16A. SCC Inital Study/Mitigated Neg. Dec.
~
-
"-
Stevens Creek Corridor Park
Master Plan and Restoration Plan
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
-
April 2006
-
-
"-
-
-
--
~
City of Cupertino
.~.
".,
Stevens Creek Corridor Park
Master Plan and Restoration Plan
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2006
Prepared for:
City of Cupertino
Prepared by:
Thomas Reid Associates
545 Middlefield Roedl Suite 200
Menlo Parkl CA 94025
(650) 327-0429
(650) 327-4024 fax
www.traenviro.com
Mmgated Negative Declaration
Page 1
Mitigated Negative Declaration
DATE: 4/28/2006
SUBJECT: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pursuant to the California State Public Resources Code and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as amended to date, the City of Cupertino (City) submits a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Project (Project).
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of Cupertino (City) has developed a Park Master Plan and Conceptual
Restoration Plan for a proposed 60-acre Stevens Creek Corridor Park. The Stevens Creek
Corridor Park would be 5,900 feet in length bordered by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north,
McClellan Road to the south and residential neighborhoods to the east and west. Plans include
converting the City-owned Blackberry Farm picnic grounds into a community park, realigning
the creek and restoring in-stream and riparian habitat along sections of Stevens Creek within the
100-year floodplain, enhancing adjacent upland oak woodland habitat, constructing a 5,900-foot
all weather trail, developing new park and golf maintenance facilities at Blackberry Farm and an
environmental education center at McClellan Ranch.
This Initial Study has been prepared for the City of Cupertino to review the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed Stevens Creek Corridor Park project and to
make an informed decision regarding approval of the project and the environmental review.
FINDINGS
The City, having reviewed the Initial Study for the proposed project finds that:
I. The proposed project will provide recreational opportunities in the 60-acre Stevens Creek
Corridor Park. All significant impacts can be either avoided or reduced through the
implementation of mitigation measures as listed in this document.
2. The Project will not affect the following environmental effects as identified in the Initial
Study Checklist as exceeding significance thresholds. All significant effects can either be
avoided or reduced through the implementation of mitigation measures found in this
document and in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) attached as
Appendix I of this document.
3. In addition to the mitigation measures described in the Initial Study, the design features
of the project which include mitigation measures and Best Management Practices
(BMPs) directly incorporated into the project description either avoid, minimize, or
reduce environmental effects to a point of less-than-significance; and -
4. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be filed as the appropriate CEQA document of the
Project.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Inmal Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Mmgated Negative Declaration
Page 2
BASIS OF FINDINGS
Based on the environmental evaluation presented herein, the Project will not cause
significant adverse effects related to aesthetics, agricultural resources, cultural resources,
geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use/planning, mineral resources,
populationlhousing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities/service
systems. In addition, substantial adverse effects on humans, either direct or indirect, will not
occur. The Project does not affect any important examples of the major periods of California
prehistory or history. Nor will the Project 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.
Along with the designs of the trail components, BMPs incorporated into the project
descriptions for the Project avoid, minimize, and reduce impacts to air quality, biological
resources, including fisheries, hydrology/water quality, and noise to less-than-significant levels.
Based on the Initial Study, the project designs and incorporated BMPs avoid, minimize,
and reduce impacts to listed environmental effects to a less than significant level.
Attached is the Initial Study prepared for the Project. The public can review documents
used in preparation of the Initial Study at the City of Cupertino, Department of Parks and
Recreation, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Table of Contents
Page i
STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK MASTER PLAN AND
RESTORATION PLAN INITIAL STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction............................................................................. ........................ .......................... .1-1
2.0 Proj ect Description ................................................................................................................. ...2-1
2.1 Introduction.................. .......................................................... .................. .................. .2-1
2.2 Project Location & Property Boundaries ..................................................................2-1
2.3 Proj ect Background......................................................................... .......................... .2-1
2.4 Master Plan Overview.......................... ............. ............................................... ......... .2-4
2.5 Restoration Plan...................................................................................................... ..2-15
2.6 Proj ect Schedule........................................................................................... ........... .2- 22
2.7 Mitigation Included in the Project...........................................................................2-23
2.8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ............................................................2-26
3.0 Environmental Checklist and Responses .... ..............................................................................3-1
3.1 Aesthetics................. ........................................................................ ................... ......... .3-2
3.2 Agriculture Resources.................................................................... ........ .......... ...... ......3-8
3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................... ................... ........ ..3-1 0
3.4 8 iological Resources ... .......................................................... .... ............. ..... ............ .3-15
3.5 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................... .3-48
3.6 Geology and Soils ..................................................... ................ ................................ .3- 56
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................3-60
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................3-65
3.9 Land Use and Planning ................ ..............................................................................3-79
3.10 Mineral Resources............................................................................................. ...... ...3-90
3 .11 Noise ......................................................................................................................... .3-91
3.12 Population and Housing............................................................................ .... ............ .3-95
3.13 Public Services............................................................................ ............... ............... .3-96
3.14 Recreation ...................... ................................... .................................................... ....3-1 01
3.15 Transportation/Traffic... .............. ....... .............. .................................................... ....3-1 03
