02-11-11 Bookmarked Packet.pdfTable of Contents
Agenda 4
January 4 City Council minutes, special meeting
Draft minutes (special meeting)11
January 4 City Council minutes, regular meeting
Draft minutes 13
Accounts Payable for period ending January 7, 2011
Draft Resolution 22
Accounts Payable for period ending January 14, 2011
Draft Resolution 38
Accounts Payable for period ending January 21, 2011
Draft Resolution 51
Payroll for period ending January 7, 2011
Draft Resolution 59
Payroll for period ending January 21, 2011
Draft Resolution 60
Approve destruction of records from the City Clerk and Parks &
Recreation (Quinlan and Senior Center) departments
Draft resolution 61
City Clerk 1 62
City Clerk 2 67
P&R Quinlan 71
P&R Senior Center 73
Add Annex to Disaster Plan for care of animals
Staff Report 85
Animal Disaster Annex 86
Endorse council opposition to Governor Brown’s budget
proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies
Draft letter to state elected representatives 247
Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water
Rights, Sanjoy K. Poddar and Sadia Rupa Poddar, 10145
Camino Vista Drive
Resolution 248
Quitclaim Deed 249
Map 253
Improvement Agreement, Sanjoy K. Poddar and Sadia Rupa
Poddar, 10145 Camino Vista Drive
Resolution 254
Improvement Agreement 256
Map 268
Alcoholic Beverage License, Cupertino Liquors, 7335 Bollinger
Road, Suite F (near Red Crane)
Staff Report 269
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License 270
1
Alcoholic Beverage License, Kong Tofu & BBQ, 19626 Stevens
Creek Boulevard (Marketplace, former Wahoo's)
Staff Report 271
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License 272
Alcoholic Beverage License, Rite Aid 5967, 20580 East
Homestead Road (PW Market Shopping Center)
Staff Report 274
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License 275
Alcoholic Beverage License, Village Falafel, 20010 Stevens
Creek Boulevard (SWC at Blaney)
Staff Report 278
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License 279
Green Building Ordinance (Continued from Jan 18)
Staff Report 280
A. Green Building Ordinance No. 11-2074 290
B. Model Resolution of Amendments to the Fee
Schedule 299
C. Phase II Recommendations 301
D. June 7, 2010 Focus Group Meeting Notes 303
E. July 29, 2010 Focus Group Meeting Notes 306
F. Letter from Berg & Berg 310
G. October 12, 2010 Planning Commission staff report 315
H. October 26, 2010 Planning Commission staff report 325
I. November 9, 2010 Planning Commission consent
report 338
J. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6615 340
K. Minutes of the October 12 Planning Commission
meeting 350
L. Minutes of the October 26 Planning Commission
meeting 365
M. Minutes of the November 9 Planning Commission
meeting 382
N. Comparison table of standards in Sunnyvale, Morgan
Hill & Palo Alto 383
O. LEED EBOM/LEED CI comparison 385
P. % of New Construction Data 386
Q. % of Tenant Improvement Data 391
R. January 19, 2010 City Council report 409
S. Cal Green Description 413
T. Comparison Table of CalGreen, LEED & GPR 414
Petition for reconsideration of the City Council’s November 29,
2010 decision to deny an appeal of a Director's Approval for a
personal wireless service facility at 11371 Bubb Road
T-Mobile/Bubb Road Reconsideration Report 430
A. City Council Resolution & Exhibit 1 435
B. Director's Minor Mod Approval dated 9/7/10 441
C. Appeal by Shaul Berger dated 9/20/10 445
2
D. PC Staff Report dated 11/9/10 450
E. PC Meeting Minutes dated 11/9/10 455
F. PC Resolution No. 6616 461
G. CC Staff Report dated 11/29/10 464
H. CC Meeting Minutes dated 11/29/10 467
I. Reconsideration Petition dated 12/9/10 469
J. Email from Shaul Berger to City staff dated 11/30/10 475
K. Approved Plan Set 476
Scenic Circle Access Project
Staff Report 486
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 490
Responses to Public Comments 589
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 666
Blackberry Farm Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Staff Report 675
3
AGENDA
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR MEETING
CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING
10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
6:45 PM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION
CEREMONIAL MATTERS – PRESENTATIONS
1. Subject: Proclamation recognizing the Santa Clara County Library, the Friends of the
Cupertino Library, and the Cupertino Library Foundation for their support of the 9th Annual
Silicon Valley Reads
Recommended Action: Present proclamation
Page: No written materials in packet
POSTPONEMENTS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter
not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will
prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda.
4
February 1, 2011 Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
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.
2. Subject: January 4 City Council minutes, special meeting
Recommended Action: Approve minutes
Draft minutes (special meeting)
Page:
3. Subject: January 4 City Council minutes, regular meeting
Recommended Action: Approve minutes
Draft minutes
Page:
4. Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending January 7, 2011
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No.11-008
Draft Resolution
Page:
5. Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending January 14, 2011
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-009
Draft Resolution
Page:
6. Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending January 21, 2011
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No.11-010
Draft Resolution
Page:
7. Subject: Payroll for period ending January 7, 2011
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No.11-011
Draft Resolution
Page:
8. Subject: Payroll for period ending January 21, 2011
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-012
Draft Resolution
Page:
5
February 1, 2011 Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
9. Subject: Approve destruction of records from the City Clerk and Parks & Recreation
(Quinlan and Senior Center) departments
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-013
Draft resolution
City Clerk 1
City Clerk 2
P&R Quinlan
P&R Senior Center
Page:
10. Subject: Add Annex to Disaster Plan for care of animals
Recommended Action: Approve as an Annex to the Cupertino Emergency Plan
Description: Document addresses Cupertino’s role in caring for displaced pets and stray
animals following a major emergency when the City’s Animal Control Service is
overwhelmed
Staff Report
Animal Disaster Annex
Page:
11. Subject: Endorse council opposition to Governor Brown’s budget proposal to eliminate
redevelopment agencies
Recommended Action: Accept Legislative Committee recommendation
Description: The legislative committee has recommended adoption of council action that will
allow the mayor to express council opposition to provisions in the governor's January Budget
Proposal which proposes to eliminate redevelopment agencies (RDAs) in California
Draft letter to state elected representatives
Page:
12. Subject: Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Sanjoy K.
Poddar and Sadia Rupa Poddar, 10145 Camino Vista Drive
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-014
Description: The property owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City
the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property
Resolution
Quitclaim Deed
Map
Page:
6
February 1, 2011 Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
13. Subject: Improvement Agreement, Sanjoy K. Poddar and Sadia Rupa Poddar, 10145 Camino
Vista Drive
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-015
Description: Through the improvement agreement with the City, the applicants for a building
permit for a single-family residential development will be obligated to bond and construct
city-specified roadside improvements along the street frontage of their building site
Resolution
Improvement Agreement
Map
Page:
14. Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License, Cupertino Liquors, 7335 Bollinger Road, Suite F (near
Red Crane)
Recommended Action: Approve application for Off Sale General
Staff Report
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License
Page:
15. Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License, Kong Tofu & BBQ, 19626 Stevens Creek Boulevard
(Marketplace, former Wahoo's)
Recommended Action: Approve application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide
Public Eating Place
Staff Report
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License
Page:
16. Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License, Rite Aid 5967, 20580 East Homestead Road (PW
Market Shopping Center)
Recommended Action: Approve application for Off Sale General
Staff Report
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License
Page:
17. Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License, Village Falafel, 20010 Stevens Creek Boulevard
(SWC at Blaney)
Recommended Action: Approve application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for a Bona Fide
Public Eating Place
Staff Report
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License
Page:
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above)
7
February 1, 2011 Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
PUBLIC HEARINGS
18. Subject: Green Building Ordinance (Continued from Jan 18)
Recommended Action: Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 11-2074 and adopt
Resolution No. 11-016
Description: Application: MCA-2010-04; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide;
Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to adopt a Green Building Ordinance;
"An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino establishing Chapter 19.78 to
create a Green Building Ordinance"
Staff Report
A. Green Building Ordinance No. 11-2074
B. Model Resolution of Amendments to the Fee Schedule
C. Phase II Recommendations
D. June 7, 2010 Focus Group Meeting Notes
E. July 29, 2010 Focus Group Meeting Notes
F. Letter from Berg & Berg
G. October 12, 2010 Planning Commission staff report
H. October 26, 2010 Planning Commission staff report
I. November 9, 2010 Planning Commission consent report
J. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6615
K. Minutes of the October 12 Planning Commission meeting
L. Minutes of the October 26 Planning Commission meeting
M. Minutes of the November 9 Planning Commission meeting
N. Comparison table of standards in Sunnyvale, Morgan Hill & Palo Alto
O. LEED EBOM/LEED CI comparison
P. % of New Construction Data
Q. % of Tenant Improvement Data
R. January 19, 2010 City Council report
S. Cal Green Description
T. Comparison Table of CalGreen, LEED & GPR
Page:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
19. Subject: Petition for reconsideration of the City Council’s November 29, 2010 decision to
deny an appeal of a Director's Approval for a personal wireless service facility at 11371 Bubb
Road
Recommended Action: Conduct a hearing on a petition for reconsideration regarding the
City Council’s decision on the wireless communications facility at 11371 Bubb Road; adopt
Resolution No. 11-017, denying the Petition of Shaul Berger seeking Council reconsideration
of its decision to approve the wireless communications facility at 11371 Bubb Road
Description: Application: DIR-2010-28 Appeal; Applicant: Dayna Aguirre (for T-Mobile);
Appellant/Petitioner: Shaul Berger; Location: 11371 Bubb Road, APN 356-23-047;
8
February 1, 2011 Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Application Summary: Petition for reconsideration of the City Council’s November 29, 2010
decision to deny an appeal of a Director's Approval for a personal wireless service facility
with three panel antennas and four associated equipment boxes to be installed on an existing
PG&E pole located in front of 11371 Bubb Road
T-Mobile/Bubb Road Reconsideration Report
A. City Council Resolution & Exhibit 1
B. Director's Minor Mod Approval dated 9/7/10
C. Appeal by Shaul Berger dated 9/20/10
D. PC Staff Report dated 11/9/10
E. PC Meeting Minutes dated 11/9/10
F. PC Resolution No. 6616
G. CC Staff Report dated 11/29/10
H. CC Meeting Minutes dated 11/29/10
I. Reconsideration Petition dated 12/9/10
J. Email from Shaul Berger to City staff dated 11/30/10
K. Approved Plan Set
Page:
20. Subject: Scenic Circle Access Project
Recommended Action:
1. Adopt the mitigated negative declaration CEQA documents; and,
2. Authorize the winter schedule alternative as depicted in the base bid; and,
3. Authorize the inclusion of Add Alternates 1 and 2 for a total of $10,940; and,
4. Authorize the current budget of $235,000 to be adjusted upward by $125,000 for a total
budget of $360,000 using excess funds from the Blackberry Farm Infrastructure Upgrades
project; and,
5. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a contract with Pavex, Inc. for the construction of
Scenic Circle Access not to exceed $159,735, plus the Add Alternates, if approved; and,
6. Authorize the expenditure of up to $30,000 for change orders for unforeseen site
conditions and construction contingency
Staff Report
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Public Comments
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Page:
21. Subject: Blackberry Farm Infrastructure Upgrade Project
Recommended Action: Authorize the Director of Public Works to reject all bids and re-bid
the project
Staff Report
Page:
ORDINANCES
STAFF REPORTS
9
February 1, 2011 Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Canceled for lack of business.
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation
challenging a final decision of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency must be brought within 90 days
after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.
Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council’s
decision with respect to quasi-judicial actions, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city
clerk within ten days after the council’s decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal
ordinance code §2.08.096.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance,
please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the
packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300
Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the
agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.
10
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
ROLL CALL
At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the regular meeting to order in the Council Chamber,
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice-Mayor Mark Santoro, and Council members Barry Chang,
Orrin Mahoney, and Kris Wang. Absent: none.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Subject: Coffee Society Lease (Continued from Dec 21)
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a three year lease with the
Coffee Society
Discussion: Public Works Director Timm Borden explained that the contract for the Coffee
Society is a lease that incorporated all of the deal points approved by City Council in closed
session. There were some corrections to be made to reconcile dates in the document with the
three-year term of the lease, and the final agreement came in late, so Council member Wang
asked for a deferral to this meeting.
Council member Barry Chang said that he planned to vote no on this item because of
objections to the RFP process. He said that he had gotten the impression that the staff had
talked L’Epi D’Or out of submitting a proposal.
Council member Mahoney said that the information that L’Epi D’Or had missed their
opportunity to submit a proposal was not new information, and the Council already had
received a contract signed by the owner of the Coffee Society, so he was in favor of
proceeding with the Coffee Society contract.
Council member Wang said she was troubled by the apparent miscommunications between
staff and L’Epi D’Or.
Santoro said it was his understanding that L’Epi D’Or was notified about the Request for
Proposal, and either misunderstood or chose not to send in a proposal within the deadline.
11
January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Special Meeting Page 2
City Architect Terry Green gave a detailed explanation of the course of events. He noted that
he and a coworker met with Judy Lee on Nov. 29, and discovered that the emails staff had
sent went to her high-school-aged son, because she did not have her own email. The Lees
were aware that the email had arrived at some point but it may have been deleted. Mr. Green
explained that staff was under the impression that the emails were going to her husband
Johnny Lee for a response.
Mr. Greene said that Mrs. Lee was still interested in leasing the space if available, but
understood that she missed the opportunity to submit a bid by the deadline, so staff
encouraged her to apply again when the current lease was up. Mr. Green noted that the
original RFP was advertised in the World Journal for a week, in the San Jose Mercury News
for three days, in the Cupertino Courier for one publication, and it was also included in the
Cupertino Scene and the City of Cupertino website.
Vice-Mayor Wang said that there had been many closed session discussions, and staff was
directed to talk to Mrs. Lee about the RFP opportunity. She said that either L’Epi D’Or or
the Coffee Society would be a good tenant, but the process had been a problem.
Mayor Wong said he also had concerns about the process, and wanted to reject the current
bid and reopen the RFP to everyone.
Action: Council member Barry Chang moved to reject the lease with Coffee Society and re-
open the Request for Proposals. Council member Kris Wang seconded, and the motion
carried 3-2, with Council members Santoro and Mahoney voting no.
Vice Mayor Mark Santoro said he voting no because person in question received the original
notice and it had been advertised in numerous locations. Mr. Santoro said that if the City
Council members felt that that staff’s actions were inappropriate, then an investigation would
be in order, but it should not appear that Council is favoring a particular vendor.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:02 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.
____________________________
Kimberly Smith, 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.
12
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 7:02 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the regular meeting to order in the Council Chamber,
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice-Mayor Mark Santoro, and Council members Barry Chang,
Orrin Mahoney, and Kris Wang. Absent: none.
CLOSED SESSION - None
CEREMONIAL MATTERS – PRESENTATIONS
1. Subject: Proclamation to FIRST 5 for their important work in children’s health and well-
being
Discussion: Council members watched a brief video about FIRST 5, an agency created to
support the healthy development of children prenatal to age 5, and to enrich the lives of their
families and communities. Mr. Avo Makdessian, representing FIRST 5, reviewed a
PowerPoint presentation and said that in 2007, there were 150,000 children in that age group
County-wide. Over 4100 of those lived in Cupertino, and 81% of their families had an annual
income of less than $300,000. He explained that $38.3 million had been invested in local
nonprofits and municipalities to provide services to the local community. CHAC Program
Director Maddi Pascua discussed the “learning together” initiative, to build relationships to
the community, and the family resource center in Mountain View, which is a free community
center where families can get resources. Cupertino Community Coordinator Nancy Doan
talked about some of their upcoming events. More information was available at
www.first5kids.org.
Action: Mayor Gilbert Wong presented the proclamation
POSTPONEMENTS - None
13
January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 2
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
City Clerk Kimberly Smith distributed copies of the staff PowerPoint presentations for item Nos.
9-12.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Paula Wallis said that although the Council did not pass the hoped-for resolution on December
21 regarding Lehigh’s East Materials Storage Area, the residents were grateful that Council
agreed to send a letter to the County of Santa Clara. She noted a remark made by the mayor at
that meeting, and asked if the public had a right to speak to the Council on agenda items, or
whether that was a privilege granted to them by the Council.
Rhoda Fry thanked the Council and City Manager for their letter to the County regarding Lehigh.
She spoke about contamination of ground water going into Permanente Creek which goes
straight to the San Francisco Bay. She shared a letter dated March 26, 2010 from the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding a violation notice to Lehigh Southwest Cement
Company. She noted that David Knapp and Rick Kitson were copied on the letter, but no one
from the County. She indicated that the reason no one from the County was copied on the March
26 letter or the notice posted in November was that the Water Quality Board represents nine
counties in the Bay Area so they don’t report up to the county. She shared a hand drawn
organization chart that shows everything funnels up to Jerry Brown and Barack Obama. She
showed a map of Permanente Creek that leads straight into bay and also showed photos of drums
of grease, effluent, and white water going straight into the creek which goes straight into the bay.
City Attorney Carol Korade responded to Ms. Wallis’ question and explained that State law
creates an obligation to give the public opportunity to speak to Council; however, it is the
Mayor’s discretion to limit the amount of time allotted to each speaker, to set a limit on the
number of speakers, or to determine at what point in the meeting the oral communications will be
heard.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as
recommended, with the exception of Item No. 2, which was pulled for discussion. Ayes: Chang,
Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None.
3. Subject: Payroll for period ending December 22, 2010
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-002
4. Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License, Togo’s Sandwiches, 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Suite 314 (Oaks Shopping Center)
Recommended Action: Approve application for on sale beer
14
January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 3
5. Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License, Flight Wine & Food, 20333 Stevens Creek Boulevard
(Cafe Torre)
Recommended Action: Approve application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide
Public Eating Place
6. Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License, One Eyed Spirits, 19200 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Suite 200
Recommended Action: Approve application for Distilled Spirits Importer and Wholesaler
7. Subject: Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Vivekanand
Karnataki and Deepti Naik, 10122 Bret Avenue
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-003
Description: The property owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City
the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property
8. Subject: Municipal Improvements, Kelly Gordon Development Corp., 10231 Amelia Court
Recommended Action: Accept Municipal Improvements
Description: Municipal improvements include sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway approach,
paving and new utility services
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above)
2. Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending December 17, 2010
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-001
Discussion: Council member Barry Chang asked for additional detail on payments to G.
Bortolotto, Spencon Construction, and some handwritten notations. Administrative Services
Director Carol Atwood said she would research these items and provide more information
about the projects in question, and would also provide a copy of the city’s purchasing policy.
Action: Chang moved and Wang seconded to approve the accounts payable item as
presented. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. Subject: Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility on Results Way
Recommended Action: Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval for a
personal wireless service facility at the existing Results Way office park
Description: Application Nos. U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31; Applicant: Scott
Longhurst (AT&T); Appellants: Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin; Address: Results Way
(rear parking lot); APN: 357-20-042; Application Summary: Consider an appeal of a
Planning Commission approval for a personal wireless service facility consisting of twelve
panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment to be
located at the existing Results Way office park
Discussion: Senior Planner Colin Jung reviewed the staff report and the history of the
project’s approval and appeal hearings. He said that the owner had reviewed the alternate
15
January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 4
sites suggested by the City Council, along with several facility design options, but still felt
that the only feasible site was the proposal that was approved by the Planning Commission.
Appellant Grace Chen reviewed a series of slides including a summary of the AT&T
application. She pointed out discrepancies in the monopine height compared to the other trees
in the area and she said it would not blend harmoniously with other trees in neighborhood
because they are of smaller stature, about 20 feet high, and may not grow much taller. She
mentioned Ordinance 09-2038 which amended the wireless facilities ordinance. Ms. Chen
asked that the Council uphold the appeal and direct AT&T to consider other viable
alternatives, such existing telephone poles, and to consider Ordinance 90-2038, amendments
to Chapter 19.108 of the Wireless Communications Facilities of the Cupertino Municipal
Code, of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
Scott Longhurst, Trilliam Telecom (for AT&T Mobility), thanked the Council for their
commitment and hard work on the project. He said that AT&T has shown good faith in
working with City staff, the community, and elected officials to find a suitably zoned area for
the facility. This project meets the zoning code and is compliant with development
standards. He asked the Council to uphold Planning Commission’s recommendation, deny
the appeal and let the project move forward.
Rose Grymes spoke about the need to improve cell phone service in Cupertino because of an
increasing demand for cell phone integrity and reliability.
Andrew Wu spoke in opposition to the AT&T monopine. He underscored Ms. Chen’s
presentation and the City should follow already-established guidelines.
Xuena Xu said that, based on the current ordinance, the City should not allow the monopole
be 75 feet high.
Xiaowen Liu showed an overhead diagram of the site and said that the proposed location was
too far north of the problem coverage area. She said she was not opposed to the tower, just
its location.
Mark Ma said that AT&T should consider changing the location of this monopine antenna to
a completely different location. He referred to prior applications, which were denied, and
said that this tower is taller than the previously denied versions.
Leon Beauchmon, representing AT&T, said he would be retiring and his replacement would
be Randy Okamura. Mr. Beauchmon said he had been working with the City for 5 years and
they believed this was the best solution.
Kevin McClelland, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, acknowledged that
cell phone coverage in Cupertino was not as good as it could be. He requested that Council
support Cupertino’s telecommunications infrastructure and deny the appeal.
16
January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 5
Randy Okamura said he had been the External Affairs Manager in Palo Alto. He said he
wished to respond to Mr. Wu’s comments and explain that he had worked on the Palo Alto
monopine project. He had participated in the decision to withdraw the proposal, which was
partly because they did not properly engage the community. He said they would be sure to
follow through with community outreach in the future.
Chris Ho, a resident of Astoria Townhomes, said he wanted improved coverage for AT&T
users, but he didn’t like this proposal because it exceeds the height limit. He suggested
bringing the antennae down to a lower height, and he asked Council to reject proposal.
Mr. Longhurst talked about why the original location was still the only feasible location, and
explained that the monopole height had to be increased from 55 feet to 75 feet in order to
make up for the difference in grade, since the property sloped down in the back by 19 feet.
Council members discussed methods to provide additional screening, such as mounding areas
around the monopole to plant new trees, and add additional trees along the property line by
the residences.
Mr. Longhurst said that AT&T would agree to the suggestions for more screening trees,
berms, and irrigation. He asked if there could be $75,000 dollar cap on the additional
mitigation measures.
Discussion followed about whether there were other alternate sites. City Attorney Carol
Korade explained that a wireless provider must make an initial showing that the method it is
proposing, to fill a significant gap in its service, is the least intrusive. The city is not
compelled to accept the provided solution, but if it is rejected the city must show potentially
available and technologically feasible alternatives. The provider must then have an
opportunity to dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the city.
Action: Mahoney moved and Santoro seconded to deny the appeal, required the conditions
as recommended by the Planning Commission, and added the following conditions to the
Planning Commission resolution: (1) Plant additional screening trees at the northern property
line to screen the tree pole from the Astoria Townhome development; (2) Require berming
and plant at least two 36” box, Coastal Redwoods (Blue Aptos variety) on the berm on either
side of the monopole to screen it; (3) Improve irrigation around the trees to ensure proper
growth; (4) Remove and replace trees with dead tops; (4) Adequately maintain and water the
trees in the parking lot; (5) Require an annual status report on the trees by a certified arborist
for three years from the date of the tree planting; (6) Require that tree planting conform with
the approved development plans of the Results Way office park; and (7) Allow a monetary
cap of $75,000 for the berming and tree planting required in the added conditions.
17
January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 6
RECESS – Prior to the Council recess. City Manager David Knapp introduced Terry Calderone,
Cupertino’s former Police Chief who had recently retired, and also introduced the city’s new
Police Chief Carl Neusel. Captain Neusel said that it was an honor to be selected for the position
and expressed his commitment to providing the highest level of law enforcement in Cupertino.
The Council was in recess from 9:40 to 9:53 p.m.
10. Subject: Appeal of the Director's decision allowing a parking pad to be located at a duplex
located at 967 Miller Avenue
Description: Application: DIR-2010-30; Appellant: Erwin Wolf; Applicant: Linda Shen-
Jung (GLSAA, LLC); Location: 965-967 Miller Avenue; APN: 369-19-052; Application
Summary: Appeal of a Director’s Minor Modification decision to allow paving in the front
yard of an existing duplex for the purpose of a parking stall at 965-967 Miller Avenue
Senior Planner Colin Jung reviewed the staff report.
Speakers representing the appellant, Erwin Wolf, were Michael and Cheryl Wolf. Michael
Wolf expressed safety concerns for elderly tenants because visibility could be an issue if
additional parking were added. He stated that there has been ample parking for 30 years. He
also suggested that the property appearance could be compromised and impact marketability.
Cheryl Wolf said there could be safety issues for emergency vehicles responding to an
emergency with a vehicle extended to the sidewalk. The appellants said there was room for
two or three cars on the street and that things are o.k. the way they are.
The applicants Gordon Jung and Linda Shen-Jung said they submitted the application based
on a request of their tenants (a husband, wife, and their son) who were having difficulty
finding parking in their neighborhood. Mr. Jung said that everyone has passed a driver’s test
and exercises caution by stopping at the sidewalk before going into the street. He did not see
a driving safety issue and requested that the application be approved.
The public hearing was closed at 10:25 p.m.
Action: Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to deny the appeal of the Director’s decision
with the following conditions. The motion carried unanimously.
· The parking area shall be revised to incorporate the 41” pedestrian path immediately
north, increasing the parking pad depth from 17 feet to approximately 20 feet;
· The corner of the existing planting area immediately north of the proposed parking
pad shall be rounded-off to further enhance the vehicle movement
· No parked cars shall extend over any portion of the sidewalk, except as may be
necessary to enter or leave the property.
11. Subject: Application for modification of an existing mixed-use development (M-2010-08)
located at 19501-19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Metropolitan)
Recommended Action: Consider a Modification (M-2010-08) to the Use Permit for the
Metropolitan mixed-use development
18
January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 7
Description: Applications: M-2010-03, EXC-2010-03, TM-2010-03 (EA-2010-04);
Applicant: Jane Vaughan (Cupertino Housing Partners, LLC); Location: 19501, 19503,
19505, 19507 Stevens Creek Blvd (Metropolitan); APN: 316-49-111 and 316-49-112;
Application Summary: Amendment (M-2010-08) to a Modification application (M-2010-03)
of a previously-approved Use Permit (U-2003-04) to amend Condition No. 2 (Parking) to
allow the parking requirements to be incorporated into an appropriate alternate legal
document as deemed acceptable to the City Attorney and Director of Community
Development in lieu of the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs)
Senior Planner Aki Honda reviewed the staff report.
Applicant Jane Vaughan said she thought it had been clear that parking was controlled by an
easement and not by CC&R’s, but that language was not corrected when this item was
originally approved, so it was brought back before Council to make the correction to specify
that the parking is controlled by easement. She reviewed the additional conditions
recommended by the city attorney today and said she could not accept the condition to
indemnify the city.
Jenny Cheung said she purchased a unit and signed a contract on August 23, and the property
closed on Oct 29. On December 10 she received a document from Menlo Equity and signed
the additional documents because she thought it was part of the closing documentation. Ms.
Cheung said she purchased this property because she was attracted to the downtown, park,
hotel, and shopping district. When she purchased the property she was excited about the retail
possibilities of the complex, but later discovered that some of the other buildings were going
to be zoned for medical use. She said when she first learned of this change to the retain nature
of the complex on December 14 when she saw the staff report. She felt that the City and
Menlo Equities had an obligation to inform her of the change because it affected the value of
her investment.
Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava said that the original retail
modifications were made in October prior to the closing. When staff learned there was a new
owner, she was invited to attend and became a co-applicant.
City Attorney Carol Korade discussed some additional recommended conditions. The first is
that the applicant shall provide evidence that the parking condition can be legally enforceable
and is not contradictory to the CC&R’s. The second condition is that the applicant indemnify
the City, since the City cannot be part of a private dispute.
Ms. Vaughn said that the parking license agreement has been prepared by an attorney and a
notice to acknowledge is going out to record the agreements with the properties. She said
that she believes the agreement is consistent with easements and the CC&R’s. She also
stated that to her knowledge they do not have any disputes with Ms. Cheung. Ms. Cheung’s
property is remaining retail and she is having an attorney review the documents.
19
January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 8
The Council members took a straw vote to determine which of them would require the City
Attorney’s recommended conditions to be included if this application were approved.
Council members Mahoney, Wang, and Santoro voted in favor of including the
recommended conditions. Chang and Wong did not specify their intentions.
Ms. Vaughan stated for the record that since the City of Cupertino would require the
applicants to indemnify them, they would respectfully withdraw the application.
12. Subject: Planned Development Ordinance
Recommended Action: Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 11-2073
Description: Application: MCA-2010-06; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide;
Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.48 (Planned
Development) to be consistent with the 2010 Housing Element; "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 19.48 (Planned Development) of the
Cupertino Municipal Code to be consistent with the 2010 Housing Element"
Action: The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Mahoney moved and Chang
seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk’s reading would
constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang and Wong. Noes:
None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
RECESS – Council was in recess from 11:18 p.m. to 11:25 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
13. Subject: Council assignments for local and regional organizations and agencies
Recommended Action: Select assignments
Action: Mahoney moved and Santoro seconded to assign the committees as proposed by
Mayor Wong, with the exception that on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority,
Council member Chang would be the primary representative and Council member Mahoney
would be the alternate. The motion carried 3-2, with Kris Wang and Barry Chang voting no.
Council member Chang said he felt that all positions should be rotated, and he wanted to
serve as the primary representative on the Sister City Committee. Council member Wang
had earlier spoken of her desire to serve on the Library Commission.
ORDINANCES - None
STAFF REPORTS - None
COUNCIL REPORTS
Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events.
20
January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 9
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:03 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, January 18, 2011, at 3:00 p.m.
____________________________
Kimberly Smith, 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.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS FROM
CITY CLERK AND PARKS AND RECREATION (QUINLAN AND SENIOR
CENTER) DEPARTMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council did by adoption of Resolution Nos. 8894 and 02-
037 establish rules and regulations for records retention and destruction; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain records in excess of two years old
no longer contain data of any historical or administrative significance; and
WHEREAS, the departmental request for permission to destroy all said records in
excess of two years old has been approved by the City Clerk and the City Attorney
pursuant to Resolution Nos. 8894 and 02-037;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Cupertino authorizes destruction of the records specified in the schedule attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 1st day of February 1, 2011, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
61
RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING
Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org
File name or Box number: April
Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed
Resolution
authorizing
destruction:
Date records
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
D=Destruction M=Microfilm S=Scanning
Additional
information
Name Number Subject Address Date Ranges Type
McCrary
Construction
00-004 Senior Center
bid docs
2000 D
Council/Planning
and Designated
Employees
353 Statement of
Economic
Interest Form
700
2004 D
Civic Center
Improvements
Project 87-2003
87-002 Bid docs 1986 D
Hughes Heiss &
Associates
87-007 Staffing & work
improvement
study of
Cupertino’s
Building
Division
proposal
1987 D
62
RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING
Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org
File name or Box number: April
Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed
Resolution
authorizing
destruction:
Date records
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
D=Destruction M=Microfilm S=Scanning
Additional
information
Name Number Subject Address Date Ranges Type
Hughes Heiss &
Associates
87-008 Police & Fire
study
1987 D
Carmen Road
Improvements
Project 4009
87-020 Bid docs 1987 D
Raisch
Construction Co.
Project 87-108
87-023 Bid docs 1987 D
Preliminary
Engineer’s
Report
18,001 De Anza
Campus off-
street parking &
traffic facilities
assessment
district
1974 D
Brian-Kangas-18,002 Report, Division 1974 D
63
RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING
Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org
File name or Box number: April
Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed
Resolution
authorizing
destruction:
Date records
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
D=Destruction M=Microfilm S=Scanning
Additional
information
Name Number Subject Address Date Ranges Type
Foulk & Assoc. 4, Streets &
Hwys. Code
Notice of filing
written report
under division 4
of the Streets &
Highways Code
18,006 De Anza
Campus off
street parking
and traffic
facilities
assessment
district
1974 D
Notice to
property owners
18,007 De Anza
Campus off
street parking
and traffic
facilities
assessment
district
1974 D
64
RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING
Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org
File name or Box number: April
Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed
Resolution
authorizing
destruction:
Date records
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
D=Destruction M=Microfilm S=Scanning
Additional
information
Name Number Subject Address Date Ranges Type
Brian-Kangas-
Foulk &
Associates
18,000 Specifications &
contract
document
De Anza
Campus off
street parking
and traffic
facilities
assessment
district
1974 D
Notice inviting
sealed proposals
for bids (Wilson,
Jones, Morton &
Lynch)
18,008 De Anza
Campus
Assessment
District
1974 D
65
RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING
Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org
File name or Box number: April
Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed
Resolution
authorizing
destruction:
Date records
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
D=Destruction M=Microfilm S=Scanning
Additional
information
Name Number Subject Address Date Ranges Type
Contract Change
Orders
18,013 De Anza
Campus off
street parking
and traffic
facilities
assessment
district
1975 D
Council/Planning
and Designated
Employees and
2005 Election
candidates
353 Statement of
Economic
Interest Form
700
2005 D
Campaign
disclosure
300 2005 D
66
RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING
Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org
File name or Box number: January 2011
Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed
Resolution
authorizing
destruction:
Date records
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
D=Destruction M=Microfilm S=Scanning
Number to be
used for
microfiche card
Name
(Iron Mountain
box number)
Subject Address Date Ranges Other
information
(Agreement /
File number)
Type
2004 Claims -
Incoming
2004 D
2006 Proof of
Publication
2006 D
2008 Public
Records
Requests
2008 D
Bid Documents
for Pavement
Restoration
Project 2007-04
2007 D
Bid Documents
for Storm Drain
2007 D
67
RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING
Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org
File name or Box number: January 2011
Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed
Resolution
authorizing
destruction:
Date records
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
D=Destruction M=Microfilm S=Scanning
Number to be
used for
microfiche card
Name
(Iron Mountain
box number)
Subject Address Date Ranges Other
information
(Agreement /
File number)
Type
Catch Basin
Cleaning Project
No. 2007-05
Bid Documents
for
Reconstruction
of Curbs,
Gutters, and
Sidewalks
Project No 2007-
06
2007 D
Bid Documents
for Contractual
Janitorial
2007 D
68
RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING
Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org
File name or Box number: January 2011
Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed
Resolution
authorizing
destruction:
Date records
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
D=Destruction M=Microfilm S=Scanning
Number to be
used for
microfiche card
Name
(Iron Mountain
box number)
Subject Address Date Ranges Other
information
(Agreement /
File number)
Type
Services Project
No 2007-3
Bid Documents
for Street
Sweeping
Project No 2007-
02
2007 D
Bid Documents
for Mary
Avenue Bicycle
Footbridge
Project 2005-
9449
2007 D
69
RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING
Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org
File name or Box number: January 2011
Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed
Resolution
authorizing
destruction:
Date records
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
D=Destruction M=Microfilm S=Scanning
Number to be
used for
microfiche card
Name
(Iron Mountain
box number)
Subject Address Date Ranges Other
information
(Agreement /
File number)
Type
2008 Affidavits
of Posting
2008 D
70
RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING
Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org
File name or Box number: Quinlan permits 2008
Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed
Resolution
authorizing
destruction:
Date records
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
D=Destruction M=Microfilm S=Scanning
Additional
information
Name Number Subject Address Date Ranges Type
Park Rental Permits Quinlan Comm. Ctr
10185 N. Stelling Rd
Cupertino, Ca 95014
Jan.-Dec. 2008 D
Quinlan Room
Permits
Quinlan Comm. Ctr
10185 N. Stelling Rd
Cupertino, Ca 95014
Jan.-Dec. 2008 D
Quinlan Purchase
Orders
Quinlan Comm. Ctr
10185 N. Stelling Rd
Cupertino, Ca 95014
Jan.-Dec. 2008 D
Quinlan Daily
Deposits
Quinlan Comm. Ctr
10185 N. Stelling Rd
Cupertino, Ca 95014
Jan.-Dec. 2008 D
Quinlan Check
Requests
Quinlan Comm. Ctr
10185 N. Stelling Rd
Cupertino, Ca 95014
Jan.-Dec. 2008 D
Creekside Park
Rental Permits
Quinlan Comm. Ctr
10185 N. Stelling Rd
Cupertino, Ca 95014
Jan.-Dec. 2008 D
71
RECORDS INVENTORY FOR DESTRUCTION, MICROFILMING, OR SCANNING
Email completed form to cityclerk@cupertino.org
File name or Box number: Quinlan permits 2008
Destroyed Scanned Microfilmed
Resolution
authorizing
destruction:
Date records
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
Date: Date paper
destroyed:
D=Destruction M=Microfilm S=Scanning
Additional
information
Name Number Subject Address Date Ranges Type
Monta Vista
Recreation Center
Rental Permits
Quinlan Comm. Ctr
10185 N. Stelling Rd
Cupertino, Ca 95014
Jan.-Dec. 2008 D
Community Hall
Rental Permits
Quinlan Comm. Ctr
10185 N. Stelling Rd
Cupertino, Ca 95014
Jan.-Dec. 2008 D
City Hall-
Conference Room
100 Rental Permits
Quinlan Comm. Ctr
10185 N. Stelling Rd
Cupertino, Ca 95014
Jan.-Dec. 2008 D
Teen Center
Rental Permits
Quinlan Comm. Ctr
10185 N. Stelling Rd
Cupertino, Ca 95014
Jan.-Dec. 2008 D
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
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: January 18, 2011
Subject
ANIMALS IN DISASTER ANNEX TO CUPERTINO EMERGENCY PLAN
Recommended Action
Approve as an Annex to the Cupertino Emergency Plan
Description
Document addresses Cupertino’s role in caring for displaced pets and stray animals following a
major emergency when the City’s Animal Control Service is overwhelmed. The Annex is based
on the Santa Clara County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan, Animals in Disaster
Annex, revised March 17, 2010. The Annex was prepared by Cupertino Animals in Disaster
Volunteers and reviewed by the Cupertino Disaster Council and Cupertino Office of Emergency
Services. The Annex is designed so that emergency functions are managed by Cupertino’s
volunteers and supported by the City Emergency Operations Center.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Marsha Hovey
Reviewed by: Carol Atwood
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments: Animals in Disaster Annex
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
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
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
February 1, 2011
The Honorable Jerry Brown
Governor, State of California
State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Brown:
We write today on behalf of the City of Cupertino to express our Opposition to provisions in your
January Budget Proposal that proposes to eliminate redevelopment agencies in California. Eliminating
this program not only violates the will of the people, but also will have grave consequences on
California’s economy.
Last November, California voters approved Proposition 22, once again reaffirming the message they
have sent to California repeatedly: local funds should remain local and pay for services and programs in
their own communities. In doing so, they prohibited the state from requiring a community development
agency to remit property tax to or for the benefit of the state or any jurisdiction directly or indirectly.
The City of Cupertino recognizes that this represents one of the toughest state budget proposals in
history. Our city is also facing tough budget times. We agree that it is well past time that the state faces
the consequences of years of gimmicks and temporary budget fixes. However, taking local funding –
particularly funding that creates such a great number of jobs and fuels economic growth – is imprudent.
We strongly encourage you to consider the economic implications of attempting to eliminate
redevelopment. We look forward to working with you to find solutions that will address the state’s
fiscal problems while also supporting the economic growth.
Sincerely,
Gilbert Wong, Mayor
City of Cupertino
CC: Paul Fong, State Assembly, 22nd District
Joe Simitian, State Senate, 11th District
Dan Carrigg, Legislative Director, League of California Cities
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3212 • FAX (408) 777-3366
247
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ACCEPTING QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND
WATER RIGHTS, SANJOY K. PODDAR AND SADIA RUPA PODDAR,
10145 CAMINO VISTA DR., APN 342-14-083
WHEREAS, Sanjoy K. Poddar and Sadia Rupa Poddar, have executed a “Quitclaim Deed
and Authorization”, which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all rights in and
authorizing the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to extract water
from the underground basin, underlying that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino,
more particularly described as follows:
All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa
Clara, State of California, as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” so tendered; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” and this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 1st day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
248
249
250
251
252
2247410161
10153
10145
10133
10170
10129
10121
10181
10171
10120
10128
10136
10144
10152
10168
10231
10192
1024010038
100081001810028
10112
10180
10186
102121023010048
10058
1020410012
10239
10227
10 2 1 5
10 2 0 1
10132
10164
10174
10 1 8 9
10 1 7 7
10 1 6 9
10 1 6 7
10 1 5 9
10 1 5 7
10115 22682226742267210074
10110
10120
10129
10143
10130
10140
10150
10160
10190
10171
10185
10245 2270222694226922268410013
10320
10310
10250
10003
1028022744 10023100331004310053
10206
10222
10236
10264
10290
10199
1021322742 2272422732227342272222686
22685
22705
10289
10299
10309
1031922706
10329
10339
10237
10223 10212
1011622631
10199
10191
1016110151
10141 10131
10132
10168
10180
10196
10251226812267322671226632266122653226512264322641226332239422404
22424
22434
2238422423102411025110261224652248522668
22666
22664
22670
22662
226602266322665
226482265022652226802265422656226582267422676226782
2
6
7
2 22646226672266110026
1000710017100271003710047 10036
10057
10016
100661005610046
2265922510224492256022467224202271710011
22460224402266722677226872248022707226232267410270
1 0 1 9 0
226011025010271 224472266022478100502265510006
22690226192262922639227142263810256
2248910290
22427224372258322563225532257322593226032254310251
10148
22448
22414
10157
2267322683226631
0
1
9
610220
226432265322613226331025522715227312268522669227012244522486224662244622439224292248110281
2270122636226262261622606225962246822620FOOTHILLLOCKWOODSTEVENS CREEK
WOODRIDGEPRADO VISTACAMINO VISTADUBON
WALNUT RAMONAQUEENS OAK
SILVER OAKMCKLINTOCKM
EDINA LONG OAKCUPERTINO
SPANISH OAKRANCHO VENTURALEBANON
¯Subject: Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Sanjoy K. Poddar and Sadia Rupa Poddar,10145 Camino Vista Dr.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-______.
