The URL can be used to link to this page

11 Budget it~l" U". I . ' City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366 I CUPEIQ"INO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. \ l Meeting Date: June 20, 2006 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Receive Public Comments, Discuss, and Adopt the 2006-07 Budget. BACKGROUND The purpose of tonight's hearing is to give the public a final opportunity to comment on the proposed 2006/07 budget before City Council takes action. An in-depth review of the budget was presented to City Council at a budget work session on May 31 and a public hearing was held on June 6. Council discussed the General Fund financial position, reserve levels, departmental operating budgets, and the five-year capital improvement program. RECOMMENDA nON Staff recommends that Council take the following actions: 1. Receive public comments 2. Complete Council discussions and make final decisions in the areas of: -/ City-wide Operating Budgets ./ Five Year Capital Improvement Projects 3. Grant a negative declaration 4. Adopt Resolution establishing an operating and capital budget for fiscal year 2006/07 5. Adopt Resolution establishing an appropriation limit for fiscal year 2006/07 Submitted by: Approved for submission: ~~ Carol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services )Wy David W. Knapp City Manager Prmted on Recycled Paper I \~ l DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 06-118 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING AN OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 BY RATIFYING ESTIMATES OF REVENUES TO BE RECEIVED IN EACH FUND AND APPROPRIATING MONIES THEREFROM FOR SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES AND ACCOUNTS AND SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS OF ADMINISTERING SAID BUDGET WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government is dependent on the establishment of a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ration of expenditures within anticipated revenues and available monies; and WHEREAS, the extent of any project or program and the degree of its accomplishment, as well as the efficiency of performing assigned duties and responsibilities, is likewise dependent on the monies made available for that purpose; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted his estimates of anticipated revenues and fund balances, and has recommended the allocation of monies for specified program activities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the following sections as a part of its fiscal policy: Section 1: The estimates of available fund balances and anticipated resources to be received in each of the several funds during fiscal year 2006-07 as submitted by the City Manager in his proposed budget and as have been amended during the budget study sessions are hereby ratified. Section 2. There is appropriated from each of the several funds the sum of money as determined during the budget sessions for the purposes as expressed and estimated for each department. Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to administer and transfer appropriations between Budget Accounts within the Operating Budget when in his opinion such transfers become necessary for administrative purposes. Section 4. The Director of Administrative Services shall prepare and submit to City Council quarterly a revised estimate of Operating Revenues. Section 5. The Director of Administrative Services is hereby authorized to continue unexpended appropriations for Capital Improvement projects. Section 6. The Director of Administrative Services is hereby authorized to continue appropriations for operating expenditures that are encumbered or scheduled to be encumbered at year end. (\~:L Resolution No. 06-118 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 20th day of June 2006, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED: Mayor, City of Cupertino ATTEST: City Clerk 2 ((.-3 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 06-119 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ESTABLISHING AND ADOPTING THE APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 WHEREAS, the State of California has adopted legislation requiring local jurisdictions to calculate their appropriation limits in complying with Article XIII B; and WHEREAS, said limits are determined by a formula based upon change in population, (city or county), combined with either the change in inflation (California per capita income) or the change in the local assessment roll due to local nonresidential construction; and WHEREAS, the local governing body is required to set an appropriation limit by adoption of a resolution; and WHEREAS, the county population percentage change over the prior year is 1.18%, and the California per capita personal income change is 3.96%. In computing the 2006-07 limit, City Council has elected to use the county population percentage change, and the California per capita income change was used, but the Council has a right to change nonresidential assessed valuation percentage when the figure is available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves a 2006-07 fiscal appropriation limit of$61,261,035. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council ofthe City of Cupertino this 20th day of June 2006, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino rl-Y 2006/07 Budget Study Session Follow-Up Items - 6/6/06 A. Current Decision Matrix B. Building Maintenance Comparison C. List of Festivals and Proposed Funding Levels D. North Area Val1co Study for $100,000 E. Stocklmeir Bridge Analysis - Forthcoming Page I 2 3 4 11.-S' 2006/07 Budget Possible Budget Changes Study Session - May 31, 2006 Revised 6/6/06 Add $ Delete $ Tennis Court Lighting - Design 50,000 Earthquake Insurance 100,000 Lighting Construction - $200K 08/09 Considerable Fix Quinlan Fountain - revisit at midyea 0 Support Community Festival Funding 100,000 TV Public Engagement Program 25,000 Fine Arts Grants 2,500 Stocklmeir Preservation Budget 50,000 North Area Vall co Concept Study 100,000 Some Stocklmeir Bridge ??? Support Marquee at Cali Mill Plaza - midyear 0 Community Hall Automatic Door 45,000 Service Club Memberships 2,500 Finance/budget/decision matrix fram study session.xls - - I ~ ........ :2. Building Maintenance Comparison 6/14/2006 Quinlan Attendant Total City Center Cost Quinlan Hall Salary and Benefits 80,715 62,844 143,559 162,277 General Office Supplies 20,000 20,000 59,000 Electrical 90,000 90,000 80,000 Gas 18,000 18,000 16,000 Telephone 12,000 12,000 40,000 Water 3,500 3,500 0 Sewer 1,000 1,000 1,000 Maintenance of Equipment 8,000 8,000 20,000 Professional and Contract (Janitorial) 99,000 99,000 56,000 Vehicle/Computer Support 20,710 Subtotal before building improvemts 332,215 62,844 395,059 454,987 Special Improvements to Facility: Replace Ice Machine 4,000 4,000 Replace Restaurant Type Range 7,500 7,500 Replace Dishwasher 15,000 15,000 Replace Carpet 7,500 7,500 Accommodate office for new staff 0 0 60,000 Total Budget 366,215 62,844 429,059 514,987 Approximate number of employees 13 69 GlAdmin Services/Facility Maintenance Comparison 11.-' - .- , OQ Proposed Festival Budget 1---- , Fiscal Year 2006/07 + I ~. Current Budget --~--. ~~ -- Total ~_._.- 43,228 ! ! --" ! ^^^ Paid for by the organization in 2005/06 I i - i . I ' ~';;;~",,9'I!2OO61pmpP"" fus'~1 b",,~~ -- I-------~---- I -t.--. I ~ I , ~ , ! I , Subtotal ; I 24,629, 15,000: 14,9.QQj- 4,000 L 9,328 1,090! 1,090: 13.61~F~~'o~r -1~:~~' 0' 01 10,2891 .- I I ~ 0: 2,485' 6,7501 - 0' 11,704' 11,055l n 0 15,344 1,2001 0 1,684 6,185' 0: 6,806! 1,500 0 11,500~ ! , , I +- __----L-.- I , 41,150: 2,180 131,8411 ^^^ , .! , ~- ~u : ; ; ~ Additional Proposal Total ! 15,000 i 30,000 3,000 17,900 0 4,000 2,000 11,328 0: 1,090 - : I 11 ,429 ! 21,426 11,429 29,144 0 10,289 -- 11 ,429 ! 13,914 11 ,429: 23,132 11 ,429 26,773 11 ,429 13,113 11 ,429 18,235 0, 11,500 100,000 231,841 - ----r-- I : ~ .. t,,'r~.. I T~' ...IA~~:".. ..~ 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX ~ 777-3333 Community Development Department CITY OF CUPEIQ"INO SUMMARY AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE: June 20,2006 Application Summary: Receive public comments, discuss, and adopt the 2006- 2007 budget BACKGROUND: The City Council previously discussed the North Valko Master Plan budget item. A budget of $100,000 is proposed for the study. A phased approach was discussed, so that the City Council could assess progress made and determine what additional work might be needed. Planning staff agreed to return with more information on the Work Program and Schedule. DISCUSSION: Staff and Planning Commission Chair Marty Miller have been meeting with consultant Bruce Liedstrand, former Mountain View City Manager, regarding approaches to the North Valley Master Plan. Mr. Liedstrand will attend the City Council meeting to discuss a proposal for the first phase of the study (see Exhibit A). The basic approach is to convene a North Valleo Study Committee in a public setting, to hire an urban designer/facilitator to provide background information and options to the Study Committee and the public, and to provide a progress report to the Planning Commission and City Council. A proposed schedule is included in the proposal. Enclosures: Exhibit A: North Valko Study Area, Phase One Tasks Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Approved by: JiS/: David W. Knapp City Manager Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Printed on Recycled Paper ~ (/.-1 EXHIBIT A City of Cupertino North VaIleo Study Area Phase One Tasks 1. Urban design consultant analysis of existing land uses and constraints and opportunities for change a. Relationships and connections among the properties within the study area. b. Relationships and connections to adjacent areas c. Opportunities for more effective development patterns d. Opportunities for reduction in auto dependency, including transit, sJ:1.uttles, pedestrian walkways, and less auto dependent development patterns. e. Opportunities for mixed use or conversion of office/ industrial to residential use 2. Urban design consultant's development of a core understanding of the primary issues of the 21st century high tech workplace, including: a. The evolving physical form of high tech work - virtual workplace, etc. b. Privacy, confidentiality and security c. Personal encounters and interactions that foster creativity d. The company's relationships and need for proximity to vendors, suppliers and other support functions e. Employee needs, including personal services, shopping, childcare, parking, recreation, entertainment, remote/home offices, shuttles to transit, nearby residential, etc. Possible survey of employee needs and desires. f. Other issues as identified. 