3.16 Utilities and Service Systems .......................... .................................................... ....3-114
3.17 Mandatory findings of Significance ............... .................................................... ....3-117
4.0 References ..... ........................ ............................ ... .... ........... ............................................... ....... .4-1
4.1 Sources.......... .... ............. ............ ... .................... ................. ...........................................4-1
4.2 Persons Consulted....................................................................................................... .4-4
4.3 Report Preparers ............................................................................ .......... ......... ........ ....4-4
5. 0 Figures ........................................................................................................ .................. ..............5-1
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Table of Contents
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
Table 2-4
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
Table 3-5
Table 3-6
Table 3-7
Table 3-8
Table 3-9
Page ii
Table of Contents (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Proposed Changes
Zone I Low Riparian! Within Bank flow
Zone 2 Middle and High Terrace Riparian
Zone 3 Upland/Meadow
Special status plant species reported within 5 miles of the project site and their
potential to occur onsite
Special status animal species reported within 5 miles of the project site and their
potential to occur onsite
Months When the Most Sensitive Species are Active
Trees to be Removed from the Project Site
Applicable Regulations for the Stevens Creek Corridor Project
Existing (2005) Weekday and Weekend Daily Traffic Volume Estimates (both
directions)
Summary of Existing Parking Demand and Supply
Summary of Projected Parking Demand and Supply
Proposed Number of Spaces
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Table of Contents
Page Hi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure II
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Regional Setting Map
Master Plan Study Area
Aerial photo of Study Area
Blackberry Farm Demolition Plan
Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Master Plan
Existing Blackberry Farm
Blackberry Farm (Master Plan)
Stevens Creek Trail within Stevens Creek Corridor Park
Design Guideline G-3
Stocklmeir Master Plan
Stevens Creek Blvd crossing
Byrne Ave Access
McClellan Ranch
McClellan Bus turnout & crossing
Demolition Plan (overall)
Creek realignments Reach A, B, and C
Reach A Creek realignments
Reach B Creek realignments
Reach C Creek realignments
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
FEMA Flood Map
TECHNICAL APPENDICES (bound separately)
A. Santa Clara Valley Water District Best Management Practices
B. Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan, Thomas Reid Assoc.
C. Cultural Resource Assessment, Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan, Basin Research Assoc.
D. Traffic Impact Analysis, Stevens Creek Corridor Park, Hexagon Transportation Consultants
E. Preliminary Parking Analysis, Stevens Creek Corridor Park, Hexagon Transportation
Consultants
F. Applicable Regulations for Stevens Creek Corridor Project, Thomas Reid Assoc.
G. Hydrologic Tables and Figures, Balance Hydrologics
H. Trees to be Removed Table, Jana Sokale
I. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupert;no - AprU 2006
Introduction Page 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the purpose of an Initial Study (IS), the decision process to prepare
a Negative Declaration (ND) or a Mitigated ND, a brief description and objectives of the Stevens
Creek Corridor Master Plan and Restoration Plan, document organization, and a short discussion
on other public agencies whose approval is required through the permitting process.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
This IS has been prepared by the City of Cupertino, which is the Lead Agency for the
project. The Santa Clara Valley Water District is a Responsible Agency for the project. The IS
has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Stevens
Creek Corridor Master Plan and Restoration Plan. CEQA lists seven purposes of an IS [CEQA
Guidelines 15063(c)]:
I. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration (ND).
2. Enable a Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR
is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for aND.
3. Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project.
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a ND that a project will
not have a significant effect on the environment.
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
1.2 DECISION TO PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR
MITIGA TED NEGA TIVE DECLARATION
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a public agency shall prepare a proposed
ND or a Mitigated ND when:
I. The IS shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before
the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or
2. The IS identifies potentially significant effects, but revisions in the project plans
made before a proposed Mitigated ND and IS are released for public review would
avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects
would occur, and there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before
the agency, that the project as described may have a significant effect on the
environment.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 1-2
Introduction
Based on the attached Initial Study, the City of Cupertino determined that a Mitigated
Negative Declaration is the appropriate document for this project.
1.3 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of Cupertino (City) has developed a Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan for
the 60-acre Stevens Creek Corridor Park. The Stevens Creek Corridor is 5900 feet in length
bordered by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north, McClellan Road to the south and residential
neighborhoods to the east and west. Plans include converting the City-owned Blackberry Farm
picnic grounds into a community park, restoring in-stream and riparian habitat along sections of
Stevens Creek within the IOO-year floodplain, enhancing adjacent upland oak woodland habitat,
constructing 5,900 linear feet of an all weather trail and developing new park and golf
maintenance facilities and an environmental education center at McClellan Ranch.
1.4 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This document has been prepared as an objective, full-disclosure report to inform agency
decision makers and the general public of the direct and indirect physical environmental effects
of the proposed action and any measures to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts. This
document has five sections:
1. Introduction. This section briefly describes the purpose and organization of the Initial
Study.
2. Project Description. This section provides a vicinity description of the project site and a
description of the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan and Restoration Plan.
3. Initial Study Checklist and Responses. The Initial Study Checklist is a standard form
used to examine the full range of potential environmental effects and is the basis used to
determine the elements of the Negative Declaration. The form is based upon the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The Response section
provides detailed answers to the questions on the Checklist and identifies potentially
significant impacts, mitigation measures to reduce those impacts, and a conclusion of
impact after mitigation. CEQA Guidelines state that a brief explanation is required for all
answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information
sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
4. References. The reference section identifies all sources used in responding to the
Checklist Questions, persons consulted, and all consultants and subconsultants who
prepared this project.