253
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY AND DEVELOPERS, SANJOY K. PODDAR AND SADIA RUPA PODDAR,
10145 CAMINO VISTA DRIVE, APN 342-14-083
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed improvement
agreement between the City of Cupertino and developers, Sanjoy K. Poddar and Sadia Rupa
Poddar, for the installation of certain municipal improvements at 10145 Camino Vista Drive, and
said agreement having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developers having paid the fees
as outlined in the attached Exhibit A;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are
hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 1st day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
254
Resolution No. 11-
Page 2
EXHIBIT “A”
SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS
DEVELOPERS: SANJOY K. PODDAR AND SADIA RUPA PODDAR
LOCATION: 10145 CAMINO VISTA DRIVE, APN 342-14-083
PART A Faithful Performance Bond: $ 2,287.00
110 2211
PART B Labor and Material Bond: $ 2,287.00
110 2211
PART C. Checking and Inspection Fee: $ 580.00
110 4538
PART D. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00
110 2211
PART E. Storm Drainage Fee – Basin 2 $ 296.46
215 4072
PART F. Street Light - One-Year Power Cost: N/A
110 4537
PART G. Map Checking Fee: N/A
110 4539
PART H. Park Fee - ZONE II N/A
280 4082
PART I. Reimbursement Fee: N/A
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
2247410161
10153
10145
10133
10170
10129
10121
10181
10171
10120
10128
10136
10144
10152
10168
10231
10192
1024010038
100081001810028
10112
10180
10186
102121023010048
10058
1020410012
10239
10227
10 2 1 5
10 2 0 1
10132
10164
10174
10 1 8 9
10 1 7 7
10 1 6 9
10 1 6 7
10 1 5 9
10 1 5 7
10115 22682226742267210074
10110
10120
10129
10143
10130
10140
10150
10160
10190
10171
10185
10245 2270222694226922268410013
10320
10310
10250
10003
1028022744 10023100331004310053
10206
10222
10236
10264
10290
10199
1021322742 2272422732227342272222686
22685
22705
10289
10299
10309
1031922706
10329
10339
10237
10223 10212
1011622631
10199
10191
1016110151
10141 10131
10132
10168
10180
10196
10251226812267322671226632266122653226512264322641226332239422404
22424
22434
2238422423102411025110261224652248522668
22666
22664
22670
22662
226602266322665
226482265022652226802265422656226582267422676226782
2
6
7
2 22646226672266110026
1000710017100271003710047 10036
10057
10016
100661005610046
2265922510224492256022467224202271710011
22460224402266722677226872248022707226232267410270
1 0 1 9 0
226011025010271 224472266022478100502265510006
22690226192262922639227142263810256
2248910290
22427224372258322563225532257322593226032254310251
10148
22448
22414
10157
2267322683226631
0
1
9
610220
226432265322613226331025522715227312268522669227012244522486224662244622439224292248110281
2270122636226262261622606225962246822620FOOTHILLLOCKWOODSTEVENS CREEK
WOODRIDGEPRADO VISTACAMINO VISTADUBON
WALNUT RAMONAQUEENS OAK
SILVER OAKMCKLINTOCKM
EDINA LONG OAKCUPERTINO
SPANISH OAKRANCHO VENTURALEBANON
¯Subject: Improvement Agreement, Sanjoy K. Poddar and Sadia Rupa Poddar, 10145 Camino Vista Dr.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-______.
268
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 1, 2011
Subject
Alcoholic Beverage License, Cupertino Liquors, 7335 Bollinger Road, Suite F (near Red Crane).
Recommended Action
Approve application for Off-Sale General (21).
Description
Name of Business: Cupertino Liquors
Location: 7335 Bollinger Road, Suite F
Type of Business: Market
Type of License: Off-Sale General (21)
Reason for Application: Annual Fee, State & Federal Fingerprints, Premise-to-Premise &
Person-to-Person Transfer
Discussion
There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use and staff
has no objection to the issuance of the license. License Type 21 authorizes the sale of alcohol
for consumption off the premises where sold.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Traci Caton, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachment: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
269
270
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 1, 2011
Subject
Alcoholic Beverage License, Kong Tofu & BBQ, 19626 Stevens Creek Boulevard
(Marketplace).
Recommended Action
Approve application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place.
Description
Name of Business: Kong Tofu & BBQ
Location: 19626 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Type of Business: Restaurant
Type of License: On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place (41)
Reason for Application: Annual Fee, State & Federal Fingerprints, Person-to-Person
Transfer
Discussion
There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use and staff
has no objection to the issuance of the license. License Type 41 authorizes the sale of beer and
wine for consumption on the premises where sold.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Traci Caton, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachment: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
271
272
273
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 1, 2011
Subject
Alcoholic Beverage License, Rite Aid 5967, 20580 East Homestead Road (PW Market Shopping
Center).
Recommended Action
Approve application for Off-Sale General (21).
Description
Name of Business: Rite Aid 5967
Location: 20580 East Homestead Road
Type of Business: Market/Pharmacy
Type of License: Off-Sale General (21)
Reason for Application: Annual Fee
Discussion
There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use and staff
has no objection to the issuance of the license. License Type 21 authorizes the sale of alcohol
for consumption off the premises where sold.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Traci Caton, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachment: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
274
275
276
277
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 1, 2011
Subject
Alcoholic Beverage License, Village Falafel, 20010 Stevens Creek Boulevard (near Blaney).
Recommended Action
Approve application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place.
Description
Name of Business: Village Falafel
Location: 20010 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Type of Business: Restaurant
Type of License: On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place (41)
Reason for Application: Original & Annual Fees, State & Federal Fingerprints
Discussion
There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use and staff
has no objection to the issuance of the license. License Type 41 authorizes the sale of beer and
wine for consumption on the premises where sold.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Traci Caton, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachment: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
278
279
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: February 1, 2011
Subject
Green Building Ordinance (continued from January 18)
Recommended Action
Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 11-2074 and draft Resolution
Description
Application: MCA-2010-04
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to adopt a Green Building Ordinance (See
Attachment A, Ordinance No. 11-2074) and related fees and deposits (See Attachment B, Model
Resolution).
BACKGROUND
Council Authorization on the Green Building Ordinance Process
On January 19, 2010, the City Council authorized staff (See Attachment Q, January 19, 2010
City Council report) to proceed with developing a draft Green Building Ordinance, per the Phase
II recommendations by the Santa Clara County Cities Association in partnership with the Silicon
Valley Leadership Group (See Attachment C, Phase II recommendations). The Council
authorized a budget of $25,000 to complete the process (including one city-wide postcard
notice).
The Phase II recommendations are criteria and thresholds for development, including new
construction and renovation/remodeling projects, that aim to support the use of healthy building
materials and construction methods, and promote energy, water and resource efficiency and
conservation by adherence to rating systems called LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) and GPR (Green Point Rated) that were developed by the U.S. Green
Building Council (USGBC) and Build It Green (BIG) respectively.
Key Community Outreach Efforts
May 2010: City-wide notices were sent out inviting residents, businesses and members of the
development community interested in participating in the Green Building Ordinance Focus
280
Groups. A non-profit environmental consulting group, Global Green, was retained to assist the
City through facilitation of the focus group meetings and to develop a draft ordinance.
June 7, 2010: The City held its first Green Building Ordinance Focus Group meeting at De
Anza College’s LEED Platinum Kirsch Center. The meeting was attended by over 60
participants, and included a tour of the Kirsch Center, a presentation on the purpose and concepts
of green building and the Phase II recommendations, and small group discussion sessions to
encourage participants to provide input on elements of the green building ordinance.
July 13, 2010: In response to the focus group participants' comments, the Planning Commission
held an educational workshop in order to better understand the green rating systems under
consideration. The workshop included a presentation by Shiloh Ballard of Silicon Valley
Leadership Group who provided an overview of the Phase II recommendations. Additionally,
David Kaneda, Cupertino Planning Commissioner, provided an overview of the Cal Green
building codes, the state’s new green building code requirements for new construction that
became effective on January 1, 2011.
July 29, 2010: The City held its second and final Green Building Focus Group meeting, at
which time a draft Green Building Ordinance was presented to participants and the core elements
of the draft ordinance were discussed.
Staff and Global Green received many comments and suggestions at both of the focus group
meetings (See Attachments D and E - focus group comments) from participants that represented
the residential, business and development community in Cupertino. Attachment F provides
additional comments received on the Draft Green Building Ordinance.
City staff also provided outreach of the ordinance process by hosting a booth at the City’s 2010
Earth Day event, meeting with key stakeholders (e.g. businesses and commercial property
owners, including Apple), addressing participants at the Mayor’s Community Congress and at a
Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action Committee meeting, and posting information in the
Cupertino Courier, Cupertino Scene, and via online through the City’s green building webpage,
Facebook and Twitter.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission
On October 12, 2010, October 26, 2010 and November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission
reviewed the draft Green Building Ordinance (See Attachments G, H & I, October 12, October
26, and November 9 Planning Commission staff reports, respectively). The draft ordinance was
refined to incorporate the comments and suggestions the City received from the focus group
meetings and from meetings with key stakeholders in the community.
The Commission recommended approval of the draft ordinance on a 3-2 vote (Chair Brophy and
Commissioner Miller voted no). A detailed discussion of the Planning Commission’s
recommendation is provided later in this report.
Chair Brophy and Commissioner Miller did not support the draft green building ordinance,
noting that the City should focus on reducing energy consumption/utility use on existing
281
buildings and on transportation, rather than on new construction and renovations. They also
expressed concerns that the increases in construction cost resulting from the regulations could
make projects infeasible and negatively impact local jobs.
Draft Green Building Ordinance Components
The draft Green Building Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission in Resolution
No. 6615 (see Attachment J) is based on the Phase II framework with refinements resulting from
the Planning Commission’s recommendation and input received from the Green Building
Ordinance focus group participants, various community stakeholders, and staff. Key
components of the draft ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission are summarized
below:
Effective Date of the Ordinance
v The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council consider a specific date six (6)
months from the adoption of the ordinance (to start from the first of the month). This allows
for an adequate grace period for applicants to get information about the new regulations prior
to preparation of project drawings and submitting building permits.
Alternate Reference Standards (Section 19.78.050)
v This section states that alternate reference standards may be allowed by the decision maker
for the project if the alternate standards are equivalent to the minimum standards or
exemplary standards of the ordinance based upon prescribed findings. The alternate reference
standards were recommended based on comments from businesses stating that the ordinance
should be flexible over time to accommodate new reference standards that did not fit those
listed at this time. The recommended findings ensure that the alternate reference standards
would fit criteria similar to the reference standards such as LEED and GPR that are currently
listed in the ordinance. Projects that use alternate reference standards will be required to go
through a formal certification process.
Standards for New Construction, Renovations and Additions (Section 19.78.060)
v This section forms the main portion of the ordinance and lays out thresholds, minimum
Green Building standards and verification requirements for new construction, renovations
and additions. To assist in comparing the changes between the Phase II Recommendation and
the Draft Ordinance, a comparison table (Table 1) is provided below. Additional options
provided to the Planning Commission are also listed for Council consideration in the last
column in the table. A brief discussion of the Planning Commission and optional
recommendations is provided after the table. A detailed discussion of recommendations is
provided in the staff reports to the Planning Commission (See Attachments G, H & I) and
minutes of the Planning Commission meetings (See Attachments K, L & M).
282
Table 1
Type of
Project
Phase II Recommendations Cupertino Draft Green Building
Ordinance Minimum
Requirements
Other Options Considered by the
Planning Commission
Residential –
New
Construction
(Single
Family &
Multi-
Family)
Single-Family (SFR) & Multi-
Family (MFR) < 9 homes:
GPR Rated (50 pts min.) or
LEED Certified.
SFR & MFR ≥ 9 homes:
GPR Rated or LEED Silver
All Single-Family and Multi-Family:
Minimum: GPR min. 85 pts or
LEED Certified w/Formal
Verification.
Exemplary: GPR min. 125 pts or
LEED Gold w/Formal Verification
(1) Single-Family < 5 homes:
OR
Single-Family ≤ 2,500 sf:
GPR min. 75 pts or LEED
Certified w/Formal Verification.
Single-Family ≥ 5 homes:
OR
Single-Family > 2,500 sf:
GPR min. 100 pts or LEED
Certified w/Formal Verification.
Multi-Family < 5 homes:
OR
Multi-Family ≤ 800 sf (unit size):
GPR min. 75 pts or LEED
Certified w/Formal Verification.
Multi-Family ≥ 5 homes:
OR
Multi-Family > 800 sf (unit size):
GPR min. 100 pts or LEED Silver
Formal Certification
Residential –
Renovation/
Addition
(Single-
Family &
Multi-
Family)
SFR<$100K permit valuation;
or <500 sf addition; or FAR
increase <50%:
BIG Elements checklist or
LEED checklist
SF $100K-$200K permit
valuation; or 500-1,000 sf
add’n:
BIG Elements 25-49 pts. or
LEED Certified
SFR $200K+ permit valuation;
or 1,000 sf add’n; or FAR
increase of 50%:
GPR Rated (min. 50 pts.) or
LEED Certified
Single-Family ≥ 50% total existing
floor area:
Minimum: Cal Green Mandatory
(for new portions only) w/Informal
Verification.
Exemplary: GPR min. 125 pts or
LEED Gold w/Formal Verification
283
Type of
Project
Phase II Recommendations Cupertino Draft Green Building
Ordinance Minimum
Requirements
Other Options Considered by the
Planning Commission
Small MFR (TBD):
GPR checklist or applicable
LEED checklist
Large MFR (TBD):
GPR 50 pts. or applicable
LEED Certified
Multiple-Family (minor renovation):
Minimum: Cal Green Mandatory
w/Informal Verification.
Exemplary: GPR min. 100 pts or
LEED Silver w/Formal Verification
Multi-Family (major renovation) –
Renovations and/or additions that
comprise at least 10,000 square feet,
and replace or alter the HVAC
system and at least two of the
following: building envelope, hot
water system and lighting system.
Minimum: GPR min. 75 pts or
LEED Certified w/Informal
Verification or LEED EBOM
Certified w/Formal Verification.
Exemplary: GPR min. 125 pts or
LEED Gold w/Formal Verification
Non-
Residential –
New
Construction
Small, <5,000 sf:
LEED checklist
Mid-size, 5,000 – 25,000 sf:
LEED Certified
Large, >25,000 sf:
LEED Silver
< 10,000 sf:
Minimum: Cal Green Mandatory
w/Informal Verification.
Exemplary: LEED Gold w/Formal
Verification
> 10,000 – 25,000 sf:
Minimum: LEED Certified
w/Informal Verification
Exemplary: LEED Gold w/Formal
Verification
25,001 or more sf:
Minimum: LEED Silver w/ Formal
Verification.
Exemplary: LEED Gold w/Formal
Verification
(2) Require Formal Verification for
projects over 50,000 sf.
284
Type of
Project
Phase II Recommendations Cupertino Draft Green Building
Ordinance Minimum
Requirements
Other Options Considered by the
Planning Commission
Non-
Residential -
Renovations/
Additions
Small projects:
LEED Checklist
Large w/o HVAC: 2 of 4
systems are touched + > 10,000
sf + > permit valuation of $1
million permit valuation:
LEED Certified w/o
prerequisites
Large w/HVAC: 2 of 4
systems are touched, one being
HVAC + > 10,000 sf + > $1
million permit valuation:
LEED Certified
Minor Renovations/Additions:
Minimum: Cal Green Mandatory
w/Informal Verification.
Exemplary: LEED Gold w/Formal
Verification
Major Renovation – Renovations
and/or additions that comprise at
least 10,000 square feet, and replace
or alter the HVAC system and at
least two of the following: building
envelope, hot water system and
lighting system.
Minimum: 10,000 – 25,000 sf --
LEED Certified w/ Informal
Verification or LEED EBOM
w/Formal Verification.
Minimum: 25,001 sf or more – LEED
Certified w/Formal Verification or
LEED EBOM w/Formal
Verification.
Exemplary: LEED Gold w/Formal
Verification
Mixed Use
Projects
Not Addressed For projects with both residential
and non-residential components,
each use shall comply with the
minimum requirements stated
above.
Note: Definitions for Formal and Informal Verification are provided later in this report.
1. Options for Residential New Construction, Single-Family and Multi-Family
The option regarding number of units differs from the Phase II recommendation (delineating
between less than 5 units and greater than or equal to five units, rather than 9 units because it
differentiates single-family and minor lot subdivisions (e.g. parcel maps with less than 5 lots)
from larger subdivision projects requiring a tract map). The recommendation to use unit size
as a threshold (See Option (1) above in column 3) is based on an initial Planning
Commission discussion to encourage smaller units, which use less energy and materials. The
threshold for the square footage option differentiating between small and large unit sizes is
based upon the typical size of a single-family home (2,500 square feet) and a two-bedroom
multi-family apartment unit (800 square feet).
285
2. Option for Non-Residential New Construction
The Council may consider requiring Formal Verification for non-residential new construction
projects above 50,000 square feet, rather than requiring Formal Verification for all large non-
residential new construction projects above 25,000 square feet. This option was initially
proposed based upon concerns that stakeholders had raised about requirements for
certification.
Formal and Informal Verification (Section 19.78.070) and Related Fees
v The threshold and verification requirements recommended by the Planning Commission are
provided in Table 1.
Formal Verification requires the project to obtain the required certification level by an
approved rating standard (LEED, GPR or an alternate rating standard approved by the City).
Formal Verification also requires a green building deposit to be submitted to the City as
surety that the project will follow through with the certification requirement. The intent of a
deposit that is comparable to the certification fees serves as an incentive to encourage
applicants to follow through with their certification requirement and not make forfeiting the
deposit amount a more attractive alternative. In the case of Formal Verification, the entire
deposit amount will be returned after the applicant provides proof of receiving formal
certification from the rating agency within 18 months of final occupancy; otherwise the
deposit would be forfeited to the City to be used to advance the purpose of the ordinance.
Informal Verification would require a deposit to cover the cost of a green building consultant
to verify that the building is designed to the applicable requirement. In the case of Informal
Verification, the balance of the deposit will be returned to the applicant. Informal
Verifications for CalGreen requirements will not require any deposits.
v The Planning Commission recommends the following deposits for Formal and Informal
Verification (See Table 2 below). A resolution to adopt the recommended green building
deposit fees (see Attachment B) has been provided for the Council’s consideration.
TABLE 2 –Verification Fees and Deposits Recommended by the Planning Commission
Project Type
Recommended Deposit for
Formal Verification
Recommended Deposit for
Informal Verification
Single Family
$2/sq.ft.
$2,000 $900
Multi-Family
$2/sq.ft.
min. $40,000/max. $75,000 $1,500
Non-residential
$2/sq.ft.
min. $70,000/max. $150,000 $1,500
Note: Informal Verification for CalGreen will not require any deposits and will be done in-house.
Note: The Planning Commission recommended a Formal Certification deposit for single-family residential
that is lower than the estimated certification fee for single-family residential.
286
The recommendations are based on Table 3 - typical green building certification costs provided
by Global Green.
TABLE 3 - Typical Green Building Certification Costs
Project Type Green Point Rated LEED for Homes LEED BD&C
Single Family $3,800 $5,000
Multi-Family $40,380 $54,700
Office (20,000 sq. ft.) $71,650
Office (50,000 sq. ft.) $97,650
Projects Requiring
Informal Consultant
Verification
Typical costs for consultant review range from $900 for
single-family and small projects to about $1,500 for larger
projects
*Based on data from Build it Green, US Green Building Council,Davis Energy Group,
StopWaste.org, and Global Green.
19.78.080 Voluntary Requirements to Obtain Incentives
Incentives that are included in the ordinance are only considered for projects that meet or exceed
the exemplary standards, which are higher than the minimum requirements.
v The Planning Commission is recommending two types of incentives, automatic and
discretionary.
Automatic incentives automatically allow an applicant to obtain a reduction in applicable
building permit fees by an amount set by the Council for meeting or exceeding the applicable
exemplary standards. Discretionary incentives are granted by the City as part of a discretionary
review approval. Projects must also meet specific findings to be considered for discretionary
incentives.
Incentives:
a. Automatic Incentives:
Recommend building permit fee reductions. The reductions will be based on annual Council
review and adoption of the fee schedule. This will allow the Council to tailor fee reduction
incentives annually based on available City funds.
b. Discretionary Incentives:
i. 10% reduction in required off-street parking required by the Municipal Code.
ii. Additional option (not recommended by Planning Commission) - 10% increase in max.
floor area ratio (FAR).
c. Consider the following additional incentives:
i. An expedited plan check process moving exemplary projects ahead of the plan check
line.
ii. Look at disincentives such as reduced FARs for projects that are not exemplary under the
Green Building Ordinance.
iii. Look at incentives such as reducing Below Market Rate (BMR) units/fees, grading
bonds, and removing story pole requirements for R1 projects.
287
Items c(ii) and c(iii) would require an amendment to other documents such as the General Plan
Housing Element, BMR Mitigation Manual, Subdivision Ordinance for grading bonds and
Single-Family (R1) zone requirements for story poles and would be separate projects in
themselves with extensive public participation, noticing and/or review for consistency with State
laws.
19.78.090 Exemptions for Historic or Atypical Projects
v Projects that are exempt from the ordinance include properties that have successfully
demonstrated to the City and meet the standards of this section that they are historic in nature
or include atypical energy-related design requirements and/or patterns of use.
Exemptions for Projects that have already received Planning Permits
v The Planning Commission considered the idea to exempt projects that had already received
planning approvals/entitlements from the ordinance. The Commission recommends that
planning approvals/entitlements not be exempt from the ordinance since such
approvals/entitlements would not be exempt from the new Cal Green building codes that
became effective on January 1, 2011. As a means to create greater awareness, the
Commission also recommended that Planning staff notice all planning project applicants of
the new requirements once the Green Building Ordinance is adopted.
Additional Reference Material
Additional reference materials that were provided to the Planning Commission in previous
reports have been included for the City Council’s review and consideration.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner and Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development
Director
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A. Green Building Ordinance No. 11-2074
B. Model Resolution of Amendments to the Fee Schedule
C. Phase II Recommendations
D. June 7, 2010 Focus Group Meeting Comments
E. July 29, 2010 Focus Group Meeting Comments
F. Email from Berg & Berg Developers, Inc. from January 15, 2011
G. October 12, 2010 Planning Commission staff report
H. October 26, 2010 Planning Commission staff report
I. November 9, 2010 Planning Commission consent report
J. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6615
K. Minutes of the October 12, 2010 Planning Commission meeting
L. Minutes of the October 26, 2010 Planning Commission meeting
M. Minutes of the November 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting
N. Comparison Table of standards in Sunnyvale, Morgan Hill & Palo Alto
O. LEED EBOM/LEED CI comparison by Global Green
P. % of New Construction data
288
Q. % of Tenant Improvement data
R. January 19, 2010 City Council report
S. Cal Green Description
T. Comparison of Cal Green, LEED and GPR prepared by Lyn Simon &
Associates
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
Meeting Notes
Green Building Ordinance Focus Group Meeting #2
Practitioner & Community Interest Groups
July 29, 2010
Scope
What is considered a “major” remodel/renovation vs. new construction?
o What percentage of an addition triggers the ordinance for
remodels/renovations?
o Can additions be made incrementally over subsequent years without
triggering the ordinance, even if the total addition over time exceeds
the trigger point? (e.g. what if I add 45% this year, and additional
percentage the following year, over a period of years that in total
exceeds the 50% addition?)
Reference Standards
Who will do the certification?
o Will it be an independent third party or city staff?
Why do we need to use both LEED and GPR standards, why not just one? If
LEED seems to be comprehensive, why do we need GPR?
o LEED seems more national & focused on non-residential buildings
o Can LEED apply to residential buildings?
o GPR is locally grown and applies only to residential
o Appears to be more GPR raters in the Bay Area than LEED raters
Can you get a variance if you don’t want to comply with the ordinance?
What happens if the standards change over time?
o Do standards change irrespective of the type of community or type
of development?
o What happens if a project is in the application stage while the
standards are changing?
306
Requirements
New Construction
o Is it easy for most residential to achieve 75 GPR or is it difficult?
Renovations
o How well does LEED apply to renovations?
o We should not have to remodel things that are not required in order
to meet the green building ordinance requirements.
o Is there a certain time period in which renovations need to take place
to comply with the ordinance? 3 years?
o Is it difficult for residential renovations to achieve 75 GPR? 50 GPR
seems doable.
o What if there aren’t enough points possible to achieve based upon
the type of renovations that you are doing?
Non-Residential Renovations
o What does it mean if you touch 2 of 4 systems? What’s the threshold
for this?
o What portion is required to comply if you touch 2 of the 4 systems,
the entire building or just the new addition?
o Are there prerequisites that you cannot meet if you are doing
renovation only?
Renovation vs. New Construction
o Requirements should be slightly more lenient for
renovations/remodels than new construction.
o There should be fairness regarding requirements between
renovations and new construction; if they’re different (more lenient
for renovation), people won’t be motivated to do new construction.
o There are inconsistencies between square footage thresholds and
exemplary standards for renovations and new construction.
o Achieving credits is easier for new home construction than on
remodels.
Exemplary Projects
o How achievable is LEED Platinum, particularly for renovations? Is it
too high a threshold to attain for incentives?
307
o Are there tiered incentives for higher exemplary standards?
Scale/size of project should be considered
o Consider applying the ordinance standards on a case-by-case basis –
applying standards based upon the type of development or area of
development (RDAs) (e.g. areas that are within identified places
w/high level of transit services) or based upon the scope of the
project.
o Does the LEED rating system scale by size of project?
o The requirements should be based on the scale/type of project
because the eligibility of achievable points varies based upon the
types/scope of work (e.g. what if you’re not touching the
HVAC/energy systems, but that’s where most credits can be
gained?).
Mixed Use Projects Renovations
o How can you place this requirement on renovations in older buildings
that are vertically mixed with residential and commercial, and where
there are several owners (e.g. HOA) within a building?
Verification
There needs to be a fast track for certain types of projects, like design
builds, where the applicant can’t wait to occupy until after the certification
of projects. For remodels, work can be done in 4 months, but certification
can take 8 months.
What is the time frame in which the building needs to be certified after
completion or occupancy?
Why do these varying stages of verification (at building permit stage and
occupancy?) if the end goal is to have the building certified?
City inspectors should be trained to do the verifications. Third parties add
time and expense to the process.
Benefit of a city inspector as the verifying party is that they can make the
local interpretations when needed.
Concerned about the accuracy of residents doing their own checklist.
How do you account for verification, if a CO is not necessary in renovation
projects and permits are granted in stages (demo permit separate from
electrical permit that separate from other TI permits) and no overall
308
planning permit is required….how can you require verification or monitor
this?
Inspector or rater needs to come out several times during the construction
process to verify that work is done to the standards.
Is there any thought about verifications after the building is constructed
and in operation?
Deposit
Will the City allow people to take out a CD or line of credit as currently
allowed for a deposit? This should be clarified.
$0.20/sf for residential deposit is too low.
Need to set a higher deposit requirements than cost of certification, or you
won’t get the certification and people will merely forfeit the deposit.
$2/sf makes more sense for residential.
Need to think about how to administer fees on large projects (i.e. Apple)
If there’s any tie up due to litigation, what happens to the deposit?
Will the deposit fee be adjusted with the CPI or some measure so that the
City doesn’t have to constantly reset the ordinance?
Incentives
Zoning exemptions could be problematic – community & Council may have
problems compromising parking and FAR.
Applicants need to know ahead of time if these incentives for exemplary
work are “maybe permitted” or “will be permitted” before going into the
project.
Exemptions
What about heavy energy uses like data center and labs…can they be
exempted from the requirements?
General Questions/Comments
Are we in line with other cities or are we going above & beyond?
Is there information about energy savings that results when complying with
these standards?
Need to consider the issue between trees and solar panels
Need to consider the housing stock, age of homes in Cupertino
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
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: February 1, 2011
Subject
Reconsideration petition for a City Council denial of an appeal of an approved wireless
communications facility at 11371 Bubb Road
Recommended Action
Conduct a hearing on a petition for reconsideration regarding the City Council’s decision on the
wireless communications facility at 11371 Bubb Road.
Adopt Resolution No. 11-017, Denying the Petition of Shaul Berger seeking Council
reconsideration of its decision to approve the wireless communications facility at 11371 Bubb
Road (See Attachment A).
Description
Petition to reconsider a City Council decision to deny an appeal of a Director’s Minor
Modification Approval to allow a personal wireless service facility, consisting of three panel
antennas and associated equipment installed on an existing Pacific, Gas & Electric pole located
in front of 11371 Bubb Road.
Discussion
Background
The following is a summary of the various events that occurred regarding this project leading up
to the reconsideration request:
Sept. 7, 2010 Community Development Director approved wireless facility with
a Director’s Minor Modification, DIR-2010-28 (Attachment B).
Sept. 20, 2010 Project approval appealed by adjacent property owner Shaul
Berger (Attachment C).
Nov. 9, 2010 Appeal heard by Planning Commission who recommended denial
of the appeal on a 4-0-1 vote (Attachment D, E, & F).
Nov. 29, 2010 Appeal heard by City Council, who denied the appeal on a 3-2 vote
(Attachment G, H).
Dec. 9, 2010 Appellant Shaul Berger files petition for reconsideration
(Attachment I).
Basis for the Reconsideration
430
The City’s Municipal Code, section 2.08.096, provides procedures for interested parties to
petition the City Council to reconsider its decisions. A petition for reconsideration shall specify
in detail each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any
particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes that particular omitted ground or
grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for
reconsideration are limited to the following:
1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could
not have been produced at any earlier city hearing.
2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing.
3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of
its jurisdiction.
4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing.
5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
a) Not preceding in a manner required by law; and/or
b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or
c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the
evidence.
The petition for reconsideration consists of three pages accompanied by a petition with 31
signatories. Reconsideration of this item constitutes the third full hearing of this matter
conducted by the City. As stated in the petition’s introductory paragraphs, the petitioner has
made claims for reconsideration under the above referenced criteria #2, #4, #5b and #5c. The
City’s findings of fact on each of these criteria are set forth below.
2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior City hearing:
Finding: The petitioner has offered no new relevant evidence that was excluded at any prior City
meeting, nor has petitioner proven that any evidence was previously excluded by the City
Council. The complaint is an opinion of the petitioner that has not been supported by any facts
or evidence.
Petition Response
The petitioner alleges that his analysis
presented at the Nov. 29, 2010 meeting
indicates that radio frequency (RF) energy
exposure was more than 6 times higher than
approved government levels. The petitioner
further alleges that the Council voted on this
project without checking these claims that the
RF energy exposure was higher than approved
government levels.
The petitioner claimed at the Nov. 29, 2010
meeting, that his analysis of the calculated
energy levels at 12 feet from the antennas was
more than six times what was allowed by the
federal standard. The petitioner did not offer a
copy of the analysis to the Council or staff.
After the hearing, staff requested that the
petitioner provide his analysis for the public
record; the petitioner did not provide any
analysis to the City (Attachment J). The
petitioner could have provided his RF analysis
as part of his reconsideration petition and
presented it as new evidence, but did not do so.
431
The City did not exclude any evidence as the
applicant was unwilling or unable to provide
any in this matter. The City Council can only
act on the facts and evidence on hand when its
decision is rendered.
The City has relied on a reputable firm,
Hammett & Edison, to prepare the RF energy
analysis. Hammett & Edison have issued an
opinion that the RF energy at this site is well
within the federal safety standards at a level of
0.0012 milliwatt per centimeter squared for all
ground level exposures, and 0.0022 milliwatt
per centimeter squared for second floor
exposures of any nearby residence. To remove
any doubt as to the accuracy of the consultant’s
RF energy analysis, the City has also
conditioned the approval to require post-
construction RF monitoring to make certain the
RF energy exposures are within federal
standards.
4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing:
Finding: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council failed
to provide a fair hearing. To the contrary, a review of the hearing on November 29, 2010 shows
that the Council heard lengthy testimony from the petitioner and neighborhood residents, as well
as information presented by staff and the applicant. The Council asked questions and received
responses before deliberating on the project.
Petition Response
The petitioner alleges that the City did not
provide a fair hearing because the Community
Development Director did not convene a public
design review hearing before acting to approve
the application.
Since this project has been heard by both the
Planning Commission and the City Council,
any alleged processing flaw at the Director
level has been overcome at this point. At both
the Planning Commission and City Council
hearings, the petitioner has had opportunities to
review and influence the design of the wireless
facility. The Director’s approach was not
based on a determination that the item would
not be controversial; rather, the Director
determined that the placement of the wireless
equipment on an existing utility pole
constituted a minor design change to the
appearance of the pole. The City’s adopted
432
Wireless Facilities Master Plan indicates that
the Director’s approval is the proper processing
option for such a facility design.
5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or
c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence.
Finding: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council abused
its discretion by rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact, or rendering a
decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence.
Petition Response
The petitioner alleges that the City Council
never reviewed alternative cell site options that
provide a better solution to all parties. The
petitioner alleges that an alternative solution
involving a taller tower in a more remote
location would provide better coverage and
collocation “savings” and result in a different
decision.
There is no requirement that the best solution
be found, only that a project is determined
appropriate. The City’s Wireless Facilities
Master Plan expresses a design preference that
wireless facilities in residential areas be sited
on existing utility towers and poles, rather than
building new structures. Thus the proposed
site meets the requirements of the City’s
Wireless Facilities Master Plan. The City
Council did discuss three alternative sites in its
deliberations on 11/29/10. One site was Linda
Vista Park which has a hill. This park was
estimated to be about ¾ of a mile away and
was felt to be too far away to provide good
coverage to the Bubb Road area. The second
suggested alternative was the proposed AT&T
monopine at Results Way which had the
potential to serve another carrier at a lower
height on the pole. It was inappropriate to
consider the Results Way site as an alternative
because no decision on the project appeal had
been granted by Nov. 29, 2010. The Council
knew that the AT&T monopine was 19 feet
lower than the ground to the south, so any T-
Mobile collocated antennas (at 46 feet,
effectively 27 feet) would be similar to two
nearby T-Mobile facilities and too low in
height and too far away (1+ mile) to provide
cell coverage to southern Bubb Road.
The third site alternative considered by the
433
Council was the San Jose Water Company
water storage facility at Regnart Road and
Lindy Lane. This facility is not a water tank,
but a covered earthen reservoir. Staff indicated
that the structure lacked height and a monopole
would have to be built. The City Council
rejected the concept of erecting a new, tall
monopole cell site at the edge of the reservoir
next to the existing houses.
The petitioner alleges that T-Mobile could not
provide any information about the number of
subscribers that would benefit from the
proposed wireless facility. The Council
rendered a decision on this facility without
knowing if there was any public benefit.
This claim is immaterial to any basis for
reconsideration. Also, the 1996
Telecommunications Act, section
704(7)(B)(i)(I) prohibits any local decision-
making agency from unreasonably
discriminating among providers of functionally
equivalent (personal wireless) services.
The petitioner alleges that his analysis
presented at the Nov. 29, 2010 meeting
indicates that radio frequency (RF) energy
exposure was more than 6 times higher than
approved government levels. The petitioner
further alleges that the Council voted on this
project without checking these claims that the
RF energy exposure was higher than approved
government levels.
See City Response to Petitioner’s claim under
Municipal Code section 2.08.096(B)(2).
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A. City Council Resolution 11-017 and Exhibit 1
B. Director’s Minor Modification Approval dated Sept. 7, 2010
C. Appeal by Shaul Berger dated Sept. 20, 2010
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated Nov. 9, 2010
E. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of Nov. 9, 2010
F. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6616
G. City Council Staff Report dated Nov. 29, 2010
H. City Council Meeting Action Minutes of Nov. 29, 2010
I. Petition for Reconsideration filed Dec. 9, 2010
J. Email from Shaul Berger to City staff dated Nov. 30, 2010
K. Approved Plan Set
434
RESOLUTION NO. 11-017
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYING THE PETITION OF SHAUL BERGER SEEKING COUNCIL
RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF DIR-2010-28, A
DIRECTOR’S MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A PERSONALWIRELESS SERVICE
FACILITY ON AN EXISTING PG&E POLE AT 11371 BUBB ROAD
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2010, the Cupertino City Council received a staff report and
recommendation to deny an appeal of a Director’s Minor Modification approval of a T-Mobile
personal wireless service facility proposed on an existing PG&E pole at 11371 Bubb Road.
WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council held a public hearing and at the conclusion of the
hearing denied the appeal filed by Shaul Berger on a 3-2 vote at its meeting of November 29,
2010.
WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council's decision was within its discretion and made at
a properly noticed public meeting.
WHEREAS, Shaul Berger requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the
provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's municipal code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the
parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the February 1, 2011 reconsideration
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer
proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096.
2. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior
city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(2).)
3. The petitioners have failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide
a fair hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(4).)
4. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion
by denying the appeal of a Director’s approval (file no. DIR-2010-28) of a personal
wireless service facility on an existing PG&E pole located at 11371 Bubb Road. (See
Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically, the City Council determines that:
a. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact attached as Exhibit A.
b. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by
substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.
435
5. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision of November
29, 2010 on item __ is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 1st day of February 2011, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ _______________________
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
436
EXHIBIT 1
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states:
“A petition for reconsideration shall specify in detail each and every ground for reconsideration.
Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes
that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial
proceeding.
The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following:
1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could
not have been produced at any earlier city hearing.
2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing.
3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of
its jurisdiction.
4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing.
5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
a) Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/or
b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or
c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the
evidence.”
Original Petition
The petition for reconsideration consists of three pages accompanied by a petition with 31
signatories. Reconsideration of this item constitutes the third full hearing of this matter
conducted by the City. As stated in the petition’s introductory paragraphs, the petitioner has
made claims for reconsideration under the above referenced criteria #2, #4, #5b and #5c. The
City’s findings of fact on each of these criteria are set forth below.
2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior City hearing:
Finding: The petitioner has offered no new relevant evidence that was excluded at any prior City
meeting, nor has petitioner proven that any evidence was previously excluded by the City
Council. The complaint is an opinion of the petitioner that has not been supported by any facts
or evidence.
Petition Response
The petitioner alleges that his analysis
presented at the Nov. 29, 2010 meeting
indicates that radio frequency (RF) energy
exposure was more than 6 times higher than
approved government levels. The petitioner
further alleges that the Council voted on this
project without checking these claims that the
The petitioner claimed at the Nov. 29, 2010
meeting, that his analysis of the calculated
energy levels at 12 feet from the antennas was
more than six times what was allowed by the
federal standard. The petitioner did not offer a
copy of the analysis to the Council or staff.
After the hearing, staff requested that the
437
RF energy exposure was higher than approved
government levels.
petitioner provide his analysis for the public
record; the petitioner did not provide any
analysis to the City (Attachment J). The
petitioner could have provided his RF analysis
as part of his reconsideration petition and
presented it as new evidence, but did not do so.
The City did not exclude any evidence as the
applicant was unwilling or unable to provide
any in this matter. The City Council can only
act on the facts and evidence on hand when its
decision is rendered.
The City has relied on a reputable firm,
Hammett & Edison, to prepare the RF energy
analysis. Hammett & Edison have issued an
opinion that the RF energy at this site is well
within the federal safety standards at a level of
0.0012 milliwatt per centimeter squared for all
ground level exposures, and 0.0022 milliwatt
per centimeter squared for second floor
exposures of any nearby residence. To remove
any doubt as to the accuracy of the consultant’s
RF energy analysis, the City has also
conditioned the approval to require post-
construction RF monitoring to make certain the
RF energy exposures are within federal
standards.
4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing:
Finding: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council failed
to provide a fair hearing. To the contrary, a review of the hearing on November 29, 2010 shows
that the Council heard lengthy testimony from the petitioner and neighborhood residents, as well
as information presented by staff and the applicant. The Council asked questions and received
responses before deliberating on the project.
Petition Response
The petitioner alleges that the City did not
provide a fair hearing because the Community
Development Director did not convene a public
design review hearing before acting to approve
the application.
Since this project has been heard by both the
Planning Commission and the City Council,
any alleged processing flaw at the Director
level has been overcome at this point. At both
the Planning Commission and City Council
hearings, the petitioner has had opportunities to
review and influence the design of the wireless
facility. The Director’s approach was not
438
based on a determination that the item would
not be controversial; rather, the Director
determined that the placement of the wireless
equipment on an existing utility pole
constituted a minor design change to the
appearance of the pole. The City’s adopted
Wireless Facilities Master Plan indicates that
the Director’s approval is the proper processing
option for such a facility design.
5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or
c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the
evidence.
Finding: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council abused
its discretion by rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact, or rendering a
decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence.
Petition Response
The petitioner alleges that the City Council
never reviewed alternative cell site options that
provide a better solution to all parties. The
petitioner alleges that an alternative solution
involving a taller tower in a more remote
location would provide better coverage and
collocation “savings” and result in a different
decision.
There is no requirement that the best solution
be found, only that a project is determined
appropriate. The City’s Wireless Facilities
Master Plan expresses a design preference that
wireless facilities in residential areas be sited
on existing utility towers and poles, rather than
building new structures. Thus the proposed
site meets the requirements of the City’s
Wireless Facilities Master Plan. The City
Council did discuss three alternative sites in its
deliberations on 11/29/10. One site was Linda
Vista Park which has a hill. This park was
estimated to be about ¾ of a mile away and
was felt to be too far away to provide good
coverage to the Bubb Road area. The second
suggested alternative was the proposed AT&T
monopine at Results Way which had the
potential to serve another carrier at a lower
height on the pole. It was inappropriate to
consider the Results Way site as an alternative
because no decision on the project appeal had
been granted by Nov. 29, 2010. The Council
knew that the AT&T monopine was 19 feet
lower than the ground to the south, so any T-
439
Mobile collocated antennas (at 46 feet,
effectively 27 feet) would be similar to two
nearby T-Mobile facilities and too low in
height and too far away (1+ mile) to provide
cell coverage to southern Bubb Road.