3. Interaction with Apple Computer (and Hewlett Packard, if interested) to seek the company's perspective on these issues. 4. A series of at least three Community Workshops hosted by the North Valleo Study Committee and facilitated by the urban design consultant to increase community understanding of these issues and to develop locally based concepts for addressing them. Possible near-by site visits, if needed. 5. A (10 to 20 page) Phase One written report, with illustrations, prepared by the urban design consultant for approval by the North Valleo Study Committee containing the Phase One approved concepts and recommended next steps. H-fO TENTATIVE SCHEDULE July September - December January 2007 Hire urban designer/facilitator, prepare background information City Council appoints North Valley Study Committee Study Committee holds three to four community meetings Study Committee provides progress report to Planning Commission and City Council 1\,- 'II E EXHIBIT ;j-J- /I (ped hriJqe) &/Zo/db City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPERJINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Knapp, Ci~p (j2 U. a- (,( ~ rf Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works June 19,2006 FROM: SUBJECT: 06/07 CIP Council Interest Item: Stocklmeir Pedestrian Bridge The Council has expressed an interest in including the Stocklmeir pedestrian bridge in the 06/07 CIP. We believe that installing the bridge as a part of this CIP is premature and out of the necessary sequence of work planned for the northerly portion of Stevens Creek in the park. The following detail is offered to support our strong recommendation that the bridge not be installed at this time. The Stocklmeir pedestrian bridge needs to span the creek, presumably to support the future "north" segment of the pedestrian trail when that portion is funded. The optimal location for the bridge, unfortunately occurs at a point along the creek where the Water District staff have determined that creek realignment and bank restoration take place, when about one million dollars in funding for that work is available sometime in the future. The current schematic plan for the realignment of the creek, as determined by the water district, will move the creek to the west of its current location. When the creek is realigned, its width at the location of the bridge will be approximately 75 feet. The cost of the bridge, of course, is driven by its width, its span and its design type. In an effort to make both sides of the creek easily accessible for the maintenance staff and their lightweight vehicles, it has been proposed that the bridge be about 12 to 14 feet wide. Ifthe bridge is 14 feet wide and 75 feet long, has a steel frame, a concrete deck, concrete abutments with piles, and is standard, "off the shelf' pre-engineered and pre-fabricated, it will cost about $200,000, with an annual escalation of8 to 14%. There are quite a few variations that have and can continue to be considered, some of which will reduce or increase the cost. Until more specific trail, creek, golf course, park operations, and Stocklmeir orchard criteria can be developed that might influence the size of the bridge, the $200,000 estimate is a reasonable starting point. Printed on Recycled Paper EXHIBIT JJ.- {I \i 01J/J i c,!U)!o& 0,-^--', CITY OF CUPERJINO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM TO: DaveKnapp,City~rlCJ ~uaU~ Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works V June 19,2006 FROM: SUBJECT: 06/07 CIP Council Interest Item: Community Hall Lobby Door The Council has expressed an interest in automating one of the Community Hall lobby doors for disabled access as a part of the 06/07 CIP. ModifYing one of the doors is not necessary for code reasons, but can be accomplished. However, it will also require a significant amount of sensitive work in a very public location that can only be done by several skilled craftsmen. Unfortunately, skilled craftsmen, when they can be found, do not normally work on public projects and do not normally work for competitive fees, especially for such a small scope. As the concern has been expressed about cost, the following background is provided for your consideration. There are two pair of glazed, aluminum frame lobby doors. Because there is no space above nor on either side of the door assemblies to physically and aesthetically install a typical large box with a mechanical arm attached to the top of the door, an automatic door closure that is recessed in the concrete floor slab is the only acceptable solution. The recessed door operator requires a pit in the slab be