5. Figures. This section contains the Figures referenced throughout the Initial Study text.
6. Appendices. A technical appendix is bound separately.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Introduction Page 1-3
1.5 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The following permits or approvals are required for this project:
· Army Corp of Engineers Section 7 Consultation and Nationwide Permits
· Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Water Quality CertificationlWaiver
. California Department ofFish and Game 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement
· Santa Clara Valley Water District Joint Use and Construction Agreements
· Cupertino Sanitary District (for construction adjacent to sanitary sewer line running
through Blackberry Farm parking lot for creek realignment)
· City of Cupertino Building Permits for new structures
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Project Description Page 2-1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino (City) has developed a Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan for
the 60-acre Stevens Creek Corridor Park. The Stevens Creek Corridor is 5,900 feet in length
bordered by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north, McClellan Road to the south and residential
neighborhoods to the east and west. Plans include converting the City-owned Blackberry Farm
picnic grounds into a community park, restoring in-stream and riparian habitat along sections of
Stevens Creek within the 100-year floodplain, enhancing adjacent upland oak woodland habitat,
constructing a 5,900-foot all weather trail and developing new park and golf maintenance
facilities and an environmental education center at McClellan Ranch.
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION & PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
Lands owned by the City and addressed in the Master Plan include the Stocklmeir
property and the Blackberry Farm Golf Course (a nine-hole course), situated on the northwest
and northeast border of Stevens Creek; Blackberry Farm, along the central eastern and western
banks of the creek; the Simms property and McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve, situated on the
southwestern and southeastern border of the creek; and a 2.25-acre parcel adjacent to Blackberry
Farm, owned by the District (and leased to the City) (see Figs. 1,2 & 3). Residential
development surrounds the study area in all directions for most of its length within the City, with
the exception of the Deep Cliff Golf Course immediately south of McClellan Road. Topography
on the site is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 280 to 335 feet above
sea level.
2.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City acquired the subject property in five acquisitions over a 25-year period. In the
mid-1990s funds were authorized for a Master Plan, but no work was done. In 2000, City
Council interest in trails moved the Corridor planning up in priority. The planning originally
started with a proposed trail along Stevens Creek and evolved into a major creek restoration and
park renovation with the trail as a subcomponent. Portions of the 2002 Stevens Creek Trail
Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) are included within this Creek Corridor Plan as well as
portions of a Plan drafted for McClellan Ranch (1993 McClellan Ranch Master Plan). Both of
these documents are available for review at the City and on the City's website:
(http://www .cupertino.org/city _government/departments _and_offices/parks Jecreation/stevens _ c
reek _ corr/index.asp
The Trail Feasibility Study was prepared to evaluate the options for constructing a
pedestrian and bicycle trail through the open space and parkland areas between Rancho San
Antonio County Park and Stevens Creek County Park. The Feasibility Study analyzed the
benefits of the proposed trail alignments to the community and concluded that a public trail was
not feasible within Blackberry Farm under the current fee-for-entry operation. The Feasibility
Study project area was divided into four Study Areas to facilitate the planning process and future
trail development. Two of the Study Areas on City-owned lands are the subject of this report
(City of Cupertino 2002a). They cover Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial StUdy
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 2-2
Project Description
To determine what Blackberry Farm should become ifits focus on paid/catered
picnicking was to change, Cupertino conducted a public visioning process in February 2003,
prior to initiating the Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan. This process included three phases.
The first outreach was held to solicit comments from identified stakeholder groups about long-
range plans for the 60-acre site. Four meetings were held in June 2002. Focus group discussions
were held at these 90-minute meetings with eight different stakeholder groups. Participants in
the groups responded to a letter of invitation and self-selected into one of the groups. The groups
included: Scenic Circle, Phar Lap, Stocklmeir. and Byrne Avenue neighborhoods (the Phar Lap
and Stocklmeir groups were combined); picnic, golf and Blue Pheasant users; and people
interested in the proposed Stevens Creek Trail. The result of these stakeholder meetings is
summarized in a report available on the City's website:
http://www .cupertino. org/city _government/ departments_and _offices/parks Jecreationlstevens _ cr
eek_corrlindex.asp (City of Cupertino 2002b).
The findings of the stakeholder meetings were used to develop a public opinion survey
instrument. The survey was intended to test the opinions ofthe stakeholder groups across a
random sample of Cupertino residents about the Stevens Creek Corridor and future uses of this
parkland. The phone survey was conducted in October 2002. The results of this survey are
included in a report that is also available on the City's website:
http://www.cupertino.org/city _government/departments_and _offices/parks Jecreationlstevens _ cr
eek_corr/index.asp (City of Cupertino 2002c). The results of this survey helped inform the City
Council in development of the goals for the Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan.
Finally, Cupertino invited the public to participate in a visioning process and design
charette to determine future uses of the parkland. Three hundred and twenty (320) design kits
(including maps, aerial photos, background information and design templates) were distributed
to individuals and organizations, and over 500 people participated in the visioning process.
Residents proposed many different uses of the land and submitted a variety of designs, but
restoration of the creek and the adjacent riparian area emerged as an important goal for the
community.