The third site alternative considered by the
Council was the San Jose Water Company
water storage facility at Regnart Road and
Lindy Lane. This facility is not a water tank,
but a covered earthen reservoir. Staff indicated
that the structure lacked height and a monopole
would have to be built. The City Council
rejected the concept of erecting a new, tall
monopole cell site at the edge of the reservoir
next to the existing houses.
The petitioner alleges that T-Mobile could not
provide any information about the number of
subscribers that would benefit from the
proposed wireless facility. The Council
rendered a decision on this facility without
knowing if there was any public benefit.
This claim is immaterial to any basis for
reconsideration. Also, the 1996
Telecommunications Act, section
704(7)(B)(i)(I) prohibits any local decision-
making agency from unreasonably
discriminating among providers of functionally
equivalent (personal wireless) services.
The petitioner alleges that his analysis
presented at the Nov. 29, 2010 meeting
indicates that radio frequency (RF) energy
exposure was more than 6 times higher than
approved government levels. The petitioner
further alleges that the Council voted on this
project without checking these claims that the
RF energy exposure was higher than approved
government levels.
See City Response to Petitioner’s claim under
Municipal Code section 2.08.096(B)(2).
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
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: February 1, 2011
Subject
Scenic Circle Access Project
Recommended Actions
1. Adopt the mitigated negative declaration CEQA documents; and,
2. Authorize the Winter schedule alternative as depicted in the base bid; and,
3. Authorize the inclusion of Add Alternates 1 and 2 for a total of $10,940; and,
4. Authorize the current budget of $235,000 to be adjusted upward by $125,000 for a total
budget of $360,000 using excess funds from the Blackberry Farm Infrastructure
Upgrades project; and,
5. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a contract with Pavex, Inc. for the construction of
Scenic Circle Access not to exceed $159,735, plus the Add Alternates, if approved; and,
6. Authorize the expenditure of up to $30,000 for change orders for unforeseen site
conditions and construction contingency.
Discussion
On February 16, 2010, Council approved the Scenic Circle Access project with a budget of
$235,000. On April 16, 2010, Council adopted a resolution denying a petition for
reconsideration, and directed staff to initiate neighborhood meetings and a CEQA environmental
review process.
In October 2010, Council endorsed including measures in the project that were identified in
neighborhood meetings held in May and June.
On November 29, 2010, Council was given a progress report on Scenic Circle Access. In that
report and presentation, Council was advised of the possibility that the project budget might be
insufficient, but that the extent would not be known until bids were opened. Council authorized
staff to bid the work.
CEQA
It was initially anticipated that an Addendum to the approved Stevens Creek Corridor Park
Mitigated Negative Declaration would provide sufficient environmental clearance for the
anticipated work. Staff later determined that an independent CEQA review was recommended.
The firm of David J. Powers and Associates was hired to facilitate the collection of public
comments, the preparation and distribution of responses to those comments, and the preparation
486
of the CEQA documents for Council adoption. The action to adopt the project Mitigated
Negative Declaration is required prior to taking any of the additional recommended actions
relative to the award of a construction contract.
The City’s Environmental Review Committee will be reviewing the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration late in the week of January 24th. A supplemental memo will be transmitted
to Council to report on feedback received at this meeting.
The environmental review process to date has found that the project’s potential impacts are less
than significant, are less than significant with mitigation incorporated, or are beneficial. If the
Environmental Review Committee recommends adoption of the environmental clearance
documents, it will be appropriate for the City Council to determine that:
· The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
· A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
· Mitigation measures were incorporated and are made a condition of approval of the
project.
· A mitigation reporting and monitoring plan was prepared and is adopted for the project.
· Findings have been made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
Based on these determinations, the City Council may adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
and associated mitigation monitoring and reporting plan for this project.
Bids
On January 18th, six bids were received from a total of twenty-six companies that purchased
plans and specifications. The bidders, listed below from highest to lowest, had bids that ranged
in value from $144,400 to $276,190. The Engineer’s Estimate was $164,000 and fell near the
center of the bid spread.
Contractor $ Base Bid
Tucker Construction 276,190.00
Rodan Builders 178,000.00
SCQ Construction 177,680.10
CF Contracting 171,000.00
Engineer’s Estimate 164,000.00
Pavex Construction 159,735.00
Calstroy Construction 144,400.00
The lowest apparent bidder, Calstroy Construction, was disqualified for not having sufficient
experience as defined in the bid forms. They have agreed to their rejection and are not expected
to protest.
487
Pavex Construction, the second lowest bidder, was found to be responsive and responsible, in
accordance with the criteria of the California Public Contract Code and the City bid documents,
and is therefore recommended for award of contract. The low bid is determined by the base bid
without alternates. Pavex Construction’s bid is 2.6% under the Engineer’s Estimate.
Add Alternate No. 1 – “GraniteCrete” Paving in Lieu of Decomposed Granite
Pavex Construction has agreed to provide this upgraded trail material for an additional $7,380.
Staff considers this to be a reasonable price.
Add Alternate No. 2 - Bridge Railing Modifications
Pavex Construction has agreed to provide upgraded bridge railings for an additional $3,560.
Staff considers this to be a reasonable price.
Add Alternate No. 3 – Summer Schedule
Bidders were asked to provide a cost or credit for being allowed to build the project during the
Summer when the compensatory work delay risks of creek flooding, and nesting birds were
lower. None of the bidders considered the summer schedule to be less expensive than the winter
schedule. The additional prices ranged from $2,500 to $23,000.
Pavex Construction offered to complete the work on the summer schedule for an additional
$2,500, however, Add Alternates 1 and 2, if elected under the summer schedule, would cost an
additional $9,880 and $6,060 respectively. For purposes of comparison, the winter and summer
schedule costs from Pavex Construction would be:
Winter
Base bid without alternates 1, 2, or 3 159,735
Base bid with both alternates 1 and 2 170,675
Summer
Base bid without alternates 1 and 2 162,235
Base bid with alternates 1, 2 and 3 178,175
The summer schedule would begin on July 15th and reach substantial completion on September
30th, assuming there are no delays due to late breeding birds.
Budget
The original budget of $235,000 was developed for a basic scope of work which did not include
some items that are now recognized as essential. Exhibit 1 provides a detailed comparison of the
original February 2010 budget with the current anticipated costs that result in a new budget of
$360,000 for the winter schedule or $370,000 for the summer schedule. A summary of those
additional costs is provided below.
488
· Neighborhood outreach and biological surveys - $37,000
· Increased design consultant fees and construction management services to accommodate
the adjusted access location from Scenic Circle - $41,500
· Increased construction costs due to factors such as more difficult terrain to accommodate
the adjusted access location - $46,500
The additional funding necessary to complete Scenic Circle Access can be transferred from the
Blackberry Farm Infrastructure Upgrade project, which currently has a budget of $800,000.
The original scope of work for the Upgrade project included new restrooms and maintenance
building modifications that have been determined by Parks and Recreation staff to be
unnecessary at this time. With the reduction of the scope of work, a reduction in the budget can
also be made from $800,000 downward to $660,000. It is believed that the lower budget will be
sufficient to complete the project when it is re-bid in late summer, even if construction costs are
somewhat escalated from those bids recently received. Those bids received for the Blackberry
Farm Infrastructure Upgrade project are recommended for rejection due to an error in the bid
process as a separate item on this same Council agenda.
Sustainability Impact
This project meets the City’s sustainability goals.
Fiscal Impact
Approval of this project, as recommended, will necessitate an increase in the budget by
$125,000. The additional money necessary to complete this project is recommended to be
transferred from the Blackberry Farm Infrastructure Upgrade project.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Public Comments
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
489
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SScceenniicc CCiirrccllee AAcccceessss
ttoo SStteevveennss CCrreeeekk TTrraaiill aanndd
BBllaacckkbbeerrrryy FFaarrmm PPaarrkk
Project No. 9136
Prepared by
David J. Powers & Associates
for the
November 1, 2010
490
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 1 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
Page
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................................3
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .........................................................................................4
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................9
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ................15
4.1 AESTHETICS ...............................................................................................15
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ......................................20
4.3 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................23
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................27
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES..........................................................................42
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..............................................................................46
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................49
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .........................................52
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ..................................................55
4.10 LAND USE ...................................................................................................62
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES.............................................................................68
4.12 NOISE ...........................................................................................................69
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................73
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES .....................................................................................74
4.15 RECREATION ..............................................................................................77
4.16 TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................78
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ......................................................83
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.......................................85
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................88
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS .................................................................91
491
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 2 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
Figures
Page
Figure 1 Regional Map ................................................................................................................5
Figure 2 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................6
Figure 3 Aerial Photograph .........................................................................................................7
Figure 4 Proposed Trail Connection Plan ...................................................................................8
Tables
Table 1 Regulation of Biological Resources............................................................................27
Photographs
Photos 1-2...............................................................................................................................16
Photos 3-4...............................................................................................................................17
Appendices
Appendix A Construction Best Management Practices Proposed by the Project
Appendix B Hydrology Memo
492
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 3 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This Initial Study has been prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.), and
the regulations and policies of the City of Cupertino. This Initial Study evaluates the potential
environmental impacts which might reasonably be anticipated to result from the construction of the
proposed Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park project.
The City of Cupertino is proposing to construct an approximately 270-foot long trail that would
connect Scenic Circle to the existing trail in Blackberry Farm Park via an existing pedestrian bridge
over Stevens Creek. The proposed project also includes the construction of approach ramps,
stairway, retaining wall, and access point at Scenic Circle. The project site is located on City-owned
property.
In April 2006, the City of Cupertino completed the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and
Restoration Plan Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).1 Stevens Creek Corridor
Park is an approximately 60-acre area bounded by Steven Creek Boulevard to the north, McClellan
Road to the south, and residential neighborhoods to the east and west. The IS/MND analyzed the
conversion of the fee-based Blackberry Farm picnic grounds to a year-round community park,
restoration of the Stevens Creek channel, enhancement of adjacent woodland habitat, construction of
a trail along Stevens Creek between McClellan Road and Steven Creek Boulevard, and construction
of new park and golf maintenance facilities. The proposed trail connection would be located within
the Stevens Creek Corridor park lands and would link the creek trail to Scenic Circle via an existing
pedestrian bridge. Some of the information contained within the IS/MND was utilized for the
preparation of this Initial Study, and is hereby incorporated by reference as allowed under Section
15150 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The City of Cupertino is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has retained David J. Powers &
Associates to prepare this Initial Study to address the impacts of implementing the proposed project.
1 The IS/MND and associated documents are available at: http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=314 and at the
City of Cupertino offices located at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA, 95014. An addendum to the IS/MND was
adopted in October 2006.
493
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 4 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 PROJECT TITLE
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm project
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
As shown in Figures 1 through 3, the project site is located within the public open space area of
Stevens Creek Corridor between Scenic Circle and Blackberry Farm Park in the City of Cupertino.
The site is approximately 0.75 miles west of State Route (SR) 85 and one mile south of Interstate
280. Access to the Scenic Circle residential neighborhood is provided from Scenic Boulevard by
Foothill Boulevard via Palm Avenue, McClellan Road via Mira Vista Road/Palm Avenue, and other
streets.
2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Gail Seeds, Project Manager
(408) 777-3354
2.4 PROPERTY OWNER’S NAMES AND ADDRESSES
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3223
2.5 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS
357-07-029, 357-10-008
2.6 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
General Plan Land Use Designation: Parks and Open Space
Zoning Designations: PR – Park and Recreation
R1-7.5, Single-Family Residential, 7500 square foot minimum lot size
494
495
496
497
498
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 9 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The project includes the construction of a trail connection between Scenic Circle and Blackberry
Farm Park via an existing pedestrian bridge over Stevens Creek. The trail alignment is located
within the Stevens Creek Corridor public park and open space lands that have been developed and
restored under a restoration and master plan approved in 2006 (refer to Section 3.1.1 Background,
below). The project site is owned by the City of Cupertino.
On the west side of the creek, an approximately 270-foot long trail would meander north from the
proposed access point at Scenic Circle to a new approach deck at the south end of the pedestrian
bridge. The proposed trail would be approximately eight feet wide and would consist of crushed or
decomposed granite or similar natural tread material. The trail alignment runs through the former
Fallen Oak picnic area, which is now being planted with native vegetation under the Stevens Creek
Corridor Park project. On the north side of the bridge (easterly side of the creek), the project
includes the construction of a new accessible approach ramp and a stairway that would connect the
pedestrian bridge to the existing creek trail that runs through Blackberry Farm Park. The proposed
trail connection is intended to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists.
The site is bounded by single-family residential uses on Scenic Circle to the south (west side of the
creek) and Blackberry Farm Park to the north (east side of the creek). The riparian corridor of
Stevens Creek traverses the site. McClellan Ranch Park is located south of the project site. Monta
Vista High School, Kennedy Middle School, and Lincoln Elementary School are located east of the
creek in the greater project vicinity.
3.1.1 Background
The southern portion of the project site (west side of Stevens Creek) was previously used as the
Fallen Oak picnic area and was developed with park facilities including a service building. The
picnic area was part of Blackberry Farm, which was a privately-owned and operated park that
consisted of a golf course, swimming pools, and multiple picnic areas and related amenities.
Blackberry Farm was acquired by the City of Cupertino in 1991, which is consistent with the General
Plan goal to develop a trail/linear park along Stevens Creek. All picnic and park facilities were
removed from the Fallen Oak site in 2008.
In 2006, the City of Cupertino approved the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and
Restoration Plan.2 The publicly-owned lands along Stevens Creek addressed by the Plan are
bounded by Steven Creek Boulevard to the north, McClellan Road to the south, and residential
neighborhoods to the east and west. Among the primary elements of the Plan were:
• conversion of the fee-based Blackberry Farm complex to a community park;
• restoration of in-stream and riparian habitats within the floodplain including realignment and
widening of portions of the creek;
• enhancement of upland oak woodland habitat;
• construction of an all weather trail along Stevens Creek between McClellan Road and
Stevens Creek Boulevard;
2 An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project by the City of Cupertino and
adopted in June 2006. An addendum to the MND was adopted in October 2006.
499
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 10 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
• construction of new park and golf maintenance facilities; and
• development of an environmental education center at McClellan Ranch.
Phase I of the project, which included conversion of Blackberry Farm, construction of the trail to
McClellan Road, and creek restoration, has been completed. The renovated Blackberry Farm Park
was opened to the public in July 2009.3 Phase II of the project, which is currently in the design
stage, includes completion of the remaining portions of the trail. The trail connection proposed by
this project would link Scenic Circle to the existing creek trail through Blackberry Farm Park via an
existing pedestrian bridge over Stevens Creek.
The existing pedestrian bridge is approximately 40 feet long and seven feet wide. This clear-span
metal structure is accessed by wooden steps and not attached to permanent abutments. The bridge is
currently used for maintenance access purposes only.
There are two existing gates in the fence along Scenic Circle, located opposite 10432 Scenic Circle
and Scenic Court. The gates are currently closed and prevent public access to the pedestrian bridge
and creek corridor. After the Blackberry Farm Park renovations were completed in 2009, some
residents raised the issue of restoring public access from Scenic Circle to provide a route to walk and
bike to the tri-school area east of the creek and to increase community access to the renovated public
park.
In February 2010, the City Council directed the Department of Public Works to move forward with
the design of the proposed project. This Initial Study analyzes the effects of constructing the access
point, trail connection, and associated improvements.
Two neighborhood meetings were held in May and June 2010 to obtain input on the preferred
location and design of the project.4 The proposed design and operational measures reflect the
feedback and recommendations of the attendees, who were primarily residents of Scenic Circle and
Scenic Court.
3.1.2 Purpose of the Project
The purpose of the project is to provide a safe and convenient pedestrian/bicycle connection between
the residential neighborhoods west of Stevens Creek and the renovated community park and trail east
of the creek. The proposed trail connection would expand the network of pedestrian and bike
facilities, providing additional opportunities for residents to walk and bike for both transportation and
recreational purposes. The project would also allow a more direct and safer route to the tri-school
area east of the creek (including Monta Vista, Kennedy, and Lincoln Schools) that avoids potential
conflicts with vehicles on McClellan Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The proposed project is
consistent with the City’s goals to increase walkability and expand the bicycle network, as outlined
in Cupertino’s General Plan (2005), Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2002), and Bicycle
Transportation Plan (1998).
3 City of Cupertino. “Stevens Creek Corridor Project.” <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=314>
4 The meetings were held on May 20 and June 8, 2010 at Monta Vista High School.
500
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 11 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
3.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The proposed trail connection plan is shown on Figure 4. All components of the project will be
designed and constructed in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the
City of Cupertino Municipal Code. The project is designed to accommodate non-motorized modes
of travel, including biking, hiking, jogging, and walking.
3.2.1 Proposed Trail and Ramps
The project includes the construction of a 270-foot long, approximately eight-foot wide trail on the
westerly side of Stevens Creek. The proposed ADA-compliant trail would connect the proposed
access point at Scenic Circle (described further below) to the existing pedestrian bridge. The trail
alignment includes two bends to minimize grading and avoid tree removal to the extent feasible. The
trail surface would consist of crushed or decomposed granite (or similar material), which is
appropriate for use in a creek corridor. The paving surface is proposed to include a stabilizer that
will reduce erosion and provide an all-weather surface.
A new wooden approach deck would be constructed at the south end of the existing pedestrian
bridge. At the base of the sloped area near Scenic Circle, the project proposes to construct a
retaining wall (approximately 25 feet long) near the trail. The retaining wall is anticipated to be
constructed with wood planks, although the final material may vary. The wall is intended to protect
the existing grade at the base of a 24-inch diameter Chinese elm tree to be preserved. Boulders are
also likely to be used in this area and near the bridge approach to provide additional slope
stabilization.
On the east side of the creek, the project includes the construction of an accessible approach ramp
extending northwest/downstream from the existing pedestrian bridge, and a four-step stairway
extending southeast/upstream from the bridge. The proposed ramp and stairway would connect the
bridge to the existing creek trail that runs through Blackberry Farm Park. The existing wooden stairs
and portions of existing fencing would be removed to accommodate the new ramp and stairway.
3.2.2 Access Point
The at-grade access point to the proposed trail connection at Scenic Circle would be located
approximately 150 feet east of the Scenic Circle/Scenic Court intersection. The proposed location
avoids tree removal to the extent feasible, while locating the access point near the midpoint between
the two homes across the street (at 10422 Scenic Circle and 10434 Scenic Court). The entrance to
the access point, behind the curbline and adjacent to the roadway, would be approximately 20 feet
wide to allow space for trail users.
A chain-link fence lines the north and east sides of Scenic Circle adjacent to the project site. A
portion of this fence would be removed and relocated farther from the curb to accommodate the
access point to the proposed trail connection.
3.2.3 Gates and Hours of Operation
There are two existing gates in the chain-link fence along Scenic Circle. One is used for
maintenance access and is located just north of the Scenic Circle/Scenic Court intersection. The
second one is opposite 10432 Scenic Circle. This latter gate would be removed as part of the project
and replaced with fencing material that matches the existing fence.
501
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 12 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
A new gate would be installed at the proposed Scenic Circle access point. Under the proposed
project, this gate will be open daily during park hours and will be locked at all other times. Park
hours are currently from sunrise to ½ hour after sunset. The hours of operation may be modified by
the City Council to accommodate school activities, consistent with the City Council’s direction at the
meeting of October 5, 2010. The Stevens Creek Corridor Park Ranger will be responsible for
locking and unlocking the gate.5 Given that the trail would be closed at night the project does not
include lighting along the trail.
In the event of a significant flood event, the City would close the proposed trail connection and
would post signage at the Scenic Circle access point alerting trail users of this closure.
3.2.4 Parking Control Measures
The creation of new parking for trail use is not part of the project. The project is intended to serve
residents that bike or walk from home. Visitors to Stevens Creek Trail (including Blackberry Farm
and McClellan Ranch Parks) and trail users that arrive by motor vehicle would continue to use the
existing parking facilities on the east side of the creek. In response to neighborhood concerns and
suggestions, the City proposes to implement control measures (listed below) to discourage visitors to
Stevens Creek Trail and the associated park lands from parking their vehicles in the Scenic Circle
neighborhood. The project includes implementation of Tier 1, while Tier 2 and 3 would be
implemented in the future if the City determines that additional measures are necessary to control
parking.
Tier 1: Additional signage will be installed at the location of the existing “No Outlet” sign on
Scenic Boulevard at the entrance to the neighborhood. The sign would read:
“RESIDENTIAL ZONE, NO PARK PARKING BEYOND THIS POINT” or similar.
Tier 2: If the Tier 1 solution does not adequately address the issue of park users parking in the
Scenic Circle Neighborhood, additional “Residential Zone – No Park Parking” signs
will be installed along Scenic Circle. The number of signs to be installed will be
sufficient to meet criteria for enforcement by the County Sheriff.
For any holiday or large special event at Blackberry Farm Park where a high attendance
is expected (such as 500 or more), the City will put out portable “No Park Event
Parking” signs, or similar, in the Scenic Circle Neighborhood.6 The existing overflow
parking lot at Monta Vista High School for the park will be maintained for high
attendance events as needed.
Tier 3: If the Tier 1 and Tier 2 solutions do not adequately address the issue of park users
parking in the Scenic Circle Neighborhood, then the residents will consider a
Residential Permit Parking program, to be developed in coordination with the City.
3.2.5 Litter Control Measures and Trail Amenities
To minimize the potential for littering, the City proposes to install wildlife-resistant trash and
recycling receptacles inside Blackberry Farm Park near the proposed access point on Scenic Circle,
beyond the gate. Receptacles are to be located where they are out of sight from nearby residences
5 Stevens Creek Corridor Park is staffed seven days a week by park rangers.
6 This measure is currently in place for the Byrne/San Fernando Avenue area, located on the east side of Blackberry
Farm Park.
502
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 13 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
and/or screened. Park rangers would be responsible for daily pick up of trash/recyclables in vicinity
of the gate.
The project does not include the provision of night lighting, interpretative signage, benches, or
similar trail amenities. The provision of trash receptacles is intended to encourage proper trail use
and proper disposal of waste.
3.2.6 Vegetation Removal and Mitigation
The proposed trail alignment primarily consists of oak woodland, riparian habitat, and upland
vegetation. The project includes the removal of two coast live oak trees (seven and three inches in
diameter) and approximately three saplings. Minor tree trimming and removal of low-lying
vegetation may also be required to accommodate the proposed trail connection. As described in
Section 4.4 Biological Resources, impacts to biotic habitats resulting from project construction
activities will be mitigated by providing replacement trees and additional native plantings, and
replanting disturbed areas with native vegetation or reseeding. Standard construction measures will
be implemented to minimize temporary impacts to trees, wildlife, and water quality.
3.2.7 Grading, Drainage, and Utilities
Substantial grading would not be required to construct the proposed project. It is expected that a
moderate amount of imported fill (approximately 75 cubic yards) would be required for construction
of the approach ramp to the existing pedestrian bridge and to the access point at Scenic Circle. As
previously described, the project includes a retaining wall at one location along the trail connection.
Any cut or fill slopes adjacent to the trail not supported with retaining walls will be reseeded or
replanted following construction.7
As described in Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study, the proposed 270-foot
trail connection is not expected to generate a significant amount of stormwater runoff. In accordance
with Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) guidelines, surface water would generally be
diverted from the trail away from the creek where feasible by cross-sloping the trail surface up to two
percent. However, cross slope direction may vary to achieve safety, constructability, or other goals.
3.2.8 Construction Information
The footprint of the proposed trail and associated ramps would be approximately 2,500 square feet,
while project construction would affect approximately 22,000 square feet (about half an acre) of
land. All construction work and equipment staging would occur on City-owned property. On the
easterly side of the creek, construction access and staging would occur within Blackberry Farm Park.
For work on the westerly side of the creek, access would occur from Scenic Circle. Equipment
would be staged on previously disturbed land to the extent feasible. No work would be required
within the active stream (low-flow channel) of Stevens Creek. Construction of the approach ramps
would require work at the top of bank.
It is anticipated that the trail construction would start in late winter/early spring of 2011. The total
duration of project construction is estimated to be approximately four months.
7 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. “Guidance for
Trail Design” in Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. August 2005 (revised July 2006).
503
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 14 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
3.3 PERMITS REQUIRED
The project would require a Streamside Permit from the City of Cupertino.
No other permits, approvals, or easements are anticipated for construction of the proposed project.
3.4 USES OF THE INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study will be used to obtain a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project,
which determines that with the implementation of mitigation measures identified, the project would
not have a significant effect on the environment.
504
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 15 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION
OF IMPACTS
This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project area, as well as
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as
recommended in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, identifies
environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented.
The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The
sources cited are identified at the end of this section. Mitigation measures are identified for all
significant project impacts. “Mitigation Measures” are feasible measures that will minimize, avoid,
or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guideline 15370). Measures that are required by law, are
City standard conditions of approval, or are included in the project that will further reduce or avoid
already less than significant impacts are categorized as “Avoidance Measures.”
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 Setting
As shown on Figure 3, the project site is located in a suburban area of west Cupertino. Adjacent land
uses include single-family residential uses (the Scenic Circle neighborhood) and public park/open
space. The majority of the project alignment is located within the floodplain of Stevens Creek,
which is a relatively natural setting. The site slopes down from Scenic Circle to a flat area on the
west side of the creek. This area was previously used as a picnic area, but was recently planted with
native vegetation. The sloped area is vegetated with oak trees and various ornamental trees. In the
project vicinity, Stevens Creek has moderately incised banks and is lined with predominantly
sycamores, oaks, redwoods and pine trees. On the east side of the creek, there is a creek trail and a
children’s play area within Blackberry Farm Park.
The visibility of the project site is generally limited to the immediately surrounding area. The project
area is not visible from a scenic vista, although views of the site are available from the residents in
the Scenic Circle neighborhood across from the proposed access point and from public open spaces,
including Blackberry Farm Park and the creek trail. The existing pedestrian bridge is not readily
visible to the residential uses due to the presence of mature trees lining Scenic Circle and the creek
corridor. The site is not located adjacent to or within view of a designated state scenic highway.8
Stevens Creek Corridor is considered an important scenic resource in the City of Cupertino. As
described in Section 4.11 Land Use, the proposed project is subject to Cupertino General Plan
policies and Santa Clara County design guidelines that are intended to promote land use and visual
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Views of the project area are shown in Photographs 1-4 on the following pages.
8 California Department of Transportation. “California Scenic Highway Mapping System.” Accessed October 1,
2010. <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm>
505
16506
17507
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 18 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.1.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? 1
2) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
1, 2
3) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
1
4) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
1
The proposed project includes the construction of:
• an approximately 270-foot long trail consisting of crushed or decomposed granite or another
similar material;
• wooden approach ramps at each end of the existing pedestrian bridge;
• a short wooden stairway extending upstream from the bridge on the easterly side of the creek;
• an access point at Scenic Circle with a new gate in the chain-link fence; and
• a retaining wall and/or other slope stabilization measures in the sloped area.
The project also proposes to replace the existing gate in the fence opposite of 10432 Scenic Circle
with matching fencing. Trail-related signage may be provided on the west side of the creek. The
project does not include night lighting, reflective surfaces, or any other feature that would create a
new source of light or glare.
Construction of the project would require the removal of approximately two young oak trees (seven
inches and three inches in diameter) and approximately three saplings on the site. The project,
however, has been designed to minimize tree removal and includes the planting of two replacement
trees and additional understory vegetation, which would enhance the visual quality of the area over
time. Furthermore, the majority of mature trees in the site vicinity would remain. The materials used
for project construction (e.g., wood and crushed or decomposed granite) would be consistent with the
natural character of the project area. Therefore, the proposed tree removals and trail construction
would not substantially affect the visual quality of the Stevens Creek Corridor.
The visibility of the proposed trail and associated features would be limited to the immediately
surrounding area. The improvements would be most visible to the adjacent residential and park uses.
The proposed at-grade access point on Scenic Circle would be located at the approximate midpoint
508
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 19 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
between two residences. It would face the side yards of these houses, rather than front yards, to
reduce the visual effect of the access point on these uses. Proposed trash/recycling receptacles would
be located out of sight from residences. Existing trees and chain-link fencing would serve as visual
buffers between the trail and nearby residences. For these reasons, construction of the proposed
access point, trail, and associated features would not substantially change the visual character of the
residential area.
The minor improvements proposed for the easterly side of the creek (i.e., the construction of
approach ramps and landings to the existing pedestrian bridge) would be visually compatible with the
existing and planned park and trail facilities. The project would not adversely affect views from
Blackberry Farm Park or the existing trail east of the creek. By constructing a trail connection
through an open space area and utilizing an existing pedestrian bridge, the project would provide
additional public viewpoints of the Stevens Creek Corridor, an important scenic resource.
While the determination of aesthetic impacts is somewhat subjective, it is concluded that the
proposed project would not significantly degrade the existing visual quality of the site and its
surroundings. The project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
and natural environment to the extent possible by taking into account community feedback and
complying with applicable guidelines and Cupertino General Plan policies intended to promote
visual compatibility.
For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in a significant aesthetic impact to the
surrounding land uses.
4.1.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not degrade or substantially change the existing visual character or
quality of the project site and its surroundings, including the residential neighborhood and public
park. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant aesthetic impact and no mitigation
measures are required or proposed. (Less than Significant Impact)
509
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 20 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
4.2.1 Setting
The project area is located within a suburban area of Cupertino. While the area was used for
agriculture prior to residential development, there are no commercial farms in the project area. The
Stocklmeir property, located about 0.25 miles north of the site, is the only remaining orchard along
Stevens Creek from Cupertino to the San Francisco Bay.9 McClellan Ranch, located approximately
1,000 feet south of the site, contains community gardens.
There are no properties in the project area, including the site, that are under a Williamson Act
contract or designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.10
According to Section 12220 (g) of the Public Resources Code, forest land is defined as “land that can
support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions,
and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish
and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” Based on this
definition, the oak woodland habitat that occurs within the project site would be considered forest
land due to the presence of native tree species and the numerous public benefits the riparian corridor
of Stevens Creek provides to Cupertino, including wildlife habitat and public open space for
recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment.
4.2.1.1 Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations
The project site is designated as Parks and Open Space under the City of Cupertino’s General Plan
and is zoned PR – Park and Recreation and R1-7.5, Single-Family Residential. One objective of the
Parks and Open Space designation is to protect natural resources, including riparian habitat. In
addition to parks and recreational facilities, agricultural uses are also permitted in the Park and
Recreation zoning district.
The City of Cupertino does not have a zoning district intended directly for forest or timberland. Title
13 of the Municipal Code, however, includes standards for the protection of trees, wildlife, and other
natural resources and within public parks. Parks characterized by unique natural features may be
designated by the City Council as a nature and/or rural preserve to maintain the ecology of the area
and conserve the scenic values. McClellan Ranch Park, located approximately 0.25 miles south of
the project site, is a designated nature/rural preserve in the City.
9 City of Cupertino. Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND. June 2006.
10 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program. 2008 Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map. 2009.
510
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 21 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.2.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1, 3
2) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
1, 4
3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
1, 4
4) Result in a loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
1
5) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
1, 3
The project site is not designated or zoned for agriculture and is not under a Williamson Act contract.
The proposed project would not affect any properties zoned, designated as Farmland by the State, or
actively used for agricultural purposes.
The project site is not specifically zoned for forest or timberland, although it is zoned and designated
as Park and Recreation and Parks and Open Space. The land use designation of Parks and Open
Space is intended to ensure the availability of land for the preservation of natural resources, including
forest lands. The project would not conflict with general standards related to forest resources per the
Park and Recreation zoning, which is intended to allow a range of recreational facilities for public
use, including trails. The project would not affect the natural features, scenic values, or community
resources for which McClellan Ranch Park has been designated as a nature/rural preserve.
Construction of the proposed trail would require the removal of two small oak trees and
approximately three saplings within the oak woodland area on the site. As described in Section 4.4
Biological Resources, the project proposes to mitigate the loss of habitat by planting two native
511
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 22 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
replacement trees and additional understory vegetation within the site vicinity. In addition,
mitigation and avoidance measures will be implemented during project construction to protect trees
to remain within the site, minimize potential effects on the water quality of Stevens Creek, and avoid
impacts to protected animal species. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts to
fish, wildlife, or biodiversity.
The proposed trail would provide increased views of the Stevens Creek Corridor and would not
adversely affect the aesthetic quality of the area (refer to Section 4.1 Aesthetics). The proposed trail
is intended to increase access to open space and parkland; therefore, the project would enhance the
area’s value as a recreational resource. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of
forest land to non-forest use.
4.2.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not affect agricultural resources. (No Impact)
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact to forest resources. (Less than
Significant Impact)
512
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 23 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.3 AIR QUALITY
4.3.1 Setting
4.3.1.1 Background Information
Ozone and particulate matter are considered the primary pollutants of concern in the Bay Area.
These are considered regional pollutants in that concentrations are not determined by proximity to
individual sources, but show a relative uniformity over a region. Ozone, also called photochemical
smog, is formed by a chemical reaction between ozone precursors, primarily reactive organic gases
(ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), in the presence of sunlight. Particulate matter consists of solid
and liquid particles of dust, soot, aerosols and other matter which are small enough to remain
suspended in the air for a long period of time. Combustion sources (i.e., automobiles, fires, power
plants, and factories) tend to generate fine particles (PM2.5), whereas fugitive dust (such as from cars
traveling on unpaved roads) generally consists of larger, “coarse” particles (PM10).11 Motor vehicle
use is a major mobile source of ozone precursors and particulate matter in the Bay Area.
4.3.1.2 Regulatory Framework
The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air
Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the
national or state ambient air quality standards are not met as “non-attainment areas”. State standards
are generally more stringent than national standards. Under the California Clean Air Act, the Bay
Area is designated as a non-attainment area for the ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. In addition,
the region was recently designated as non-attainment for the national 24-hour PM2.5 standard. All
other pollutants are designated as “attainment” or “unclassified” for state and national standards.
The region is required to adopt a clean air plan (CAP) on a triennial basis that shows progress
towards meeting state air quality standards. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, which was adopted
in September 2010, serves as the region’s current CAP.12 The CAP provides a strategy to reduce
ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan. The CAP
establishes emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010-2012 timeframe.
In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted the CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines as an update to its previous CEQA Guidelines (1999). Under the new thresholds
of significance, projects that generate more than 10 tons per year of ROG, NOx, or PM2.5 or 15 tons
per year of PM10 would have a significant impact on regional air quality. The BAAQMD guidelines
also established thresholds of significance for construction-related emissions and screening levels for
a Lead Agency to use as an indication of whether a proposed project would result in a construction-
related air quality impact. Although the guidelines do not specify a screening level for the
construction of transportation or infrastructure projects (such as the proposed trail connection
project), the screening level for most land uses is 277,000 square feet of development. This
screening level takes into account the on-site construction of roadways and the installation of project
infrastructure.13
11 BAAQMD. “Particulate Matter.” Accessed April 13, 2010. <http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-
Research/Particulate-Matter.aspx>
12 The CAP is available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx.
13 BAAQMD. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. June 2010. Page B-11.
513
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 24 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.3.1.3 Sensitive Receptors
BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups
(children, the elderly, and the acutely and chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses
include residences, school playgrounds, child-care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes,
hospitals, and medical clinics. Sensitive receptors in the site vicinity include the single-family
residences along Scenic Circle.
4.3.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
1, 5, 6
2) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
1, 5
3) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is classified as non-
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard including releasing
emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors?
1, 5
4) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
1, 5
5) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
1, 5
4.3.2.1 Long-term Impacts
The operational effects of the proposed project on long-term air quality would be associated with
vehicle trips. As described in Sections 4.17 Transportation, the construction of a trail connection
would not generate a significant number of additional vehicle trips in the project area. Rather, the
proposed trail project could result in a small reduction in vehicle use by providing alternative, non-
motorized means of transportation for residents to access parks and schools in the area. Given that
the project is intended to reduce vehicle trips, it would not approach or exceed BAAQMD’s
thresholds for the generation of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors. Therefore, the proposed
trail project would not result in significant long-term air quality impacts.
514
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 25 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan identifies the improvement of pedestrian and bicycle access and
facilities as Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), which are strategies intended to reduce motor
vehicle emissions. The proposed construction of a trail connection would be consistent with the
CAP’s goals for reducing vehicle use, given that it would expand the network of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities in the area and make non-motorized travel safer and more accessible. The project is
also consistent with the TCM for providing safer routes to school. By supporting implementation of
the regional CAP, the proposed project would result in a beneficial effect on long-term air quality in
the region.
4.3.2.2 Construction-Related Impacts
The project includes the construction of an approximately 270-foot long, eight-foot wide trail and
associated improvements. It is anticipated that approximately four months would be required for
project construction. Activities such as grading operations, construction vehicle traffic, and wind
blowing over exposed earth would generate short-term exhaust and fugitive dust emissions.
Materials used during construction activities could be a source of ROG. The operation of
construction equipment has the potential to generate odors.
Construction activities could temporarily affect local air quality by causing a short-term increase in
particulate matter and other emissions. Dust generated during ground disturbing activities could
create temporary annoyances to residential uses downwind of the site. Project construction,
however, would not require a substantial amount of grading or construction vehicles that could have
a significant effect on local air quality. For these reasons, project construction would not expose
sensitive receptors in the area to substantial sustained pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors.
The footprint of the proposed trail and associated ramps would be approximately 2,500 feet, while
project construction would affect approximately 22,000 square feet (about half an acre) of land.
Given the size and scope of the proposed project relative to a 277,000-square foot land use
development (the typical screening level), the average daily emissions of criteria air pollutant and
precursors resulting from projection construction would not approach or exceed the thresholds of
significance for a regional construction-related air quality impact. Regardless of whether or not a
threshold is exceeded, BAAQMD recommends the implementation of “basic construction mitigation
measures” for all projects in the Bay Area. Although construction of the proposed trail connection
would not result in a significant air quality impact, the project proposes to implement these measures
to further reduce the potential for adverse effects on nearby uses.
Avoidance Measures: The following measures will be implemented during project construction:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., unpaved parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered daily during dry weather or as needed to control dust.
• Haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• Mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed consistent with Division 1 of
the City’s standard specifications.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 10 mph.
515
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 26 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications.
4.3.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in long-term regional air quality impacts. Short-term,
construction-related air quality impacts would not be significant. Implementation of the above
described measures will further reduce or avoid short-term air quality impacts associated with the
construction of the proposed project. (Less than Significant Impact)
516
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 27 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based upon the biotic reports completed in 2006 for the Stevens Creek
Corridor Park IS/MND by TRA Environmental Sciences (formerly Thomas Reid Associates) and
H.T. Harvey & Associates, as well as pre-construction surveys and construction observation during
Phase I of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Project.
4.4.1 Setting
4.4.1.1 Regulatory Framework
As it relates to land use decisions, “biological resources” generally include plant and animal species
and the habitats that support such species. The avoidance and mitigation of significant impacts to
biological resources under CEQA is consistent with – and complementary to – various federal, state,
and local laws/regulations that are designed to protect such resources. These regulations often
mandate that project sponsors obtain permits prior to the commencement of development activities,
and require sponsors to implement measures that avoid and/or mitigate impacts as permit conditions.
Table 1, below, summarizes many of these laws and regulations.
Table 1
Regulation Of Biological Resources
Law/Regulation Objective(s) Responsible
Agencies
Federal Endangered Species Act NOAA NMFS,
USFWS
California Endangered Species Act
Avoid harm to such species and their
habitat and, ultimately, to restore their
numbers to where they are no longer
threatened or endangered. CDFG
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act Protect migratory birds, including their
nests & eggs.
USFWS
California Fish & Game Code
Section 3503.5
Protect birds of prey, including their
nests & eggs.
CDFG
Federal Clean Water Act Avoid/mitigate impacts to wetlands and
other “waters of the United States”
including streams, lakes, or bays.
US EPA, USACE,
RWQCB
Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act
Avoid/mitigate water quality impacts to
waters of the State and US.
SWRCB, RWQCB
California Fish & Game Code
Sections 1600-1616
Avoid/mitigate impacts to rivers,
streams, or lakes.
CDFG
City of Cupertino Tree Ordinance Avoid/mitigate impacts to heritage and
protected trees
City of Cupertino
NOAA NMFS = National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; USFWS =
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game, US EPA = U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board,
SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board
The project site is not located within an area protected by an approved habitat conservation plan.
517
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 28 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
City of Cupertino Tree Ordinance
The City of Cupertino Tree Ordinance (Ordinance No. 07-2003, Chapter 14.18 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code) requires a permit to remove protected trees from public or private property.
Protected trees include all trees of the following species that have a minimum single-trunk diameter
of 10 inches (31-inch circumference) or minimum multi-trunk diameter of 20 inches (63-inch
circumference) measured at 4.5 feet from natural grade: Coast live oak, Valley oak, Black oak, Blue
oak, Interior live oak, California buckeye, Big leaf maple, Deodar cedar, Blue atlas cedar, California
bay, and Western sycamore.
Protected trees also include heritage trees, approved privacy protection plantings in R-1 zoning
districts, and trees required to be protected as a part of a zoning, tentative map, or use permit.
Application for designation as a heritage tree is referred to the Planning Commission for review and
determination in accordance with Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The Planning
Commission may, by resolution, designate a tree or grove of trees as a heritage tree(s).
Development projects are subject to Chapter 14.18, Appendix A of the Cupertino Municipal Code:
“Standards for the Protection of Trees during Grading and Construction”. The removal of protected
trees typically requires the planting of replacement trees, in accordance with the Replacement Tree
Guidelines in the Cupertino Tree Ordinance.
