ness a t Ci ty Hal l . 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :3 6 AM 26 p ro vi de m oni tary i nc enti ve s to use al ternate form s o f tra n sportati on other than dri vi n g h o weve r i t n e e d s to be enough $$$, have staff take hom e Ci ty vehi c l es, wo rk on al ternati ve work sc h e d u l e s to a l l o w worki n g fro m h o m e whi c h m i ght work wi th new vi rtual desk to p c o m p u te rs we are goi ng to, Don't o ver book th e Com m uni ty h a l l a n d o th e r re n ta l ro o m s, m ake al l the new p a rki ng on Rodregues east o f th e d ri ve wa y Ci ty hal l parki n g d u ri n g th e d a y si m i l a r to what i s si g n e d o n th e west of the dri ve way, I thi nk the c ondos u se i t for thei r parki ng and i t i s n o t a vai bl e for Ci ty Ha l l u sers, m ake m o re o n si te spac es wi th ti m e l i m i ts on them for l i brary users 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 8 :1 3 AM 27 Em pl oye e p a rki ng desi gnated on Pa c i fi c a , T orre and Rodri quez 3 /1 7 /2 0 1 4 6 :4 6 AM 28 M u l ti -l e vel parki n g struc ture. Peopl e use th e l i b ra ry, c i vi c c enter, c om m uni ty h a l l , a n d th e fi e l d . T he c ongesti on wi l l o n l y get wo rse wi th the addi ti on of the T e e n Center. It's al ready c o n g e sted and th e l i b ra ry patrons c o m p l a i n th a t th e y c an't fi nd parki ng wh e n th e Com m uni ty Hal l i s booke d fo r a l a rg e m e e ti n g o r th e l i b ra ry has a p o p u l a r p ro g ra m . 3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :2 2 AM 29 Pl ease bui l d a parki n g g a ra g e o r fi n d o th e r ways to c reate m ore parki ng. Sta ff ta ke up a sm al l p e rc e n ta g e o f a vai l abl e parki n g spac es. I noti c e m any peopl e from nearby b u si nesse s and re si denc es al so u se our parki ng l ot bec ause th e re a re n o re stri c ti ons, and thi s ta kes up a l ot of the a vai l abl e parki n g . Pl ease al so i n c l u d e l i b ra ry sta ff when m aki ng dec i si o n s about parki ng. 3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :0 1 AM 30 Ask p e o p l e th a t work i n the m edi c al offi c es to u se thei r own parki n g spac es and enforc e thi s o n a re g u l a r b a si s. 3 /1 6 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :2 4 AM 31 Parki ng garage wh i c h wi l l c ontri bute to estheti c i ty of c i vi c c e n te r a re a 3 /1 4 /2 0 1 4 5 :2 2 PM 32 T he soc c er fi el d by the l i brary i s ni c e... but vi si ti ng pl aye rs/fam i l i es of pl ayers often c l og the l i b ra ry/c i vi c c enter parki ng l ot i n the afternoons a n d o n Saturdays, when the l i brary i s AL SO c ro wded and busy. 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 5 :2 7 PM 33 Perm i t parki ng for em pl oyees. En fo rc e d te rm l i m i t p a rki ng. Underground em pl oyee parki ng or e m p l o yee desi g n a te d p a rki ng i n a new stru c tu re 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 1 2 :0 2 PM 34 Bui l d a 2-3 ti erd parki ng l ot on the Li brary Si de 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :2 3 AM 456 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 3 / 5 35 Bui l d a parki ng garage on the fi el d by the Li brary. Have d e si gnated spots & perm i t parki ng for e m p l o yees n o l i b ra ry parki n g o n th e Ci ty Hal l si de Pl a c e si gns "No parki ng" fro m re si dents on Rodri gues i n the c ondos d u ri n g work hours. 