After the public visioning process concluded, the City Council reaffirmed its goals for the
Stevens Creek Corridor project in September 2003. They included:
. Engage the public in the planning for this important amenity
· Invite members ofthe community to enjoy the property in the corridor year-round - serve
more people
. Minimize the effects of park operation on surrounding residents
· Preserve and restore the natural environment of the creek corridor for park users and as
habitat for wildlife
. Provide a trail compatible with the natural setting that will accommodate a variety of trail
users
. Acknowledge and interpret the history of the area through a series of historical markers
and through the preservation of buildings at McClellan Ranch
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Project Description
Page 2.3
· Encourage educational uses of the creek corridor and support environmental
programming at McClellan Ranch
· Consider the Blue Pheasant operation and how it effects the neighborhood
2.3.1 City of Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Water District Partnership
In 2004, Cupertino signed a Partnership and Collaborative Action Plan Agreement
(Agreement) with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to implement the Stevens Creek
Corridor Master Plan and Habitat Restoration Plan as the two agencies have similar objectives
and commitments that can be met through the implementation of these plans. As part ofthe
Agreement, the City and District adopted additional mutual goals for the project:
. Develop a Master Plan that integrates City and District goals and integrates all design
elements from Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road including:
o Elements of Fisheries & Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort (F AHCE)
o Mitigation for the District's Stream Maintenance Program (SMP)
o Creation of Riparian Habitat for Clean Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection
o Providing public access to trails along creeks
· Plan for phased implementation of Master Plan elements to address funding, site
transfers, service interruptions and other issues
· Plan to maximize ecosystem processes that are sustainable and self-maintaining which
minimizes invasive species management and remove non-native vegetation over time to
restore ecological processes
· Protect and restore riparian and aquatic habitat along the creek corridor
. Improve the habitat for steelhead trout
2.3.1.1
Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Agreement
The District has a commitment through the draft Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat
Collaborative Effort (F AHCE) Settlement (Settlement) to improve and maintain habitat for
threatened fish in the watersheds of three specific streams, one of which is Stevens Creek. The
draft F AHCE Settlement, is expected to be presented to the State Board in 2007 for resolution.
After receiving State Board approval, the 30-year program would be implemented. The draft
F AHCE Settlement document recommends habitat restoration, capital projects and other
improvements such as removal of barriers to fish passage along Stevens Creek for steelhead
trout, a "threatened" species. The stream reach between Stevens Creek Reservoir and Interstate
280 has been identified as a "Cold Water Management Zone" so water will be supplied here
year-round to provide good spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead trout. Restoration efforts
would also be undertaken to improve the quality of the aquatic habitat in this reach. The Master
Plan project area is centrally located within the cold water management zone and as a result is a
key target for fisheries habitat improvements identified in the draft Settlement. The draft
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 2-4
Project Description
Settlement specifically identifies several actions to be taken within the footprint of Blackberry
Farm including: removal of three low-flow creek crossings and removal ofa water diversion
structure (identified as priorities 1 and 2 obstructions to fish passage). In addition to the removal
of these barriers to fish passage, the project would also be evaluated to see ifit also satisfies a
draft Settlement requirement to complete a geomorphologically based stream restoration project
and in-stream and stream-side habitat restoration.
2.3.1.2
Stream Maintenance Program Mitigation
The District is also committed to provide mitigation for impacts from activities conducted
through their Stream Maintenance Program. Proposed project improvements may satisfy a
portion of this required mitigation, subject to negotiation with and approval from the appropriate
regulatory agencies.
2.3.1.3
Clean Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection
Under the voter approved Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection Program, the
District is committed to providing access to open space or trails along creeks and creating
wetlands. riparian habitat, and favorable stream conditions for fisheries. The project would also
help the District satisfY these commitments.
2.4 MASTER PLAN OVERVIEW
According to the Partnership and Collaborative Action Plan, the first phase of the master
planning process is to define the proposed project improvements (Master Plan) and conduct the
environmental review. As part of the environmental review process, technical studies for
biological resources, cultural resources, hydraulics, and traffic were prepared. In the process of
developing the Master Plan, the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department also sought input
from the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council on several issues including park
operations and size, public access and trail design.
The improvements and modifications proposed by the Master Plan and Restoration Plan
are the subject of this Initial Study.
The proposed changes to the various facilities and properties as a result of the Master
Plan are summarized in Table 2-1 (see Figs. 4 & 5).
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Project Description
Page 2-5
Table 2-1: Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Proposed Changes
Existing Proposed
Blackberry Farm
1,100 vehicle festival-style parking lot - impervious 350 vehicle festival"style parking spaces - permeable
surface material
452 square feet in two central catering buildings Old buildings replaced with a single 678 square foot
central catering building in the west bank picnic area
400 picnic tables 100 picnic tables
Utilities are located above-ground Utilities would be moved underground
8-foot wide bridge pedestrian bridge from festival Old bridge replaced with a new 14-foot wide
parking area and pool complex to Oak Grove picnic pedestrianlbicycle/light duty vehicle bridge from
area festival parking area and pool complex to Oak Grove
plcmc area
Existing pool entrance New ]88 square foot pool complex entrance kiosk
Snack bar located at pool complex Existing snack bar modified to have a second service
window open to park and trail users separate from the
pool complex service window.
Chain link fencing around pool Wood with meta] screen fencing around pool
Pool area asphalt pavement Asphalt would be removed and replaced with
flagstone
Nine (9) horseshoe pits at various locations throughou Four (4) horseshoe toss pits, in west bank group
Blackbeny Fann plcmc area
Two (2) sand volleyball areas, located on the east One (1) sand volleyball court, in west bank group
bank, upstream of pool complex plcmc area
Three (3) half courts located on the east bank, Two (2) half-courts, in west bank group picnic area
upstream of the pool complex
One (I) softball field, located on the east bank No change, existing field would remain
upstream of the pool complex
Horseshoe Bend, Walnut Court, and Fallen Oak picnic Elimination of all picnic facilities at Horseshoe Bend,
areas Walnut Court and Fallen Oak including tables,
barbeque pits, horseshoe pits and adjacent paved
parking area.