No heritage trees have been designated within the project area. Several mature oaks and sycamores
on or near the site are protected trees under the City of Cupertino Tree Ordinance.
4.4.1.2 Existing Biotic Habitats
The project site is located in a developed area of west Cupertino within the Stevens Creek Corridor.
Prior to development of the area, the project site was likely composed of mature riparian woodland
along the banks of Stevens Creek, with meadows of riparian scrub, seasonal wetlands, and grasslands
occurring on the floodplain. Grading, development, and farming over the years have introduced non-
native plant species, and dam construction upstream of the project area has resulted in changes to the
vegetation composition within the creek and adjacent habitats.
The project area has recently undergone restoration efforts to enhance the aquatic, woodland, and
riparian habitats and return the Stevens Creek Corridor to more natural conditions. Restoration
activities completed in the site vicinity include the removal of man-made features (three low flow
automobile crossings, a dam structure, concrete walls, riprap, etc), channel widening, and planting of
native riparian and upland vegetation (refer to Section 3.1.2). The creek channel is approximately 35
feet wide beneath the existing pedestrian bridge. The banks in the project area are moderately steep,
dropping between five and 10 feet in elevation from the top of bank to the bottom of the creek
channel.
The majority of the project site (the flat area on the west side of Stevens Creek) was previously
developed as a group picnic area. The park facilities were removed from the site in 2008. Portions
of this area were planted with native upland vegetation as part of restoration efforts under the Stevens
Creek Corridor Park Phase I project. An irrigation system was installed and the restoration area is
currently being maintained by park staff.
Other habitat types on the project site include oak woodland (in the upland area near Scenic Circle)
and ruderal and mixed riparian forest (adjacent to the creek). These habitats include a variety of
518
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 29 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
native and non-native trees, shrubs, and grasses. The predominant trees species include coast live
oak, western sycamore, and redwoods, which were planted adjacent to the bridge. Other species
present in the overstory include Monterey pine, Chinese elm, walnut, Tree of Heaven, and various
ornamental trees. Riparian vegetation is dense within the Stevens Creek Corridor area; however, at
the location of the existing pedestrian bridge, the riparian vegetation has been relatively barren where
park activities and specific tree species have suppressed understory species from taking hold along
the banks of the creek and within the floodplain.
The project area also includes disturbed/developed areas including the paved roadway of Scenic
Circle, the paved trail along the eastern creek bank, the existing metal bridge, and its wooden
approach structures. The site is bounded by development to the north and south, including
Blackberry Farm Park and the Scenic Circle residential neighborhood. A children’s play area is
located in the immediate site vicinity on the opposite side of the existing creek trail within the park.
Wildlife
Riparian habitat is of high value to wildlife in California, due to the foraging, cover, and nesting
opportunities provided by the year-round water supply and diverse habitat structure (including tree,
shrub, and herbaceous layers). Oak woodland also provides substantial nesting and foraging habitat
for a variety of species. The central portion of the site that was formerly picnic grounds currently
provides limited value to wildlife, although this area is expected to provide higher quality woodland
habitat when the native shrubs and trees that were recently planted reach maturity.
Terrestrial animals known to occur in the project area include raccoons, Columbian blacktail deer,
striped skunk, broad-footed mole, coyote, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, bobcat, feral cat, and
a variety of songbirds. Birds known to breed within the project area include House Finch, Chestnut-
backed Chickadee, Western Wood-Pewee, Black Phoebe, White-breasted Nuthatch, Brown Creeper,
Nutall’s Woodpecker, Warbling Vireo, Western Scrub Jay, American Robin, Anna’s Hummingbird,
Pacific-slope Flycatcher, and Oak Titmouse. Raptors that may nest within the riparian corridor
and/or forage in adjacent habitats include White-tailed Kite, Red-shouldered Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk,
Screech Owl, and Barn Owl. Bat species detected in 2004 and 2005 during surveys of the Stevens
Creek Corridor Park project area include big brown bats, Mexican free-tailed bats, and Yuma myotis.
The reach of Stevens Creek within the project area provides habitat for native aquatic species
including the threespine stickleback, California roach, Sacramento sucker, and steelhead/rainbow
trout, and nonnative species such as the red swamp crayfish and signal crayfish.
4.4.1.3 Special-Status Species
Several special-status plant species are known to occur in the region, typically in open grassland,
chaparral, and woodland habitats. Field surveys were completed for Western leatherwood to
determine its presence within Stevens Creek Corridor Park; this species was not detected in any area
proposed for restoration and is assumed to be absent from the corridor. It was determined that no
special-status plant species are expected to occur within the project area, primarily due to a lack of
suitable habitat.
According to literature search previously completed for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project, a
number of special status animal species were identified as having the potential to be present within
the project area. These species included: California red-legged frog (USFWS Threatened and
California Species of Special Concern), California tiger salamander (USFWS Threatened and
California Species of Special Concern), Western pond turtle (California Species of Special Concern),
519
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 30 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
Foothill yellow-legged frog (California Species of Special Concern), Central California Coast
steelhead (NOAA NMFS Threatened), Cooper’s Hawk, Burrowing Owl (California Species of
Special Concern), Long-eared Owl, Yellow Warbler, White-tailed Kite, pallid bat, and San Francisco
dusky-footed woodrat (California Species of Special Concern). Other bat species identified as
having potential to occur in the project area include big brown, Mexican free-tailed, and Yuma
myotis.
Habitat assessments and/or focused surveys were previously completed for the species having the
potential to occur in the project area, listed above. Species observed to be present within the corridor
between 2005 and 2008 include steelhead trout, Western pond turtle, White-tailed Kite, Cooper’s
Hawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, big brown bat, Mexican free-
tailed bat, and Yuma Myotis bat. None of the other species were detected in the corridor and the
project area was evaluated as having low to moderate potential to support these species (TRA 2006
and H.T. Harvey 2006).
In addition to these special-status species, the majority of birds occurring in the project area are
protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by the California Fish and Game Code.
Bats are also protected by the California Fish and Game Code.
4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 7, 11
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 7
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
1, 7, 11
520
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 31 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
4) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors,
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
1, 7
5) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
1, 7, 8
6) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
1
The proposed trail and associated improvements would be located within Stevens Creek Corridor.
Only the proposed approach decks/ramps and stairway would be constructed in the top of bank area.
The project includes the removal of two trees: a seven-inch diameter coast live oak and a three-inch
diameter coast live oak. These trees are located within the oak woodland habitat adjacent to Scenic
Circle. Both trees have limited canopies due to the presence of adjacent larger trees. In addition,
approximately three coast live oak saplings would be removed from the habitat restoration area.
Minor tree trimming and the removal of low-lying vegetation may be required to accommodate the
proposed trail connection.
The proposed project incorporates measures to decrease potential impacts to biological resources,
including sensitive habitats and wildlife. These measures include the following:
• The proposed project has been designed in a manner that accommodates and protects existing
mature trees and native vegetation to the extent feasible. Existing native vegetation shall be
retained by removing only as much vegetation as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing
width and installation of proposed improvements.
• Where the layout of the new pathway and bridge approaches conflicts with recently installed
native plantings, such plantings shall be transplanted to a nearby suitable location within the
project site or shall be replaced with a similar size and type of native plant on the project site.
• Any cut or fill slopes shall be replanted with vegetation native to the general area or
reseeded. Criteria that would be used in selecting plant materials include, but are not limited
to: if the species is indigenous to the watershed; habitat value; rate of growth; ultimate size;
strength of root system; resistance to pests and diseases; aesthetic characteristics; and ease of
maintenance.
521
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 32 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.4.2.1 Impacts to Sensitive Habitats
The limited areas of riparian and aquatic habitat on and adjacent to the project site are considered
sensitive natural communities. Coast live oak woodland is not considered a sensitive community by
the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), but is still valued locally as a biological
resource. No other natural communities of special concern occurring in the region are present in the
site vicinity.
Most of the proposed 270-foot long trail would be constructed within the former picnic area. As
described above, portions of this area have been planted with native upland vegetation. Impacts to
this restoration area are discussed in conjunction with impacts to the oak woodland habitat, below.
Riparian Habitat
As previously described, although dense riparian vegetation exists in the project area, at the location
of the existing pedestrian bridge, the riparian habitat currently lacks established understory
vegetation along the creek banks. No streamside riparian trees or creek bank vegetation would be
removed or affected by the project for construction of the proposed approach ramps/decks and
stairway. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact to the on-site riparian
habitat.
Aquatic Habitat
No work would occur within the active stream (low-flow channel) of Stevens Creek. The proposed
project would not directly affect any federally protected wetlands or aquatic habitat within the creek.
However, construction activities such as grading and vegetation removal could result in temporary
impacts to surface water quality if sediments or chemicals are allowed to discharge into the creek.
With implementation of the avoidance measures listed below and in Section 4.8 Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, the project would not result in significant impacts to aquatic habitat and no
additional mitigation measures are required.
Avoidance Measures: The following standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be
implemented to minimize project impacts to aquatic habitat and water quality:
• Construction equipment will be staged in upland and/or currently developed or disturbed
areas to avoid disturbance to sensitive habitat areas and reduce the potential for sediment and
materials to enter the creek.
• No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, cement, concrete, washings, petroleum
products or other organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter into or be placed where
it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into waters of the U.S. or State (Stevens Creek).
• Fiber rolls and/or silt fencing will be placed near the bridge during construction to help
prevent sediment and debris from entering the creek.
522
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 33 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
• The following BMPs from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) 2005 BMP
Handbook would be implemented as needed during project construction to avoid impacts to
aquatic habitat and water quality:14
WQ-5 Soil Stockpiles
WQ-18 Site Maintenance and Cleanup
WQ-41 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
Oak Woodland Habitat
Construction of the project would result in direct (removal) and indirect (trimming, root impacts, soil
compaction) impacts to mature oak woodland habitat and a small portion of the upland habitat
restoration area. Construction of the trail could require removal of a small amount of oak woodland
understory vegetation, primarily near the Scenic Circle embankment. In addition, construction of the
trail and bridge approach ramps and stairway could require the removal of a small amount of recently
planted native vegetation in the upland habitat restoration area. Project impacts to the mature and
recently planted oak woodland habitats on the site, however, would not be considered significant for
the following reasons:
• While coast live oak is a native species, it is a regionally and locally abundant species. The
oak trees to be removed are relatively small in size, and other more mature trees located
within the oak woodland habitat in the project area would be preserved. Therefore, the
proposed tree removal would not substantially affect the habitat value.
• As described above, any recently planted upland vegetation that is removed will be
transplanted or replaced with similar native plantings on the project site. Any oak woodland
understory vegetation that is removed will be replaced with native vegetation to provide
similar habitat value to the area affected. The project also includes the planting of two native
container-size replacement trees and dozens of additional native understory plantings on the
site. These measures are intended to offset the loss of the two oak trees, saplings, and
approximately 2,500 square feet of former picnic area and oak woodland understory habitat
upon which the proposed trail connection would be constructed.
• Any cut or fill slopes adjacent to the trail not supported with retaining walls will be reseeded
or replanted.15 The replanting of native vegetation in disturbed areas would minimize the
potential for erosion and the establishment of invasive species on the site.
• The project has been designed to avoid permanent impacts to oak woodland habitat by
minimizing grading, tree removal, and the area of disturbance to the maximum extent
feasible.
• Construction access and equipment staging would occur on paved areas or previously
disturbed land, wherever possible. This measure is intended to minimize temporary effects to
oak woodland habitat resulting from construction-related soil compaction and disturbances to
wildlife.
14 These measures are described in detail in Appendix A of this Initial Study.
15 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. “Guidance for
Trail Design” in Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. August 2005 (revised July 2006).
523
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 34 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
• Standard tree protection measures will be implemented during project construction,
consistent with the Cupertino Tree Ordinance, to reduce and avoid impacts to trees remaining
on the site (refer to Section 4.4.2.4).
Indirect Impacts from Increased Recreational Use
Re-opening the project site to public use through construction of a trail connection could have effects
on biological resources. Constructing a multi-use creek trail and permitting leashed dogs on the trail
has the potential to affect sensitive wildlife and habitat through off-trail use, improper disposal of
dog waste, increased sedimentation in the creek, and disturbances to native animals from dogs
intruding into adjacent habitats. Recreational users and dogs travelling off the trail could trample
vegetation and contribute to the spread of weeds. The accumulation of dog waste could degrade
water and soil quality.
Given that the project site was previously used as a group picnic area, the existing pedestrian bridge
is currently used by park staff to access the project site for maintenance activities, and the proposed
trail connection would provide access to an existing primary trail alignment and is not the primary
trail itself, the proposed project is not expected to substantially affect the existing ability of wildlife
to use the site. The visual and acoustic disturbance to wildlife associated with the proposed trail use
is not expected to be significantly higher than currently exists, and wildlife along the channel is
expected to adapt to the new levels of disturbance. Providing a formal, accessible trail connection
and a controlled access point to Blackberry Farm Park could decrease the possible creation of new
foot trails through sensitive habitats within the corridor.
Avoidance of indirect impacts from future trail use (or misuse) can be achieved through proper
management and enforcement. Implementation of measures included in the Stevens Creek Corridor
Park project to protect sensitive wildlife and habitat from impacts due to visitor and dog use would
further minimize potential impacts of the proposed trail connection.16 As with the trail through
Blackberry Farm Park, the project site will be patrolled and maintained by park staff and rangers.
Avoidance Measures: The project proposes to implement the following measures to reduce
potential impacts associated with increased recreational use of the project area:
• Immediately following project construction, the City of Cupertino’s Recreation Supervisor
for Blackberry Farm shall arrange for City Parks staff and/or rangers to regularly patrol the
area to enforce established rules and regulations and provide direction to maintenance crews
for clean up of dog waste and litter.
• The new trail connection will be operated under the rules, regulations, and procedures that
are in effect for Stevens Creek Trail.
For these reasons, the increase in visitor and dog use the project site would not have a significant
long-term effect on sensitive habitats or wildlife.
16 These measures include a) posting regulatory signs intermittently along the trail; b) patrols by City Parks staff and
rangers to enforce the leash law provisions; c) limiting recreational use of the creek channel; e) park cleanup of
accumulated dog waste by maintenance crews or other City employees; and f) planting of upland and riparian
understory planting.
524
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 35 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.4.2.2 Impacts to Wildlife Movement and Migration
The project would not introduce any impediments to aquatic or terrestrial wildlife movement, given
that animals would be able to cross over the proposed trail, and the trail design will generally follow
existing topography. By increasing the quantity of native upland habitat on the site, the project is
consistent with the intent of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park restoration plan to improve the value of
the project area as a corridor for wildlife. The proposed project would increase pedestrian and
bicycle traffic in the area, although the incremental increase in human activity would not discourage
use of the area as a wildlife corridor for the reasons described above in Section 4.4.2.1. Therefore,
the project would not substantially affect wildlife movement.
4.4.2.3 Impacts to Special-Status Plants and Animals
As discussed above, no special-status plant species are expected to occur on the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not affect any special-status plant species.
Special-status wildlife species that could potentially be affected by project construction include
steelhead, California red-legged frog, Western pond turtle, and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat,
which are protected as Federally Threatened and/or California Species of Special Concern. Other
protected wildlife species that could occur in the project area and could be impacted by the project
include big brown, Mexican free-tailed and Yuma Myotis bats, as well as nesting birds and raptors,
such as the Cooper’s Hawk, Red Shouldered Hawk, Barn Owl, and White-tailed kite.
California Red-legged Frog(CRLF), Western Pond Turtle (WPT), and Dusky-footed Woodrat
As previously described, there is potential for the CRLF, WPT, and dusky-footed woodrat to occur
on the project site. CRLF is not expected to be present in this section of Stevens Creek. A total of
ten CRLF occurrences within a five-mile radius of the project area were reported between 1939 and
2000. Three from 1939 are considered historic, while three of the remaining seven records are from
outside the Stevens Creek watershed and are separated by urban development. The closest CRLF
sighting was approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the site. Stream systems that support CRLF
breeding habitat are typically slow moving with dense aquatic vegetation and this section of Stevens
Creek does not provide optimal CRLF breeding habitat. CRLF were not detected during surveys
completed in 2005 and it was concluded that there is low potential for CRLF to be present within the
Stevens Creek Corridor project area. None were detected during implementation of Phase 1 of the
Steven Creek Corridor project in 2008-09. Surveys by Santa Clara Valley Water District have also
not found CRLF in this portion of the creek. It is unlikely, but nevertheless possible, that individual
CRLF could be detected within the creek or in upland terrain during the rainy season, due to the high
mobility of this species.
Three recorded sightings of WPT occurred within a half mile of the site as recently as 2004. The
woodrat and WPT were not detected during surveys completed in 2005, and it was concluded at that
time that there was a low to moderate potential for woodrat and WPT to be present within the
Stevens Creek Corridor Park area.17 The City Naturalist, however, has seen woodrats in McClellan
Ranch in recent years and sighted a WPT on the banks of the creek at McClellan Ranch in 2008.18 In
addition, evidence of woodrat presence was found along the west creek bank during construction of
Phase I of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project.
17 City of Cupertino. Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study. 2006.
18 Banfield, Barbara. City Naturalist, City of Cupertino. Personal communication. October 2010.
525
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 36 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
The project could result in the loss of a very small amount of potential habitat for woodrat and WPT,
although the proposed plantings would enhance the quality of habitat in the long-term. In the
unlikely event that individual woodrats or WPT and/or their nests are present on the site during
construction, ground disturbing activities and operation of heavy equipment and vehicles have the
potential to directly impact these species.
Impact BIO-1: If present within the creek or adjacent upland habitat, CRLF, WPT, and/or
woodrats could be impacted by construction-related and long-term project
activities, including vehicle and human access.
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following measures, as well as those listed above in
Section 4.4.2.1, would reduce potential impacts to WPT, CRLF, and woodrats to a less than
significant level:
MM BIO 1.1 Preconstruction Survey. Four days or fewer prior to the start of project activities,
a qualified biologist shall perform one daytime survey for CRLF, WPT, and
woodrat. The entire work area, including any burrows, rocks and woodpiles that
may be disturbed by construction activities, shall be inspected for CRLF, WPT, and
woodrat. If CRLF is detected, work shall be delayed and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) shall be contacted on how to proceed (since it is a Federally
Threatened species).
If during this survey WPT or woodrat are detected, the CDFG should be contacted
on how to proceed (since they are State Species of Special Concern). In the past,
CDFG has approved protocols for the western pond turtles stating that if a turtle is
detected, the turtle will be observed to determine if it is moving through the area in
which it was detected or if the animal is occupying the habitat for nesting, foraging,
or basking. During construction activities within the immediate area of the turtle
detection, an on-site monitor will work with construction crews. If the animal is
relocated during construction activities, the monitor will observe the turtle and alert
work crews to delay work if it is within the work area or begins to move toward or
into the work area. If the turtle appears to be traveling from upland habitat to a
nearby aquatic site, work shall cease until the turtle has traveled a safe distance
from the immediate project site. The monitor shall observe the animal from a
distance to ensure it does not wander back into the work area. If the turtle is
relocated and appears to be occupying the habitat within the project footprint for
activities such as nesting, basking, or foraging, the City or its representatives will
contact CDFG for guidance.
If during this survey San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat are detected, the CDFG
should be contacted on how to proceed (since they are State Species of Special
Concern). These mammals live year round in their houses, which are essential for
their survival. Woodrats dwell in moderately-dense to dense riparian habitats, such
as those found along portions of Stevens Creek. CDFG has generally accepted the
following guidelines for avoidance/minimization of effects on San Francisco
dusky-footed woodrat houses, listed in order of priority and implementation:
a. The project work will be rerouted to avoid the woodrat house by at least 50
feet.
b. If the work cannot be rerouted at least 50 feet from the house, it will be
rerouted as far away from the house as possible but not closer than 5 feet
526
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 37 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
from the house. Safety and/or silt fencing (for houses downslope) will be
erected around all houses within 25 feet of the construction activity to avoid
impacts during construction.
c. If the project footprint must go directly through or within 5 feet of a house,
CDFG should be consulted with one of the two following options:
i. If the house appears inactive seek approval from CDFG to dismantle the
house and replace the lost resource by building an artificial house. One
artificial house should be built for every one existing inactive house.
ii. If the house appears active, approval will be sought from CDFG to: 1)
trap the occupant(s) of the house, 2) dismantle the house, 3) construct a
new artificial house with the materials from the dismantled house, and 4)
release the occupant into the new artificial house. The new house should
be placed as close to its original location as feasible and as far from the
project footprint as necessary to be protected from construction activities.
If the house is to be moved downslope of the project footprint, extra
precautions should be taken, such as a plywood barrier, to stop
falling/sliding materials from impacting the new house. Houses should
only be moved in the early morning during the non-breeding season
(October through February). If trapping has occurred for 3 consecutive
nights and no woodrats have been captured, the house should be
dismantled and a new house constructed.
MM BIO 1.2 Employee Education Program. An employee education program shall be
conducted prior to the initiation of project activities. The program shall consist of a
brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in federally listed and state special
status species biology and legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors
and their employees. The program would include the following: a description of
CRLF, WPT, and woodrat and their habitat needs; an explanation of the status of
CRLF, WPT, and woodrat and their protection under state and federal laws; and a
list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to CRLF, WPT, and woodrat during
project activities. Crews shall be instructed that if a CRLF is found, it is to be left
alone and the project foreman, City, and the USFWS must be notified immediately.
Likewise, if a WPT or woodrat nest is found, it is to be left alone and the project
foreman, City, and CDFG must be notified immediately.
MM BIO 1.3 ESA Fencing. Project shall include the installation of Environmentally Sensitive
Area (“ESA”) fencing along creek bank to assist in excluding potential CRLF and
WPT from the construction zone. ESA fencing shall be buried at the base to
prevent animals from moving under it. ESA fencing shall be maintained in good
and stable condition throughout active construction. Nominal 1.5 to 3 foot tall silt
fence type material is acceptable.
MM BIO 1.4 Speed Limit. Vehicles shall not drive more than 5 miles per hour within the
project area. If any WPT, CRLF, or woodrat are seen in the path of a vehicle, the
vehicle shall stop until the animal is out of the path. Parked vehicles shall be
thoroughly checked underneath before they are moved to ensure that no WPT,
CRLF or woodrat are on the ground below the vehicle.
527
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 38 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
Steelhead
Central California Coast Steelhead, a federally-listed species, is known to occur in Stevens Creek.
The project area is within Federally Designated Critical Habitat for steelhead. Given that the project
does not include work within aquatic habitats of Stevens Creek, the project would not result in direct
impacts to steelhead occurring in the creek. Construction-related impacts to water quality, however,
may indirectly affect individual steelhead. With implementation of the avoidance measures to reduce
impacts to aquatic habitat listed in Section 4.4.2.1 above, the project would also avoid significant
effects on steelhead.
Special Status Bird Species
Nesting birds, including raptors, are protected by the California Department of Fish and Game Code
3503, which reads, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird,
except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” The Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds, except in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This Act encompasses whole
birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
A variety of protected birds could nest or forage on the project, including but not limited to the
species listed in Section 4.4.1. The proposed project would temporarily and permanently impact a
very small amount of potential foraging habitat for these species. Although occasional foraging
individuals may be temporarily displaced during construction, they are not expected to be
permanently impacted by the project. Because the project area is already disturbed by urban use, the
increase in human activity along the proposed trail connection is not expected to significantly impact
bird habitats. For these reasons, the project would not cause long-term effects on regional
populations of protected bird species.
Project construction activities, including trail construction and vegetation removal, could potentially
result in disturbance to protected birds. Given the local and regional abundance of these bird species
and the low magnitude of potential effects, project construction is not expected to result in significant
impacts to special status birds. However, direct impacts to active nests, eggs, young, or individuals
during construction would be a significant impact.
Impact BIO-2: The removal or trimming of shrubs and trees on the site could impact nesting birds,
if present.
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following measures would reduce potential impacts to
nesting birds to a less than significant level:
MM BIO-2.1: Vegetation removal activities within the project area shall be scheduled to take
place outside of the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) if possible to avoid
impacts to nesting birds. In order to avoid impacts to existing raptor nests during
the non-nesting season, a preconstruction survey of all on-site trees that could
support raptor nests shall be completed by a qualified biologist. Every attempt
shall be made to protect trees that contain raptor nests.
If construction is unavoidable during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a survey for nesting raptors and other birds within five days prior to the
start of construction activities. If active nests are not present, construction activities
can take place as scheduled. If more than five days elapse between the initial nest
528
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 39 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
search and the beginning of construction activities, another nest survey shall be
conducted. If any active nests are detected, a qualified biologist shall determine the
appropriate buffer to be established around the nest. CDFG generally accepts a 50-
foot radius buffer around passerine and non-passerine land bird nests, and up to a
250-foot radius for raptors, however the biologist shall have flexibility to reduce or
expand the buffer depending on the specific circumstances.
Bats
The big brown bat population of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park is to likely be the largest occurring
on the Santa Clara Valley floor. In 2005, a big brown bat maternity colony was found in a sycamore
tree within the Horseshoe Bend area. It is unknown if the colony is still present in this tree. Mexican
free-tailed and Yuma myotis bats have also been detected foraging in the corridor. In addition, it is
possible that a bat colony or roost has been established in the oak woodland habitat on the site since
completion of Phase I construction of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project in 2009.
Although big brown bats are fairly tolerant to constant levels of disturbance (e.g. constant vehicle
noise), additional disturbance above the ambient noise could result in the abandonment of the
maternity colony, if still present in the off-site sycamore tree. As discussed in Section 4.12 Noise,
grading operations would generate the highest noise levels during project construction. Given that
the project would not require substantial grading and that most grading operations would occur on
the westerly side of the creek (over 250 feet from the sycamore tree that is known to have hosted a
maternity colony), it is unlikely that construction activities would generate noise levels that would
substantially disturb the colony. Although the proposed project would not affect this sycamore tree,
the loss or abandonment of a bat roost or colony (either indirectly through project-related
disturbances or directly through tree removal), could be considered a significant impact.
Impact BIO-3: Project construction could result in the loss or abandonment of a bat roost or
colony.
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following measures will reduce potential impacts to
bats to a less than significant level:
MM BIO-3.1: The following avoidance measures shall be implemented as necessary and as
determined by a qualified bat biologist:
• Preconstruction surveys. Because the big brown bats could move their
maternity colony or day roost to an on-site tree (and other species of bats
occurring on the project site could form a new roost), a preconstruction survey
for roosting bats shall also be conducted prior to any construction or large tree
removal. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.
• Temporal avoidance and construction buffer zones. Construction buffer
zones will be established around active maternity colonies or a non-breeding
bat roost to avoid disturbance impacts. The buffer distance will be established
in consultation with CDFG and will be dependent upon the species, roost type
and the nature of the construction disturbance. Construction activities proposed
within this buffer distance shall commence after young are volant (flying, after
July 31) and end before maternity colonies form. CDFG considers the
maternity season to occur from March 1 to August 31.
529
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 40 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.4.2.4 Conformance with Regulations that Protect Biological Resources
City of Cupertino Tree Ordinance
The proposed project requires the removal of a seven-inch diameter coast live oak tree, three-inch
diameter coast live oak tree, and approximately three coast live oak saplings. The project does not
include the removal of any protected tree; therefore, no tree removal permit is required. There are
protected trees, however, in the project vicinity that could be adversely affected by construction
activities. With implementation of the mitigation measure described below, the project would be
consistent with the City of Cupertino Tree Ordinance.
Impact BIO-4: Tree trimming or removal could violate City of Cupertino policies on tree
protection.
Mitigation Measure:
MM BIO-4.1: In accordance with the Cupertino Tree Ordinance, the project proposes to
implement standard tree protection measures to avoid impacts to trees remaining in
the project area:
• The proposed trail has been aligned to be outside of the dripline of native trees
to the extent feasible to reduce effects on the root zones. The final design will
be reviewed by the City’s arborist to ensure that adverse impacts to trees have
been minimized or avoided.
• To compensate for the loss of two non-protected oak trees, the project proposes
to plant two container-size native replacement trees. The replacement trees
would be planted on-site.
• The proposed plantings, including replacement trees, would be maintained for a
five year period by the City.
• Potential impacts to protected trees on or adjacent to the site resulting from
construction activities would be minimized by implementing measures
consistent with Chapter 14.18, Appendix A of the Cupertino Municipal Code:
Standards for the Protection of Trees during Grading and Construction
Operations of the City of Cupertino Tree Ordinance.
• All pruning shall be completed or supervised by a certified arborist or the City
arborist and adhere to the Best Management Practices for Pruning of the ISA.
• In the unlikely event that the final project design requires the removal of a
protected tree, a tree removal permit would be obtained. All requirements for
removal as stated in the tree removal permit, including the provision of
replacement trees, would be followed. The number and type of replacement
tree to be provided would be determined by the City of Cupertino, in
accordance with City policy and other requirements as applicable.
530
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 41 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.4.3 Conclusion
The proposed project has been designed to avoid impacts to the oak woodland and riparian habitats
on the site. Avoidance measures would be implemented during construction to minimize potential
impacts to aquatic habitat. The project includes mitigation and avoidance measures to reduce and
avoid impacts to trees and special status animal species. The project would not result in significant
impacts to biological resources within the project area. (Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
531
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 42 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based on the assessment prepared by Basin Research Associates, Inc. for
the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND.
4.5.1 Setting
4.5.1.1 Prehistoric Resources
The project area is within the ethnographic and historic boundaries of the Native American group
known as the Costanoan or the Ohlones. Numerous small and large size sites have been recorded in
the Santa Clara Valley, indicating occupation and use of the area extending over 5,000 years.
The project area is considered to have low to moderate archaeological sensitivity. According to the
Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND, one
prehistoric site (CA-SCl-715) has been recorded on the west bank of Stevens Creek in the project
area, although the feature could not be field-confirmed. This recorded site is located approximately
0.25 miles north of the site.19 With the exception of this recorded site, the records search and
literature review did not identify any other recorded prehistoric and historic sites within a quarter-
mile of the study area. No archaeological resources were encountered during construction of Phase I
of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project.
4.5.1.2 Historic Resources
The historic period of the San Francisco Bay region began in the late 1700’s when Spanish
expeditions begin to explore the area and establish missions and pueblos. All land was held by the
Spanish Crown until Mexico broke away from Spanish control in 1822. In 1848, at the end of the
Mexican American War, California became part of the United States.
No historic properties listed on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) were identified in or adjacent to the project area. Blackberry
Farm is listed as a California Point of Historical Interest.20 This property and four others within or
adjacent to Stevens Creek Corridor Park are listed on various Santa Clara County Heritage Resource
Inventories and/or are identified as City of Cupertino Historic Sites according to the City’s General
Plan. These properties include the Site of Elisha Stephen’s homestead, Louis Stocklmeir home,
Doyle winery site (foundation only), and McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve (including Baer’s replica
blacksmith shop and Enoch Parrish tank house).
4.5.1.3 Paleontological Resources
There are no known unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features in the
project area.
19 Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND, Appendix C. (Basin Research Associates. Cultural Resources Assessment,
Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan. February 2006.)
20 California Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county)
significance. Blackberry Farm was listed as a Point of Historical Interest in 1975. Source: California Office of
Historic Preservation. “California Historical Resources.” <http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/listed_resources/>
532
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 43 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.5.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an historical
resource as defined in §15064.5?
1, 9, 11
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource as defined in §15064.5?
1, 9, 11
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site, or unique geologic feature?
1, 11
4) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
1, 9, 11
4.5.2.1 Archaeological Resources
As previously described, the project area is considered to have low to moderate archaeological
sensitivity. No pre-construction subsurface testing is recommended for the proposed project.
Although not anticipated, there is a potential that subsurface archaeological materials could be
exposed during project construction. Any deposits discovered during subsurface construction could
contain potentially significant buried prehistoric and/or historic cultural materials, including Native
American human remains. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources were encountered during
construction of Phase I of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project. However, if encountered,
disturbance to a cultural deposit could result in the loss of integrity and subsequent loss of scientific
information, which would be a significant impact.
Impact CUL-1: Construction of the proposed project could result in a significant impact to
archaeological resources, if disturbance occurs to as yet unknown prehistoric or
historic materials that may be encountered during grading activities on the site.
Mitigation Measures: The following measures will be implemented to reduce potential impacts to
archaeological resources to a less than significant level:
MM CUL-1.1: Prior to the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, the City
shall conduct a pre-construction field meeting to inform all contractors and
construction personnel of the potential for exposing subsurface cultural resources
and to recognize possible buried cultural resources. Personnel shall be informed
of the procedures that will be followed upon the discovery or suspected discovery
of archaeological materials, including Native American remains and their
treatment.
533
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 44 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
MM CUL-1.2: Upon discovery of possible buried prehistoric and historic cultural materials
(including potential Native American skeletal remains), work within 25-feet of
the find shall be halted and the City shall be notified.21
The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist to review and evaluate the find.
Construction work shall not begin again until the archaeological or cultural
resources consultant has been allowed to examine the cultural materials, assess
their significance, and offer proposals for any additional exploratory measures
deemed necessary for the further evaluation of, and/or mitigation of adverse
impacts to, any potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources
that have been exposed.
If the discovery is determined to be a unique archaeological or historical resource,
and if avoidance of the resource is not possible, the archaeologist shall inform the
City of the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) and mitigation of impacts.
The treatment plan shall be designed to result in the extraction of sufficient
nonredundant archaeological data to address important regional research
considerations. The City shall insure that the treatment program is completed.
The work shall be performed by the archaeologist, and shall result in a detailed
technical report that shall be filed with the California Historical Resources
Information System, Northwest Information Center, CSU Rohnert Park.
Construction in the immediate vicinity of the find shall not recommence until
treatment has been completed.
If human remains are discovered, they shall be handled in accordance with State
law (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the
Public Resources Code), including immediate notification of the County Medical
Examiner/Coroner.
MM CUL-1.3: All excavation contracts for the project shall contain provisions for stop-work in
the vicinity of a find in the event of exposure of significant archaeological
resources during subsurface construction. In addition, the contract documents
shall recognize the need to implement any mitigation conditions required by the
permitting agency. In general, the appropriate construction conditions should be
included within the general or special conditions section of any contract that has
the potential for ground disturbing operations.
21 Significant prehistoric cultural resources may include: Human bone – either isolated or intact burials;
Habitation (occupation or ceremonial structures as interpreted from rock rings/features, distinct ground depressions,
differences in compaction (e.g., house floors); Artifacts including chipped stone objects such as projectile points and
bifaces; Groundstone artifacts such as manos, metates, mortars, pestles, grinding stones, pitted hammerstones; Shell
and bone artifacts including ornaments and beads; Various features and samples including hearths (fire-cracked
rock; baked and vitrified clay), artifact caches, faunal and shellfish remains (which permit dietary reconstruction),
distinctive changes in soil stratigraphy indicative of prehistoric activities; and Isolated artifacts.
Objects and features associated with the historic period (the late 19th through early 20th centuries) may
include: Structural remains or portions of foundations (bricks, cobbles/boulders, stacked fieldstone, postholes, etc.);
Trash pits, privies, wells and associated artifacts; Isolated artifacts or isolated clusters of manufactured artifacts
(e.g., glass bottles, metal cans, manufactured wood items, etc.); and Human remains.
In addition, cultural materials including both artifacts and structures that can be attributed to Hispanic, Asian, and
other ethnic or racial groups are potentially significant; such features or clusters of artifacts and samples include
remains of structures, trash pits, and privies.
534
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 45 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.5.2.2 Historic Resources
Given the nature of the proposed project, it would not affect the historic significance of Blackberry
Farm, McClellan Ranch, or any other properties listed on County or City historic resource
inventories. The project would not affect any structure that is eligible for inclusion in the California
Register of Historic Places or the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in a significant impact to historic resources.
4.5.3 Conclusion
With the implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, the proposed project would not
result in a significant impact to archaeological resources in the event buried cultural materials are
encountered during project construction. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
The project would not affect any historic structures or paleontological resources. (No Impact)
535
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 46 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.6.1 Setting
4.6.1.1 Regional Geology
The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, which is bounded by the Santa Cruz Mountains
to the west, the Mt. Hamilton Diablo Mountain Range to the east, and the San Francisco Bay to the
north. Bedrock in this area is made up of the Franciscan Complex, a diverse group of igneous,
sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of Upper Jurassic to cretaceous age (70 to 140 million years
old).
4.6.1.2 Site Topography and Soils
The elevation of the site ranges from approximately 305 to 330 feet above sea level. The soil at the
site has been mapped as Garretson fine sandy loam (GpA).22 This soil type is well drained and
moderately expansive with very slow surface runoff and no erosion hazard.23 Expansive soils shrink
and swell as a result of moisture changes, which can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade,
pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. The site is not located within a Santa
Clara County Geologic Hazard Zone for landslides, compressible soils, or dike failure.24
4.6.1.3 Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay region. The major
earthquake faults in the project area are the San Andreas Fault (approximately four miles southwest
of the site), the Hayward Fault (approximately 10 miles east of the site), and the Calaveras Fault
(approximately 13 miles east of the site). The project site is located at the edge of the Santa Clara
County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone for the Monta Vista Fault, which is located approximately 0.5
miles to the south.25 The Monta Vista Fault is not identified as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone.26
Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Seismically-induced liquefaction results in the transformation of loose water-saturated soils from a
solid state to a liquid state during ground shaking. Lateral spreading, a type of ground failure related
to liquefaction, involves the horizontal displacement of flat-lying alluvial material toward an open
area, such as a steep bank of a stream channel. Liquefaction-induced lateral-spreading usually occurs
on mild slopes with underlying loose sands and a shallow groundwater table. The potential of
lateral-spreading generally mirrors the liquefaction potential of the area.
The Stevens Creek channel is identified as a liquefaction hazard zone by the County of Santa Clara
and State of California.27 Given that part of the project site includes moderately steep creek banks,
there is also potential for lateral-spreading to occur during ground shaking.
22 County of Santa Clara, Department of Public Works. Soil Map. 1964.
23 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soils of Santa Clara County. 1968.
24 County of Santa Clara. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones. Map 18. 2002.
25 County of Santa Clara. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones. Map 18. 2002.
26 Association of Bay Area Governments, Geographic Information Systems. “Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zones.” March 2007.
27 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazard Zones: Cupertino
Quadrangle Official Map. 2002.
536
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 47 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.6.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as described on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
(Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.)
10, 11
b) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1, 11
c) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
1, 12,
13
d) Landslides? 1, 12,
13
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
1, 11
3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that will become
unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-
site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
1, 12,
13
4) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
1, 11
5) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
1
4.7.2.1 Soil and Geologic Hazards
As discussed above, there are no significant geologic hazards associated with the project site. The
proposed trail alignment conforms to existing topography, to the extent feasible, to minimize grading
required for project construction. The project would require approximately 75 cubic yards of
imported fill to construct the proposed approach ramps and trail connection in the sloped area near
537
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 48 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
Scenic Circle (refer to Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality). Any cut or fill slopes adjacent to
the trail would be reseeded/replanted following project construction in the given area. The project
also includes construction of a retaining wall adjacent to the trail at the base of the sloped area near
Scenic Circle. Boulders may also be used in this area and at the bridge approach to provide
additional slope stabilization. The retaining wall design and grading plans will be prepared by a
licensed civil engineer and the project will be subject to review by the City Public Works
Department. These measures will help to ensure none of the proposed improvements would cause on-
or off-site instability.
As previously described, the proposed trail connection would be constructed on moderately
expansive soil. The trail itself would not be substantially affected by expansive soil conditions as it
could be repaired if heaving or cracking were to occur. The approach ramps and retaining walls will
be designed and constructed using standard engineering practices to minimize potential damage
resulting from the potential expansion or contraction of on-site soils. Given that the site is not within
a landslide hazard zone, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant
adverse effects involving landslides.
The project proposes to include a stabilizer in the trail surface to reduce erosion of the crushed or
decomposed granite or similar material. Grading and tree removal activities would increase the
potential for soil erosion during and after project construction. As described above, any cut or fill
slopes adjacent to the trail would be stabilized with retaining walls or vegetation. Providing
temporary and permanent cover to stabilize surfaces disturbed by grading activities will reduce the
potential for erosion or the loss of topsoil. In addition, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be
implemented to prevent substantial erosion from occurring as a result of soil disturbing construction
activities (refer to Section 4.4 Biological Resources).
For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in significant geologic impacts related to
slope stability or erosion.
4.7.2.2 Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
It is expected that the project alignment could be subject to significant seismic events over the life of
the project. During a major earthquake on one of the region’s active faults, users of the proposed
trail connection would be exposed to hazards associated with severe ground shaking, including
seismic-induced liquefaction or lateral spreading. Although the project site is located at the edge of a
Santa Clara County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone, the likelihood of ground rupture across the proposed
trail alignment is low, given the distance to the mapped fault line.
The project does not include any structures that would expose people to substantial adverse effects
involving seismic hazards. The proposed approach ramps and stairway shall be designed and
constructed to minimize potential damage from seismic shaking and seismic-related hazards,
including liquefaction and lateral spreading. The project structures would be designed by a licensed
civil engineer and would comply with applicable codes to ensure the proposed design would not
result in significant seismicity impacts.
4.7.3 Conclusion
No structures are proposed by the project that would create substantial risks to life or property
associated with existing soil conditions or potential seismic hazards. Construction of the proposed
project would not result in significant geologic or erosion impacts. (Less than Significant Impact)
538
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 49 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7.1 Setting
This section provides a general discussion of global climate change and focuses on emissions from
human activities that alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere. The discussion on global
climate change and greenhouse gas emissions is based upon the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), the 2006 and 2009 Climate Action Team (CAT) reports to
Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, and research, information and analysis completed by
the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), and the California Air Resources Board (ARB).