3 /1 3 /2 0 1 4 9 :1 1 AM 36 Sec ti on off Ci ty Hal l parki n g fro m L i b ra ry parki n g a n d i ssue Ci ty parki n g p e rm i ts to Ci ty em pl oye e s. T hi s wo u l d n e e d to b e vi sa b l y si g n e d a n d e n fo rc e d th e p a rki ng spac es were bei ng used properl y. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 5 :3 4 PM 37 g a ra g e u n d e r T orre denti st offi c e usu a l l y has 1 0 o r m o re vac ant sp a c e s. Can we l e a se those?3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 3 :3 8 PM 38 u n d e rg ro u n d p a rki ng 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 2 :5 9 PM 39 Spec i fy i n l a rg e si gns Ci ty Em p l o yee parki n g o n l y Vi si tor parki ng-l i m i ted ti m e Stre e t p a rki ng for Ci vi c Center onl y p e ri m e te r o f c i vi c c enter i nc l udi ng fi el d 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 2 :5 4 PM 40 A two hour parki n g l i m i ta ti o n fo r a l l p e rsons of the publ i c . Sti c kers for em pl oyees. Ve n d o rs that n e e d to b e p re sent al l day g e t a p re -p ri n te d p a rki ng perm i t wi th a date and ti m e pri nted on i t to a l l o w parki ng for m ore than 2 hours. T here are too m any e m p l o yees fro m L a b 1 2 6 , Sym a n te c a n d Appl e that park i n the Ci vi c Ce n te r l o t. I h a ve obse rved m any em pl oye e s park thei r c ars a n d wal k i n to th e o ffi c e b u i l d i n g s. Addi ti onal l y, there i s a resi d e n ti a l u se ac ross Rodri gues that routi nel y hol ds "free" c ul i nary c l asse s where upwa rd s of hal f a doze n p e o p l e a re i n vi ted. T h e y al l park a t th e Ci vi c Center parki ng l ot. I am gl ad to be part of a thri vi ng Ci vi c Center, but not at the expense of the g o o d c i ti zens o f Cuperti no havi n g to p a y for m y ti m e c i rc l i ng ove r 2 0 m i n s i n the parki ng l ot tryi ng to fi n d p a rki ng when I've g o n e o u t d u ri n g work hours o n a work rel ated si te vi si t e tc . 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :5 4 AM 41 Offer i nc enti ves i f em pl oyees we re to ri d e th e i r b i c yc l e, wa l k, ska te b o a rd , i n l i n e skate, or take th e b u s to work. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :4 1 AM 42 a d d a p a rki ng garage, enforc e parki ng ti m es p o sted, requi re parki ng perm i ts 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 1 :1 3 AM 43 T ake awa y m ore of the handi c ap sta l l s near the l i brary. T hey a re n 't use d e n o u g h . T ake out the fi el d b y the l i brary. Not pl ayed on as m uc h. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :3 5 AM 44 Better si gnage for the c i ty em pl oye e p a rki ng spots, e spec i al l y th e b a c k row al ong the c reek. L i b ra ry p a tro n s m ay n o t b e a ware of thi s desi g n a ti o n . 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :1 7 AM 45 Start enforc i ng restri c ti ons fo r c i ty hal l parki n g o n l y wh e re si gns are poste d . Run the l i c ense pl ate a n d i f th e y l i ve i n the c ondos ac ross the street, sta rt ti c keti ng them . 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 1 0 :1 0 AM 46 HAVE ASSIGNED CIT Y HALL PARKING FOR EM PLOYEES&INSPECT ORS-HAVE SEP AREA FOR CONT RACT ORS T HAT REQUIRE CARD T O ELIM INAT E PEOPLE WL KING DOGS INCREEK,SPENDING DAY @L IBRARY OR WAT ER WIT H GRANDCHILDREN OR PARKING VEHICLES FOR ADVERT ISEM ENT PURPOSES- CIT Y OF M T . VIEW IS GOOD EXAM PLE OF PARKING FACIL IT IES FOR CIT Y (GARAGE) 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :2 3 AM 47 Create parki ng sp a c e a re a s that spec i fy that they a re to b e o n l y use d b y Ci ty em pl oyees. Pro vi de a wi ndow sti c ker for c ars that bel ong to em pl oyees l i ke c o l l e g e s do. Al so , h a ve so m e sort of parki ng e n fo rc e m e n t te m p o ra ri l y to sh o w that we m ean busi n e ss wh e n i t c o m e s down to those m a rked spac es. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :2 2 AM 48 T ear down c i ty hal l and bui l d and underground parki ng stru c tu re 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :0 6 AM 49 CHARGED FOR PUBLIC PARKING l i ke other c i ti es th a t h a ve parki n g p ro b l e m s. 1) It'l l l e ssen the d e m a n d a n d fo rc e fo l ks to thi nk a b o u t th e i r tri p ti m e s and m eans of transp o rta ti o n . 2 ) Reve n u e fro m th e c h a rg e s c an hel p assi st the l i brary a n d c i ty hal l func ti ons - p a y for the parki n g p ro g ra m . Other i d e a s: -Desi g n a te a n d Enforc e em pl oye e o n l y parki n g a re a s. Even though there are c urrentl y som e e m p l o yee onl y si gns, i t's n e ver enforc ed. -Co n si der ti m e l i m i ts on parki n g , e spec i al l y fo r th e L i b ra ry. Som eti m es our l i brary i s treated l i ke a n i n fo rm a l d a yc are for ki d s! Whi c h i s a good thi ng but that re sul ts i n l ots o f p a rki ng dem ands. I thi nk th e re o u g h t to b e 3 0 m i n s, 1 hour, and m axi m u m 2 h o u rs stal l s. - Bu i l d i n g a n e w parki ng stru c tu re a t th e soc c er fi el d. Consi d e r l e a vi ng the roof top avai l abl e fo r ro o fto p soc c er fi el d..... 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 9 :0 3 AM 50 Conve rt l i b ra ry fi el d i nto a parki n g l o t a n d p ro vi de so m e fo rm o f shuttl e servi c e to al l evi a te so m any c a rs and bad dri ve rs. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :4 3 AM 51 Asi de from a parki n g struc ture to i nc rease parki n g spac es, i nc enti ves c oul d be use d fo r p a rki ng at a n o ffsi te l oc ati on, or away from the Ci vi c Center parki n g a re a . Al so, reduc i ng the num ber and/or si ze o f th e e vents th a t a re h e l d a t th e Com m uni ty Center, or provi d i n g th e Com m uni ty Center fa c i l i ti e s for eve n ts at off peak ti m es. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :2 0 AM 52 I wi l l thi nk about i t and l et you know i f I c o m e u p wi th anyth i n g .3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :2 0 AM 457 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 4 / 5 53 Charge vi si tors parki n g th e n val i date (up to 2 hr) i f they do busi ness at Ci ty Hal l or vi si t l i brary. T hi s wi l l deter non-vi si tors from parki n g . 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :1 7 AM 54 Parki ng m eters fo r l i b ra ry patrons.3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :1 1 AM 55 Put up a si gn for the Ci ty Ha l l p a rki ng l ot (behi nd Ci ty Hal l ) sa yi ng: "Fo r Ci ty o f Cuperti no Em pl oyee p a rki ng ONLY 7:30 - 5:30 M onday - Fri day" 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 8 :0 0 AM 56 In c e n t staff to c arpool and/or use al ternate m ethods o f tra n p o rta ti o n . At m y p re vi ous j o b , th e y pai d fo r p u b l i c tra n sportati on and offered "Cl e a n Ai r Cash " ($300) to em pl oye e s who di d not dri ve a si ngl e oc c upanc y c a r to work. M ay peopl e opted for thi s program . Al so, em pl oye e s were c harged fo r p a rki ng, whi c h m ade the c om m ute program even m ore fi nanc i al l y b e n e fi c i a l . T hey a l so offer vanpool and c arpool hel p. T h e p ro g ra m d e ta i l s are here: h ttp ://tra n sportati on.stanford.edu/al t_transp o rta ti o n /Com m ute_Cl ub.sh tm l . T here i s no i nc enti ve for Ci ty o f Cuperti no em pl oye e s to do anyth i n g d i ffe re n t th a n d ri ve thei r own c a rs to work. I know seve ra l p e o p l e who l i ve c l o se to eac h other, and al l of them dri ve a l o n e . 