Three (3) low flow creek vehicle crossings located in Remova] of all three (3) low flow creek vehicle
Blackbeny Fann crossmgs
Existing] ,020 square foot park maintenance facility Existing facility to be demolished and replaced with
with ] ,940 square foot storage yard 1,200 square foot maintenance facility and 1,200
square foot fenced storage yard
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 2-6
Project Description
Existing Proposed
Water diversion dam located upstream of Blackberry This water diversion dam would be removed
Farm picnic areas
Pedestrian bridge from east bank of Stevens Creek to This existing pedestrian bridge would be demolished
Fallen Oak picnic areas and removed.
Pedestrian bridge connecting main parking lot with This existing pedestrian bridge would be demolished
Sycamore and Hillside picnic areas and removed.
The 462 square foot Blackberry Farm park entry kiosk This park entry kiosk would be demolished and rebuilt
is currently at the corner of the conference center as a 96 square foot kiosk further down the driveway to
property at San Fernando Ave. increase queue length
Conference center front landscaping with informal Existing landscaping would be removed, and formal
parallel parking pull-in parking spaces would be created to
accommodate 5 cars.
] 5 - foot wide access road in front of private residence Adjacent residence to receive approximately 700
square feet of buffer landscaping between front yard
and park driveway.
Existing asphalt paved parking lot next to existing Creation of a ] 7 -car trailhead staging area with
softball complex, accommodates 200+ vehicles remodeled bathroom facilities. Demolition of
approximately 32,000 square feet of paved parking
space.
Blackberry Farm Golf Course and Stocklmeir Property
9-ho]e golf course No change proposed.
N/A Installation ofa new 8-foot wide pedestrian and
bicycle bridge and a 8-foot tall recurved fence that
would follow the new curve ofthe creek from the
bridge along the new trail west to where the trail
meets the existing parking lot at the end of the 7th
hole.
Blue Pheasant/Go]fCourse parking lot - 9] existing Re-striping of the existing lot would provide a total of
parking spaces ] 00 spaces.
N/A New crosswalk on Stevens Creek Blvd. at Phar Lap
Drive.
Existing 6] 5 square foot golf course maintenance Existing building and yard would be demolished and
building and 6,425 square foot fence storage yard replaced with a 3,000 square foot golf course
currently located on the top of east bank of Stevens maintenance facility with a 2,000 square foot fenced
Creek in the festival parking area of Blackberry Farm yard and relocated below the existing conference
in the flood plain. center along the existing golf course fence line out of
the flood plain.
Damaged water storage tank for golf course Damaged water storage tank that held well water to
irrigate the golf course would be demolished. An
existing 35,OOO-gallon underground cistern would be
reconditioned to provide irrigation for the golf course
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Project Description
Page 2-7
Existing Proposed
and park. No change in side-stream diversion to golf
course ponds.
NJA A 5-foot wide trail connection would be constructed
to connect parking at Blackberry Golf Course with the
trail through the Stocklmeir Property
McClellan Ranch
NJA 2,000 square foot environmental education center with
2 classrooms, an office, and restrooms to be built on
an existing building pad formerly occupied by a
double-wide trailer
Parking lot - 31 spaces No change
68 community garden plots 70 community garden plots
Area for 4-H facility - 17,277 sq. ft. Area for 4-H facility - 27,800 sq. ft.
NJA A bus turnout on McClellan Rd would be located in
front of Simms property
Fishing on Stevens Creek is regulated by the State as set forth by the 2006 California
Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations (a copy of which can be found at:
http://www.fgc.ca.govI2006/06freshfishregbook.pdf). The proposed improvements would not
affect fishing as allowed by these regulations.
2.4.1 Blackberry Farm
Blackberry Farm was a family-owned and operated picnic facility for 37 years until 1991
when Cupertino residents approved a 2 1Iz cent utility user's tax to purchase Blackberry Farm to
preserve the land for public open space. Currently, this 33-acre recreational facility offers a
creekside park setting for family and group picnics (see Photo I and Fig. 6), swimming pools, a
9-hole golf course and conference center. The park primarily serves the needs of large organized
groups wishing to reserve outdoor picnic facilities for special functions. There is a day use fee
for the picnic grounds/pool use and pool use only.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 2-8
Project Description
Photo 1. Oak Grove picnic area at Blackberry Farm
2.4.1.1
Picnic Area and Pool Complex Improvements
Blackberry Farm currently operates as a fee-based seasonal facility, which is open 100
days a year from early May to late September. The current facility can serve a maximum of
4,000 people with 1,100 festival-style parking spaces (festival-style parking spaces are not
marked). The Master Plan proposes the closure and conversion of the facility to a 100 day/year,
800-person picnic facility. The picnic facilities, which are currently located on both the east and
west banks of Stevens Creek, would be consolidated to the west bank. The new picnic tables
would be removable and other major features within the area would be able to withstand some
flooding without major reconstruction. The west bank picnic area would be signed and closed at
the end of the summer season (Labor Day Weekend). The parking lot would be reduced to a
350-vehicle festival-style lot constructed of permeable material with native riparian shade trees
(see Fig. 7 and Photo 2). Due to its location in a flood plain, the entire park, including the trail,
would close during seasonal flooding events.
Blackberry Farm would reopen as Stevens Creek Corridor Park available to the public
365 days/year. There would be no fee charged to enter the park. A downsized Blackberry Farm
west bank picnic area would still operate 100 days/year with fees charged for entry into that area.