4.7.1.1 Background
Global climate change refers to changes in long-term weather patterns including temperatures,
precipitation, and wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by the accumulation of naturally
occurring and anthropogenic (generated by human activities) atmospheric gases such as carbon
dioxide, water, and methane. These gases allow sunlight into the Earth’s atmosphere but prevent
heat from radiating back into outer space, thus altering the Earth’s energy balance. This phenomenon
is known as the “greenhouse effect”.
The combustion of fossil fuels for energy use is a major source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions. Transportation is the largest end-use source of carbon dioxide, which is the most
prevalent greenhouse gas. The US EPA estimates the carbon dioxide emissions for gasoline to be
19.4 pounds per gallon.28
As a result of global climate change, extreme events such as heat waves, floods, droughts, wildfires,
and poor air quality are likely to become more frequent in the future in California.29
4.7.1.2 Regulatory Framework
Agencies at the international, national, state, and local levels are considering strategies to control
emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. In California, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires
achievement of a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions by 2020,
and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-
effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The ARB and other state agencies are currently
working on regulations and other initiatives to implement the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which
was approved in 2008. By 2050, the state plans to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
As required under state law (Public Resources Code section 21083.05), the California Natural
Resources Agency amended the State CEQA Guidelines to include this section on greenhouse gas
emissions (effective March 18, 2010). Under the new guidelines, a Lead Agency must describe,
calculate, or estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project by using a model, qualitative
analysis, and/or performance-based standards to assess impacts.
28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from
Gasoline and Diesel Fuel.” Last updated January 14, 2010. Accessed March 24, 2010.
<http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm>
29 California Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger
and the Legislature. 2009. Available at: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/cat/.
539
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 50 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
Updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
As previously described, BAAQMD recently adopted the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines as an update
to its previous CEQA Guidelines (1999). Under the new thresholds, projects that would result in
operational-related greenhouse gas emissions of 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents a
year or more would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and
result in a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. For comparison, 1,000 daily
vehicle trips (averaging seven miles per trip) would generate approximately 1,100 metric tons of
carbon dioxide per year.30
4.7.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
1, 14
2) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
1, 14
4.7.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described above, the generation of greenhouse gases has significant indirect impacts on the
environment through global climate change. Given the overwhelming scope of global climate
change, it is not anticipated that a single development project would have an individually discernable
effect on global climate change. It is more appropriate to conclude that the greenhouse gas emissions
generated by the proposed project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe
to cumulatively contribute to global climate change.
The proposed project would result in short-term emissions of greenhouse gases during trail
construction. Activities that would generate greenhouse gas emissions include site grading,
operation of fuel-operated equipment, transportation of construction materials (e.g., decomposed
granite, wood, fill, etc.), and vehicle trips to and from the project site by construction workers. Given
the scale of the proposed project, a substantial amount of greenhouse gases would not be generated
by the construction activities.
30 This estimate is based on the average fuel economy of 21 mile per gallon (mpg) and a carbon dioxide emission
rate of 19.4 pounds per gallon, as estimated by the US EPA. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel.” Last updated
January 14, 2010. Accessed March 24, 2010. <http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm>
540
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 51 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
As previously described, automobile use is a main generator of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases. The project would generate substantially less than 1,000 vehicle trips per day, as the proposed
trail connection is not intended to serve as a vehicular access point to Blackberry Farm Park or the
existing creek trail. As described in Section 4.3 Air Quality, the proposed project would encourage
residents to use non-motorized modes of transportation by providing a pedestrian/bicycle connection
between a residential neighborhood and a public park, creek trail, and schools east of the creek.
Therefore, the project could reduce vehicle trips in the project area, which would reduce the emission
of greenhouse gases in the long-term.
For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in greenhouse gas emissions that may have a
significant impact on the environment or make a substantial contribution to global climate change.
4.7.2.2 Consistency with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans
Under existing conditions, vehicle use is the predominant mode of transportation for commuters in
the region. By providing facilities for alternative modes to vehicle travel, the proposed project
supports long-term goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated by vehicle use, as
previously described. Funding the construction of “bike/walk” infrastructure is identified as strategy
that local governments can implement to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals.31 Therefore, the
project would not conflict with the 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan or the goal of reducing
statewide emissions equivalent to 1990 levels by 2020.
4.7.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts associated with
greenhouse gas emissions. (Less Than Significant Impact)
31 California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan Appendices, Volume I: Supporting
Documents and Measure Detail. October 2008. Page C-52.
541
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 52 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8.1 Setting
4.8.1.1 Background Information
Hazardous materials include a broad range of common substances such as fuel, motor oil, pesticides,
detergents, paint, and solvents. A substance may be considered hazardous if, due to its chemical and
or/or physical properties, it poses a substantial hazard when it is improperly treated, stored,
transported, disposed of, or released into the atmosphere in the event of an accident. A “hazardous
waste” is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or to be recycled.
4.8.1.2 Existing Conditions
The project site primarily consists of undeveloped land and includes an existing pedestrian bridge
over Stevens Creek. The site is located within the riparian corridor and is bounded by a residential
neighborhood and a renovated community park. The southern portion of the project site (westerly
side of Stevens Creek) was previously used as one of several picnic areas in Blackberry Farm. The
park facilities, including a service building and tables, were removed in 2008. This area was recently
planted with upland vegetation. Prior to development of the existing residential and park uses, the
area was used for agricultural production, primarily as orchards.
The project site is located in a developed area of Cupertino. There are no wildland areas with a fire
risk near the project site.32 No public airports or private airstrips are located in the project vicinity
(within two miles). Monta Vista High School is located approximately 0.25 miles southeast of the
project site.
4.8.1.3 Regulatory Database Search
The Cortese List is used by the State, local agencies, and developers to identify the location of
hazardous materials release sites. The Cortese List is updated annually by the California
Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), pursuant to Government Code §65962.5.33 The project
site is not listed on any database included in the Cortese List.
There is one property within a quarter mile of the site that is listed in the SWRCB database of leaking
underground storage tanks (LUST). The Tressler Property, located at 22110 McClellan Road
approximately 0.25 miles south of the site, is reported as having a leaking waste oil UST that affected
soil only.34 The regulatory agencies granted a case closure in 1997, indicating that the contamination
was contained and no further remedial action was necessary. Given the localized nature of soil
contamination and the distance to the project site, it is unlikely that the past release on the Tressler
Property would affect the trail alignment. Therefore, this LUST cleanup site is not considered a
potential source of contamination to the proposed project.
32 Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND.
33 The Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites identified by the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) as subject to removal or remedial action, as well as lists maintained by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The DTSC, CIWMB,
and SWRCB lists of hazardous materials sites are available online at
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm,
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/search.aspx , and http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/, respectively.
34 State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker website. Accessed September 30, 2010.
<http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0608501985.>
542
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 53 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.8.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
1, 11,
15
2) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
1, 11,
15
3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
1
4) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
1, 11,
15
5) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
1
6) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
1
7) Impair implementation of, or
physically interfere with, an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
1, 11
8) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
1, 11
543
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 54 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
The proposed project includes the construction of a trail connection between Scenic Circle and
Blackberry Farm Park via an existing pedestrian bridge. The project site is not included on any list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List).
There are no known sources of hazardous material contamination that would affect the proposed trail
alignment.
Construction workers could be exposed to hazards if elevated concentrations of agricultural
chemicals such as pesticides are present in the soil. The project site is not identified as having the
potential for hazardous levels of pesticide residue. 35 Given that vegetation restoration activities
under the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs)
dealing with the handling and application of herbicides and pesticides within the creek corridor, the
on-site habitat restoration area would not be considered a significant risk. Furthermore, construction
of the proposed project would not require major soil disturbance. For these reasons, the ongoing and
proposed vegetation restoration activities on the project site would not expose construction workers
to hazardous concentrations of agricultural chemicals.
Fuels, motor oil, and lubricants in use at a typical construction site could be considered hazardous.
The handling of hazardous materials during project construction would be completed in accordance
with local, state, and federal laws. The potential for an accidental release of chemicals that could
create a significant hazard is considered to be very low. To further minimize the risk of creating a
significant hazard through the use, transport, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials during
construction, the following BMPs from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) BMP
Handbook (2009 or most recent update) would be implemented:36
HM-9 Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
HM-10 Vehicle and Equipment Fueling
HM-11 Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
HM-12 Hazardous Materials Management
HM-13 Spill Prevention
HM-14 Spill Kit Location
As discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality, construction of the project would not result in a significant
impact associated with the emission of air pollutants. Operation of the proposed project (i.e., public
use of the proposed trail connection) would not involve the routine transport, use, disposal, emission,
or handling of hazardous materials. For these reasons, the proposed project would not expose the
public, environment, construction workers, or nearby school uses to significant hazards.
The construction and operation of the proposed project would not impair the implementation of an
adopted emergency response plan. Given that the proposed trail connection would not provide public
vehicular access through the corridor, the project would not affect any emergency evacuation routes.
The proposed project would improve emergency access in the project area by providing a formal,
code-compliant trail through an undeveloped public open space, as discussed in Sections 4.14 Public
Services and 4.16 Transportation.
4.8.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the generation of or exposure
to hazardous materials. (Less Than Significant Impact)
35 Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND.
36 These measures are described in detail in Appendix A of this Initial Study.
544
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 55 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This discussion is based on the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND and a memo report prepared by
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. (October 2010), which is contained in Appendix B.
4.9.1 Setting
The project site is located within the riparian corridor of Stevens Creek. The Stevens Creek
watershed encompasses 38 square miles in western Santa Clara County. The headwaters of Stevens
Creek originates on the west slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Downstream of the project site,
Stevens Creek flows through the northern portion of the City of Cupertino, and continues through the
Los Altos, Sunnyvale and Mountain View. This portion of the creek is completely surrounded by
urban development. After passing under Highway 101, Stevens Creek flows into Whisman Slough
and then empties into San Francisco Bay. Stevens Creek is part of the Lower Peninsula Watershed,
which includes six other creeks and encompasses a total of 98 square miles.37
The creek was recently restored in the site vicinity through the removal of man-made features
(concrete walls, riprap, low-flow road crossings, and a diversion dam), channel widening, and
planting of native vegetation (refer to Section 3.1.2). With the recent completion of channel
restoration activities as part of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park – Phase I project, the hydrology of
the creek has been restored to more natural conditions.
4.9.1.1 Flooding and Drainage
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map of
the project area,38 the site is located in Zone AE. This is a flood hazard area subject to inundation by
the one percent annual chance (100-year) flood. The project site is also located within the dam
inundation hazard zone for Stevens Creek.39 The site is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow.
There are no existing drainage systems that convey the runoff to the creek within the project limits.
Stormwater runoff within the project site currently flows overland into the creek and/or percolates
through the soil to groundwater. There are existing storm drain outfalls at nearby locations within
the creek corridor.
4.9.1.2 Water Quality
The water quality of Stevens Creek depends on the volume of water, which varies throughout the
year, and the concentration of contaminated surface runoff that flows into the creek from storm
drains. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as “non-point” source pollutants, are washed
from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban
stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g.,
leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these
pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain.
37 Santa Clara Valley Water District. “Fast Facts: Lower Peninsula Watershed.” Accessed October 6, 2010.
<http://www.valleywater.org/Services/LowerPeninsulaFastFacts.aspx>
38 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map Number 06085C0208H. May 18,
2009.
39 ABAG. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Cupertino. 1995. Available at: <http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/pickdamx.pl>
545
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 56 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
Development and infrastructure projects can adversely affect the drainage and runoff pattern of a site
by increasing the impervious areas, decreasing natural vegetation, changing grading and soil
compaction, and creating new drainage facilities.40 These hydromodification activities can decrease
infiltration of stormwater into the ground, increase connectivity of runoff to creeks, and increase the
volume, duration, and frequency of flows. Overall, adverse hydromodification can cause stream
channel erosion, siltation of water bodies, on- and off-site flooding, and increased pollutant loads.
4.9.1.3 Regulatory Setting
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires local municipalities to implement measures to control
pollution from their storm sewer systems to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the State
of California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 and other State legislation require
municipalities to protect water quality. Regulations set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) have been developed to
fulfill the requirements of this legislation. These regulations are implemented at the regional level by
water quality control boards, which for the Cupertino area is the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB is also tasked with preparation and revision of a
regional Water Quality Control Plan, also known as the Basin Plan.41
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Under Section 303(d) of the 1972 federal Clean Water Act, states are required to identify impaired
surface water bodies and develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for contaminants of
concern.42 The TMDL is the quantity of pollutant that can be safely assimilated by a water body
without violating water quality standards. Listing of a water body as impaired does not necessarily
suggest that the water body cannot support the beneficial uses; rather, the intent is to identify the
water body as requiring future development of a TMDL to maintain water quality and reduce the
potential for future water quality degradation.
Stevens Creek is listed by the U.S. EPA as an impaired water body for diazanon, toxicity, trash, and
water temperature.43 The main source for trash and diazanon has been determined to be urban runoff
from storm sewers. Channelization, habitat modification, and removal of riparian vegetation are
considered the primary reasons for the elevated water temperature in the creek.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
In compliance with federal and state regulations, the RWQCB has issued an area-wide National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater permit to the City of
Cupertino and the other 14 co-permittees that constitute the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff
40 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. “Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP)”
Factsheet. May 2006. Available at: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/pdfs/0506/hmp_factsheet.pdf.
41 The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses, which the Regional Board has specifically designated for local aquifers,
streams, marshes, rivers, and the Bay, as well as the water quality objectives, and criteria that must be met to protect
these uses. The RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements to
control water quality and protect beneficial uses.
42 California State Water Resources Control Board. “Total Maximum Daily Load Program.” 2009. Accessed June
16, 2010. <http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_lists2006_approved.shtml>
43 California State Water Resources Control Board. “Impaired Water Bodies.” Updated June 14, 2010. Accessed
June 16, 2010. <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml>
546
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 57 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP).44 The provisions of the NPDES Municipal permit
require each of the co-permittees to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce
stormwater pollution from new development or redevelopment projects to the maximum extent
practicable.
Under Provision C.3 of the NPDES Municipal permit, projects that create, add, or replace 10,000
square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to control post-development storm water
through source control and treatment control BMPs. The proposed trail connection would not create
10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface and is exempt from Provision C.3 requirements.
Additional hydromodification controls are required for projects that create, add, or replace one acre
or more of impervious surfaces within an area where increases in runoff flow or volume can cause
increased erosion of creek beds and banks. According to the Hydromodification Management Plan
(HMP) Applicability Map for the SCVURPPP, the project alignment is located in a subwatershed
that is less than 65 percent impervious; however, given that construction of the proposed trail
connection would add less than one acre of impervious surface, the proposed project would be
exempt from the additional HMP requirements in the NPDES permit.45
NPDES General Permit for Construction Activity
All construction projects in the state are regulated by the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, which requires the preparation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for all projects that disturb an area of one acre or greater.
SWPPPs outline how the project will prevent polluted stormwater runoff and sediment from entering
the storm drainage system and local creeks. Given that the proposed project would disturb
approximately one half acre (22,000 square feet of land), it would not be required to obtain coverage
under the Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, effective July 1, 2010.46
44 The SCVURPPP was developed in accordance with the requirements of the 1986 San Francisco Bay Basin Water
Quality Control Plan, which was revised in 1995. The purpose of the program is to reduce water pollution
associated with urban stormwater runoff, which includes metals, pesticides, herbicides, and other contaminants such
as oil, grease, lead, and animal waste.
45 SCVURPPP. Classification of Subwatersheds and Catchment Areas for Determining Applicability of HMP
Requirements. Map. February 2009. Available at: http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/hmp.shtml.
46 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. “Construction Storm Water
Program.” Updated December 2009. Accessed March 1, 2010.
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml>
547
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 58 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.9.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements?
1, 11
2) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (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)?
1
3) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
1, 11
4) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on-or off-site?
1, 11,
16
5) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
1
6) Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
1, 11
7) Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
1
8) Place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
1, 16,
17
548
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 59 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
9) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
1, 11,
16
10) Be subject to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
1
4.9.2.1 Flooding and Drainage Impacts from the Project
According to the FEMA map, the proposed trail alignment is within the 100-year flood hazard zone
of Stevens Creek. The proposed approach ramps and stairway to the existing pedestrian bridge
would be constructed at the top of the creek bank. No project features are proposed in the low flow
channel or within wetland habitat areas.
Flooding
Although the proposed project would be constructed within the 100-year floodplain, hydrologic
impacts resulting from the project have been minimized through the preliminary design process. The
project is designed to minimize cut and fill by conforming the trail to existing grade to the extent
feasible, which helps maintain the conveyance capacity of the floodway. As described in Section
3.2.7, it is anticipated that the project would require approximately 75 cubic yards of imported fill to
construct the proposed approach ramps and trail connection in the sloped area near Scenic Circle.
The proposed trail connection would generally conform to existing grade along the primary flood
conveyance zone on the project site; therefore, it is unlikely that fill used for project construction
would affect flood water elevations.47 In addition, the width of the floodplain in the site vicinity
provides a large volume of flood conveyance capacity, which further reduces the potential for the
proposed trail and associated improvements to impede or redirect flood flows. For these reasons, the
proposed project would not result in significant flooding impacts.
Drainage
The proposed trail would consist of crushed or decomposed granite or a similar material. The project
proposes to include a stabilizer in the trail surface to reduce the potential for erosion. While crushed
or decomposed granite with stabilizer is not completely impervious, for purposes of this analysis, it is
assumed that construction of a trail would add approximately 2,500 square feet of impervious
surfaces to the project area.48 In accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
guidelines, surface water will be diverted from the trail by cross-sloping the trail surfacing by up to
two percent where needed. Runoff would be directed to the surrounding pervious surfaces. Given
the linear and narrow nature of the proposed increase in paved surfaces, the proposed project would
not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff.
47 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. “Scenic Circle Proposed Path Potential Flood Concerns Evaluation.” October 2010.
48 Hill Associates. Personal communication. October 2010.
549
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 60 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
Grading and filling for construction of the proposed trail connection and approach ramps could affect
the natural drainage pattern; however, the trail alignment conforms to grade to the extent possible
and substantial grading and filling would not be required. Furthermore, the project proposes to
support any cut or fill slopes adjacent to the trail connection with retaining walls and disturbed slopes
will be reseeded or replanted following project construction. In addition, the project has been
designed to avoid tree removal to the maximum extent feasible. Maintaining vegetation protects soil
structure and aids in soil permeability, which minimizes potential effects on drainage and water
quality resulting from erosion and siltation.
For these reasons, the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner that
could contribute to flooding or result in substantial erosion or siltation in the project area.
4.9.2.2 Flooding Impacts to Proposed Structures and Trail Users
The project does not include the development of residential uses, and therefore, it would not place
housing within a 100-year flood hazard area.
Given the project site’s location within the floodplain, the project would be exposed to occasional
flood events. The wooden approach ramps and stairway would be designed and constructed to
withstand routine high flow events; however, there is the potential that some reconstruction may be
required in the event of a major flood event. Decomposed or crushed granite (or similar material)
could be replaced in the event the trail surface is washed away during a flood event(s). Therefore,
potential damage to proposed structures as a result of flooding would not be significant.
As with the existing creek trail through the Stevens Creek Corridor Park, the proposed trail
connection would close during flooding events. Therefore, trail users would not be subjected to
impacts from flooding.
4.9.2.3 Water Quality
Long-term Impacts
To minimize the potential for littering, the City proposes to install trash and recycling receptacles
inside Blackberry Farm Park near the proposed access point on Scenic Circle, beyond the gate. Park
rangers would be responsible for daily pick up of trash/recyclables in vicinity of the gate, which
would reduce the potential for litter generated by trail users to enter Stevens Creek. In addition, the
presence of trail users within the creek area could discourage unlawful activity, including illegal
dumping. The project could also improve access to the creek for volunteer creek clean-ups, which is
an institutional control commonly used in the area for removing trash from urban creeks.49
Therefore, the project is not anticipated to increase the amount of trash entering the creek or cause
additional sources of pollution.
As previously described, the proposed project is not expected to generate a substantial amount of
stormwater runoff. As further described in Section 4.10 Land Use, the proposed project would be
consistent with the SCVWD’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, which contain
strategies for protecting water resources in Santa Clara County.
49 SCVURPPP. Trash BMP Toolbox. September 2007.
550
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 61 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
For these reasons, the project would not substantially increase polluted runoff or otherwise degrade
the water quality of Stevens Creek or San Francisco Bay.
Short-term Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would require minor grading and the removal and/or trimming
of trees at the embankment along Scenic Circle. These activities may result in temporary impacts to
surface water quality by increasing the potential for sedimentation during construction. Surface
runoff during construction could discharge into the creek. Chemicals commonly used during
construction (i.e., fuel, lubricants, solvents, and motor oil) could also degrade water quality if
allowed to enter the creek.
As described in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, temporary impacts to aquatic habitat will be
avoided by staging construction equipment in upland and/or currently developed areas to the
maximum extent feasible.
The proposed project includes implementation of applicable BMPs from the SCVWD’s BMP
Handbook (most recent update), as listed in Appendix A. The project also proposes to implement
applicable construction BMPs in the SCVURPPP’s Blueprint for a Clean Bay (Bay Area Stormwater
Management Agencies Association, 2004). The proposed erosion control measures are intended to
retain sediment on the site during grading operations, site preparation, and project construction. For
example, silt fencing would be placed on the downslope along the construction zone. Proposed
BMPs also include hazardous materials management, spill prevention, and site maintenance
measures that are intended to avoid impacts associated with chemical and fuel use during
construction (refer to Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
With implementation of these BMPs, the proposed project would not result in significant
construction-related impacts to water quality.
4.9.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project area or
expose structures or people to significant risk involving flooding. The project includes standard
BMPs to avoid impacts to water quality during construction. (Less than Significant Impact)
551
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 62 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.10 LAND USE
4.10.1 Setting
4.10.1.1 Existing Uses in the Project Area
The project site is located within Stevens Creek Corridor park lands, a public open space area that
was developed under a restoration and master plan approved in 2006 (refer to Section 3.1.1
Background). The proposed trail alignment travels through oak woodland and riparian habitats.
The project would connect Scenic Circle (located on the west side of the creek) to Blackberry Farm
Park and the existing Stevens Creek Trail (on east side of the creek) via an existing pedestrian bridge.
Scenic Circle is a local street that serves single-family residences. Blackberry Farm Park was
converted to a year-round community park in 2009 and consists of picnic areas, swimming pools, a
children’s play area, and other recreational facilities. McClellan Ranch Park, Monta Vista High
School, Kennedy Middle School, and Lincoln Elementary School are also located east of the creek in
the general project vicinity.
4.10.1.2 Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations
The project site is not located within an area covered by an adopted habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan.
Cupertino General Plan
The project site is designated as Parks and Open Space on the Cupertino General Plan Land Use
Map (2005). This land use designation is intended to ensure the availability of land for the
preservation of natural resources and for recreational purposes. The Scenic Circle neighborhood is
designated as Low Density Residential.
The City of Cupertino’s General Plan contains policies related to open space, parks and trails, as well
as environmental resources. Promoting more trails and connectivity along creeks, hillsides, and
through neighborhoods is a major goal of the General Plan. The Stevens Creek Corridor is
considered Cupertino’s most prominent urban open space resource and is identified as a major trail
corridor in the city. The General Plan includes policies and strategies related to the enhancement of
the Stevens Creek Corridor as a community resource.
The following policies in the Land Use/Community Design Element of the General Plan are most
relevant to the proposed project:
Policy 2-75: Park Walking Distance
Ensure that each household is within a half-mile walk of a neighborhood park, or community
park with neighborhood facilities, and that the route is reasonably free of physical barriers,
including streets with heavy traffic. Wherever possible, provide pedestrian links between
parks.
Policy 2-73: Open Space and Trail Linkages
Dedicate or acquire open space lands and trail linkages to connect areas and provide for a
more walkable community.
552
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 63 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
Relevant policies in the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element of the General Plan
include:
Policy 5-10: Landscaping Near Natural Vegetation
Emphasize drought tolerant and pest-resistant native and non-invasive, non-native, drought
tolerant plants and ground covers when landscaping properties near natural vegetation,
particularly for control of erosion from disturbance to the natural terrain.
Policy 5-11: Natural Area Protection
Preserve and enhance the existing natural vegetation, landscape features and open space
when new development is proposed.
Policy 5-13: Recreation in Natural Areas
Limit recreation in natural areas to activities compatible with preserving natural vegetation,
such as hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking and camping.
Policy 5-14: Recreation and Wildlife Trails
Provide open space linkages within and between properties for both recreational and wildlife
activities, most specifically for the benefit of wildlife that is threatened, endangered or
designated as species of special concern.
Cupertino Ordinances
The proposed project would be subject to Cupertino’s Zoning Ordinance. The majority of the project
site is zoned PR – Park and Recreation with a very small portion zoned R1-7.5, Single Family
Residential. The Scenic Circle neighborhood is also zoned R1-7.5 on the Cupertino Zoning Map
(2010).
The Park and Recreation zone regulates the land uses and recreational activity permitted within
publicly owned parks within the City. In addition to parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities, and
nature preserves, other permitted uses in the Park and Recreation zoning district include agricultural
uses, single-family residences for the purpose of housing a caretaker of the park, and parking or other
accessory facilities incidental to the permitted uses.
The Cupertino Tree Ordinance is addressed in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, and the Noise
Ordinance is addressed in Section 4.12 Noise.
Santa Clara County – Countywide Trails Master Plan Update
The 1995 Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (Master Plan Update) was prepared as an element
of the Santa Clara County General Plan. The Master Plan Update includes strategies and policies to
direct the County’s trail implementation efforts well into the twenty-first century. The Master Plan
Update also identifies potential trail routes throughout the county. The Stevens Creek Trail is
identified as a sub-regional trail crossing the cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and
Cupertino linking the San Francisco Bay Trail with the Bay Area Ridge Trail.
The Master Plan Update includes design, use, and management guidelines for the implementation of
new county trails. The guidelines address trails and land use compatibility, environmental
protection, emergency access, easements, trail design, visual screening, fire protection, signage, and
maintenance. The guidelines in the Master Plan Update are generally directed to rural areas in the
County. The guidelines are intended to provide general guidance, rather than standards that dictate
553
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 64 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
the trail design. Each trail should be evaluated individually, taking into account actual field
conditions and trail route/land use relationships.
Strategies and policies included in the County’s Master Plan Update for the purpose of addressing
environmental effects of trail development include the following:
• Provide recreation, transportation, and other public trail needs in balance with environmental
and landowner concerns.
• Trail routes shall be located, designed and developed with sensitivity to their potential
environmental, recreational, and other impacts on adjacent lands and private property.
• Adequately operate and maintain trails so that user safety, resource conditions, and adjacent
land uses are not compromised.
• Trails shall be temporarily closed when conditions become unsafe or environmental
resources are severely impacted.
• Levels-of-use and types-of-use on trails shall be controlled to avoid unsafe use conditions or
severe environmental degradation.
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
The SCVWD is a special purpose governmental agency with jurisdiction over all creeks, channels,
and floodways that are within the district’s boundaries. An encroachment permit must be obtained
from the SCVWD for construction on land either owned by, or under easement to, the district.
Otherwise, each city or the County has permitting authority for streamside activities on all properties
located within 50 feet from the top of bank.
The SCVWD’s Water Resources Protection Collaborative developed the Guidelines and Standards
for Land Use Near Streams to assist local agencies, homeowners, and developers about the
permitting requirements, with the ultimate goal of protecting streams and adjacent property owners.
If a proposed project falls within the “streamside review area,” the permitting agency reviews the
permit application using these guidelines. A Streamside Permit from the City of Cupertino would be
required for the proposed project.
554
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 65 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.10.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
LAND USE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Physically divide an established
community?
1, 18
2) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 4, 18,
19
3) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
1
The proposed project is the construction of a trail connection on land within Blackberry Farm Park.
Construction of the proposed project would occur within the existing public right-of-way. No
existing land uses on the project site or in the surrounding area would be altered as a result of the
proposed project.
4.10.2.1 Land Use Compatibility
The proposed trail connection would be used for non-motorized travel (i.e., walking, jogging,
bicycling, etc.). Equestrian use would not be permitted, although leashed dogs would be allowed.
The project is intended to provide alternative transportation options and enhance recreational
opportunities for residents that live in the area. The proposed access point to the trail connection is
located as far from the nearest residences as practical, in conformance with Santa Clara County’s
trail design guidelines for land use compatibility. The City of Cupertino held two meetings with
residents during the conceptual design phase of the trail connection to provide the opportunity for
community input and to help ensure neighborhood concerns were considered in the project proposal.
The trail connection has been designed to minimize conflicts with existing land uses in the
surrounding area, including existing residential uses and public parks/open space.
The project does not include any features that would divide established communities. Currently,
Stevens Creek divides the residential areas to the west with the public amenities to the east, and a
limited number of vehicular and pedestrian bridges serve as connections. The proposed trail project
would connect an existing residential area to parks, public open space, schools, and the city’s trail
network. The proposed project would improve connectivity and would not physically divide the
surrounding community.
As described in Section 4.16 Transportation, the proposed project is not anticipated to attract vehicle
traffic to the Scenic Circle neighborhood. The project is intended to serve residents travelling by foot
or bicycle. Existing parking would continue to be available at Blackberry Farm and McClellan
Ranch Parks for park and trail users arriving by vehicle, and “No Park Parking” signage would be
555
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 66 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
posted at Scenic Circle to discourage vehicle parking. Scenic Circle is an isolated neighborhood that
does not provide an obvious access point to the park, and the proposed project is not expected to
attract a substantial volume of people. The project includes additional options for parking control
should the proposed Tier 1 measure not be effective at discouraging people from parking their
vehicles on Scenic Circle (refer to Section 3.2.4 of the Project Description). Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in land use impacts as a result of increased traffic in the Scenic Circle
neighborhood.
For the reasons described above, the proposed project would not result in significant land use
compatibility impacts.
4.10.2.2 Conformance with Land Use Plans
Cupertino Zoning Ordinance
The proposed project would not conflict with the PR – Park and Recreation or R1-7.5 zoning on the
site. The PR – Park and Recreation is intended to allow a range of recreational facilities for public
use, including trails. The project would be consistent with these zoning districts, because it would
provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities for resident use. The project is intended to enhance the
enjoyment of park users, while minimizing effects on nearby private property owners.
Cupertino General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan land use designation of Parks and
Open Space because it is the construction of a trail connection for recreational uses. The proposed
improvements along Scenic Circle, including the at-grade access point, would not conflict with the
General Plan land use designations of adjacent residential properties. The proposed project is
consistent with the intended use of Stevens Creek Corridor park lands by improving connectivity to a
major trail corridor and encouraging resident use of the open space areas and community parks.
The project is consistent with the above Land Use policies as it would provide a more walkable
community by dedicating a trail linkage connecting residential and parks/open space areas. The
project would help the City further its goal of ensuring that each household is within a half-mile walk
of a community park by providing a direct pedestrian connection between the Scenic Circle
neighborhood and Blackberry Farm Park.
The project is also consistent with the policies in the Environmental Resources/Sustainability
Element of the Cupertino General Plan. The proposed project would provide open space linkages for
both recreational and wildlife activities, would incorporate recreational use compatible with
preserving natural vegetation, and use native vegetation in the restoration of woodland habitat within
the Stevens Creek corridor. The project also includes measures to avoid and minimize impacts to
biological and water resources during construction.
Where applicable, other General Plan policies are discussed in the relevant environmental sections as
they relate to other environmental issues (e.g. General Plan Noise policies are discussed in the Noise
section).
Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan
The proposed project is the connection to a sub-regional trail as identified in the 1995 Countywide
Trails Master Plan Update. The proposed project would not conflict with the intended uses of the
556
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 67 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
trail (i.e., hiking and biking). The Master Plan Update was considered during the conceptual design
stage for the proposed trail connection. Guidelines have been incorporated into the project with the
purpose of reducing or avoiding environmental impacts, as described in Sections 4.4 Biological
Resources and 4.14 Public Services. The proposed project is generally consistent with strategies and
guidelines in Santa Clara County’s Countywide Trails Master Plan Update and the associated
Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines.
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
A Streamside Permit from the City of Cupertino would be obtained for the proposed project. The
SCVWD’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams were considered during the design
development of the proposed trail connection and the design is consistent with applicable guidelines.
4.10.2.3 Construction-related Impacts
Project construction could cause temporary annoyances to the residential uses adjacent to the site.
As discussed in Sections 4.3 Air Quality and 4.12 Noise, the proposed project includes mitigation and
avoidance measures to reduce short-term impacts to adjacent residential uses to a less than significant
level.
During project construction, trucks would be used to haul materials to and from the site.
Construction vehicle and equipment access would occur from both the east and west sides of the
creek, since the project involves work and improvements on both sides. Given the size and nature of
the proposed project, truck traffic volumes are expected to be low. It is estimated that the delivery of
imported fill would require approximately 12 truck trips, and trail material delivery would involve
approximately eight truck trips. Construction activity, including material deliveries, would occur in
conformance with the Cupertino Municipal Code. For these reasons, construction-related traffic is
not expected to significantly affect residential neighborhoods.
4.10.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with land use compatibility.
The project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. (Less than
Significant Impact)
557
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 68 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
4.11.1 Setting
Mineral resources found and extracted in Santa Clara County include construction aggregate deposits
such as sand, gravel, and crushed stone. The Santa Clara County General Plan (1995) does not
identify any significant mineral resource area in the urbanized areas of the County, including the
project area.
4.11.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
1
2) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
1
The project site is not located within a designated area containing mineral deposits of regional or
local significance and therefore, would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource.
4.11.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact from the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource. (No Impact)
558
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 69 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.12 NOISE
4.12.1 Setting
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Noise levels are usually measured and reported in
decibels (dB), which is a numerical expression of sound levels on a logarithmic scale.
4.12.1.1 Applicable Noise Standards and Policies
According to the Cupertino General Plan (2005), the maximum normally acceptable Community
Noise Exposure Level (CNEL) level for outdoor recreation areas is 70 dB for playgrounds and
neighborhood parks.50 The City of Cupertino has a comprehensive noise ordinance (Chapter 10.48
of the Cupertino Municipal Code) that regulates both temporary (construction) and permanent noise
levels that are allowed within the City.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip
or public use airport.
4.12.1.2 Existing Noise Sources
In Cupertino, the predominant source of noise is from vehicle and truck traffic on the City’s
roadways. The major roads in the project area include Stevens Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard,
Byrne Avenue, and McClellan Road. Large picnic groups at Blackberry Farm Park during the
summer are also a source of noise in the vicinity of the existing pedestrian bridge on the project site.
4.12.1.3 Sensitive Receptors
Residential land uses are considered to be more “sensitive” to noise because some associated activities
require a quiet noise environment, such as sleeping. Sensitive noise receptors in the project vicinity
include the single-family residences located in the Scenic Circle neighborhood to the south. The
closest residence is located approximately 65 feet from the project site.
50 CNEL is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with a five dBA penalty applied to the hourly Leq for noise occurring
from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m, and 10 dB penalties applied for noises occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
559
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 70 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.12.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project result in:
1) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
1, 4,
11, 18
2) Exposure of persons to, or generation
of, excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
1, 11
3) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
1, 11
4) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
1, 11
5) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
1
6) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
1
4.12.2.1 Long-Term Noise Impacts
The residences located on Scenic Circle south of the site are considered noise sensitive uses. Long-
term noise related to the proposed project would be from the trail users. Specific sources would
typically consist of human behaviors (conversations, laughing, shouting, etc.) and warning bells
mounted on bicycles. Typical noise levels associated with a shout or ringing bell would be 65-70
decibels at a distance of 20 feet, with conversations and laughing measuring 50-55 decibels at the
same distance. While it is likely that occasional noise from trail users would be audible at nearby
residences, the effects would not be significant based on the following facts:
• The noise generated by the proposed trail connection would be consistent with the existing
sources of ambient noise, given the neighborhood setting and proximity to park uses.
560
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 71 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
• The proposed trail connection will be open daily during park hours and will be locked at all
other times, eliminating the potential for any trail-generated noise to disturb residences
during the noise-sensitive nighttime hours. Currently park hours are sunrise to a half hour
after sunset.51
• The provision of parking for users of the trail connection is not included in the project. The
trail connection is intended to serve local pedestrians and bicyclists. Park and trail parking
would be discouraged with the posting of signage in the Scenic Circle neighborhood (refer to
Section 3.2.4). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in
traffic noise on Scenic Circle.
Given the intermittent use of the trail during day-time hours and the relatively low increase in noise,
the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project area above existing levels. The proposed project would not generate noise levels in
excess of long-term standards established in the Cupertino General Plan or noise ordinance.
Impacts to the Trail Users
Ambient noise levels along the proposed trail connection would be consistent with the noise levels in
the surrounding residential neighborhood and Blackberry Farm Park. Therefore, trail users would
not be exposed to levels in excess of Cupertino standards for park and trail uses.
4.13.2.2 Short-Term Construction Noise
Construction of the trail and other project improvements would result in short-term, localized
increases in ambient noise levels at adjacent residential and park uses during the expected
construction period (approximately four months). Given that construction noise depends on the type
of activity, noise levels would vary considerably day-to-day, and nearby residents would not be
continuously exposed to maximum noise levels throughout the construction period. Noise levels are
expected to be highest during site grading, which is anticipated to require approximately one month.
The proposed project would be subject to the Cupertino Noise Ordinance, including the following
restrictions in Section 10.48.053, “Grading, Construction and Demolition”:
A. Grading, construction and demolition activities shall be allowed to exceed the noise limits of
Section 10.48.040 during daytime hours; provided, that the equipment utilized has high-
quality noise muffler and abatement devices installed and in good condition, and the activity
meets one of the following two criteria:
1. No individual device produces a noise level more than eighty-seven dBA at a distance of
twenty-five feet (7.5 meters); or
2. The noise level on any nearby property does not exceed eighty dBA.
B. Notwithstanding Section 10.48.053A, it is a violation of this chapter to engage in any
grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within seven hundred
fifty feet of a residential area on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and during the nighttime
period, except as provided in Section 10.48.030.
51 Park hours may be adjusted in the future to accommodate school activities at public schools in the area per City
Council direction on October 5, 2010; however, if implemented, this adjustment is not expected to result in noise
that would be considered significant.
561
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 72 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
C. Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited on holidays, except as provided in
Sections 10.48.029 and 10.48.030.
D. Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited during nighttime periods unless it
meets the nighttime standards of Section 10.48.040.
By limiting construction to daytime hours and prohibiting certain construction activities during
nighttime hours and on weekends and holidays, the potential for construction noise to disturb
residences during the noise-sensitive hours would be minimized. In addition, by restricting heavy
construction activities to the hours when the majority of residents may be at work or school, the
number of people affected by elevated noise levels is reduced.
Given that completion of the project would require less than one construction season, the effects of
construction on ambient noise levels would be temporary in nature. The project would not require
the extended use of any heavy equipment that would generate a substantial prolonged increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. The project would comply with the Cupertino Noise
Ordinance and includes additional avoidance measures to control construction noise. For these
reasons, construction of the proposed project would not result in significant noise impacts to
surrounding residential uses during construction.
4.13.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in significant short- or long-term noise impacts to surrounding
residential uses. Impacts to future trail users as a result of the existing ambient noise levels in the
project area would also be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
562
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 73 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.13.1 Setting
According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the population of the City of
Cupertino in 2000 was 50,546. The population of Cupertino is expected to increase to approximately
57,100 in 2030.52 There are no dwelling units located on the site.
4.13.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Induce substantial population growth
in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
1
2) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1
3) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
1
The proposed project is the construction of a trail connection within a developed area of Cupertino.
The trail connection would link an existing neighborhood street (Scenic Circle) to an existing trail
through Blackberry Farm Park, utilizing an existing pedestrian bridge over Stevens Creek. The
project is intended to serve the residential population in the project area.
The proposed project does not include the demolition of existing structures, and therefore, it would
not displace any housing. Given the nature of the project and that the surrounding area is currently
served by transportation infrastructure, the construction of the proposed trail would not induce
growth in the area.
4.14.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not affect population or housing within the project area or regionally.
No mitigation measures are required or proposed. (No Impact)
52 Association of Bay Area Governments. Projections 2009.
563
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 74 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14.1 Setting
4.15.1.1 Fire and Police Service
The proposed project is located within an urbanized area of Cupertino. Fire, police, and emergency
services are provided by Santa Clara County. The closest fire station is the Monta Vista Fire Station,
which is located on Stevens Creek Blvd west of South Foothill Boulevard, approximately one mile
from the project site. The Santa Clara County Sheriff Department provides police patrol services,
criminal investigation, traffic enforcement, accident investigation and tactical teams for the City of
Cupertino.
4.15.1.2 Schools, Parks, and Other Public Services
The project site is located within the public open space area of the Stevens Creek Corridor park
lands, which include Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch Parks. Blackberry Farm Park, a
community park, is located on the east side of the creek, adjacent to the project site. McClellan
Ranch Park is located east of the creek, south of Scenic Circle. Although the neighborhood is
essentially bounded by these two parks, there is no direct connection and residents currently have to
use streets outside of the neighborhood to access these parks. Using the McClellan Road route, the
walking distance from the Scenic Boulevard/Palm Avenue intersection to the entrance of McClellan
Ranch Park is approximately 0.38 miles, while distance to the entrance of Blackberry Farm Park is
approximately 1.09 miles. An additional public neighborhood park, Monta Vista Park, is located
approximately 0.35 miles (walking distance) west of the Scenic Circle neighborhood.
The project alignment connects to an approximately 0.7-mile long reach of the Stevens Creek Trail
that runs along the east side of the creek through Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch parks. The
public parks and associated creek trail within Stevens Creek Corridor are open to the public daily. A
Park ranger patrols these facilities.
564
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 75 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.14.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the need for
new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire Protection? 1
Police Protection? 1
Schools? 1
Parks? 1
Other Public Facilities? 1
4.15.2.1 Fire and Police Service
The project could potentially increase the need for police and fire protection services because the trail
connection would be located in an area not currently open to the public (although this area was
formerly used as a group picnic area until its removal in 2008). The introduction of more individuals
along the proposed alignment may increase calls for service within the project area. The reported
incidents, if any, are expected to be similar to those that occur at neighborhood parks or other trails in
the region. The proposed project, however, would not result in a significant increase in the need for
fire or police services within the project area.