cut out that is about 15 inches wide and 30 inches long, just beneath the door. The operator also requires that an electrical panel be installed in the wall that will power the operator and receive input information from a remote pushbutton. The installation of this system will require that the door and possibly the frame be removed for both the cutting of the slab as well as modifications to the door to attach the operator arm components and the installation ofthe electrical circuitry. The Artisan plaster wall will also require several openings cut into it for the electrical panel as well as connecting to a power source. A pushbutton and its associated wiring to the panel will also be installed. The work described above is considered major in scope and can only be accomplished by several skilled craftsmen with significant experience in each of the particular types of material installation. The potential for damage to the wood panels on the Council chamber side, the artisan plaster wall on the lobby side, the carpet, and the transom, is quite high for this type of work. The doorway will also probably need to be out of service for several weeks. An estimate of $45,000 is considered reasonable for the degree of competence, skill, and experience that at least 2 different craftsmen will need to do the work to City standards. However, as with any retroactive change to a facility, unknown conditions could have a siguificant effect on the cost. Please call me if you require additional information. Printed on Recycled Paper EXHIBIT L~~;~-00 City Council Meeting June 20, 2006 Agenda Item #11 Additional documents for Five- Year Capital Improvement Program CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6393 (MINUTE ORDER) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER OTHER MEASURES TO MAKE CAPITAL PROJECTS MORE ENERGY CONSERVING AND EFFICIENT IN THE USE OF NON-RENEW ABLE ENERGY RESOURCES PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: CP-2006-03 (EA-2006-14) City of Cupertino Citywide The five-year capital improvement program could be made more consistent with the General Plan if energy-saving measures are incorporated in the electrical projects that, depend on non-renewable energy sources. General Plan Policy No. 5-2: Conservation and Efficient Use of Energy Resources states: "Encourage the maximum feasible conservation and efficient use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new ahd existing residences, businesses, industrial and public uses." If the proposed projects cannot be made more energy-efficient, then the City should strive to achieve the energy savings in other City facilities, structures and uses. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2006 at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chien, Giefer, Saadati and Chair Miller COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Wong ATTEST: APPROVED: IslSteve Piasecki IslMarty Miller Steve Piasecki Marty Miller, Chairperson Director of Community Development Planning Commission G :cupn tmainserverjPlanning/PD REPO R TjRES;2006jCP-2006-03 minute order res. doc CP-2006-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6394 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO FINDING THE PROPOSED FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, FISCAL YEARS 2006- 07 TO 20010-11 CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant Location: CP-2006-03 (EA-2006-14) City of Cupertino Citywide SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received the proposed five-year capital improvement program, fiscal years 2006-07 to 20010-11, as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted. in this matter, the Planning Commission finds in accordance with CMC Section 2.32.070C, that applicationCP- 2006-03 is consistent with the City of Cupertino's General Plan. TJ.tat the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application CP-2006-03 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of June 13, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chien, Giefer, Saadati, Chair Miller COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Wong ATTEST: APPROVED: / s / Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s / Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission g:/pla,ming/pdreport;resjCP-2006-03 res CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE June 7, 2006 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on June 7, 2006. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: CP-2006-03 (EA-2006-14) City of Cupertino citywide DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST General Plan conformance of the Five Year Capital Improvements Program, FY 2006-07 to 2010-11 FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant 'nvi ntal impacts. Steve iasecki Director of Community Development g/erc/REC EA-2006-14 I- CUPEIQ"INO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department PROJECT DESCRIPTION: . .n EA File No. EA -2006-14 Case File No. CP-2006-03 ttachments Exhibit A . Project Title: City of Cupertino 5-vear Capital Improvement Proeram. FY 2006-07 to 2010-11 Project Location: Citywide Project Description: Various City capital proiects to repair. renovate. replace or uperade existine City facilities and structures Environmental Setting: Various urban seltines that include public parks. city streets and city buildines: city hall. librarv. community hall and service center. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - N/A Building Coverage - N/A % Exist. Building -_s.f. Proposed Bldg. - s.f. Zone - BA. PR G.P. Designation - Public Facilities. Transoortation. Parks & Ooen Soace Assessor's Parcel No. - various If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) o Monta Vista Design Guidelines o S. De Anza Conceptual o N. De Anza Conceptual o S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual o Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual o Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - s.f. FAR - Max. Employees/Shift - _Parking Required Parking Provided Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES X NO 0 A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 1. land Use Element 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Public Safety Element 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 3. Housing Element 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 4. Transportation Element 29. Fremont Union High School District 5. Environmental Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 7. Land Use Map 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 8. Noise Element Amendment 33. County Sheriff 9. City Ridgeline Policy 34. CALTRANS 10. Constraint Maps 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Excesses Center, 1976) 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 14. Geological Report (site specific) 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 40. County Hazardous Waste Management 16. Zoning Map Plan 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 18. City Noise Ordinance 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel leak Site C. CITY AGENCIES Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and 19. Community Development Dept. List Substances Site 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department F. OTHER SOURCES 22. Cupertino Water Utility 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 46. Experience w/project of similar 23. County Planning Department scope/characteristics 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 47. ABAG Projection Series 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health A. Complete all information requested on the Initial StUdy Cover page. lEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through'O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each Daae. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the fOllowing materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. "'Project Plan Set of Legislative Document "'Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: - >>.. 0 c1: _c Cc c;; -('II~ ('II ('II 0 ('II ('II('II~ ~ .!!! u "cu,c--'" ~~('II ISSUES: .. r;:: ~ I-r;::..'liio o ('II c ._ 1Il'-'li ClQ. 1Il- Q. zQ. [and Supporting Information Sources] Gl C E en c .-... III C E E o.~- GlCl ~o Gl.2l- ....1.- ::IE U D..lI) lI) .5 ....Ill) I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 0 [R] scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 [R] including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0 [R] character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or 0 0 0 [R] glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 [R] Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 [R] agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 0 0 [R] environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] >>- 0 c-;: _c c'C c; -011:) 0101 001 0101_ 1:) .!! u .cu,co-a.. .cuu ISSUES: -I;: ~ 1-q::..1IO 1-1;:01 o 01 C ._ 0'-'- 0lCl. 0'- Cl. zCl. [and Supporting Information Sources] SCE o C ;=.- "- o C E E 0.2'- GlOl ~o Gl .2'- ....1'- :!! u Q,II) II) C ....III) III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 IRI the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 IRI contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 IRI increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 IRI pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 IRI substantial number of people? [4,37,44] IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 0 0 IRI directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or . regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 IRI riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 IRI federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act lincludina, but not limited to, marsh, vernal >>.. C" 0 Cc _C c C.. -l'lI" l'lI l'lI 0 l'lI l'lIl'lI'lj 'lj .!! u u ~ (.).c.- .... ':u ISSUES: ..-=~ I--=..nio l--=l'lI o l'lI C ._ U).-.i ell2. U).- l2. zl2. [and Supporting Information Sources] SCE en c .-... U) C E E 0.2'- G)el :!:!o G) .2'- -1.