This picnic area would be signed and closed at the end of the summer season (Labor Day
Weekend). There would be no change to the Blackberry Farm Golf Course.
Additional improvements to the park include: upgrades to the picnic area, including new
underground utilities, barbecues, removable picnic tables, horseshoe pits, two half courts for
basketball and a sand volleyball court (see Fig. 7). Improvements to the pool area include:
upgrades to existing pool restrooms to serve both pool and picnic needs - new stalls, entries and
walkways, new pool entrance kiosk with walkway to bridge to picnic area, new pool fencing and
flagstone paving. A new 14-foot wide bridge would be built spanning the creek between the
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Project Description
Page 2-9
pool and picnic facility. This bridge would be open to pedestrians but not vehicles (except for
park service vehicles).
The major change is opening the 16-acre Blackberry Farm portion of the Corridor as a
community park the entire year. The pool and picnic facilities would still only be open during
the summer, but the proposed Stevens Creek Trail that would travel through Blackberry Farm
and would be open year round. The hours of operation would be dawn to dusk. Due to its
location in a flood plain, the entire park, including the trail, would close during seasonal flooding
events. Entrances to the parks and trail would be closed with signs indicating the reason for
closure.
Existing pavement to be removed
and replaced with permeable
surfacing and landscaping with
shade trees
Photo 2. Some of the proposed improvements at Blackberry Farm
2.4.1.2
Park Entrance Improvements
The existing park office/entry building would be demolished or relocated/reused in the
park and a new park entry kiosk would be constructed at the entrance to the parking area (see
Fig. 7). This would help reduce the queue that occurs on San Fernando Avenue. The existing
conference center near the park entrance would be landscaped and a striped five-vehicle parking
area would be added. The use of the facility as a conference center and offices for Parks and
Recreation staff would not change. In addition, new buffer landscaping would be added around
the private residence that shares an entrance to Blackberry Farm.
2.4.1.3
Park Maintenance Facilities
The existing 1,020 square foot park maintenance facility and 1,940 square foot fenced
storage yard located behind the adjacent private residence would be demolished. A new 1,200
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 2-10
Project Description
square foot park maintenance facility with a 1,200 square foot fenced yard would be constructed
in the same location (see Fig. 7).
2.4.2 Stevens Creek Trail
A trail along Stevens Creek is identified in the McClellan Ranch Master Plan, the City of
Cupertino General Plan and also the 1995 Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan
Update. Consistent with these plans, the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan proposes
construction of an 8-foot wide pedestrian and bicycle trail extending 5,900 feet from McClellan
Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard (see Fig. 5). The existing nature trail along the creek in
McClellan Ranch would remain. A new 200-foot split rail fence would separate the two trails to
prevent non-pedestrian access to the nature trail (see Fig. 8).
The trail would be constructed of a non-petroleum based all-weather surface for bikes,
strollers and walkers. The Countywide Trails Master Plan Update contains Design Guidelines
for the design and construction of trails. The Design Guideline that is most appropriate for the
proposed trail along this
section of Stevens Creek is
G-3, which is for shared use
trails with a natural tread
(see Fig. 9). Although the
guideline shows the trail as
native material or base rock,
the proposed trail would be
a non-petroleum based all-
weather surface (not paved).
The proposed trail
would start in the south at
McClellan Road. Upon
entering McClellan Ranch
Nature Preserve, the trail
would parallel the existing
parking lot fence and exit Photo 3. Example of a recurved fence.
the far end of the parking
area to skirt behind the Rolling Hills 4-H farm animal area and community gardens. The trail
would extend behind the community gardens and continue past the bend in Stevens Creek toward
Blackberry Farm (see Figs. 8 & 13). In this area, the trail would extend through the old walnut
orchard on a 2.55-acre property owned by Santa Clara Valley Water District and leased to the
City of Cupertino through 2024. The trail then enters Blackberry Farm where it would be
located adjacent to the realigned creek. It would follow the creek where it enters the golf course
near the 8th hole. A recurved fence would be constructed between the trail and the golf course
along this short stretch to protect trail users from errant golf balls (see Photo 3). The trail would
then cross Stevens Creek on a new 8-foot wide bridge where it would enter the Stocklmeir
property (see Fig. 10). It would then travel through the old orange orchard to the existing
driveway of the Stocklmeir property. The driveway would be widened to accommodate the
adjacent trail alignment. The trail would then head east along Stevens Creek Boulevard where
the sidewalk along Stevens Creek Blvd. would be demolished and expanded to serve as a Class I
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Project Description
Page 2-11
trail. Trail users would be able to cross Stevens Creek Blvd. using a new crosswalk at Phar Lap
Drive (see Fig. 11 and Photo 4).
Photo 4. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Phar Lap Drive
A trail crossing at Stevens Creek Boulevard is required to assist residents living to the
north to safely access the trail and to provide a connection to the roadway for bicyclists who
must follow the rules of the road which include riding with the flow of traffic. Bicyclists wishing
to head west on Stevens Creek Boulevard, toward Foothill Boulevard and Rancho San Antonio
County Park, must cross the street to enter the existing bicycle lanes. The crossing at Stevens
Creek Boulevard would be located on the west side of the Phar Lap intersection. The crosswalk
would include safety and traffic calming measures. The crosswalk would be painted a red brick
color, similar to the crosswalks near the Post Office further east on Stevens Creek Blvd. A
median island with fencing and a pedestrian refuge would be installed in the center of Stevens
Creek Boulevard to direct trail users to the crosswalk and to provide some traffic calming in this
residential area. Flashing motorist warning lights would also be installed on Stevens Creek
Boulevard on both down grades that approach the crossing. This trail crossing solution
maintains the connection to Stevens Creek Boulevard in the most logical location, near the trail
exit from the Stocklmeir site and close to the local bus stops. It also minimizes neighborhood
concerns regarding safety, noise and air quality impacts (Cupertino 2002a).