Furthermore, the presence of trail users within the creek area could discourage unlawful activity,
including the setting of fires. The construction of the trail itself could also improve emergency
access to the west side of the creek, which is fairly secluded due to the existing fencing along Scenic
Circle.
Adequate fire, police, and emergency access would be maintained on the project site during and after
construction. Adequate water supply to fight fires is provided by existing fire hydrants located
within the adjacent residential neighborhood, an existing hydrant located approximately 130 feet
from the east end of the bridge, and other hydrants in the public park area. For these reasons, no new
police or fire facilities would be needed to maintain response times or other performance objectives.
565
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 76 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.15.2.2 Schools, Parks, and Other Public Services
The proposed project is the construction of a trail connection that would provide direct, year round
pedestrian and bicycle access from the Scenic Circle neighborhood to a community park and existing
creek trail. Because the proposed project does not include the construction of new buildings or land
uses, it would not generate students served by local schools or increase the demand for parks and
other public facilities such as community centers or libraries.
As discussed in Section 4.10 Land Use, the purpose of the proposed project directly supports the
Cupertino General Plan goal of ensuring that each household is within a half-mile walk of a
community park, because the trail connection would substantially reduce the walking distance from
the residential area west of the creek to Blackberry Farm Park and other public parks such as
McClellan Ranch Park. By supporting the City’s performance objectives for walkability,
connectivity, and park access, the proposed project would have a beneficial effect on the provision of
public parks in Cupertino.
The proposed trail connection would result in a slight increase in the need for trail maintenance by
the City of Cupertino maintenance staff and/or rangers. The trail would require regular maintenance
such as litter and dog waste pickup, emptying trash receptacles, sweeping or removing major debris
from the trail, and repairs. The City’s park rangers would perform light maintenance duties at the
park and on the trail. Major maintenance activities would be implemented by City maintenance or
public works staff, as is the case for Stevens Creek Trail.
The Trail Use and Management Guidelines in the Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (1995)
include measures intended to ensure that trails would be adequately maintained, including trail
closure or repair as warranted; good pruning practices; corrective work for drainage or erosion
problems; and replacement of damaged gates, fences, and barriers. As with the existing Stevens
Creek Trail through Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch parks, these measures would be
implemented as part of the operation of the proposed trail connection project.
While the proposed trail and access point would result in an additional trail access area to be
maintained, the existing maintenance facilities of the City of Cupertino would be adequate to serve
the project. The project site is within Blackberry Farm Park and is operated and maintained by the
City. There would be no need for any new or additional maintenance facilities to maintain
performance objectives for public trail facilities.
4.15.3 Conclusion
The proposed project could result in a slight increase in the demand for police and fire protection;
however, emergency access to the creek area would be improved overall. The project would provide
additional recreational opportunities within the project area. Therefore, the project would not result
in significant impacts to public services and no mitigation measures are proposed or required. (Less
than Significant Impact)
566
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 77 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.15 RECREATION
4.15.1 Setting
The project site is located within a primarily residential area of Cupertino. As described in Section
4.14 Public Services, there are several public parks within the project area. Blackberry Farm Park
includes various recreational features including swimming pools, children’s play areas, and other
amenities. McClellan Ranch Park includes a nature preserve, trails, and a community garden.
4.15.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
1
2) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
1
As described in Section 3.1.2, the proposed trail connection would serve as an access point to
Blackberry Farm Park and the Stevens Creek Trail from the Scenic Circle neighborhood for residents
travelling by foot or bicycle. The proposed project is intended to enhance recreational opportunities,
improve connectivity with the citywide trail network, and increase access to open space and
parkland. Linking to existing trails also maximizes use of trail amenities (i.e., restrooms, trash
receptacles, bike racks, parking, etc.). Because the project would improve resident access, it could
incrementally increase use of Blackberry Farm Park and other recreational facilities in the area such
as McClellan Ranch Park and the creek trail. It is not anticipated that this change would result in the
accelerated or substantial deterioration of these existing recreational facilities.
The proposed project is the construction of a recreational facility: a trail connection within a public
open space area. The project would not result in significant environmental effects with the
implementation of avoidance and mitigation measures, as described in this Initial Study. The project
would not require the expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment.
4.16.3 Conclusion
The project would not result in physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities. No
mitigation measures are required or proposed. (Less than Significant Impact)
567
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 78 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.16 TRANSPORTATION
4.16.1 Setting
The project alignment is bounded by Scenic Circle to the south (on the west side of the Stevens
Creek) and an existing creek trail through Blackberry Farm Park to the north (east side of the creek).
Regional access to the project site is provided by State Route (SR) 85 and Interstate 280.
Scenic Circle is a neighborhood street that serves single-family residences. It forms a loop and
connects to Scenic Boulevard at the intersection with Palm Avenue. Access to the Scenic Circle
neighborhood is provided by Foothill Boulevard via Palm Avenue, McClellan Road via Mira
Vista/Palm Avenue, and local streets via Scenic Boulevard.
Blackberry Farm Park is located off San Fernando Avenue. Local access to the park is provided by
McClellan Road via Byrne Avenue. The creek trail extends northward from McClellan Road at
McClellan Ranch Park.
The proposed project is not near a private or public airport.
4.16.1.1 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities
Sidewalks are provided along the “inner” side of Scenic Circle adjacent to the residences, but not
along the creek-side of the street. Although some roads lack sidewalks, crosswalks, and designated
bike lanes, most neighborhood streets in the area are suitable for bicycle and pedestrian travel due to
the low traffic volumes and vehicle speeds, including Scenic Circle.
On-street bike lanes are provided on McClellan Road (east of Byrne Avenue), Stevens Creek
Boulevard, and Foothill Boulevard in the project area. McClellan Road between Byrne Avenue and
Foothill Boulevard has a street rating of “alert” according to the VTA’s Bikeways Map (2008).53
This rating is given to streets with moderate traffic volumes and speeds, a medium-width travel area
for bicycles (along shoulders or curb lanes), and a moderate to high parking turnover.
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) provides transit service in the project area.
The closest bus route to the site is Route 51, which runs along Stevens Creek Boulevard,
approximately 0.5 miles to the north.54 Route 51 provides service between De Anza College and
Moffett Airfield.
4.16.1.2 Regulatory Framework
As described in Section 4.11 Land Use, the Cupertino General Plan contains policies that support the
creation of trail linkages. Cupertino’s Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2002) and Bicycle
Transportation Plan (1998) also outline the City’s goals to increase walkability and expand the
bicycle network. In addition, Santa Clara County’s 1995 Countywide Trails Master Plan Update and
the associated Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines identify
potential trail routes and include guidelines for trails.
53 Rated streets are frequently used by bicyclists. The street ratings on VTA’s Bikeways Map include “Extreme
Caution” to “Alert” to “Moderate”. The map is available at: http://www.vta.org/schedules/bikeways_map.html.
54 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Bus & Rail Map. Effective January 11, 2010. Available at:
http://www.vta.org/schedules/pdf/bus_rail_map_a.pdf.
568
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 79 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
Congestion Management Program
VTA is the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County and oversees the
County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP). In conformance with state legislation, the
County’s CMP contains the five mandatory elements: 1) a system definition and traffic level of
service (LOS) standard element; 2) a transit service and standards element; 3) a transportation
demand management and trip reduction element; 4) a land use impact analysis element; and 5) a
capital improvement element. The CMP also includes a Multimodal Performance Measures Element
to evaluate how well the CMP Transportation System serves the traveling public.
The CMP Transportation System consists of three networks: roadway, transit, and bicycle. The
roadway network includes interstate highways, state highways, county expressways, and principal
arterials. CMP-designated intersections are monitored for conformance with the CMP’s traffic level
of service standard (LOS E).55 CMP-designated roadway facilities in the project vicinity include
Stevens Creek Boulevard, I-280, and SR 85.
According to the CMP, bicycles play a significant role in the countywide transportation system by
providing both direct transportation and access to public transit services.56 Therefore, one of the
goals of the CMP is to provide for safe and convenient bicycling for various types of trips, such as
work, school, errands, and recreation by focusing improvements on the cross-county bicycle
corridors.57 The CMP bicycle network is based on the countywide bicycle plan, originally adopted
by VTA in 2000 and updated in 2008. According to the 2008 Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan,
the Stevens Creek Trail is designated as a cross-county bicycle corridor.
55 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. VTA Transportation Handbook. 2009. Available at:
http://www.vta.org/brochures_publications/transportation_handbook.html.
56 Ibid.
57 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Draft 2007 CMP. November 2007.
569
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 80 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.16.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
1, 18,
19
2) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1
3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
1
4) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
land uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1
5) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1
6) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
1, 18,
19
Given that the project site is not near a private or public airport, the project would not affect air
traffic patterns.
4.16.2.1 Performance of the Circulation System
The proposed project is the construction of a trail connection from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm
Park. As previously described, the proposed trail connection would link a residential area with
community parks/open space, schools, and the city’s trail network. By providing residents with
additional opportunities for using non-motorized modes of transportation, the project enhances the
viability of trails as a travel option and may result in fewer vehicle trips in the community.
570
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 81 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
The proposed trail connection would basically serve as an additional access point to the park and
creek trail. The project, however, is intended to serve the residents in the area travelling by foot or
bicycle and not be a major access point. The creation of new vehicular parking for trail use is not
part of the project. Visitors to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch parks
that arrive by vehicle would continue to use the existing parking facilities on the east side of the
creek. As described in Section 3.2.4, a sign would be posted on Scenic Boulevard at the entrance to
the Scenic Circle neighborhood to discourage users of Stevens Creek Trail and park visitors from
parking their vehicles on Scenic Circle. Additional parking control measures would be implemented
should the proposed Tier 1 measure not be effective at restricting park and trail parking. Therefore,
the proposed project is not expected to generate significant vehicle traffic in the Scenic Circle
neighborhood.
Because the project is not expected to generate significant vehicle trips and could even reduce
vehicle use in the city in the long-term, it would not result in significant transportation impacts
caused by increased traffic congestion. The proposed trail connection would expand the network of
pedestrian/bicycle facilities in the community, as well as improve conditions for non-motorized
travel, as described below. For these reasons, the project could result in an overall beneficial effect
on the performance of the city’s circulation system.
4.16.2.2 Hazards
No design features that would increase hazards are included in the proposed project. All components
of the proposed trail project, including the access point, approach ramps, and stairway, would be
constructed according to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The proposed construction of an off-street pathway would provide a safer facility for non-motorized
travel. By utilizing an existing pedestrian bridge over the creek, the project allows for a continuous
off-street alignment and reduces exposure of pedestrian and bicyclists to conflicts with vehicles. In
contrast, trails that utilize on-street alignments typically pose additional safety issues, particularly on
streets that lack sidewalks and/or bicycle lanes. As previously described, McClellan Road has a
street rating of “alert”, and the use of the proposed trail connection would avoid potential conflicts
with vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists on this street and other busy roadways in the area.
Therefore, the project would improve safety conditions for local school children by allowing a more
direct and safer route to the tri-school area east of the creek (including Monta Vista, Kennedy, and
Lincoln Schools).
No sidewalks are located along the creek side of Scenic Circle; however, low traffic volumes and
vehicle speeds should allow for the safe travel of pedestrians to the proposed trail access point.
Because the proposed project is designed to minimize hazards and provide an off-street alternative
for pedestrians and bicyclists, the project would not result in significant safety impacts.
4.16.2.3 Impacts to Transit
By providing a direct connection to an existing creek trail that is proposed to extend north to Stevens
Creek Boulevard, the proposed project would ultimately improve access to the nearest bus route on
Stevens Creek Boulevard. The proposed project would not adversely affect transit service within the
project area and could even complement the use of transit as a commute option. Therefore, the
proposed project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs supporting transit.
571
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 82 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.16.2.4 Emergency Access
Emergency personnel would be able to access the project site from Scenic Circle and Blackberry
Farm Park. The proposed project may improve emergency access to the west side of the creek by
providing a formal pathway through an open space area that is currently closed to the public.
4.16.2.5 Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Programs
As described in Section 4.11 Land Use, the project is generally consistent with the policies regarding
bicycle transportation and encouraging alternatives to the use of the automobile in the Cupertino
General Plan. The project is also generally consistent with the Santa Clara County’s 1995
Countywide Trails Master Plan and associated Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and
Management Guidelines. The conceptual design process for the proposed project took into account
environmental conditions, land use compatibility, connectivity with the trail network, and safety.
The project is consistent with the City’s goals to increase walkability and expand the bicycle network
as outlined in Cupertino’s Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2002) and Bicycle Transportation Plan
(1998).
Because the proposed project is not expected to generate vehicle traffic, it would not affect CMP-
designated roadways in the project area. The project supports the development of a cross-county
bicycle corridor, as established in the 2008 Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan. The project is
consistent with the CMP goal to provide for safe and convenient bicycling for a variety of trip types,
as described above. For these reasons, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable
plan, ordinance, or policy that measures the performance of the circulation system or supports public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
4.16.3 Conclusion
The proposed trail connection would expand the network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the
project area. The proposed project would not result in significant transportation impacts. No
mitigation measures are required or proposed. (Less than Significant Impact)
572
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 83 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.17.1 Setting
The project area is currently served by existing utility lines. An existing irrigation system is located
on the site in the flat area west of Stevens Creek. This system supports an upland vegetation
restoration area that is currently maintained by the City.
4.17.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
1
2) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
1
3) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
1
4) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
1
5) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing
commitments?
1
6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1
7) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
1
The project does not include the construction or expansion of any new utilities, including storm
drains, water pipelines, or sewer lines. The existing irrigation system on the site would be modified
to accommodate the proposed trail alignment and proposed added plantings; however, these
573
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 84 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
improvements would not require substantial ground disturbance and would not cause any significant
environmental effects. The project would not substantially affect demand for water supplies.
Wildlife-resistant trash/recycling receptacles would be provided on the project site. Park rangers
would be responsible for daily pick up of the trash/recyclables disposed in the proposed receptacles.
The project would not generate substantial amounts of solid waste, and landfills serving the project
area would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s incremental increase in disposal
needs.
4.17.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to utilities and service systems.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are required or proposed. (Less than Significant Impact)
574
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 85 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
1) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
1, 7, 9,
11
2) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
1, 11
3) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
1, 4, 10,
11, 12,
13, 15
4) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term environmental goals
to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals?
1, 6, 18,
19
4.18.1 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project
As determined in the previous sections of this Initial Study, the project would not result in significant
environmental impacts with the implementation of mitigation and avoidance measures. These
measures would ensure that existing biological resources and possible buried archaeological
resources would not be significantly impacted by the project. For these reasons, the proposed project
will not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, significantly affect protected plant or
wildlife species, or eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory.
The proposed project would expand the pedestrian/bicycle network and improve safety conditions for
non-motorized travel in the community. Final project design will be completed by appropriately
licensed professionals and subject to review by the City to ensure the proposed design meets
applicable code requirements. For these reasons, construction of the proposed project would not
result in significant long-term or short-term environmental effects to human beings, either directly or
indirectly.
575
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 86 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
While the project could result in temporary, construction-related effects to air quality, noise, and
water quality, the project would not result in any significant impacts with implementation of the
proposed mitigation and avoidance measures. The project is consistent with several long-term
environmental goals, such as increasing access to parks and improving walkability in the community.
For these reasons, the proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
4.18.2 Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Project
The project site is located adjacent to an established, primarily residential area of Cupertino. As
described in various sections of this Initial Study, the City is carrying out a Master Plan for the
Stevens Creek Corridor. Many elements of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan have been
completed, including Phase I improvements. The proposed project complements the beneficial
effects of the Master Plan elements by providing trail facilities and improving non-motorized access
to public park lands.
In addition to implementation of Phase 2 of the Master Plan, there are three other projects that have
been approved within Stevens Creek Corridor. These include: 1) the construction of an
environmental education building at McClellan Ranch; 2) the relocation of the Blacksmith Shop at
McClellan Ranch; and 3) Blackberry Farm Infrastructure upgrades. No other improvements under
the Stevens Creek Corridor project are planned in the vicinity of the trail connection project site.
The City-initiated projects could result in similar temporary construction-related air quality and noise
impacts as the proposed project, although standard avoidance and mitigation measures would be
implemented to reduce impacts to surrounding land uses and natural resources (if applicable) to a less
than significant level.58 Given the distance to McClellan Ranch Park (approximately one quarter
mile away), the construction of an environmental education building and the relocation of the
Blacksmith Shop would not affect the same receptors. Furthermore, construction of these two
projects, as well as implementation of Phase 2 of the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan, is not
expected to occur at the same time as the proposed Scenic Circle project. While the construction
period for the Blackberry Farm Infrastructure project could overlap with the construction of the
proposed trail connection, the park upgrades would also not substantially affect the residential uses
on Scenic Circle, due to the nature of the planned improvements and distance to the nearest
residences.
The proposed project, in combination with the other improvement projects described above, would
not result in any adverse cumulative impacts. There are no other known projects that could result in
similar impacts as the proposed project currently foreseen for the project area. For these reasons, the
proposed project would not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable.
4.18.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in unavoidable or unmitigatable significant environmental
impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
58 City of Cupertino. Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study. 2006.
576
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 87 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
Checklist Sources:
1. Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental specialist preparing this assessment,
based upon a review of the site and surrounding conditions, as well as a review of the project
plans.
2. California Department of Transportation. “California Scenic Highway Mapping System.” 2010.
3. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2008. Map.
2009.
4. City of Cupertino. Zoning Ordinance. 2010.
5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. June 2010.
6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. 2010.
7. Thomas Reid Associates. Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan.
April 2006.
8. City of Cupertino. Tree Ordinance. 2010
9. Basin Research Associates. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Stevens Creek Corridor
Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan. 2006.
10. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). “Geographic Information Systems, Hazard
Maps | Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.” Official Map of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zones reproduced with permission from California Geological Survey. 2001.
11. City of Cupertino. Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial
Study. 2006.
12. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazard
Zones: Cupertino Quadrangle Official Map. 2002.
13. County of Santa Clara. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones (Compressible Soil Hazard
Zones, Landslide Hazard Zones, and Dike Failure Hazard Zones; and Liquefaction Hazard
Zones). Map 18. 2002.
14. California Air Resources Board for the State of California. Climate Change Proposed Scoping
Plan Appendices, Volume I: Supporting Documents and Measure Detail. October 2008. Page
C-52.
15. Department of Toxic Substances, “Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup
(Cortese List),” http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. California Integrated
Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System (SWIS),
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/search.aspx. State Water Resources
Control Board, Geotracker website, http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/.
16. Balance Hydrologics, Inc. “MEMOScenic Circle Proposed Path Potential Flood Concerns
Evaluation.” October 2010.
17. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map Number
06085C0208H. May 18, 2009.
18. City of Cupertino. General Plan 2000 – 2020. 2005.
19. Santa Clara County. Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (1995) and Uniform
Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines (1999).
577
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 88 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments. “Geographic Information Systems, Hazard Maps | Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.” Official Map of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones
reproduced with permission from California Geological Survey. 2001. Accessed February 22,
2010. <http://gis.abag.ca.gov/>
---. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Cupertino. 1995. Available at:
<http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl>
Balance Hydrologics, Inc. “Scenic Circle Proposed Path Potential Flood Concerns Evaluation.”
October 2010.
Basin Research Associates. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park
Master Plan and Restoration Plan. 2006.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. June 2010.
---. 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 2010. Available at:
<http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx>
---. “Particulate Matter.” Accessed April 13, 2010. <http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-
and-Research/Particulate-Matter.aspx>
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. Start at the Source – Design Guidance for
Stormwater Quality Protection. 1999. Available at:
<http://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/uploads/SAS_Manual_index.pdf>
California Air Resources Board for the State of California. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan
Appendices, Volume I: Supporting Documents and Measure Detail. October 2008. Page C-52.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2008. Map. 2009.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazard Zones:
Cupertino Quadrangle Official Map. 2002.
California Department of Transportation. “California Scenic Highway Mapping System.” Accessed
October 1, 2010. <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm>
California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. “Construction
Storm Water Program.” Updated July 2010. Accessed October 11, 2010.
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml>
---. Draft Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. 2009.
Available at: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/cat/.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System (SWIS),
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/search.aspx.
California Office of Historic Preservation. “California Historical Resources.”
<http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/listed_resources/>
578
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 89 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
California State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker website. Accessed September 30, 2010.
<http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/>
---. “Impaired Water Bodies.” Updated June 14, 2010. Accessed June 16, 2010.
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml>
---. “Total Maximum Daily Load Program.” 2009. Accessed June 16, 2010.
<http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_lists2006_approved.shtml>
City of Cupertino. Bicycle Transportation Plan. 1998.
---. General Plan 2000 – 2020. 2005.
---. Municipal Code. 2010.
---. Pedestrian Transportation Plan. 2002.
---. Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study. 2006.
County of Santa Clara. 1995 Countywide Trails Master Plan Update. 1995. Available at:
<http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/parks/parkschp?path=%2Fv7%2FParks%20and%20Recreatio
n%2C%20Department%20of%20%28DEP%29%2FPlanning%20and%20Development%2FCoun
tywide%20Trails%20Master%20Plan>
---. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones. Map 18. 2002. Available at:
<http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/planning/>
---. Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines. 1999.
Department of Toxic Substances, “Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese
List),” http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map Number 06085C0208H.
May 18, 2009.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Bikeways Map. 2008. Available at:
<http://www.vta.org/schedules/bikeways_map.html>
---. Bus and Rail Map. January 11, 2010. Available at:
<http://www.vta.org/schedules/schedules_bymap.html>
---. Draft CMP 2007. 2007.
---. VTA Transportation Handbook. 2009. Available at:
http://www.vta.org/brochures_publications/transportation_handbook.html.
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Classification of Subwatersheds and
Catchment Areas for Determining Applicability of HMP Requirements. Map. February 2009.
Available at: http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/hmp.shtml.
---. “Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP)” Factsheet. May 2006. Available at:
http://scvurppp-w2k.com/pdfs/0506/hmp_factsheet.pdf.
---. Trash BMP Toolbox. September 2007.
579
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 90 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, Santa Clara Valley Water Resources
Protection Collaborative. Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. July 2006.
Available at: http://www.valleywater.org/Programs/WaterResourcesProtectionCollaborative.aspx
Santa Clara Valley Water District. “Fast Facts: Lower Peninsula Watershed.” Accessed October 6,
2010. <http://www.valleywater.org/Services/LowerPeninsulaFastFacts.aspx>
---. Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. “Guidance for Trail Design” in
Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. August 2005 (revised July 2006).
Thomas Reid Associates. Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan. April
2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide
Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2009. November 2009. Available at:
<http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s09001.pdf>
---. “Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel.”
Last updated January 14, 2010. Accessed March 24, 2010.
<http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm>
Personal Communications
Banfield, Barbara. City Naturalist, City of Cupertino. Personal communication. October 25, 2010.
Hill Associates. Personal communication. October 13, 2010.
580
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 91 Initial Study/MND
City of Cupertino November 2010
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS
LEAD AGENCY
City of Cupertino
Public Works Department
Gail Seeds, Project Manager
CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers and Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners, San José, California
John Hesler, Vice President
Jodi Starbird, Principal Project Manager
Lori Parks, Assistant Project Manager
Stephanie Francis, Graphic Artist
581
Appendix A
Construction Best Management Practices
Proposed by the Project
582
To reduce and avoid environmental impacts resulting from construction, the project proposes to
implement the following Best Management Practices from the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s
Best Management Practices Handbook (January 2009 or most recent update):
WQ-5 Soil Stockpiles
If soil is to be stockpiled, no run-off shall be allowed to flow back to creek.
WQ-18 Site Maintenance and Cleanup
The work site, areas adjacent to the work site, and access roads will be maintained in an
orderly condition, free and clear from debris and discarded materials. Personnel will not
sweep, grade, or flush surplus materials, rubbish, debris, or dust into storm drains or
waterways. Upon completion of work, all building materials, debris, unused materials,
concrete forms, and other construction-related materials will be removed from the work
site.
WQ-41 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
Suitable erosion control, sediment control, source control, treatment control, material
management, and nonstormwater management BMPs will be implemented consistent with
the latest edition of the California Stormwater Quality Association “Stormwater Best
Management Practices Handbook,” which is available at www.cabmphandbooks.com.
HM-9 Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
Vehicles will be washed only at an approved area. No washing of vehicles will occur at job
sites.
HM-10 Vehicle and Equipment Fueling
No fueling will be done in a waterway or immediate flood plain, unless equipment
stationed in these locations is not readily relocated (i.e., pumps, generators).
1. For stationary equipment that must be fueled on-site, containment will be provided in
such a manner that any accidental spill of fuel will not be able to enter the water or
contaminate sediments that may come in contact with water.
2. Any equipment that is readily moved out of the waterway will not be fueled in the
waterway or immediate flood plain.
3. All fueling done at the job site will provide containment to the degree that any spill will
be unable to enter any waterway or damage riparian vegetation.
HM-11 Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
No equipment servicing will be done in a stream channel or immediate flood plain, unless
equipment stationed in these locations cannot be readily relocated (i.e., pumps, generators).
1. Any equipment that can be readily moved out of the channel will not be serviced in the
channel or immediate flood plain.
2. All servicing of equipment done at the job site will provide containment to the degree
that any spill will be unable to enter any channel or damage stream vegetation.
3. If emergency repairs are required in the field, only those repairs necessary to move
equipment to a more secure location will be done in a channel or flood plain.
583
4. If emergency repairs are required, containment will be provided equivalent to that done
for fueling or servicing.
HM-12 Hazardous Materials Management
Measures will be implemented to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled and
the quality of water resources is protected by all reasonable means.
1. Prior to entering the work site, all field personnel will know how to respond when toxic
materials are discovered.
2. The discharge of any hazardous or non-hazardous waste as defined in Division 2,
Subdivision 1, Chapter 2 of the California Code of Regulations will be conducted in
accordance with applicable State and federal regulations.
3. In the event of any hazardous material emergencies or spills, personnel will call the
Chemical Emergencies/Spills Hotline at 1-800-510-5151.
HM-13 Spill Prevention
Prevent the accidental release of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, and non-storm drainage
water.
1. Field personnel will be appropriately trained in spill prevention, hazardous material
control, and clean-up of accidental spills.
2. No fueling, repair, cleaning, maintenance, or vehicle washing will be performed in a
creek channel or in areas at the top of a channel bank that may flow into a creek
channel.
HM-14 Spill Kit Location
Spill prevention kits appropriate to the hazard will always be in close proximity when using
hazardous materials (e.g., crew trucks and other logical locations).
1. Prior to entering the work site, all field personnel will know the location of spill kits on
crew trucks and at other locations within District facilities.
2. All field personnel will be advised of these locations and trained in their appropriate
use.
584
Appendix B
Hydrology Memo
585
800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 • Berkeley • CA 94710
Berkeley • Auburn • San Rafael • Santa Cruz • Truckee
balancehydro.com • email: office@balancehydro.com
Integrated Surface and Ground Water Hydrology • Wetland and Channel Restoration • Water Quality • Erosion and Sedimentation • Storm Water and Floodplain Management
October 21, 2010
Gail Seeds
Restoration Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RE: Scenic Circle Proposed Path Potential Flood Concerns Evaluation
Dear Ms. Seeds:
You have requested that Balance Hydrologics Inc. evaluate the proposed foot path grades along
the Scenic Circle area of Blackberry Farm for potential effects to local flood water elevations
during infrequent high flow events. Our assessment is based on a comparison of:
1. Proposed grades to existing grades; and
2. Proposed grades relative to local flood hydraulics as documented in modeling
completed by Balance Hydrologics Inc. in conjunction with environmental review of the
Phase 1A restoration project at Blackberry Farm.
The map on the following page illustrates the proposed alignment and grades of the path
connecting the Scenic Circle foot bridge over Stevens Creek to Scenic Circle. Proposed grades
along the primary flood conveyance zone of the scenic circle overbank area in general conform
well to existing grade. As a result, it is unlikely that the proposed path in-and-of itself will affect
modeled flood water elevations during infrequent events. Furthermore, because the proposed
grades conform well to the existing grades along the primary flood conveyance zone of the
overbank area, the proposed path is unlikely to cause wood or other material to jam on the
floodplain during infrequent floods. This also lessens/minimizes the potential flood related
impacts of the project.
The table on the page following the map summarizes hydraulic modeling results for the predicted
100-year flood through Blackberry Farm. River station 2110 is immediately downstream of the
Scenic Circle foot bridge; the modeling results provide that the water surface elevation in the
vicinity of the foot path will be approximately 314 feet. Scenic Circle stands roughly at an
elevation of 317.5 – 318 feet. The difference between the 100-year design water surface
elevation and the roadway provides roughly 3.5 to 4 feet of additional flood water storage depth.
Given the expansive nature of the floodplain at this location this represents a large volume of
586
Ms. Gail Seeds
October 21, 2010
Page 2
Stevens Creek Scenic Circle Path Letter Balance REVISED FINAL.doc
storage which also lessens the potential flood related impacts from the proposed foot path.
Potential impacts are also minimized because the alignment of Stevens Creek is directed away
from Scenic Circle in the vicinity of the foot path; this decreases the likelihood of flood-
generated bank erosion along the roadway embankment.
Closing
I recommend that final construction plans for the foot path be reviewed by Balance Hydrologics
Inc. to assess conformance with the rationale and assumptions discussed in this letter. If the final
plans are deemed to be inconsistent with the concept reviewed herein we will recommend
changes such that the plans reflect a hydraulically appropriate solution.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
587
3UH%ODFNEHUU\)DUP5HVWRUDWLRQ3RVW%ODFNEHUU\)DUP5HVWRUDWLRQRiver2 StationDesriptionXSTop of Bank Existing Channel InvertExisting WSE EG Overbank XS4 Top of Bank Design Channel InvertDesign WSE EG OverbankStructure Elevations(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)E or W3 (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) E or W2605 US of San Fernando Ct. 680 317.8 310.4 320.0 321.0 E 680 317.8 310.4 319.9 320.9 E2260 Constriction at San Fernando Ct. 650 314 305.4 317.0 319.0 E 650 314 305.4 317.0 319.0 E2110 Immediately US of Reach A 615 310.1 304.1 314.1 315.7 E W 615 310.1 304.1 313.3 315.7 E W2063 DS Riffle A1 610 309.1 302.8 313.3 315.3 E 610 309.1 303.2 312.9 314.9 E2038 US Riffle A2 600 308.9 302.9 311.9 313.8 E 600 308.9 302.9 311.6 313.4 E W 1911 US Rffle A3 580 307 300.7 310.8 312.5 E 575 307.8 301.8 310.7 312.0 E W1702 US Riffle B2 (Swimming Pools)550305 295.4 307.2 308.2 E W 552 305.3 298.9 307.2 308.1 E W 306.61574 US Riffle B4 (W Bank Picnic Area)540302.7 295.8 304.4 305.2 E W 544 302.5 297.1 304.2 305.0 E W 301.81315 US Riffle B6 (Golf Course US)520299.6 293.1 301.8 302.5 E W 532 299.5 294.8 301.5 301.8 E W 3001166 US Riffle B8 (Golf Course)515299.5 292.2 300.9 301.3 E 520 299.6 293.4 300.9 301.3 E 2991076 Btw Reaches B and C (Golf Course)510299 291.1 300.2 301.0 E 510 299 291.1 300.2 301.0 E 299.4910 Upsream Reach C (Golf Course) 500 297 290.6 298.9 299.6 E 500 297 290.5 298.7 299.4 E 297.2722 Btw Pool C1 and Riffle C2 490 295 288.9 298.3 298.6 E W 493 295 287.8 298.4 298.6 E W 295502 DS Pool C3 (Golf Course Fairway) 480 293.7 282.4 298.3 298.4 E W 480.66* 293.7 285.5 298.4 298.5 E W 294253 US Riffle C7 (Restaurant)470291 279.8 298.3 298.4 E W 468 291 283.3 298.4 298.4 E W 292.1100 US Stevens Creek Blvd Bridge 460 293 281.0 298.3 298.3 E 460 293 281.0 298.3 298.4 E1.2.3.4.This discharge represents the estimated 1-percent chance (100-year) flow in the creek proposed by Santa Clara Valley Water District Hydrology Group.River station distance as measured up the valley from the Stevens Creek Blvd (not channel distance because existing and design channels are slightly different lengths).E and W represent flooding over the east and west banks of the creek, resectively, as seen looking downstream.An asterisk (*) indicates a cross section is interpolated.Table 1. Comparison of the hydraulic conditions estimated using HEC-RAS for the3UH%ODFNEHUU\)DUP5HVWRUDWLRQand the 3RVW%ODFNEHUU\)DUP5HVWRUDWLRQat the 100-year discharge (5500 cfs)1. 588
Responses to Public Comments Received on the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
(Project No. 9136)
Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates
for the City of Cupertino
The Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), dated November 1, 2010, circulated for public
review November 5 ± December 6, 2010. No state agencies submitted comments to the City or
State Clearinghouse during the review period (see Attachment F). The City received a total of
15 comments on the IS/MND from members of the public.
The following individuals submitted comments in support of the conclusions made in the
IS/MND (and of the project in general), or did not raise questions. These comments do not
require responses.
1. Hugh Chen (December 3)
2. Paul Oleas (December 3)
3. Carol Lim (December 3)
4. Steve and Darlene Mix (December 3)
5. Jean Misko (December 3)
6. Anne Ng (December 3)
7. Ross S. Heitkamp, President of Friends of Stevens Creek Trail (December 6)
8. Rune H. Jensen (December 6)
9. Carol Stanek (December 6)
10. Kenneth C. and Sandra Q. Joe (December 8)
The remaining five comment letters contained questions or concerns about the project and/or
IS/MND. Responses to each comment within the letters are provided below, followed by the
letters themselves (Attachments A-E).
Response Page #
A. Letter from Gail Bower .......................................................................................................... 2
B. Letter from Rhoda Fry ........................................................................................................... 4
C. Letter from Deborah Jamison .............................................................................................. 10
D. Letter from Shani Kleinhaus (Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society) ................................. 18
E. Letter from Susan Sievert .................................................................................................... 21
F: Letter to the City of Cupertino from tKH6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD*RYHUQRU¶s Office of Planning
and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (December 7, 2010). No response to
this letter is required.
589
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 2 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
A. Letter from Gail Bower (Orange Avenue, Cupertino), November 8, 2010
Comment A1:
Here are my comments:
I do hope that everyone does everything possible and as at least as outlined to
minimize the manmade look/effects of yet more manmade elements in this park. It’s
already jam packed with them.
Response A1:
The comment is noted. The project design and the selected materials are intended to be
compatible with the natural setting of the area. The design uses natural crushed or decomposed
granite for trail surfacing, wood planks for a retaining wall, wood ramps and stairs for bridge
access, expanded native plantings, and boulders. The materials were carefully chosen to fit with
the natural character of the site.
Comment A2:
I’m concerned about trash in the creek. Have you seen the parking lot at Monta Vista
High? It’s dreadful. Please have staff monitor/have cleaned each day.
Response A2:
The comment is noted. As described in Section 3.2.5 of the IS/MND, the City proposes to install
wildlife-resistant trash and recycling receptacles on the project site, and park rangers would be
responsible for daily pick up of trash/recyclables in vicinity of the gate. This element of the
proposed project is intended to minimize the potential for littering and trash to enter the creek.
Given that trail users would pass through the site, the potential for trash generation is expected to
be lower than what occurs at group gathering areas (such as a high school). In addition, the
project would improve access for creek clean-up efforts (refer to Section 4.9 Hydrology and
Water Quality). For the reasons described above, the project is not anticipated to increase the
amount of trash entering the creek.
Comment A3:
What is a wooden approach ramp and why is it needed?
Response A3:
Approach ramps are needed to provide access from the existing pedestrian bridge to the existing
and proposed trails (located on the east and west sides of the creek, respectively). The proposed
ramps would replace the existing stairs, which do not meet the accessibility requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed approach ramps would be ADA-
compliant and would provide access for persons using wheelchairs or walkers, as well as
facilitate trail access by bicyclists. Wooden ramps are proposed, rather than concrete or another
material, to be consistent with the natural character of the project area.
Comment A4:
I hope the retaining wall is not a standard ugly wall but is made with some creative
influence to make it less obtrusive –some plantings that spill over the wall and/or
native shrubbery/grasses in front of the wall.
590
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 3 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
Response A4:
As described in Section 3.2.1 of the IS/MND, the proposed retaining wall will be constructed
with wood planks. By using wood and emphasizing natural materials, the project design is
intended to blend with the visual character of the project site (refer to Section 4.1 Aesthetics).
Comment A5:
It is most unfortunate that there will be tree removal –the new ones should be of
same (7”) or bigger size. The 3 saplings should be replaced as well. I trust that
watering them regularly for at least a few years is part of the installation plan.
Response A5:
As described in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, the project proposes to replace the two mature
oak trees to be removed with two native container-size replacement trees. The final design
includes two new oak trees of 36” or larger box size. The project also proposes to replace the
saplings removed and provide additional native plantings on the site. The proposed planting and
replacement trees would be maintained by the City for a five-year period (refer to MM BIO-4.1).
During the five-year maintenance period, appropriate irrigation would be applied to the
plantings, consistent with the restoration activities that are currently ongoing in the project area.
Comment A6:
I am very happy that there will be no night lighting etc.–our wildlife very much needs
that.
Please avoid bird nesting season for this project!
Response A6:
The comment is noted. As proposed, construction is anticipated to occur over approximately six
months, beginning February 2011 and ending in July 2011. Under the proposed schedule, the
project would be completed prior to the start of the 2011 school year, as desired by the City
Council; however, construction would occur during the nesting season. If construction were to
begin in July (near the end of the nesting season), it is expected that the project would be
completed in November. The City Council could choose to defer construction until summer
2011 at the time it considers award of a construction contract, currently expected to occur in
early February.
Comment A7:
Additional question -- When will all the chicken wiring around the other plantings be
removed?
Additional comment –please –where the walnut was chopped down and a large
stump left in the picnic area –please allow it to grow back as it was doing –prune as
needed but let it grow back (instead of hacking it back to stump only) and let it
provide all the great things that trees provide.
Response A7:
The chicken wire will be removed consistent with the goals for successful restoration planting
establishment for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project. Many cages have already been
591
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 4 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
removed. Others remain to provide additional protection to the plantings during establishment
and will be removed as the plants mature. The walnut tree described in this comment is not
affected by the proposed project. City staff generally allows trees along the creek to resprout as
consistent with safety considerations.
B. Letter from Rhoda Fry (San Fernando Avenue, Cupertino), December 6, 2010
Comment B1:
I was disappointed that the public was given only one business-day notice of the council
meeting on November 29 which discussed this project. By failing to provide adequate
notice, the council and this very important project missed out on public input.
Furthermore, I was dismayed to learn that the project bid set would be assembled (and
disseminated) prior to closure of the environmental review comment period. This further
reduces the possibility of a collaborative process with the voting community as it would
take quite a bit of inertia and cost to amend the bid set. I applaud council for supporting
the highest environmental standards before, during, and after this project, most notably to
be respectful of the bird nesting season.
Response B1:
During the Council meeting on November 29, 2010, City Staff provided a progress update on the
Scenic Circle project and requested that the Council authorize bidding in December. Members
of the public were given the opportunity to provide input on the project and IS/MND which was
out for public circulation at the time of the meeting (the 30-day comment period ended on
December 6, 2010). All legally required notice was provided.
The City Council¶Vaction at the November 29th meeting did not commit to construction of the
current bid set or of the project in general. Award of a construction contract and subsequent
implementation of the project will not occur prior to adoption of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the project. No further response is required as the comment does not raise any
environmental issues or questions about the adequacy of the Initial Study.
Comment B2:
I have 2 main concerns about this document.
1. Section 3.2.4 Monta Vista High School parking lot is referred to as the ³existing
overflow parking lot.´ Nowhere in Phase I MND is an external parking lot mentioned.
Prior to reconstruction, an external parking lot had been used no more than 3 predictable
times per season. Use of an external parking option for the completely new and
significantly different operational structure at Blackberry Farm has never been studied
(e.g. 90% non-UHVLGHQWWRJUHDWHUUHVLGHQWLDOXVHIHHWRIUHHHWF« 0RUHRYHUZKHQWKH
trail opens at Stevens Creek, any shuttles and buses must drop off either at Stevens Creek
Blvd. or on McClellan Road. Monta Vista High School must not enter into the equation
as an overflow parking lot.
Response B2:
This comment mainly refers to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND, prepared by the City
of Cupertino in 2006. The practice of using Monta Vista High School as an overflow lot during
infrequent high attendance events was in place prior to implementation of Phase I of the Stevens
Creek Corridor Park project, as noted in the comment. The maximum size of group picnic
592
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 5 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
events at the park has been reduced from 800 to 525 persons, as a further measure to reduce
parking demand and the potential for overflow events.
The proposed trail access project is not anticipated to generate a substantial amount of vehicle
trips and would not increase the need for an overflow parking lot. The statement about Monta
Vista High School in Section 3.2.4 of the Scenic Circle IS/MND was included to demonstrate
that additional parking options are available during high attendance special events at Blackberry
Farm Park. In response to neighbor requests, various parking control measures will be
implemented (see Section 3.2.4 of the IS/MND). If it is determined that the Tier 1 parking
control measure is inadequate, the City will consider putting out portable signs in the Scenic
Circle neighborhood on event days and implementation of the further parking control measures
discussed in the MND.
Comment B3:
2. Many parts of the MND are so terribly flawed that it puts this project at risk; even
the simplest CEQA requirements are overlooked as shown below. These flaws should be
corrected. :RXOGQ¶WWKLVDOOKDYHEHHQHDVLHULIWKHSHQGXOXPKDGQRWEHHQVZLQJLQJ
back and forth on this issue and this project had been in Phase I all along?