- :::E U l1.f1l f1l C -If1l pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 IRI of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 0 IRI ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 0 0 0 IRI Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 IRI the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 IRI the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~15064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 IRI paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 IRI those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOilS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 IRI delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault ZoninQ MaD issued bv the ;>'''' 0 Cc _C c C c +:: -CIl~ CIl CIl 0 CIl CIlCll~ ~ .!l! u ,cU.c"-'" .J:.u ISSUES: "'q::2 I-q::...'liio I-q::CIl o CIl C._ (/)'-'!i ClQ. (/).- Q. zQ. [and Supporting Information Sources] GI C E en c ._... (/) C E E '0.21- GlCI ~o GI .21- 1l..1/) ...1'- ::E u ...II/) I/) .E State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 00 [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 00 liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] 0 0 0 00 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 0 0 00 loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 0 00 unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined 0 0 0 00 in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] e) Have soils incapable of adequately 0 0 0 00 supporting the use of septic tanks or altemative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 00 the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 00 the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 00 hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-Quarter mile >>- 0 c'C _c Ci: c;. -nits nI nI 0 nI nlnI- ts .!!! U "cUoC"-'" .cuu ISSUES: -r;::~ 1-u::......1;0 l-r;::nI o nI C ._ 1Il.-.!i CIa. III .- a. za. [and Supporting Information Sources] SCE en c .-... III C E E 0.21- m :t: 0 III CI_ ~.- :Eu l:l..U) U) C ..JU) of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 0 0 lRl list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 lRl use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 lRl airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 lRl interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 lRl significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?[1,2,44] VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 lRl waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 lRl supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] :.,'" 0 c'C _c Cc: c;:: -lilt) III III 0 III III lilt) t) .!!! u .r:. (.) .c .- ... .cu ISSUES: "'q:~ 1-q:...100 1-q:1II o III C ._ en'-'- elf: en'- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] SCE en c ~.- en C E E o el_ alel :=0 al .21- ....1.- :::E u 11.1/) I/) .5 ....II/) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 I8l pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? [14,20,36] d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 I8l pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site [20,36,38] e) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 I8l would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 I8l quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood 0 0 0 1RI hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] h) Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 I8l structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 I8l risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 I8l mudflow? [2,36,38] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 I8l community? [7,12,22,41] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 0 1RI policy, or reaulation of an aaencv with >.... 0 c'" -c c C c~ C -tau tata Ota tatau u .!l! u ,cU"c"-'" ~.gta ISSUES: "'G:~ I-G::t::'lio o ta c_ 1Il.-. CIa. Ill-a. za. [and Supporting Information Sources] .scE III c ~._.. III C E E o CI_ GlCl :t::0 Gl CI_ ....1.- ::!! u l1.tIl tIl .5 ....ItIl jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7.8.16.17.18,44] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 1RI conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 1RI mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 1RI locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 0 0 0 1RI noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 0 0 1RI excessive ground borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 0 1RI ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 0 0 1RI increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 1RI use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project exoose oeQQle residing or working in the ---.-- -- -- >>... 0 c'l: -c C'E c;; -",... '" '" 0 '" "''''1:) 1:) .!!! u u ~ (.) .-... oCu ISSUES: "'1;: 9 J-&;=1Go 1-1;:'" o '" c._ l/l'-'ji tllCl. l/l'- Cl. zCl. [and Supporting Information Sources] GI c E en c --... l/l C E E (L~- GI tll ~ 0 GI.~- .J'- ::i u D.1Il III ..5 .Jill project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private D D D liS] airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an D D D liS] area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing D D D liS] housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, D D D liS] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govemmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [19,32,44] D D D liS] Police protection? [33,44] D D D liS] Schools? [29,30,44] D D D liS] Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] D D D liS] Other public facilities? [19,20,44] D D D liS] XIV. RECREATION-- a) Would the project increase the use of D D D liS] existina neiahborhood and regional parks or >>.. 