Leashed dogs would be allowed only on the proposed multi-use trail, but not elsewhere in
McClellan Ranch Park or Blackberry Farm. They would not be allowed in the picnic areas in
Blackberry Farm or on the nature trail in McClellan Ranch Park. Due to its location in a flood
plain, the trail would close during seasonal flooding events.
2.4.2.1
Trail Access and Staging Areas
Access to the trail would be from Stevens Creek Boulevard, San Fernando Avenue
through Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch Park. An 8-foot wide trail would be constructed
to connect the parking lot at the Blue Pheasant with the trail at the Stocklmeir property. In
addition, nine new parking spaces would be added to the current 91 spaces at the Blue Pheasant
parking area by redesigning and re-striping the lot to help accommodate trail users (see Fig. II).
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 2-12
Project Description
Access to the trail from San Femando/Byme Ave would be facilitated by a new 4-foot
wide pedestrian and bicycle access boardwalk extending 400 feet from San Fernando A venue
along the golf course into the park (see Fig. 12). For those wishing to drive to the trail, a new
trail staging area would be created in Blackberry Farm with a 17-car trailhead parking lot with a
remodeled restroom. New picnic tables would be added to this area for trail users. This
proposed staging area is in the location of the existing parking lot upstream of the pool complex
(see Fig. 7).
The current 3 I-space parking lot at McClellan Ranch would also accommodate trail users
wishing to drive to the trail. No changes to the parking configuration are proposed in this area.
2.4.2.2
Trail User Estimates
There would be three categories of users for Stevens Creek Trail in the Stevens Creek
Corridor Park with an estimated total of 89,000 users per year:
. Casual users (eg. from picnic groups)
. Users involved in an educational program
. Trail users (there specifically just to use the trail)
Based on counts taken on other reaches of the Stevens Creek Trail, it is estimated that the
number of trail users would be, on average, 200/day, or 73,OOO/year. The annual number of
educational users is estimated at 7,500/year. Blackberry Farm Picnic groups: picnics facilities
would be available for up to 800 participants, 100 days per year. It is estimated that an
additional 8,500 casual users per year would come from the picnic groups (Cupertino 2005).
2.4.3 Blackberry Golf Course
As part of the creek restoration plan (see Section 2.5 below), an existing water diversion
structure would be removed from the creek. This diversion dam, built sometime prior to 1946,
used to supply water for the irrigation of approximately 25 acres of orchards at Blackberry Farm
and was a part of the Monte Vista Irrigation and Domestic Water system.
Adjacent to and part of the diversion dam structure is a concrete infiltration gallery that
draws water from the creek and distributes it by underground pipes to a couple of ponds on the
golf course through a gravity feed system. These two ponds receive the water from the creek
where the water is allowed to slowly run back into the creek via another underground piping
system.
The Monte Vista Water System also consisted of four wells, one of which was used to fill
a large above ground water tank. The water, once collected in the tank, was pumped and piped
approximately 2,500 feet to irrigate the nine-hole golf course. Approximately three years ago,
the water tank developed a significant leak that could not be repaired and the irrigation of the
golf course was switched over to the local domestic water system. The Master Plan proposes
removing the damaged water tank and possibly connecting the existing well to an existing
35,000-gallon underground cistern near the old tank, also a part ofthe earlier Monte Vista Water
System, to irrigate the golf course and to irrigate other parts of Blackberry Farm. The Master
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Project Description
Page 2-13
Plan also proposes removing a fenced enclosure and a metal shed, piping and electric pumps that
were used to protect and pump water from the underground cistern.
The existing 615 square foot golf course maintenance building and 6,425 square foot
fenced storage yard perched on the east bank of the creek and located in the flood zone would be
demolished. A new-3,000 square foot golf course maintenance facility with a 2,OOO-square feet
fenced storage yard would be constructed near the Conference Center along the existing golf
course fence line. This facility would also provide public restrooms for golfers through a
separate entrance opening onto the course.
2.4.4 McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve
McClellan Ranch, located on McClellan Road, was a horse ranch during the 1930s and
40s. McClellan Ranch was purchased by the City in 1972 and designated as a nature preserve in
1976 by the Cupertino City Council (McClellan Ranch Park Community Advisory Committee
1993). In 1993, the McClellan Ranch Master Plan was prepared for the park and many of the
recommendations of the Plan regarding programming and use by non-profits have been
achieved. The park currently houses the Rolling Hills 4-H Club, Junior Nature Museum, Santa
Clara Valley Audubon Society, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail and the community gardens. The
original ranch house, milk barn, livestock barn and two historic buildings moved from other sites
in the city are found at McClellan Ranch. The quarter-scale Baerts Blacksmith Shop, originally
located at DeAnza and Stevens Creek Boulevards, and the old water tower from the Parish
Ranch (now the site of Memorial Park) have been integrated into the ranch setting. Tours of the
Nature Preserve are conducted for school children.
The Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan proposes construction of a 2,000 square foot
environmental education center with 2 classrooms, an office and restrooms on an existing
building pad formerly occupied by a doublewide trailer in McClellan Ranch (see Figs. 8 & 13).