Response B3:
Specific questions on the content of the IS/MND are not included in this comment. The Scenic
Circle access project was conceived by the City Council in response to requests by residents to
allow pedestrian and bicycle access from the west side of the creek to the newly renovated
Blackberry Farm Park, including the trails within the park. This access was also requested to
allow for a safer way for students to access schools located on the east side of the creek (refer to
Section 3.1.1 Background).
Comment B4:
Section 1.0: The phrase ³existing pedestrian bridge´ ± is an incorrect statement and
should be amended. Prior to Phase I, there had been a bridge near that location. The
Phase I MND stipulated that the bridge would be removed and it was. During the Phase I
project, without public review, another bridge along with additional creek work was
installed. It is incorrect to say that Phase I was completed ± because if it was, there
would be no bridge there now. Note that the Phase I MND also said that CEQA would
be required to install a bridge (and future access), but the bridge was installed without
&(4$SXEOLFUHYLHZHWF«HWF
Response B4:
The bridge that exists on the project site replaced a previous bridge at that location. Subsequent
to approval of the Phase I project, the City determined that placing the bridge at its current
location was categorically exempt under CEQA. The bridge replacement was done to allow
access to the area on the west side of the creek for maintenance and restoration purposes.
CEQA requires that the IS/MND describe the physical conditions on the site at the time the
environmental analysis commences. This existing environmental setting constitutes the baseline
physical conditions against which the impacts of a project are to be evaluated. Therefore, for
purposes of this IS/MND, the bridge currently located on the VLWHLVFRQVLGHUHGDV³H[LVWLQJ´
because it was present on the site at the time the environmental analysis commenced (summer
2010).
593
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 6 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
Comment B5:
3.1.1
a) Mentions that Phase I of the project has been completed. As mentioned above, there
should be no existing bridge there now, had the project been executed according to plan.
Phase I included redoing the cistern for watering, which did not occur. Also, our
naturalized wetland habitat, the ponds at the golf course, was destroyed without public
input or notification to the California Department of Fish and Game. How will we ensure
that all the rules are adhered to this time?
Response B5:
Section 3.1.1 Background of the Scenic IS/MND should be revised to clarify that most elements
of Phase I of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project have been implemented. The Stevens
&UHHN&RUULGRU,601'LQFOXGHG³SRVVLEO\FRQQHFWLQJWKHH[LVWLQJZHOOWRDQH[LVWLQJ«FLVWHUQ
QHDUWKHROGWDQN´. The existing well is being evaluated as part of a separate capital project that
has been funded. The current condition of the ponds predates the Phase I project. The ponds
require repairs and a capital project that includes pond evaluation has been included in the
adopted Capital Improvement Program.
Please refer to Response B4. CDFG would be notified in the event that special-status or
protected species are encountered during the pre-construction surveys to be completed by a
qualified biologist, as described in Section 4.4 Biological Resources. A qualified biologist
would implement these mitigation measures, with oversight by the Project Manager.
Comment B6:
b) A significant error in document is claiming ³restoring public access´ from Scenic
Circle. Actually, this project ³creates public access,´ it does not restore it. When
Blackberry Farm was privately owned, there was some fencing in there but it was
possible for people to cut through the private property ± thus what was going on was
trespassing. When the City acquired the land, people continued to cut through. Residents
in the Scenic Circle area got upset and requested to restrict access. This was granted with
additional fencing and a combination lock which was known mostly only to residents on
the Scenic Circle side of the creek. At a later time, residents started to put up more
fencing on their own. The story is much longer than that. So what is happening in this
project is migrating from trespass, to restricted access, to public access. It is definitely not
³restoring public access.´ I think it is important to get the history right on these things.
Also, the document fails to mention that Phase I planning did include access but a vocal
group of residents vehemently opposed it and 3 council members agreed, thus access was
not included in the final Phase I plan. Another group of residents, which are mentioned in
the document did not agree with the decision and then pushed for access, which is how
this new plan came about. Had council approved the original phase I plan, a huge amount
of time and expense could be spared; instead the pendulum has been swinging back and
forth for years.
Response B6:
Limited access for local residents to cut through the park has occurred at various times; however,
this access has been closed in recent years. The proposed project could therefore be construed as
the restoration of the access from the Scenic Circle neighborhood that used to be allowed from
594
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 7 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
the west side of the creek to Blackberry Farm Park. However, the access point was not operated
as a formal unrestricted public access. The IS/MND correctly characterizes the existing
condition, since public access to Blackberry Farm Park from Scenic Circle is not currently
provided. As this comment points out, the proposed project would provide a new formal public
access point to the park, when compared to both existing and past conditions.
Please refer to Response B3 and Section 3.1 Overview of the Proposed Project for background
on how the proposed project came about.
Comment B7:
c) To my knowledge, greater community, such as those who could be affected by
additional pedestrian traffic along Byrne Avenue, was not apprised of the ³community
meetings.´ The document acknowledges this in that the residents involved were
primarily from the Scenic side of the creek. The process should have been more
inclusive to include other residents affected by the plan.
Response B7:
The comment is noted. All legally required notice has been provided. The meetings were
posted on the City website. Given the scope and nature of the proposed project, the City
anticipated that construction-related and operational impacts resulting from the trail access
would have the most potential to affect the Scenic Circle neighborhood and notified those
residents by mail. There was also an existing mechanism for input from Byrne/San Fernando
neighbors to the City via the ongoing meetings of the Blackberry Farm Advisory Committee.
Comment B8:
d) Another item on Phase I that needs completion as per agreement is no signage to
Stevens Creek Trail directing users to the Byrne entrance, this is not complete.
Response B8:
As with Comment B2, this comment refers to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND. The
comment is noted.
Comment B9:
3.1.2 The project is described as providing a ³safer route to school´ however it has not
been studied either in this ³initial study´ or elsewhere.
Response B9:
The hazards associated with existing and potential routes between Scenic Circle and the tri-
school area are addressed in Section 4.16.2.2 of the IS/MND. It was concluded that the proposed
project would allow a more direct and safer route because the alternatives (McClellan Road and
Stevens Creek Boulevard) are busy streets that currently expose pedestrians and cyclists to more
traffic-related hazards due to factors such as higher traffic volumes, higher speeds, absence of
bike lanes, and/or narrow shoulders (McClellan Road).
Comment B10:
3.2.3 Suggests extending park hours. This is a change from Phase I and the yet-to-be-
designed and built Phase II. I can tell you that we are hearing quite a number of coyotes
595
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 8 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
in the vicinity after hours and neighbors have seen the remains of good-sized animals
(with the approximate stature of a small child). I would urge you to not extend the hours.
Response B10:
The comment is noted.
Comment B11:
3.0RUH&(4$FRPPHQWV«
a) The document mentions only over-capacity events at Blackberry Farm ± the Phase I
MND never mentioned over-capacity events. BBF should never be at over-capacity.
Further, there currently is insufficient parking at the Blue Pheasant. The opening of the
trail to Stevens Creek Blvd and the expanded use of the trail, the Stocklmeir Property, the
tank house, and any future uses of the area will put additional pressure on an
overburdened parking area. No mitigations are provided for this. Under CEQA, you need
to mention the future connections. In fact, you are adding an access point to an even
greater Bay Area trail, and in fact the National De Anza Trail. You need to address these
FXPXODWLYHLPSDFWV \RXMXVWFDQ¶WDW the tiny little piece under CEQA. It is kind of like
building a highway interchange and not mentioning plans to connect a freeway to it.
*LYHQWKDW\RX¶UHDOUHDG\WDONLQJDERXWPDNLQJFKDQJHVWRWKHJROIFRXUVHLQ3KDVH,,
(something that we had been asking for in phase I, a missed opportunity), I would urge
you to seek options to extend the parking beyond the planned 9 spaces. We know now
that the parking is insufficient. Adding uses will make it worse. This needs to be
mentioned and addressed.
Response B11:
This comment mainly refers to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND DQGWKHFRPPHQWRU¶V
observations on the parking situation. The proposed Scenic Circle project is not considered a
³ODQGXVH´WKDWwould generate new vehicle traffic, as the trail is a non-motorized transportation
facility intended to serve local residents. While the project would add an access point to
Blackberry Farm Park, the Stevens Creek Trail, and other recreational facilities, it would not
induce additional development, as most elements of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Phase I
project have already been constructed.
Furthermore, CEQA no longer identifies insufficient parking as an environmental impact in and
of itself. The Scenic Circle project would not result in indirect environmental effects related to
parking because the project is not expected to generate a substantial amount of vehicle trips to
the project area or increase demand for parking facilities. The project is actually intended to
reduce vehicle traffic by expanding opportunities for walking and biking. Increasing non-
motorized access to the park and trail is a community goal (refer to Section 3.1.2 Purpose of the
Project). Making pedestrian/bicycle access more convenient to neighbors could influence long-
term travel behaviors and reduce demand for parking. Therefore, the proposed project would not
contribute to cumulative environmental effects related to the availability of parking at Stevens
Creek Corridor Park.
Comment B12:
b) As I mentioned before, to mention that the overflow parking at Monta Vista will be
maintained is false. Phase I does not stipulate overflow parking at Monta Vista. We had
596
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 9 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
been told that using that lot was a temporary solution ± you cannot suddenly incorporate
it into Phase I.
Response B12:
Please refer to Response B2.
Comment B13:
4.2.3.1 I have not seen any studies to confirm that this project is consistent with TCM and
CAP goals.
Response B13:
This comment refers to the question in the CEQA checklist for Air Quality impacts: ³Would the
project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?´ The
SURMHFW¶VFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWKWKHBay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) and transportation control
measures (TCMs), which are strategies included in the CAP to reduce emissions from vehicle
use, was evaluated in Section 4.3 Air Quality of the IS/MND. It was concluded that the project
would support implementation of the CAP because the project itself is a TCM (refer to Section
4.3.2.1). A primary goal of both the CAP and the proposed project is to reduce vehicle use.
Therefore, the project would not contribute to long-term air quality impacts, and no additional air
quality studies are needed to confirm consistency with the CAP.
Comment B14:
4.3.2.2 In Phase 1 we found that construction hours were not adhered to and we endured
a noisy dust bowl for a very long time, particularly when there were convoys. Countless
calls to authorities produced no results. What will be the construction management plan
this time? How will residents be able to alert the city to violations and get a timely
response?
Response B14:
The total duration of active project construction is expected to be about four months (refer to
Section 3.2.8). As concluded in Sections 4.3 Air Quality and 4.12 Noise, project construction
would not expose residential uses to substantial dust or noise impacts, given the scope of the
project and temporary nature of construction activities. To further reduce the potential for
disturbances to residents, avoidance measures, as described on page 25 and 72 of the IS/MND
would be implemented during construction, in accordance with BAAQMD and City code
requirements. The construction documents for this project also include special requirements
relating to construction traffic and noise, with a financial penalty for violations. This is a change
from the Phase I project, which contained no penalty for violations. City staff believes that this
change will help ensure compliance and reduce impacts on neighbors during construction. A
VLJQZLOOEHSRVWHGDWWKHSURMHFWVLWHWKDWLQFOXGHVDSKRQHQXPEHUWRFRQWDFWWKH&LW\V¶SURMHFW
management team.
Comment B15:
4.4.2 Also vicinity of 4.12 (the document jumps from 4.12.2.1 to 4.13.2.2, this is very
confusing, what is missing?) The effects on residents near Byrne Avenue (or Scenic
Circle) are not addressed as to the number of trips per day or noise. Will there be
someone near Byrne assigned to picking up additional trash if there is any? CEQA: We
know that when there was restricted access to Scenic Circle we had more noise and trash.
597
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 10 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
We have had much less noise and trash since the restricted access has been removed.
What operational measures will be taken when there is public access?
Response B15:
The numbering of the subsections in Sections 4.12 Noise, 4.13 Population and Housing, 4.14
Public Services, and 4.15 Recreation will be corrected in the IS/MND. No sections are missing
from the document.
The effects on residents near Byrne Avenue (or other streets east of the creek) were not
specifically discussed in the IS/MND because the proposed addition of an access point from the
west side of the creek would not attract vehicle trips from the east side of the creek.
Furthermore, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate significant vehicle trips in
general, as previously described. For these reasons, the project would not increase vehicle trips
or traffic-generated noise along Byrne Avenue. The effects on residents in the Scenic Circle
neighborhood related to traffic and noise are addressed in Sections 4.13 Noise and 4.16
Transportation of the IS/MND.
As described in Response A2 and Section 3.2.5 of the IS/MND, the project includes litter control
measures to reduce the potential for trash to accumulate on the project site or in the creek. City
maintenance staff and rangers are available so that litter, if it occurs, would be picked up in the
park and on the San Fernando driveway. The proposed project is not expected to increase litter
on streets located on the east side of Stevens Creek.
C. Letter from Deborah Jamison (Rumford Drive, Cupertino), December 6, 2010
Comment C1:
Please accept for review my comments re: Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park project,
No. 9136. I have a masters degree and work experience in the field of ecology, and have
participated as an interested member of the public in numerous stream and riparian
development project issues, including those along Stevens Creek in Cupertino since
1990. I am pleased to offer my questions and suggestions for improvement of this project
regarding protection of natural resources in the project area. I would appreciate responses
to each of my questions, as well as your thoughtful consideration of the suggestions.
Let me begin by saying that as a former professional and current volunteer environmental
educator, I encourage people to spend time in natural environments, and to learn about
and appreciate our local ecosystems. Adults as well as children in our society suffer from
³QDWXUHGHILFLWGLVRUGHU´³VFUHHQDGGLFWLRQ´DQGREHVLW\3URYLGLQJDFFHVVDQGRXWGRRU
experiences, especially in local parks near residential areas, may help to reduce these
societal trends. However, in natural areas that have been so drastically reduced as local
and regional freshwater aquatic and riparian habitats have been in the last several
decades, care must be taken to make sure that the very nature whose understanding and
appreciation we hope to instill through providing access is not further degraded or
destroyed by human presence and activity. All construction work and infrastructure
installed in native plant communities and wildlife habitat will have some negative
impacts in the short term. My comments concern minimizing the short term impacts and
eliminating long term impacts that potentially can arise if more mitigation than is
currently proposed is not implemented.
598
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 11 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
Response C1:
Specific project elements or mitigation measures are not questioned in this comment. Mitigation
measures to reduce impacts are included in Section 4.0 of the IS/MND.
Comment C2:
Section 4.1.1 Aesthetics
The proposed project includes construction of a trail consisting of crushed or decomposed
granite or another similar material. What is meant by ³similar´? Does ³similar material´
include hard-surfacing (e.g. asphalt, concrete). Does ³similar material´ include
impervious surfacing? Are you requiring that the trail material be ³all weather?´ Is
crushed or decomposed granite or another similar material considered an all-weather
material? My opinion is that a hard, impervious trail surfacing is a detriment to the
aesthetic qualities of this area of the creekside environment. It might also contribute to
water run-off into the creek carrying soil/silt material and thus erosion of the soil on this
slope. Siltation of creek waters degrades the habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish.
Response C2:
7KHWUDLOVXUIDFHZRXOGEH³DOOZHDWKHU´The final trail design uses crushed/decomposed
granite, with a soil stabilizer incorporated. The trail surface would be semi-impervious, as
described in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed design is intended to
reduce the potential for runoff from the trail and erosion of the trail surface itself, while
complementing the natural character of the project area. Concrete and asphalt are not considered
³VLPLODUPDWHULDOV´ in this context. Avoidance measures are included in the project (pages 32
and 33) to minimize potential impacts to aquatic habitat and water quality.
Comment C3:
The project includes trash and recycling receptacles located out of sight of the residences.
For aesthetic reasons, I think that the receptacles should be constructed of a material and
be a color that blends in to the rustic and natural environmental and be visually non-
obtrusive. Consideration should be given to placing them in a location that is visible to
nearby trail users but not visible to persons on the east side of the creek. Additional
planting may be required to shield the receptacles from high visibility. The receptacles
should also be the kind that wildlife cannot access.
Response C3:
The recommendations are noted. As described in Section 3.2.5 of the IS/MND, the City
proposes to install wildlife-resistant trash and recycling receptacles on the project site.
Receptacles are to be located such that they are as visually unobtrusive as possible, and/or
screened. They will be of a design and color as to blend with the environment to the extent
feasible. The proposed container style is a simple receptacle, wildlife-resistant, available in
appropriate colors to help blend in with the setting and be compatible with existing trailside
amenities elsewhere at Blackberry Farm.
599
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 12 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
Comment C4:
Section 4.4 Biological Resources
The redesign of Blackberry Farm planned for the project area to be inaccessible to
people, and thus not subject to the negative impacts on habitat that human and dog
presence and activity produce. The adopted 2006 SCCP Master Plan/Restoration Plan
,QLWLDO6WXG\0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQSURSRVHGWKDWWKH³3HGHVWULDQEULGJHIURP
the east bank of Stevens Creek to Fallen Oak picnic areas....would be demolished and
UHPRYHG´ The removal of people and the reintroduction of native plants would have
made the project area the highest quality woodland habitat in Blackberry Farm.
Response C4:
The comment is noted. The Stevens Creek Corridor Park project included the removal of park
and picnicking facilities from the former Fallen Oak picnic area and the installation of upland
habitat through the planting of native vegetation, which has been completed. The proposed
project has been designed so that it would not result in a net loss of vegetated woodland habitat
(page 33 and 34 of the IS/MND). New additional native plantings are also included in the
project, as described on page 31 of the IS/MND. While the proposed trail connection would
incrementally increase human activity on the site, the project is consistent with the overall goals
for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project to enhance recreational opportunities while
preserving open space and protecting natural resources (refer to Sections 3.1.2 Purpose of the
Project and 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance of the IS/MND).
Comment C5:
Section 4.4.1.2 Existing Biotic Habitats
I urge the city to take the opportunity provided by tree removal activity for this project to
remove Tree of Heaven/ Ailanthus specimens. This species is invasive, fast-growing, and
often takes over areas, outcompeting native plants causing their decline and
disappearance.
Response C5:
The proposed project only includes the removal of five trees, including two oaks and three
saplings. As described in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, these trees will be replaced on the
site. However, this comment is noted for future consideration.
Comment C6:
Section 4.4.1.2. Wildlife
I maintain a database of birds observed in McClellan Ranch and Blackberry Farm based
on my own observations and those of other reputable bird observers. All of the raptors
OLVWHGDV³PD\QHVWDQGor forage in WKHULSDULDQFRUULGRUDQGDGMDFHQWKDELWDWV´KDYHEHHQ
seen and/or heard in recent years. Other raptor species that have been observed and may
use the habitat in or near the project site are Sharp-shinned Hawk and Great Horned Owl.
The following raptors have also been observed near the project area: Turkey Vulture,
Golden Eagle, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon, Merlin and American Kestrel.
Section 4.4.1.3 Special-Status Species
600
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 13 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
The following bird species with special status have been observed to be present within
the corridor between 2005 and 2010: Sharp-shinned Hawk, Peregrine Falcon and Merlin.
Some of the bird species that are known to nest in the riparian woodland along this
section of Stevens Creek are also on the Audubon Watchlist. These are Nuttall¶s
Woodpecker and Oak Titmouse. Also feared declining is Warbling Vireo.
Response C6:
The comment is noted. The project includes pre-construction surveys to identify on-site nests of
all protected birds and raptors, including those identified in this comment. Please refer to
Section 4.4.2.3 and MM BIO-2.1 for additional information.
Comment C7:
4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
The construction of the Stevens Creek Trail in McClellan Ranch, which has a concrete
surface, resulted in the soil scrapping and vegetation removal of far more than the 8 foot
width of the trail. Why will this trail be constructed ³by removing only as much
vegetation as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width and installation of
proposed improvements´? How is the construction method used in this Scenic Circle
access trail different from the methods used in the Stevens Creek Trail and how does the
difference in methods explain the difference in width of vegetation removal?
Response C7:
As discussed in Section 4.4.2 of the IS/MND, existing native vegetation shall be retained by
removing only as much vegetation as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width and
installation of proposed improvements. This access trail is made of stabilized
decomposed/crushed granite ³'*´ , a different material than the primary trail alignment. It will
be installed with different equipment and methods than were used for the primary trail. Due to
both the type of material and to site constraints, it is expected that smaller and more
maneuverable equipment will be used for construction of the proposed access path, which will
help limit the work footprint. The pervious concrete used for the primary trail was delivered in
FRQFUHWHWUXFNVDQGLQVWDOOHGZLWKDµVSUHDGHUER[¶W\SHDVVHPEO\. The DG paving may be
mixed in batches and installed with smaller equipment.
Comment C8:
Should reseeding be done in the impacted area, will those seeds be from plants native to
the area or the Stevens Creek watershed?
Response C8:
The project proposes to reseed or replant disturbed areas on the site with native vegetation.
Species indigenous to the Stevens Creek watershed are preferred, as was emphasized for the
Phase I plantings (refer to page 31 of the IS/MND).
Comment C9:
4.4.2.1 Impacts to Sensitive Habitats
Section 4.3.2.2 Construction-Related Impacts and under Aquatic Habitat Avoidance
Measures to Aquatic Habitat the IS/MND states:
601
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 14 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
³&RQVWUXFWLRQHTXLSPHQWZLOOEHVWDJHGLQXSODnd and/or currently developed or disturbed
areas to avoid disturbance to sensitive habitat areas and reduce the potential for sediment
DQGPDWHULDOVWRHQWHUWKHFUHHN´ Please be more specific. Where will construction
materials (wood, fill base rock, surface material, etc.) and machinery be stored/parked
when not in use? 'RHV³upland´ mean in areas upslope from the creek not in the
immediate trail alignment? Storage of these items should not cover or negatively impact
in any way areas adjacent to but not in the immediate trail construction alignment area.
Doing so increases the footprint of the area to be negatively impacted by vegetation
removal, soil compaction and habitat degradation, and increases the potential of
negatively impacting soil stability and creek water quality.
Response C9:
The developed or disturbed areas on the site that would be used for construction access and
staging include: paved areas, parking lots, or other developed surfaces within Blackberry Farm
Park, possible shared use of existing park maintenance and storage areas, and portions of the
Scenic Circle roadway and right-of-way (refer to Section 3.2.8 of the IS/MND). Construction-
related activity including use of machinery and materials handling will occur within the
designated SURMHFWVLWH7KHFRQWUDFWRU¶VZRUNIRRWSULQWwill be limited to the extent feasible
which allows efficient completion of the work while providing protection of the creek and of
existing trees, vegetation and undisturbed areas.
In Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, it is noted that temporary impacts to aquatic habitat
will be avoided by staging construction equipment in upland and/or currently developed areas.
,QWKLVVWDWHPHQW³XSODQG´UHIHUVWRDUHDVDZD\IURPWKHFUHHNTo reduce the potential for soil
compaction and habitat degradation, construction staging would occur on paved surfaces
whenever possible and would not occur within mature woodland habitat or the recently planted
restoration areas outside the work zone.
Comment C10:
Impacts to Riparian and Aquatic Habitat
The proposed plan is to construct a ramp on the east side of the creek from the bridge and
extending to the north, in an alignment very close to the edge of the creek bank where it
descends to the creekbed. The proximity of the ramp to the creek bank may cause
destabilization of the soil and siltation. It also prevents the establishment of vegetation
that would stabilize the top of the bank. However, because of the proximity of the main
trail, the ramp cannot be oriented in the same direction as the bridge. On the other hand,
the steps could be. The trail at that location is very wide, and the presence of the steps
would not reduce the width to an unacceptable dimension for regular trail use. On the
other hand, the creek bank in the south direction falls away from the bridge quite near to
where the steps would be. Orienting the stairs in a direct line with the bridge is safer and
has less potential to damage the top of the bank. Please consider or reconsider this
alternative. What is the width of vehicles who need access on this section of the trail?
Could they could manage with a reduced width at the location of the bridge?
Response C10:
The existing trail width at this location is about 13-1/2 feet or less. This portion of the trail
provides the only route for garbage trucks to access the nearby trash enclosure building. It is
also an access route for emergency vehicles. The fire department requires twelve foot minimum
602
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 15 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
pavement width for drive routes. Garbage truck access involves a thirteen foot paved width.
Stair treads and handrails would protrude at least 2-1/2 feet into the paved trail/access route, not
including the required landing area. There is not enough space available to orient a stairway into
this portion of the pavement that serves not only as a trail, but also as vehicle access. Narrowing
the Stevens Creek Trail at this location is not feasible from an emergency and service vehicle
access perspective. According to the project¶VGHVLJQFRQVXOWDQW, the proposed ramps and stairs
are designed in a manner that would not cause destabilization of the creek bank.
Comment C11:
Indirect Impacts from Increased Recreation Use
3OHDVHSURYLGHUHIHUHQFHVWRWKHDVVHUWLRQWKDW³WKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWLVQRWH[SHFWHGWR
substantially affect the existing ability of wildlife to use the site. The visual and acoustic
disturbance to wildlife associated with the proposed, trail use is not expected to be
significantly higher than currently exists, and the wildlife along the channel is expected to
adapt to the new levels of disturbance. Providing a formal, accessible trail connection
and a controlled access point to Blackberry Farm Park could decrease the possible
creation of new foot trails through the sensitive habitats within WKHFRUULGRU´
Response C11:
In addition to the reasons stated in this comment, the IS/MND also states that ³Whe project site
was previously used as a group picnic area, the existing pedestrian bridge is currently used by
park staff to access the project site for maintenance activities, and the proposed trail connection
ZRXOGSURYLGHDFFHVVWRDQH[LVWLQJSULPDU\WUDLODOLJQPHQWDQGLVQRWWKHSULPDU\WUDLOLWVHOI´
The number of trail users expected to use the proposed access would be much lower than the
main Stevens Creek Trail, so the potential for wildlife disturbance would also be lower. For
these reasons, the project would not substantially affect the ability of wildlife to use the project
site in a manner that would rise to a level of significance under CEQA.
Comment C12:
As a long-time frequent user of trails of all kinds, I have noticed without exception that
formal trails, particularly those that allow bicycle use, inevitably widen and allow the
FUHDWLRQRIQHZ³URJXH´WUDLOVZKHQWKHUHLVQRIHQcing to stop the behavior that causes
these impacts. Please see photographs attached. Photo 1 demonstrates the widening of a
trail where the fence is further away, and the lack of widening on the side where there is a
split rail fence close to the trail. Photo 2 is of the Mary Ave. bridge trail completed not
long ago in Cupertino. Native plants were installed along the sides of this trail, but on
both sides the trail has increased in width, sometimes substantially, and the new native
plantings destroyed. Photo 3 is the Stevens Creek Trail in the old orchard area of
McClellan Ranch. Less than two years old, the trail has widened until the wire around the
planted native grasses and shrubs stops further encroachment into the habitat area. Photo
4 is an example of formal trails providing a launching point· for rogue trails to be
established into habitat areas.
Photo 5 was taken in a natural area where the trail slope required a switchback. Park
managers used barbed wire and a stern sign in an attempt to stop people from cutting the
switchback. Attachment A2 shows in the colored hatched areas where I believe people,
particularly children on BMX and mountain bikes, will cut the trail switchback. Between
trail widening, switchback cutting, and using the slope as a quicker and more exciting
603
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 16 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
way to get to the bridge, the entire area from the entry gate to the bridge will not be able
to maintain vegetation or soil stability. Photo 6 is an area between the Stevens Creek
Trail in Mountain View and the creek bank where people have illegally constructed a
BMX bicycle playground. I have observed many children and even some adults, using
slopes and hills that they have easy access to via a formal trail as a BMX and off-trail
practice area.
Patrolling and enforcing park rules is not sufficient behavior management unless a park
ranger is posted at this trail connection the entire time the park is open. Short of this,
preventing the destruction of vegetation on the sides of and branching off from a trail will
only be accomplished by a physical barrier in the form of fencing or continuous dense,
woody vegetation lining the trail. Even if new trail users are on their best behavior when
the trail is first opened for use, in the long-term the trail will widen and areas near the
trail denuded of vegetation. Again, many years of trail use and observation leads me to
this conclusion. Not only new native plants and the wildlife habitat they provide will be
wasted, but the city funds spent in installing them will be wasted as well.
One technique that works well in sensitive habitat is to create the trail as a boardwalk. At
the Elfin Forest in Los Osos, CA, both a boardwalk with a lip, and a strung out cord next
to the boardwalk, seems to keep trail users on the trail effectively. See Photos 7 & 8.
What behavior management techniques will the city deploy to prevent destruction of
vegetation and subsequent destabilization of the soil in the area of the trail? Will the city
install some sort of wildlife friendly and safe fencing, or dense, woody plantings to
prevent degradation of habitat value and potential erosion and siltation reaching the
creek? ,GLVDJUHHZLWKWKHSUHGLFWLRQWKDWDQ³LQFUHDVHLQYLVLWRUDQGGRJXVH>LQ@WKH
project site would not have a significant long-term HIIHFWRQVHQVLWLYHKDELWDWVRUZLOGOLIH´
± without employing physical methods of keeping people on the trail and preventing
widening, cutting of the switchback, and making additional trails.
Response C12:
The comments and recommendations are noted. By providing a formal trail, the project is
intended to reduce informal trails through sensitive habitats and the creek. The DG access trail
has been designed with header board edges on both sides; the edges of the boards are expected to
help reduce inadvertenW³ZLGHQLQJ´RIWhe trail. The proposed retaining wall plus the fence on top
of it would discourage bicyclists from cutting the first switchback leading down from Scenic
Circle. If substantial off-trail degradation begins to occur after project completion, the City will
consider additional measures to discourage trail misuse, such as planting denser vegetation at
appropriate locations, or installing plant species that discourage misuse (for example, thorny
plants). An adaptive management strategy would be implemented for the proposed project, as is
already used for the existing primary trail. Additional Park Ranger patrols are available if the
trails are misused as described in this comment.
Comment C13:
Special Status Bird Species
Impact BIO-2: In addition to removal or trimming of shrubs and trees on the site possibly
impacting nesting birds, the loud noises and vibrations of heavy machinery could also
cause a bird to abandon a nest, or prevent it from incubating eggs or feeding young for
long enough periods to endanger the successful rearing of offspring.
604
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 17 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
Response C13:
As discussed on page 38 of the Initial Study, activities associated with trail construction could
potentially result in disturbance to protected birds. Mitigation measures are included in the
project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If an active nest(s) is identified on the
project site during the pre-construction survey, a buffer(s) would be established around the nest,
as determined by a qualified biologist pursuant to CDFG requirements (MM BIO-2.1). No
equipment disturbance will be permitted within the buffers.
Comment C14:
MM BIO-2.1 This project should be constructed outside of the breeding season starting
from January for some species (e.g. Great Horned Owl) through June. The project should
begin in July, which would allow it to be completed before the rainy season. This access
to Blackberry Farm has been closed for five years and a couple of extra months of closure
is not significant. Construction during the nesting season is not unavoidable.
Response C14:
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response A6. Mitigation measures are included in the
project (pages 38 and 39 of the IS/MND) to reduce impacts to nesting birds, including raptors,
during construction as well as pre-construction surveys for such bird species.
Comment C15:
4.9.2.1 Flooding and Drainage Impacts from the Project
What is the nature and composition of the stabilizer to be used on the trail surface? Does
this stabilizer have any toxic properties and could toxic material or chemicals
contaminate the soil or waters of the creek?
Response C15:
The City would use a non-toxic stabilizer to bind the decomposed granite or similar material.
The use of a stabilizer would not contaminate soil or water. One of two types of stabilizer would
be used for the project. One type is an organic natural binder that has been widely used by the
National Parks Service. The product is nontoxic, appropriate for creekside settings and is based
on crushed psyllium seed hulls. The other is a natural product that includes cement binder and
mineral colorant; it has been used for State Park beach access pathways and is equally
appropriate for this setting.
Comment C16:
4.1.8 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1) The project does have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. Some
trail users, over time, like some trail users everywhere, will walk and ride bicycles on the
land adjacent to the trail. Some bicyclists will cut the switchback and use the slope as an
alternative way down to the bridge. Bicyclists will also go around slower pedestrians by
going off-trail. Pedestrians will also engage in these off trail activities. This trail is
intended to be used by children going to and from school. Children are the most likely
people to behave in off-trail activities. Kids on wide-tired bikes especially enjoy using
slopes to practice their maneuvers. Vegetation is destroyed, exposed soil is both loosened
and compacted (depending on the type of activity) as a result of these behaviors. Over
time all vegetation is removed exposing bare soil that is subject to erosion and
605
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 18 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
sedimentation of the creek water. Proposed mitigation measures are not adequate to
prevent this impact. Like agencies in many other jurisdictions, other measures should be
employed such as fencing, boardwalk with adjacent fencing, and/ or dense, woody shrubs
next to the trail as a physical barrier and visual cue for people to remain on the trail while
descending to the bridge.
Response C16:
Please refer to Response C12.
Comment C17:
What is the mitigation monitoring plan for evaluation of the success of the planted and
transplanted plants associated with this project? What is the plan for weed control and
replacement of plants that fail? Is there an adaptive management plan for responding to
levels of habitat degradation and species impacts not anticipated? Where will mitigation
monitoring reports be located for public inspection?
Thank you for answering my questions and giving serious consideration to the additional
impacts and mitigation measures that I believe are necessary to fully protect the habitat
values of the project area riparian woodland.
Response C17:
The proposed planting and replacement trees would be maintained by the City for a five year
period (refer to MM BIO-4.1 and Response A5 above). The Stevens Creek Corridor Phase I
project is currently monitored per an approved Monitoring Plan. One of the monitored
vegetation transects is already located at the Scenic Circle Access project site. The three years of
monitoring that still remain can provide information as to the success of plantings at the site.
7KH&LW\¶s intent is to replace failed plants at the project site, including the plantings installed for
the proposed Scenic Circle Access project, at the conclusion of the third remaining year of Phase
I project monitoring in a manner that would be consistent with the criteria of that Monitoring
Plan.
Weed control is constrained by the goal to avoid use of herbicides on weeds and allow
recruitment of natives. To date weed control has been performed manually. The Parks and
Recreation Department, which operates the site, plans to expand a trained/supervised volunteer
program to assist in this task.
As described in Response C12 above and on page 34 of the IS/MND, the City will continue to
use adaptive management strategy and implement additional measures as needed to reduce
unanticipated habitat degradation and species impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) will be on file at the City of Cupertino,
and available during normal business hours.
D. Letter from Shani Kleinhaus (Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society), December 6, 2010
Comment D1:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm
606
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 19 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
Park (Project No. 9136) in the City of Cupertino. The project would construct an
approximately 270-foot long trail to connect Scenic Circle to the existing trail in
Blackberry Farm Park via an existing bridge over Stevens Creek. The proposed project
also includes the construction of approach ramps, stairway, retaining wall, and access
point at Scenic Circle. The project is designed to accommodate nonmotorized modes of
travel, including biking, hiking, jogging, and walking.
The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) has over 4000 members in the
county, many of which reside in Cupertino. Our mission is to preserve, to enjoy, to
restore and to foster public awareness of native birds and their ecosystems, mainly in
Santa Clara County. SCVAS has inherent interest in development along the Stevens
Creek riparian corridor: our offices are located in McClellan Ranch, and we are partners
with the City of Cupertino in the application for the funding of Phase II of the Stevens
Creek Park Project. We have previously commented on the proposed Scenic Circle
Access to Stevens Creek Trail, and we appreciate the efforts taken by the City to select a
short route from Scenic Circle to the bridge, as suggested in our letter of February 16th,
2010.
1. Trail Design
1.1. Trail design should include barriers to control use and prevent environmental
damage; barriers may include fences, vegetation, stiles, and/or fallen trees or branches as
appropriate.
1.2. Non-motorized travel on the trail should specifically prohibit skateboarding.
Response D1:
The comment comments and recommendations are noted. Please refer to Response C12 above
regarding trail design and operational measures intended to prevent environmental damage.
Skateboarding is already prohibited on Stevens Creek Trail in Cupertino per the adopted rules
and regulations.
Comment D2:
2. Project construction, vegetation removal and trimming
The proposed project is of relatively short duration and can be constructed entirely
outside of the nesting season, thereby avoiding harm to nesting birds and breach of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We ask that Mitigation Measure BIO-2.1 specify that
construction, and especially vegetation removal and trimming, occur outside of the
nesting season.
Response D2:
The comment is noted. Please refer to Responses A6 and C14.
Comment D3:
3. Dog and human access
The Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies Indirect Impacts from
Increased Recreational Use (page 34) that include impacts due to increased human and
dog access. The MND correctly proposes that implementation of measures included in
the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project to protect sensitive wildlife and habitat from
607
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 20 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
impacts due to visitor and dog use would help minimize potential impacts of the proposed
trail connection.
We ask that the MND and its associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
(MMRP) for the Scenic Circle project reiterate and incorporate Stevens Creek Corridor
Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan (SCCPMP) Mitigation Measure BIO-5 (SCCPMP,
Appendix I) as approved by the City for the in April 2006. This mitigation measure
includes signage, patrols and citations, cleanup of dog waste, and a ³volunteer patrols and
education´ program. In addition, SCCPMP Mitigation Measure BIO-5 has an adaptive
management component, and it proposes that if it is determined at any time that the
impacts to native flora and fauna and to restored habitats are not sufficiently minimized,
then the City shall discontinue permitting dogs within the project area.
Response D3:
The measures cited in the IS/MND for Stevens Creek Corridor Park referred to in this comment
are in use at Blackberry Farm Park and Stevens Creek Trail, including signage, cleanup of dog
waste, creek use limitations, and adaptive management. Rangers patrol the site daily and can call
on County Sheriff and/or City Code Enforcement staff for citation support as needed. The
informal volunteer patrol and education effort is planned to be formalized this year by the Parks
and Recreation Department. Please also refer to Response C12 above.
The new Scenic Circle Access project is part of the overall Blackberry Farm Park and is subject
to the same rules and regulations. The rules and policies are posted on the City website at
http://cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=765. Rules are also posted at the project site. The Scenic
Circle Access and the new pathway will be operated in the same manner as the rest of
Blackberry Farm Park and utilize the same operational measures and principles.
Comment D4:
4. Mitigation monitoring
Please specify where, in the future, all documents related to mitigation compliance will
be located, so that the public may inspect them. All documentation, not just summary
reports, should be considered public records.
Response D4:
As described in Response C17 above, the MMRP will be on file at the City of Cupertino, and
available during normal business hours.
Comment D5:
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm
Park. We hope to continue to be involved in the review process for the proposed project
with the aim of providing access while protecting the riparian corridor, its wildlife and its
ecological function.
Response D5:
The comment is noted.
608
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 21 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
E. Letter from Susan Sievert (Byrne Avenue, Cupertino), December 6, 2010
Comment E1:
Some did not want the inconvenience of this CEQA review process, and now, rather than
mitigate the avoidable environmental impacts, some residents would have it that the trail
construction commence during bird nesting season. Please recall that respecting the
nesting season during Phase I was universally accepted without debate ² and that this
area has been a year round, undisturbed safe haven for wildlife since 2005. For further
information, please contact the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and the City
Naturalist.
Response E1:
The comment is noted. Please refer to Responses A6 and C14.
Comment E2:
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE: ³The City of Cupertino is proposing
to construct an approximately 270-foot long trail that would connect Scenic Circle to the
existing trail in Blackberry Farm Park via an existing pedestrian bridge over Stevens
Creek.´
QUESTION: Is the bridge an ³existing pedestrian bridge,´ or a replacement maintenance
bridge that is presently closed to the public? Or, please provide the CEQA statute
allowing its status to be interchangeable.
The existing wooden pedestrian bridge that was installed by the City without a permit
was removed as directed by the City Council, and a recycled metal bridge was installed
without a public hearing, or CEQA review. However, the 2006 IS/MND Project
Description states, ³Should any new bridges be considered in the future other than what
is proposed in the Master Plan, they would need to go through the permitting and CEQA
process separately.´
7KH&LW\LQFOXGLQJWKH&LW\$WWRUQH\¶V2IILFHODWHUDUJXHGLWZDVD³maintenance
bridge,´ not needing a CEQA review because it was a ³replacement or reconstruction of
existing utility systems and / or facilities, under CEQA section 15302 (b).´
Response E2:
Please refer to Response B4 above. The existing metal bridge was placed in the location of the
previous wooden bridge and is currently used only for maintenance purposes. ³PHGHVWULDQ´LV
used in this context to emphasize that it does not accommodate motorized travel.
Comment E3:
3.1.1 BACKGROUND: ³After the Blackberry Farm Park renovations were completed in
2009, some residents raised the issue of restoring public access from Scenic Circle to
provide a route to walk and bike to the tri-school area east of the creek and to increase
community access to the renovated public park.´
QUESTION: Does trespassing and special favors qualify as public access?
Public access was not legitimized until a 2010 City Council action. From 1953 until
2009, Blackberry Farm was a seasonal resort requiring an entrance fee, but ³some
609
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 22 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
residents´ committed acts of vandalism to gain entry (fence cutting). In 2001, City staff
gave special favor to some residents by providing them with the combination to a
padlocked gate, while the public continued to pay the entrance fee. Therefore, it should
read granting public access, not ³restoring.´
Response E3:
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response B6 above.
Comment E4:
3.2.4 PARKING CONTROL MEASURES: ³Tier 2: The existing overflow parking lot at
Monta Vista High School for the park will be maintained for high attendance events as
needed.´
QUESTIONS: After people park at MVHS, please explain exactly what they are to do
next? Also, when was the MVHS solution studied for its feasibility and environmental
impacts?
The 2006 IS/MND that this November 2010 Initial Study states it ³utilized´ failed to
include any scenario for ³overflow´ parking. It is therefore irresponsible to casually toss
in unstudied mitigation measures. Further, the use of the word ³maintained´ suggests a
status quo operation, when the change in use was significant: the entrance fee was
removed; the days of use went from 100 to 365-days per year; and, last but not least, the
onsite parking was reduced from 1200 to 167 without a public hearing or CEQA review.