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 7 :5 9 AM 57 Pl ease bui l d a parki n g g a ra g e a t th e l i b ra ry fi el d.3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 7 :4 6 AM 58 Stal l s for peopl e wh o h a ve to j ust d ro p som ethi ng off m akes sense for so m e o n e c o m i n g fro m a n o th e r b u i l d i n g . L i ke 10 m i nute stal l s j u st for c i ty e m p l o yees. 3 /1 2 /2 0 1 4 4 :0 2 AM 59 1 ) In stal l parki ng m eters a l o n g o n a l l c u rb l i n e s of T orre and Ro d ri g u e s. Code c an enforc e thi s. 2 ) Fi n a n c i a l l y i nc enti vi ze a l te rn a ti ve transp o rta ti o n - e .g . p u rc h a se eac h em pl oye e s parki ng sp a c e fro m th e m a s we se e i t h a s va l u e i n sofar as produc ti vi ty a n d staff ti m e spent tryi ng to sol ve thi s c h a l l e n g e . Stanford Uni has d o n e th i s wi th em pl oyees. Ca sh pay o u t to e m p l o yee or offer three h o u rs of fl oati ng hol i day e a c h q u a rte r. Parki ng m eter revenue from the fi rst su g g e sti on c oul d be u sed to subsi d i ze thi s suggesti on 3)Ne g o ti a te wi th Cal trai n and al l c i ti es a n d th e County w/i n Santa Cl ara County a group rate for trai n ti c kets. T here i s a hi gh m i ni m um to be el i gi bl e, but perhaps th e re woul d be enough ri ders to m ake i t worthwhi l e. 4) Offer al l em pl oye e s a 4/10 pl an wi th M o n d a y or Fri day off days. Parki n g i s rarel y a p ro b l e m o n Fri d a y, thi s woul d reduc e at l east 20 vehi c l es, e a c h week and net a 40% overal l reduc ti on as onl y 3/5 of the week wi l l have fu l l staff. If re n ti n g spac e from a nearby p ri vate property i s c onsi d e re d , I u rg e you to c onsi d e r suggesti on 2) fi rst. Hel p the em pl oyees before payi ng a deve l o p e r. T hank you for aski n g m y feedbac k... 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 8 :0 0 PM 60 M a ke som e on stre e t p a rki ng (Rodri guez/Pac i fi c a) c i ty or l i brary e m p l o yee parki n g o n l y, or l i m i t h o u rs to reduc e nearby re si denti al from l ong term parki ng. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 7 :5 6 PM 61 In c re a se si gnage for em pl oyee parki ng onl y and enforc e parki ng restri c ti o n s. Enc ourage l i brary u sers to wa l k, bi ke, take th e b u s, or c arpool rather than dri ve i n d i vi dual l y. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 6 :3 5 PM 62 Bui l d a parki ng stru c tu re n e a r l i b ra ry and/or return assi gned c i ty vehi c l e parki n g spac es. Ca n a l so a l l o w i nspec tors o r th o se wi th perso n a l c i ty vehi c l es to take th e i r Ci ty vehi c l e to and from hom e i f th e y l i ve wi thi n a c ertai n radi us th e re b y i m pl em enti ng one c ar al l day and not two. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :4 9 PM 63 Perm i t parki ng and stri p i n g spac es c l earl y and appropri atel y woul d al l i eve som e of the parki ng p ro b l e m s. Requi ri ng ti m e l i m i ts o n p a rki ng for non-c i ty e m p l o yees. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :3 8 PM 64 Assi g n e d p a rki ng for c i ty vehi c l es (i n spec tors) wi l l save m a n y hours o f n o n p ro d u c ti ve i nsp e c ti o n staff ti m e 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :2 8 PM 65 A parki ng garage 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :1 4 PM 66 Parki ng perm i tt for c i ty em pl oye e s, and l i m i t a few sp a c e s for vi si tor parki ng. Al so pl ac e a ti m e l i m i t o n vi si to r p a rki ng. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :1 2 PM 67 Bui l d a m ul ti -l eve l p a rki ng struc ture Li m i t ti m e of vi si tor parki n g : 1 h o u r, 2 h o u rs etc 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 7 PM 68 Have re serve d spots or a perm i t/hang tag that are enforc ed by ti c kets a n d to wi ng. Ri ght now, p e o p l e g o i n g to th e l i b ra ry or the c om m uni ty hal l park i n the fi rst a vai l abl e sp o t th e y c an fi nd, whi c h i s often i n the parki n g l o t b y Ci ty Ha l l . Al so, wh e n th e b i c yc l e l ane wa s wi dened, se veral street spots were rem ove d . 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 1 PM 69 M a ke dayti m e o n -street parki ng l i m i ted durati on (su c h a s 1 hr.). Appears th a t a d j . re si dents ti e up 'new' sp o ts on Rodri guez Instal l parki n g m e te rs or pay-p a rki ng for non em pl oye e s to enc ourage b i kes, wa l ki ng & di sc o u ra g e n o n e ssenti al parki n g Provi d e staff-onl y p a rki ng & enforc e those spac es fo r staff Provi de i nc enti ve s for staff that do not dri ve to work Possi b l y park Ci ty/p o o l vehi c l es n e a rb y b u t o ffsi te Add parki n g o n T orre north of Rodri guez i f spac e al l ows 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 0 PM 70 M o ve pool or other c ars to o ff-si te l oc ati on 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 5 :0 0 PM 458 Ci vic Center Parki ng Survey 5 / 5 71 I see em pl oye e s from surroundi ng busi n e sses p a rk on Rodri guez i n the m orni ngs desp i te si gnage. Can those sp a c e s be enforc ed regul arl y. Si nc e they're further awa y from the Li brary, m ayb e th o se c o u l d b e d e si gnated for Ci ty staff onl y after 6:30 am ? 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 9 PM 72 n e g o ti a te wi th Appl e for use o f shuttl es 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 9 PM 73 Pave o ver the fi el d by the Li brary i n o rd e r to c re a te m o re p a rki ng.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 7 PM 74 Need to repl ac e the grass a re a (n e xt to l i brary) and repl ac e wi th parki n g spac es.3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :5 3 PM 75 Bui l d a parki ng garage and/or refi gure the parki n g l o t to u se som e of the Li brary Fi el d for parki ng. Don't a l l o w resi dents fro m c o n d o s ac ross th e street to park i n the parki n g l o t. 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 9 PM 76 Coordi nate l i brary p ro g ra m s wi th Co m m u n i ty Ha l l p ro g ra m s. Add parki n g wi th struc ture, or on l i brary fi e l d . 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 9 PM 77 Have o ffe re d m o st suggesti o n s to DB o r KA i n the past. Use Pro m e th e u s Ga ra g e o r T own Ce n te r L a n e . Parki ng on Pa c i fi c a . Com m uter benefi ts (Eri n & M i c hel a have a g re a t re p o rt d e ta i l i n g o p ti o n s :) i nc l udi ng shuttl es, c a rp o o l i n g , b i kes, etc . 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 8 PM 78 Parki ng garage 3 /1 1 /2 0 1 4 4 :3 5 PM 459 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: April 1, 2014 Subject: Public Works Construction Project Updates. NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET 460