0 c'C _c c C c-- -IV" IV IV o'la IVIV~ ~ .!!! u u .cU.c..... ..cu ISSUES: .. l;: ~ I-l;:" IV 0 I-l;:IV o IV C ._ CII'-'~ ClIo. CII'- 0. zo. [and Supporting Information Sources] SCE U) c .-... CII C E E 0.21- Q)ClI ~o Q) .21- ...J'- :E U Q.1Il III C ...Jill other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational 0 0 0 lRl facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC.. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 0 lRl substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (I.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 0 0 0 lRl a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0 lRl including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4,7] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 0 0 0 lRl design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 lRl [2,19,32,33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 lRl [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 lRl programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: >>- 0 c-;: -c c 1: C:t:i -ftl'lj ftl ftl 0 ftl ftlftl'lj 'lj .!!! u ~U.c'-'" .cu ISSUES: -l;: 9 1-~....1Go I-l;:ftl o ftl C ._ 11I'-'- CIa. 11I'- a. za. [and Supporting Information Sources] oS C E III C ~.- "- III C E E 0.21- CI) CI :t: 0 CI) CI_ .....1.- ::i! u Q.t/) t/) C .....It/) a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 1RI requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 1RI new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 1RI 0 new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] Installing new storm drainage facilities in an area that has none will disrupt traffic circulation and access to individual properties, including access by emergency vehicles. All work will take place in the public right of way, so there should be minimal impact to existing trees. Design and construction work will need to be carefully planned and phased to allow for emergency vehicle access. e) Result in a determination by the 0 0 0 1RI wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 1RI permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 1RI statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [?] a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 lID degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 lID individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 0 c) Does the project have environmental 0 0 0 lID effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Pre parer's Signature Print Preparer's Name ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology ISoils 0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology 1 Water 0 Land Use 1 Planning Materials Quality 0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population 1 Housing 0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 TransportationfTraffic IRI Utilities 1 Service 0 Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: IRI The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. o Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the propose project, nothing further is required. 6/7/06 Date 6/7/06 Date Exhibit A Environmental Assessment of File No. CP-2006-03 City of Cupertino First Year Programmed Projects 5- Year Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2006-07 to 2010-11 Stevens Creek Corridor Park Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbrid e Bollinger Bike Lanes over Calabazas Creek Brid e Memorial Park Softball Field Rancho Rinconada Park Library Play Field McClellan Ranch Facility Improvements City Hall Emergency Generator/PG&E Upgrade Sport Center Tennis Court Lighting Library Improvements & U ades Restoration of Stevens Creek btw. Stevens Creek Blvd. & McClellan Rd. Reduce picnicking from 4,000 to 800, install multiuse trail, reconstruct facilities Construction of a bicycle footbridge on Mary Ave. aU nment over Hi hwa 280. City's contribution to widen bridge for bicycle lanes over Calabazas Creek. Renovation of existing softball field Acquisition ofSJW property for neighbor park purposes Renovation of existing play field, with irrigation & turf restoration Replace irrigation system for Comm. Gardens; Repaint and fumigate bam, bathrooms & water tower; rebuild or replace garden shed. Remove existing emergency generator and undersized transformer. Upgrade main electrical anel. Design oftennis court lighting fOr uight time use. Lighting upgrade to various interior areas in the library Separate environmental analysis is underway. ERC recommended a mitigated negative declaration for the ro . eel. $$ will be budgeted to conduct a separate environmental analysis when ro' ect is desi ned. SCVWD will be the lead agency for the project and environmental review. Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class ld: restoration of deteriorated facilities. Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15316, Class 16: acquisition ofland for ark oses Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class ld: restoration of deteriorated facilities. Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class Id: restoration of deteriorated facilities. Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class Id: restoration of deteriorated facilities. Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class la: minor alteration of existin facilities Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class la: minor alteration of existin facilities I Exhibit A Community Hall Improvements & U ades Monta Vista Park Building HV AC Re lacement Service Center Security Gate Pavement Management Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk Repairs City Monument Signs Replacement Rancho Rinconada Street Study Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures Safe Routes to School Garden Gate & Signal Upgrade at Stelling Rd./Greenleaf Yellow & Ped Head LED Traffic Signal U ade Countdown Ped Heads SCB/SR85 on Ramp Crosswalk Imps. Dais shelving and storage installation, patio wall protective coatin Replace existing HV AC system on building. Install a more secure automatic gate at the Service Center Ongoing maintenance of street pavement, which may include pothole filling, slurry sealing and overla ent. Funds for the repair of curb, gutter and sidewalks when they meet repair criteria One on Foothill Blvd. to be moved to SCB at SR85. Replace one at SCB at Tantau Avenue Neighborhood street circulation study. Funds for roadway modifications to slow and redirect auto traffic Install sidewalks where gaps exist on Stelling Road, Greenleaf Dr & on Auu Arbor Ave. to provide safe route to Gardeu Gate School. Traffic signal upgrade of County installed traffic signal. Re-Iamp all yellow & ped head indicators with LED in all traffic signals. Re-Iamp existing ped traffic signals with LED countdown units throughout the City. Funds will com lete 20 intersections. Improve crosswalks at Stevens Creek Blvd. and SR85 Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class la: minor alteration of existin facilities Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class ld: minor alteration of existing facilities Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class Id: minor alteration of existin facilities Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class 1 c: minor alteration of existing facilities which includes streets. Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class lc: minor alteration of existing facilities which includes streets. Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class lc: minor alteration of existin facilities Categorically Exempt: CEQA section 15306, Class 6: data collection Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class lc: minor alteration of existing facilities which includes streets. Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class Ie: minor alteration of existing facilities, which includes streets. Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class lc: minor alteration of existin facilities Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class 1c: minor alteration of existing facilities Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class 1c: minor alteration of existing facilities 2 Exhibit A Collins Elem School Zone Beacons & Lights Vehicle Count Stations SVITS Extensions Remove Traffic Sig. Flashing Red L T arrows Minor Storm Drain Improvements Monta Vista Storm Drainage System Master Storm Drain Plan Update Stockhneir Property Improvement Comm. Hall Improvement Install advance flashing beacons and flashing red lights at stop signs in the Collins School Zone. Install traffic count stations at De Anza & Lazaneo, and De Anza & Pros ect Rd. Install cable and boxes to connect City traffic facilities to Regional Intelli ent Trans ortation S stem Removal of flashing red left turn arrows at 4 traffic signals. Funding for emergency repairs as needed in various locations. Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class lc: minor alteration of existing facilities Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class lc: minor alteration of existing facilities Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class lc: minor alteration of existin facilities Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class 1 c: minor alteration of existin facilities Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class lc: minor alteration of existin facilities Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15303, Class 3d: utility extensions to service existing develo ment. Categorically Exempt: CEQA section 15306, Class 6: data collection Installation of new storm drainage system in Monta Vista area. Lines to be installed on Orange Ave and Byrne Avenue Update 1993 plan by evaluating existing system and make recommendations, including fee u date. 2006-07 Pro"ects Listed as Unfunded Repair roof of former Stocklmeir Categorically Exempt. CEQA Residence section 15301, Class lc: minor alteration of existin facilities Categorically Exempt. CEQA section 15301, Class 1 c: minor alteration of existin facilities Reception Room Automatic Door Upgrade 3