The glaring problem resulting from the Phase One parking error is that once the trail is
extended to Stevens Creek Blvd., it will be unlawful (per the terms of a legal agreement)
for shuttles and busses to use the San Fernando Avenue Blackberry Farm driveway.
Further, since the City is on the record saying the entrance is a ³safety issue,´ the
negligence of inviting pedestrians to walk from MVHS is a significant taxpayer liability.
In short, the parking program is a broken mess, and MVHS is more of a problem than a
solution.
Response E4:
This comment mainly refers to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project and associated IS/MND.
7KHFRPPHQWRU¶VRbservations on the parking situation at Blackberry Farm Park are noted.
Please refer to Response B2 above. The use of Monte Vista High School as an overflow
parking lot during the infrequent high attendance events at Blackberry Farm Park is not
LGHQWLILHGDVD³PLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUH´LQWKH,601'7Ke above referenced statement in Section
3.2.4 was included in the Project Description to emphasize that additional parking options are
available, and Blackberry Farm visitors are not expected to park their cars on Scenic Circle, even
during high attendance events.
As described in Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose, some of the information contained within
the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND (2006) was referenced in the Scenic Circle IS/MND,
as allowed under Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Scenic Circle IS/MND, however,
is not a subsequent MND or addendum to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND, as defined
in Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. This IS/MND is not tiered off of the
Stevens Creek Corridor IS/MND.
610
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 23 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
Pursuant to a settlement agreement and an associated addendum to the Stevens Creek Corridor
Park IS/MND, shuttles and buses will not be permitted to use the San Fernando entrance to
Blackberry Farm Park after the trail is completed and connects to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Comment E5:
3.2.8 CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION
QUESTION: What is the construction activity schedule (hours/days)?
QUESTION: What measures will be taken to prevent construction personnel from using
the surrounding neighborhoods as a staging area prior to the designated start time?
QUESTION: What are the construction vehicle traffic routes, and what measures will be
taken to ensure the construction vehicles stay on those designated routes?
Response E5:
In response to neighbor concerns regarding construction noise and activities, the City has
prepared project-specific construction requirements for contractors. In brief, construction
workers may not arrive at the construction site prior to 7:00 AM, and if they drive a large vehicle
(over 8,000 lbs) they may not arrive until 8:00 a.m. Work hours are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. weekdays, unless otherwise approved in advance. No work may take place that generates
50 dBA within 25 feet of the source before 8:00 AM or after 5:00 PM. Equipment and material
delivery and offhaul activities may only occur between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Equipment with
safety backup beepers may only be operated between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Construction
workers are only allowed to park in the Blackberry Farm Park parking lot and are encouraged to
carpool. Construction equipment parking on Scenic Circle may be allowed on a limited basis
ZLWK&LW\¶VSULRUDSSURYDO9LRODWLRQVRIWKHVHUHTXLUHPHQWVZLOOUHVXOWLQDfinancial penalty to
the Contractor.
Early arrival construction personnel may park on public streets where parking is legally
permitted. However staff will work with the contractor to encourage that such early-arrival
parking, if needed, will occur in non-residential areas.
Construction vehicles are permitted to use roadways in accordance with Section 11.32 of the
&LW\¶V0XQLFLSDO&RGH. Oversize or overweight vehicles are subject to restrictions of a special
permit in accordance with Section 11.37 of the Municipal Code.
Comment E6:
4.1 AESTHETICS: ³The proposed project includes the construction of an approximately
270-foot long trail consisting of crushed or decomposed granite or another similar
material;´
QUESTION: Please define ³another similar material.´ Specifically, does it include
concrete or asphalt?
Response E6:
Please refer to Response C2.
611
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 24 Responses to Comments on the IS/MND
City of Cupertino January 2011
Comment E7:
QUESTION: What preventive measures will be used to ensure the public stays on the
designated trail (e.g., fencing)? Unfortunately, the forewarned trail widening and habitat
destruction has occurred along parts of the Phase I trail.
Response E7:
Please refer to Response C12.
612
ATTACHMENT A
Letter from Gail Bower
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
613
614
ATTACHMENT B
Letter from Rhoda Fry
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
615
616
617
618
ATTACHMENT C
Letter from Deborah Jamison
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
619
Deborah Jamison
21346 Rumford Drive
Cupertino,CA 95014
408-725-0424
ddjamison@comcast.net
Gail Seeds, Department of Public Works
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
Dear Ms. Seeds,
Please accept for review my comments re: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park project,
No.9136.I have a masters degree and work experience in the field of ecology,and have
participated as an interested member of the public in numerous stream and riparian
development project issues, including those along Stevens Creek in Cupertino since
1990.I am pleased to offer my questions and suggestions for improvement of this
project regarding protection of natural resources in the project area.I would appreciate
responses to each of my questions,as well as your thoughtful consideration of the
suggestions.
Let me begin by saying that as a former professional and current volunteer
environmental educator, I encourage people to spend time in natural environments,
and to learn about and appreciate our local ecosystems. Adults as well as children in our
society suffer from “nature deficit disorder,” “screen addiction,” and obesity. Providing
access and outdoor experiences, especially in local parks near residential areas, may
help to reduce these societal trends.However,in natural areas that have been so
drastically reduced as local and regional freshwater aquatic and riparian habitats have
been in the last several decades,care must be taken to make sure that the very nature
whose understanding and appreciation we hope to instill through providing access is
not further degraded or destroyed by human presence and activity.All construction
work and infrastructure installed in native plant communities and wildlife habitat will
have some negative impacts in the short term. My comments concern minimizing the
short term impacts and eliminating long term impacts that potentially can arise if more
mitigation than is currently proposed is not implemented.
Section 4.1.1 Aesthetics
The proposed project includes construction of a trail consisting of crushed or
decomposed granite or another similar material. What is meant by “similar”?Does
“similar material” include hard-surfacing (e.g. asphalt, concrete). Does “similar
material” include impervious surfacing? Is crushed or decomposed granite or another
similar material considered an all-weather material? My opinion is that a hard,
impervious trail surfacing is a detriment to the aesthetic qualities of this area of the
creekside environment.It might also contribute to water run-off into the creek carrying
soil/silt material and thus erosion of the soil on this slope. Siltation of creek waters
Deborah Jamison, comments to Cupertino Project No. 9136 page 1
620
degrades the habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish.
The project includes trash and recycling receptacles located out of sight of the
residences. For aesthetic reasons, I think that the receptacles should be constructed of a
material and be a color that blends in to the rustic and natural environmental and be
visually non-obtrusive.Consideration should be given to placing them in a location that
is visible to nearby trail users but not visible to persons on the east side of the creek.
Additional planting may be required to shield the receptacles from high visibility. The
receptacles should also be the kind that wildlife cannot access.
Section 4.4 Biological Resources
The redesign of Blackberry Farm planned for the project area to be inaccessible to
people,and thus not subject to the negative impacts on habitat that human and dog
presence and activity produce. The adopted 2006 SCCP Master Plan/Restoration
Plan/Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration proposed that the “Pedestrian
bridge from the east bank of Stevens Creek to Fallen Oak picnic areas....would be
demolished and removed.”The removal of people and the reintroduction of native
plants would have made the project area the highest quality woodland habitat in
Blackberry Farm.
Section 4.4.1.2 Existing Biotic Habitats
I urge the city to take the opportunity provided by tree removal activity for this project
to remove Tree of Heaven/Ailanthus specimens.This species is invasive,fast-growing,
and often takes over areas,outcompeting native plants causing their decline and
disappearance.
Section 4.4.1.2. Wildlife
I maintain a database of birds observed in McClellan Ranch and Blackberry Farm based
on my own observations and those of other reputable bird observers. All of the raptors
listed as “may nest and/or forage in the riparian corridor and adjacent habitats” have
been seen and/or heard in recent years.Other raptor species that have been observed
and may use the habitat in or near the project site are Sharp-shinned Hawk and Great
Horned Owl.The following raptors have also been observed near the project area:
Turkey Vulture,Golden Eagle,Osprey,Peregrine Falcon,Merlin and American Kestrel.
Section 4.4.1.3 Special-Status Species
The following bird species with special status have been observed to be present within
the corridor between 2005 and 2010:Sharp-shinned Hawk,Peregrine Falcon and
Merlin.
Some of the bird species that are known to nest in the riparian woodland along this
section of Stevens Creek are also on the Audubon Watchlist. These are Nuttall’s
Woodpecker and Oak Titmouse. Also feared declining is Warbling Vireo,
.
Deborah Jamison, comments to Cupertino Project No. 9136 page 2
621
4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
The construction of the Stevens Creek Trail in McClellan Ranch, which has a concrete
surface,resulted in the soil scrapping and vegetation removal of far more than the 8
foot width of the trail.Why will this trail be constructed “by removing only as much
vegetation as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width and installation of
proposed improvements”? How is the construction method used in this Scenic Circle
access trail different from the methods used in the Stevens Creek Trail and how does
the difference in methods explain the difference in width of vegetation removal?
Should reseeding be done in the impacted area,will those seeds be from plants native
to the area or the Stevens Creek watershed?
4.4.2.1 Impacts to Sensitive Habitats
Section 4.3.2.2 Construction-Related Impacts and
under Aquatic Habitat Avoidance Measures to Aquatic Habitat the IS/MND states:
“Construction equipment will be staged in upland and/or currently developed or
disturbed areas to avoid disturbance to sensitive habitat areas and reduce the potential
for sediment and materials to enter the creek.”Please be more specific.Where will
construction materials (wood,fill,base rock,surface material,etc.)and machinery be
stored/parked when not in use?Does “upland”mean in areas upslope from the creek
not in the immediate trail alignment?Storage of these items should not cover or
negatively impact in any way areas adjacent to but not in the immediate trail
construction alignment area.Doing so increases the footprint of the area to be
negatively impacted by vegetation removal,soil compaction and habitat degradation,
and increases the potential of negatively impacting soil stability and creek water quality.
Impacts to Riparian and Aquatic Habitat
The proposed plan is to construct a ramp on the east side of the creek from the bridge
and extending to the north,in an alignment very close to the edge of the creek bank
where it descends to the creekbed.The proximity of the ramp to the creek bank may
cause destabilization of the soil and siltation. It also prevents the establishment of
vegetation that would stabilize the top of the bank.However,because of the proximity
of the main trail,the ramp cannot be oriented in the same direction as the bridge.On
the other hand,the steps could be.The trail at that location is very wide,and the
presence of the steps would not reduce the width to an unacceptable dimension for
regular trail use.On the other hand,the creek bank in the south direction falls away
from the bridge quite near to where the steps would be.Orienting the stairs in a direct
line with the bridge is safer and has less potential to damage the top of the bank. Please
consider this alternative. What is the width of vehicles who need access on this section
of the trail?Could they could manage with a reduced width at the location of the
bridge?
Deborah Jamison, comments to Cupertino Project No. 9136 page 3
622
Indirect Impacts from Increased Recreation Use
Please provide references to the assertion that “the proposed project is not expected to
substantially affect the existing ability of wildlife to use the site. The visual and acoustic
disturbance to wildlife associated with the proposed trail use is not expected to be
significantly higher than currently exists, and the wildlife along the channel is expected
to adapt to the new levels of disturbance. Providing a formal, accessible trail connection
and a controlled access point to Blackberry Farm Park could decrease the possible
creation of new foot trails through the sensitive habitats within the corridor.”
As a long-time frequent user of trails of all kinds,I have noticed without exception that
formal trails, particularly those that allow bicycle use, inevitably widen and allow the
creation of new “rogue”trails when there is no fencing to stop the behavior that causes
these impacts.Please see photographs attached.Photo 1 demonstrates the widening of
a trail where the fence is further away,and the lack of widening on the side where there
is a split rail fence close to the trail. Photo 2 is of the Mary Ave. bridge trail completed
not long ago in Cupertino. Native plants were installed along the sides of this trail, but
on both sides the trail has increased in width, sometimes substantially, and the new
native plantings destroyed.Photo 3 is the Stevens Creek Trail in the old orchard area of
McClellan Ranch. Less than two years old, the trail has widened until the wire around
the planted native grasses and shrubs stops further encroachment into the habitat area.
Photo 4 is an example of formal trails providing a launching point for rogue trails to be
established into habitat areas.
Photo 5 was taken in a natural area where the trail slope required a switchback. Park
managers used barbed wire and a stern sign in an attempt to stop people from cutting
the switchback. Attachment A2 shows in the colored hatched areas where I believe
people, particularly children on BMX and mountain bikes, will cut the trail switchback.
Between trail widening, switchback cutting, and using the slope as a quicker and more
exciting way to get to the bridge,the entire area from the entry gate to the bridge will
not be able to maintain vegetation or soil stability. Photo 6 is an area between the
Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View and the creek bank where people have illegally
constructed a BMX bicycle playground. I have observed many children, and even some
adults, using slopes and hills that they have easy access to via a formal trail as a BMX
and off-trail practice area.
Patrolling and enforcing park rules is not sufficient behavior management unless a park
ranger is posted at this trail connection the entire time the park is open.Short of this,
preventing the destruction of vegetation on the sides of and branching off from a trail
will only be accomplished by a physical barrier in the form of fencing or continuous
dense,woody vegetation lining the trail.Even if new trail users are on their best
behavior when the trail is first opened for use, in the long-term the trail will widen and
areas near the trail denuded of vegetation.Again,many years of trail use and
observation leads me to this conclusion. Not only new native plants and the wildlife
habitat they provide will be wasted, but the city funds spent in installing them will be
wasted as well.
One technique that works well in sensitive habitat is to create the trail as a boardwalk.
Deborah Jamison, comments to Cupertino Project No. 9136 page 4
623
At the Elfin Forest in Los Osos, CA, both a boardwalk with a lip, and a strung out cord
next to the boardwalk,seems to keep trail users on the trail effectively.See Photos 7 &
8.
What behavior management techniques will the city deploy to prevent destruction of
vegetation and subsequent destabilization of the soil in the area of the trail?Will the city
install some sort of wildlife friendly and safe fencing, or dense, woody plantings to
prevent degradation of habitat value and potential erosion and siltation reaching the
creek?I disagree with the prediction that an “increase in visitor and dog use [in]the
project site would not have a significant long-term effect on sensitive habitats or
wildlife” – without employing physical methods of keeping people on the trail and
preventing widening, cutting of the switchback, and making additional trails.
Special Status Bird Species
Impact BIO-2:In addition to removal or trimming of shrubs and trees on the site
possibly impacting nesting birds,the loud noises and vibrations of heavy machinery
could also cause a bird to abandon a nest,or prevent it from incubating eggs or feeding
young for long enough periods to endanger the successful rearing of offspring.
MM BIO-2.1 This project should be constructed outside of the breeding season starting
from January for some species (e.g.Great Horned Owl)through June.The project
should begin in July, which would allow it to be completed before the rainy season. This
access to Blackberry Farm has been closed for five years and a couple of extra months
of closure is not significant. Construction during the nesting season is not unavoidable.
4.9.2.1 Flooding and Drainage Impacts from the Project
What is the nature and composition of the stabilizer to be used on the trail surface?
Does this stabilizer have any toxic properties and could toxic material or chemicals
contaminate the soil or waters of the creek?
4.1.8 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1)The project does have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment.Some
trail users,over time,like some trail users everywhere,will walk and ride bicycles on
the land adjacent to the trail. Some bicyclists will cut the switchback and use the slope as
an alternative way down to the bridge. Bicyclists will also go around slower pedestrians
by going off-trail. Pedestrians will also engage in these off trail activities. This trail is
intended to be used by children going to and from school.Children are the most likely
people to behave in off-trail activities. Vegetation is destroyed, exposed soil is both
loosened and compacted (depending on the type of activity) as a result of these
behaviors.Over time all vegetation is removed exposing bare soil that is subject to
erosion and sedimentation of the creek water.Proposed mitigation measures are not
adequate to prevent this impact. Like agencies in many other jurisdictions, other
measures should be employed such as fencing,boardwalk with adjacent fencing,
and/or dense,woody shrubs next to the trail as a physical barrier and visual cue for
people to remain on the trail while descending to the bridge.
Deborah Jamison, comments to Cupertino Project No. 9136 page 5
624
What is the mitigation monitoring plan for evaluation of the success of the planted and
transplanted plants associated with this project? What is the plan for weed control and
replacement of plants that fail?Is there an adaptive management plan for responding
to levels of habitat degradation and species impacts not anticipated?
Thank you for answering my questions and giving serious consideration to the
additional impacts and mitigation measures that I believe are necessary to fully protect
the habitat values of the project area riparian woodland.
Sincerely,
Deborah Jamison
Deborah Jamison, comments to Cupertino Project No. 9136 page 6
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
ATTACHMENT D
Letter from Shani Kleinhaus for
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
635
p. 1 of 2
22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 252-3748 * Fax: (408) 252-2850
email: scvas@scvas.org * www.scvas.org
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Founded 1926
December 6
th, 2010
Gail Seeds, Project Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Ms. Seeds,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park (Project No.
9136) in the City of Cupertino. The project would construct an approximately 270-foot long trail
to connect Scenic Circle to the existing trail in Blackberry Farm Park via an existing bridge over
Stevens Creek. The proposed project also includes the construction of approach ramps, stairway,
retaining wall, and access point at Scenic Circle. The project is designed to accommodate non-
motorized modes of travel, including biking, hiking, jogging, and walking.
The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) has over 4000 members in the county, many
of which reside in Cupertino. Our mission is to preserve, to enjoy, to restore and to foster public
awareness of native birds and their ecosystems, mainly in Santa Clara County. SCVAS has
inherent interest in development along the Stevens Creek riparian corridor: our offices are
located in McClellan Ranch, and we are partners with the City of Cupertino in the application for
the funding of Phase II of the Stevens Creek Park Project. We have previously commented on
the proposed Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail, and we appreciate the efforts taken by
the City to select a short route from Scenic Circle to the bridge, as suggested in our letter of
February 16th, 2010.
1. Trail Design
1.1. Trail design should include barriers to control use and prevent environmental damage;
barriers may include fences, vegetation, stiles, and/or fallen trees or branches as appropriate.
1.2. Non-motorized travel on the trail should specifically prohibit skateboarding.
2. Project construction, vegetation removal and trimming
The proposed project is of relatively short duration and can be constructed entirely outside of the
nesting season, thereby avoiding harm to nesting birds and breach of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. We ask that Mitigation Measure BIO-2.1 specify that construction, and especially
vegetation removal and trimming, occur outside of the nesting season.
636
p. 2 of 2
22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 252-3748 * Fax: (408) 252-2850
email: scvas@scvas.org * www.scvas.org
3.Dog and human access
The Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies Indirect Impacts from Increased
Recreational Use (page 34) that include impacts due to increased human and dog access. The
MND correctly proposes that implementation of measures included in the Stevens Creek
Corridor Park project to protect sensitive wildlife and habitat from impacts due to visitor and dog
use would help minimize potential impacts of the proposed trail connection.
We ask that the MND and its associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for
the Scenic Circle project reiterate and incorporate Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and
Restoration Plan (SCCPMP) Mitigation Measure BIO-5 (SCCPMP, Appendix I) as approved by
the City for the in April 2006. This mitigation measure includes signage, patrols and citations,
cleanup of dog waste, and a “volunteer patrols and education” program. In addition, SCCPMP
Mitigation Measure BIO-5 has an adaptive management component, and it proposes that if it is
determined at any time that the impacts to native flora and fauna and to restored habitats are not
sufficiently minimized, then the City shall discontinue permitting dogs within the project area.
4. Mitigation monitoring
Please specify where, in the future, all documents related to mitigation compliance will be
located, so that the public may inspect them. All documentation, not just summary reports,
should be considered public records.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. We hope to
continue to be involved in the review process for the proposed project with the aim of providing
access while protecting the riparian corridor, its wildlife and its ecological function.
Respectfully,
Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
22221 McClellan Rd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
shani@scvas.org
637
ATTACHMENT E
Letter from Susan Sievert
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
638
1
Comments and Questions for the November 2010 Scenic Circle Access to Stevens
Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Initial Study/MND
Some did not want the inconvenience of this CEQA review process, and now, rather than
mitigate the avoidable environmental impacts, some residents would have it that the trail
construction commence during bird nesting season. Please recall that respecting the
nesting season during Phase I was universally accepted without debate — and that this area
has been a year round, undisturbed safe haven for wildlife since 2005. For further
information, please contact the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and the City
Naturalist.
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE:“The City of Cupertino is proposing
to construct an approximately 270-foot long trail that would connect Scenic Circle to the
existing trail in Blackberry Farm Park via an existing pedestrian bridge over Stevens
Creek.”
QUESTION: Is the bridge an “existing pedestrian bridge,” or a replacement maintenance
bridge that is presently closed to the public? Or, please provide the CEQA statute allowing
its status to be interchangeable.
The existing wooden pedestrian bridge that was installed by the City without a permit was
removed as directed by the City Council, and a recycled metal bridge was installed without
a public hearing, or CEQA review. However, the 2006 IS/MND Project Description states,
“Should any new bridges be considered in the future other than what is proposed in the
Master Plan, they would need to go through the permitting and CEQA process separately.”
The City, including the City Attorney’s Office, later argued it was a “maintenance bridge,”
not needing a CEQA review because it was a “replacement or reconstruction of existing
utility systems and / or facilities, under CEQA section 15302 (b).”
639
2
3.1.1 BACKGROUND: “After the Blackberry Farm Park renovations were completed in
2009, some residents raised the issue of restoring public access from Scenic Circle to
provide a route to walk and bike to the tri-school area east of the creek and to increase
community access to the renovated public park.”
QUESTION: Does trespassing and special favors qualify as public access?
Public access was not legitimized until a 2010 City Council action. From 1953 until 2009,
Blackberry Farm was a seasonal resort requiring an entrance fee, but “some residents”
committed acts of vandalism to gain entry (fence cutting). In 2001, City staff gave special
favor to some residents by providing them with the combination to a padlocked gate, while
the public continued to pay the entrance fee. Therefore, it should read granting public
access, not “restoring.”
3.2.4 PARKING CONTROL MEASURES: “Tier 2: The existing overflow parking lot at
Monta Vista High School for the park will be maintained for high attendance events as
needed.”
QUESTIONS: After people park at MVHS, please explain exactly what they are to do
next? Also, when was the MVHS solution studied for its feasibility and environmental
impacts?
The 2006 IS/MND that this November 2010 Initial Study states it “utilized” failed to
include any scenario for “overflow” parking. It is therefore irresponsible to casually toss
in unstudied mitigation measures. Further, the use of the word “maintained” suggests a
status quo operation, when the change in use was significant: the entrance fee was
removed; the days of use went from 100 to 365-days per year; and, last but not least, the
onsite parking was reduced from 1200 to 167 without a public hearing or CEQA review.
The glaring problem resulting from the Phase One parking error is that once the trail is
extended to Stevens Creek Blvd., it will be unlawful (per the terms of a legal agreement)
for shuttles and busses to use the San Fernando Avenue Blackberry Farm driveway.
Further, since the City is on the record saying the entrance is a “safety issue,” the
negligence of inviting pedestrians to walk from MVHS is a significant taxpayer liability.
In short, the parking program is a broken mess, and MVHS is more of a problem than a
solution.
3.2.8 CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION
QUESTION: What is the construction activity schedule (hours/days)?
QUESTION: What measures will be taken to prevent construction personnel from using
the surrounding neighborhoods as a staging area prior to the designated start time?
QUESTION: What are the construction vehicle traffic routes, and what measures will be
taken to ensure the construction vehicles stay on those designated routes?
640
3
4.1 AESTHETICS: “The proposed project includes the construction of an approximately
270-foot long trail consisting of crushed or decomposed granite or another similar
material;”
QUESTION: Please define “another similar material.” Specifically, does it include
concrete or asphalt?
QUESTION: What preventive measures will be used to ensure the public stays on the
designated trail (e.g., fencing)? Unfortunately, the forewarned trail widening and habitat
destruction has occurred along parts of the Phase I trail.
Thank you in advance for answering my questions.
Susan Sievert
641
ATTACHMENT F
Letter to City of Cupertino from the
State of California,
Governor¶s Office of Planning and Research,
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
642
643
644
ATTACHMENT 1
Letter from Hugh Chen
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
645
646
ATTACHMENT 2
Letter from Paul Oleas
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
647
648
ATTACHMENT 3
Letter from Carol Lim
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
649
650
ATTACHMENT 4
Letter from Steve and Darlene Mix
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
651
652
ATTACHMENT 5
Letter from Jean Misko
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
653
654
ATTACHMENT 6
Letter from Anne Ng
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
655
656
ATTACHMENT 7
Letter from Ross S. Heitkamp, President,
Friends of Stevens Creek Trail
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
657
658
ATTACHMENT 8
Letter from Rune H. Jensen
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
659
660
ATTACHMENT 9
Letter from Carol Stanek
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
661
662
663
ATTACHMENT 10
Letter from Kenneth C. and Sandra Q. Joe
Scenic Circle Access
to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
Public Comments on Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
664
665
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park
City of Cupertino
January 2011
666
PREFACE
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program whenever it approves a project for which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.
The purpose of the monitoring and reporting program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation.
The Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (dated November
2010) concluded that the implementation of the project could result in significant effects on the environment; therefore, mitigation measures
were incorporated into the proposed project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program outlines all of the mitigation measures, and
describes:
How the measures will be implemented
Who will implement the measures
When the measures will be implemented
All mitigation measures to be implemented by the contractor prior to or during project construction shall be printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and plans.
667
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail January 2011
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Page 1
Impact(s) Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Timeframe and Responsibility
for Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1:
If present within the
creek or adjacent upland
habitat, CRLF, WPT,
and/or woodrats could
be impacted by
construction-related and
long-term project
activities, including
vehicle and human
access.
MM BIO 1.1 : Preconstruction Survey. Four days or fewer prior to
the start of project activities, a qualified biologist shall perform one
daytime survey for CRLF, WPT, and woodrat. The entire work area,
including any burrows, rocks and woodpiles that may be disturbed by
construction activities, shall be inspected for CRLF, WPT, and woodrat.
If CRLF is detected, work shall be delayed and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall be contacted on how to proceed (since
it is a Federally Threatened species).
If during this survey WPT or woodrat are detected, the CDFG should be
contacted on how to proceed (since they are State Species of Special
Concern). In the past, CDFG has approved protocols for the western
pond turtles stating that if a turtle is detected, the turtle will be observed
to determine if it is moving through the area in which it was detected or
if the animal is occupying the habitat for nesting, foraging, or basking.
During construction activities within the immediate area of the turtle
detection, an on-site monitor will work with construction crews. If the
animal is relocated during construction activities, the monitor will
observe the turtle and alert work crews to delay work if it is within the
work area or begins to move toward or into the work area. If the turtle
appears to be traveling from upland habitat to a nearby aquatic site,
work shall cease until the turtle has traveled a safe distance from the
immediate project site. The monitor shall observe the animal from a
distance to ensure it does not wander back into the work area. If the
turtle is relocated and appears to be occupying the habitat within the
project footprint for activities such as nesting, basking, or foraging, the
City or its representatives will contact CDFG for guidance.
If during this survey San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat are detected,
the CDFG should be contacted on how to proceed (since they are State
Species of Special Concern). These mammals live year round in their
houses, which are essential for their survival. Woodrats dwell in
moderately-dense to dense riparian habitats, such as those found along
portions of Stevens Creek. CDFG has generally accepted the following
guidelines for avoidance/minimization of effects on San Francisco
A qualified biologist will
perform the surveys for CRLF,
WPT, and woodrat prior to
project construction.
The City shall ensure that CDFG
and/or USFWS are consulted, if
required.
Cupertino Public
Works Dept.
668
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail January 2011
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Page 2
Impact(s) Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Timeframe and Responsibility
for Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
dusky-footed woodrat houses, listed in order of priority and
implementation:
a. The project work will be rerouted to avoid the woodrat house by at
least 50 feet.
b. If the work cannot be rerouted at least 50 feet from the house, it will
be rerouted as far away from the house as possible but not closer
than 5 feet from the house. Safety and/or silt fencing (for houses
downslope) will be erected around all houses within 25 feet of the
construction activity to avoid impacts during construction.
c. If the project footprint must go directly through or within 5 feet of a
house, CDFG should be consulted with one of the two following
options:
i. If the house appears inactive seek approval from CDFG to
dismantle the house and replace the lost resource by building an
artificial house. One artificial house should be built for every
one existing inactive house.
ii. If the house appears active, approval will be sought from CDFG
to: 1) trap the occupant(s) of the house, 2) dismantle the house,
3) construct a new artificial house with the materials from the
dismantled house, and 4) release the occupant into the new
artificial house. The new house should be placed as close to its
original location as feasible and as far from the project footprint
as necessary to be protected from construction activities. If the
house is to be moved downslope of the project footprint, extra
precautions should be taken, such as a plywood barrier, to stop
falling/sliding materials from impacting the new house. Houses
should only be moved in the early morning during the non-
breeding season (October through February). If trapping has
occurred for 3 consecutive nights and no woodrats have been
captured, the house should be dismantled and a new house
constructed.
669
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail January 2011
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Page 3
Impact(s) Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Timeframe and Responsibility
for Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
MM BIO 1.2: Employee Education Program. An employee
education program shall be conducted prior to the initiation of project
activities. The program shall consist of a brief presentation by persons
knowledgeable in federally listed and state special status species biology
and legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors and their
employees. The program would include the following: a description of
CRLF, WPT, and woodrat and their habitat needs; an explanation of the
status of CRLF, WPT, and woodrat and their protection under state and
federal laws; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to
CRLF, WPT, and woodrat during project activities. Crews shall be
instructed that if a CRLF is found, it is to be left alone and the project
foreman, City, and the USFWS must be notified immediately. Likewise,
if a WPT or woodrat nest is found, it is to be left alone and the project
foreman, City, and CDFG must be notified immediately.
The City shall arrange to make
available a person(s)
knowledgeable in special status
species biology and legal
protections to implement this
measure, prior to the initiation of
construction activities.
Cupertino Public
Works Dept.
MM BIO 1.3: ESA Fencing. Project shall include the installation of
Environmentally Sensitive Area (“ESA”) fencing along creek bank to
assist in excluding potential CRLF and WPT from the construction zone.
ESA fencing shall be buried at the base to prevent animals from moving
under it. ESA fencing shall be maintained in good and stable condition
throughout active construction. Nominal 1.5 to 3 foot tall silt fence type
material is acceptable.
Contractor shall install the ESA
fencing prior to the initiation of
other construction activities that
could affect CRLF or WPT.
During project construction, the
City shall ensure that the ESA is
maintained by the Contractor
throughout active construction.
Cupertino Public
Works Dept.
MM BIO 1.4: Speed Limit. Vehicles shall not drive more than 5 miles
per hour within the project area. If any WPT, CRLF, or woodrat are seen
in the path of a vehicle, the vehicle shall stop until the animal is out of
the path. Parked vehicles shall be thoroughly checked underneath before
they are moved to ensure that no WPT, CRLF or woodrat are on the
ground below the vehicle.
During project construction, the
City shall ensure the contractor
implements this measure.
Cupertino Public
Works Dept.
Impact BIO-2: The
removal or trimming of
shrubs and trees on the
site could impact nesting
birds, if present.
MM BIO-2.1: Vegetation removal activities within the project area shall
be scheduled to take place outside of the nesting season (February 1 to
August 31) if possible to avoid impacts to nesting birds. In order to
avoid impacts to existing raptor nests during the non-nesting season, a
preconstruction survey of all on-site trees that could support raptor nests
A qualified biologist will
implement this measure.
The City shall ensure that the
Contractor complies with the
Cupertino Public
Works Dept.
670
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail January 2011
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Page 4
Impact(s) Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Timeframe and Responsibility
for Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
shall be completed by a qualified biologist. Every attempt shall be made
to protect trees that contain raptor nests.
If construction is unavoidable during the nesting season, a qualified
biologist shall conduct a survey for nesting raptors and other birds within
five days prior to the start of construction activities. If active nests are
not present, construction activities can take place as scheduled. If more
than five days elapse between the initial nest search and the beginning of
construction activities, another nest survey shall be conducted. If any
active nests are detected, a qualified biologist shall determine the
appropriate buffer to be established around the nest. CDFG generally
accepts a 50-foot radius buffer around passerine and non-passerine land
bird nests, and up to a 250-foot radius for raptors, however the biologist
shall have flexibility to reduce or expand the buffer depending on the
specific circumstances.
buffer zones, if any are required.
Impact BIO-3: Project
construction could result
in the loss or
abandonment of a bat
roost or colony.
MM BIO-3.1: Preconstruction surveys. Because the big brown bats
could move their maternity colony or day roost to an on-site tree (and
other species of bats occurring on the project site could form a new
roost), a preconstruction survey for roosting bats shall also be conducted
prior to any construction or large tree removal. The survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist.
Temporal avoidance and construction buffer zones. Construction
buffer zones will be established around active maternity colonies or a
non-breeding bat roost to avoid disturbance impacts. The buffer distance
will be established in consultation with CDFG and will be dependent
upon the species, roost type and the nature of the construction
disturbance. Construction activities proposed within this buffer distance
shall commence after young are volant (flying, after July 31) and end
before maternity colonies form. CDFG considers the maternity season to
occur from March 1 to August 31.
This measure shall be
implemented as necessary and as
determined by a qualified
biologist.
The City shall ensure that CDFG
is consulted, if required.
The City shall ensure that the
contractor complies with the
buffer zones, if any are required.
Cupertino Public
Works Dept.
671
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail January 2011
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Page 5
Impact(s) Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Timeframe and Responsibility
for Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
Impact BIO-4: Tree
trimming or removal
could violate City of
Cupertino policies on
tree protection.
MM BIO-4.1: In accordance with the Cupertino Tree Ordinance, the
project proposes to implement standard tree protection measures to avoid
impacts to trees remaining in the project area:
The proposed trail has been aligned to be outside of the dripline of
native trees to the extent feasible to reduce effects on the root zones.
The project design will be reviewed by the City’s arborist to ensure
that adverse impacts to trees have been minimized or avoided.
To compensate for the loss of two non-protected oak trees, the
project proposes to plant two container-size native replacement trees.
The replacement trees would be planted on-site.
The proposed plantings, including replacement trees, would be
maintained for a five year period by the City.
Potential impacts to protected trees on or adjacent to the site resulting
from construction activities would be minimized by implementing
measures consistent with Chapter 14.18, Appendix A of the
Cupertino Municipal Code: Standards for the Protection of Trees
during Grading and Construction Operations of the City of Cupertino
Tree Ordinance.
All pruning shall be completed or supervised by a certified arborist or
the City arborist and adhere to the Best Management Practices for
Pruning of the ISA.
In the unlikely event that the final project design requires the removal
of a protected tree, a tree removal permit would be obtained. All
requirements for removal as stated in the tree removal permit,
including the provision of replacement trees, would be followed. The
number and type of replacement tree to be provided would be
determined by the City of Cupertino, in accordance with City policy
and other requirements as applicable.
The project design will be
reviewed by the City’s arborist.
The City shall ensure that the
contractor complies with tree
protection measures during
project construction.
The Contractor will plant the
replacement trees on the project
site.
The Cupertino Parks and
Recreation Dept. will be
responsible for long-term
maintenance of the plantings.
Monitoring of the replacement
trees will be completed in
conjunction with the ongoing
vegetation monitoring activities
associated with the Stevens
Creek Corridor Phase 1 project.
Any failed plants on the project
site will be replaced at the
conclusion of the third
remaining year of Phase 1
project monitoring.
Cupertino Public
Works Dept.
Cupertino Parks and
Recreation Dept.
672
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail January 2011
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Page 6
Impact(s) Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Timeframe and Responsibility
for Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-1:
Construction of the
proposed project could
result in a significant
impact to archaeological
resources, if disturbance
occurs to as yet
unknown prehistoric or
historic materials that
may be encountered
during grading activities
on the site.
MM CUL-1.1: Prior to the initiation of construction or ground-
disturbing activities, the City shall conduct a pre-construction field
meeting to inform all contractors and construction personnel of the
potential for exposing subsurface cultural resources and to recognize
possible buried cultural resources. Personnel shall be informed of the
procedures that will be followed upon the discovery or suspected
discovery of archaeological materials, including Native American
remains and their treatment.
The City shall implement this
measure prior to the initiation of
construction or ground-
disturbing activities.
Cupertino Public
Works Dept.
MM CUL-1.2: Upon discovery of possible buried prehistoric and
historic cultural materials (including potential Native American skeletal
remains), work within 25-feet of the find shall be halted and the City
shall be notified.1
The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist to review and evaluate the
find. Construction work shall not begin again until the archaeological or
cultural resources consultant has been allowed to examine the cultural
materials, assess their significance, and offer proposals for any additional
exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of,
and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to, any potential historical resources
or unique archaeological resources that have been exposed.
The Contractor will be
responsible for halting
construction in the event buried
cultural resources or human
remains are encountered during
ground disturbing activities.
The City shall ensure this
measure is implemented during
construction activities.
Cupertino Public
Works Dept.
1 Significant prehistoric cultural resources may include: Human bone – either isolated or intact burials; Habitation (occupation or ceremonial structures as
interpreted from rock rings/features, distinct ground depressions, differences in compaction (e.g., house floors); Artifacts including chipped stone objects su ch as
projectile points and bifaces; Groundstone artifacts such as manos, metates, mortars, pestles, grinding stones, pitted hammer stones; Shell and bone artifacts including
ornaments and beads; Various features and samples including hearths (fire-cracked rock; baked and vitrified clay), artifact caches, faunal and shellfish remains
(which permit dietary reconstruction), distinctive changes in soil stratigraphy indicative of prehistoric activities; and Isolated artifacts.
Objects and features associated with the historic period (the late 19th through early 20th centuries) may include: Structural remains or portions of
foundations (bricks, cobbles/boulders, stacked fieldstone, postholes, etc.); Trash pits, privies, wells and associated artifacts; Isolated art ifacts or isolated clusters of
manufactured artifacts (e.g., glass bottles, metal cans, manufactured wood items, etc.); and Human remains.
In addition, cultural materials including both artifacts and structures that can be attributed to Hispanic, Asian, and other ethnic or racial groups are potentially
significant; such features or clusters of artifacts and samples include remains of structures, trash pits, and privies.
673
Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail January 2011
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Page 7
Impact(s) Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Timeframe and Responsibility
for Implementation
Oversight of
Implementation
If the discovery is determined to be a unique archaeological or historical
resource, and if avoidance of the resource is not possible, the
archaeologist shall inform the City of the necessary plans for treatment of
the find(s) and mitigation of impacts. The treatment plan shall be
designed to result in the extraction of sufficient nonredundant
archaeological data to address important regional research
considerations. The City shall insure that the treatment program is
completed. The work shall be performed by the archaeologist, and shall
result in a detailed technical report that shall be filed with the California
Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center,
CSU Rohnert Park. Construction in the immediate vicinity of the find
shall not recommence until treatment has been completed.
If human remains are discovered, they shall be handled in accordance
with State law (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and
Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code), including immediate
notification of the County Medical Examiner/Coroner.
MM CUL-1.3: All excavation contracts for the project shall contain
provisions for stop-work in the vicinity of a find in the event of exposure
of significant archaeological resources during subsurface construction.
In addition, the contract documents shall recognize the need to
implement any mitigation conditions required by the permitting agency.
In general, the appropriate construction conditions should be included
within the general or special conditions section of any contract that has
the potential for ground disturbing operations.
The City shall ensure this
measure is implemented prior to
the initiation of construction
activities.
Cupertino Public
Works Dept.
SOURCE: City of Cupertino, Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, November 2010.
674
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: February 1, 2011
Subject
Blackberry Farm Infrastructure Upgrade Project.
Recommended Action
Authorize the Director of Public Works to reject all bids and re-bid the project.
Discussion
On January 18, 2011, the City Clerk’s office received 8 bids for the Blackberry Farm
Infrastructure Upgrade project. The work consists of accessibility improvements to the
restrooms adjacent to the two swimming pools and the driveway, entryway and restroom at the
retreat center. It also includes the construction of a concrete retaining wall at the foot of the hill
near the maintenance yard.
The retaining wall design was delayed and was included in the bidding process by addendum.
Informing bidders of changes to the bid documents during the bid period is typically done by
addendum if those changes are considered to have an impact on the bids. The concrete wall was
estimated to have a value of about $70,000.
The City keeps a list of those bidders who have purchased plans and specifications for bidding in
order to assure that they receive any addenda that might be sent out prior to bid opening.
Acknowledging receipt of addenda is a requirement of the bid form.
On December 1, 2010, the City advertised the Blackberry Farm Infrastructure Upgrade project
along with the Scenic Circle Access project. When interested contractors purchased the plans
and specifications for each project their names were recorded on the respective project’s plan-
holder lists for tracking purposes. Premier Builders, Inc. purchased plans and specifications for
both projects, but they were inadvertently only included on the Scenic Circle Access Project
plan-holder list. When Addendum No.1 was issued to those listed as plan holders for the
Blackberry Farm Infrastructure Upgrades project, Premier Builders was overlooked and was
therefore prevented from submitting a responsive bid for the work.
When the City realized that this error had been made, Addendum No.1 was provided to Premier
Builders to see if they thought their bid would have been competitive with the lowest bidder who
did receive the addendum. Premier Builders notified the City on January 24th that, had they
675
received Addendum No. 1, they would have submitted a responsive and competitive bid. This
determination by Premier Builders makes it necessary for the City to reject all bids.
Had Premier Builders reached the conclusion that they would not have been competitive with
Addendum No. 1, they would have been able to formally withdraw their bid, thereby allowing
the City to recommend the award to the lowest qualified bidder who did receive the addendum.
Staff is currently working to determine the best time to re-bid the work to minimize disruption to
the summer programming at Blackberry Farm.
Sustainability Impact
This action will have no impact on the City’s sustainability goals.
Fiscal Impact
This action will have no fiscal impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
676