Schools already use McClellan Ranch for educational field trips. The new building would allow
some of the educational activities to take place indoors facilitating year-round program offerings.
Programs include: Creek Education, School Nature, Living History, High School Creek Study
After-school Nature and Science classes, Summer Youth Camps, Scout Groups, Audubon
Wildlife Education Day, and McClellan Ranch Bioblitz. Since school programs are offered in
the wetter months, the classroom would help achieve the project's educational goals.
The portion of the Stevens Creek Trail that is proposed through McClellan Ranch would
extend through the existing 4-H goat pen area. The 4-H facility would be relocated to the west
into the existing community garden. The movement of the 4-H facility would result in the loss
of nine community garden plots (Therese Smith pers. comm.). The City would work with the
community gardeners to ensure that those potentially losing their plots would be made whole
through relocation to existing vacant plots or to a new garden plot. No one with an existing
garden plot would lose a plot, however some of gardeners may need to relocate their plots to a
new location once vacancies in the program occur. The new plots and expanded irrigation
system would be constructed on the western edge of the community gardens (see Fig. 13). This
area has better sun exposure for gardening. Approximately eleven new plots would be created
resulting in a small expansion of the community garden program. Soil that has been worked by
the gardeners in the impacted plots would be moved to the new sunnier garden plots. The 4-H
pens would be relocated slightly downhill in the community garden where the nine plots have
been vacated (see Fig. 13). New fencing and animal care amenities would be provided to make
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 2-14
Project Description
the 4-H program whole. In addition, a new double fence would be erected around the 4-H area so
that trail users can view the animals but would not be able to feed animals. Drainage from the
slope above the barn would be integrated into the trail design to reduce seasonal ponding in the
animal pens and barn.
2.4.5 Stocklmeir Property
Pursuant to Cupertino General Plan open space policies, the Stocklmeir property, which
is located on Stevens Creek Boulevard was purchased in 1999. The 1964, 1972 and 1993
Cupertino General Plans have supported the acquisition of the lands adjacent to Stevens Creek to
preserve the floodplain as open space and to develop a formal urban trail along the creek. The
5.I-acre Stocklmeir property was the most recent acquisition. The site includes one home, and a
converted garage and a 3-acre orange orchard, the only orchard remaining along the entire length
of Stevens Creek from San Francisco Bay in Mountain View to the foothills in Cupertino. The
main Stocklmeir house, dating to 1903, has been extensively remodeled, but has been identified
as a City of Cupertino Historic Site in the Cupertino General Plan.
Photo 5. Stocklmeir property orange orchard
The major changes proposed for this property as part of the Master Plan include
construction of the new trail, realignment of the creek through the orange orchard (see Photo 5
and Restoration Plan Section 2.5), and construction of a new pedestrianlbicycle bridge across the
creek for the proposed trail (see Fig. 10). Approximately 95 orchard trees would be lost to
accommodate the proposed creek realignment and trail. There is a total of 175 orchard trees
consisting of 144 orange trees and 31 other orchard trees (walnut, loquat, olive, lemon and
tangerine) in the orchard: approximately 54% of the orchard would be removed. The orange
orchard, for the most part, is in good condition and is still productive. However, the orchard is
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Project Description
Page 2-15
not currently maintained and could benefit from regular fertilizing and mulching. Some trees are
past their prime or are dying.
The Cupertino Historical Society (CHS) is interested in opening the site to the public,
however they are still in the planning phases. The City Council has offered a long lease of the
site to CHS assuming CHS can develop a viable plan and raise the funds to implement it. The
overall vision is to use the site as a venue for learning about local history. Third-grade students
would arrive by school bus. There would also be some weekend hours for general visitation.
Once the CHS plans are more definite for the site, additional environmental review would need
to be conducted.
2.4.6 Simms Property
The 3.1-acre Simms property, also owned by the City, is located on McClellan Road,
directly across the creek from McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve. There is an existing house on
the property, which is rented out to a private party. There are no plans to remove the house
before the end of its useful life. However, the Restoration Plan does include the Simms property
and when the timing is appropriate, the Plan can be implemented. The Master Plan proposes a
bus pullout on McClellan Road in front of the Simms property for students visiting McClellan
Ranch (see Fig. 14). The students would exit the bus at the Simms property and then cross
Stevens Creek using the existing pedestrian bridge that parallels McClellan Road. There is also
an existing crosswalk across McClellan Road near the driveway of the Simms property.
Flashing warning lights would be installed on each hill and the crosswalk would be painted red
to enhance visibility of the crosswalk.
2.5 RESTORATION PLAN
The restoration portion of the project involves all project activities in and adjacent to the
Stevens Creek Corridor. These activities include removal of three low~flow crossings, one
diversion dam, three pedestrian bridges, concrete rubble, rock riprap, shotcrete and sacked
concrete (see Figs. 4 and 15). Restoration also includes creek realignment and revegetation of
newly created and existing creek banks within these alignments. The Plan includes invasive
exotics plant removal and upland habitat restoration. These activities would enhance steelhead
habitat while providing for recreational uses, meet the requirements of the draft F AHCE
agreement, and meet the Goals and Objectives of the City's 2005 General Plan.
The Restoration Plan was developed to address conditions defined in several biological
reports that gave a basis for determining opportunities for restoration within the Stevens Creek
Corridor. The reports included the Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan,
prepared in 2005 for this project by Thomas Reid Associates (see Appendix B). Previous
biological reports prepared for the study area were also reviewed for the 2005. They included:
Assessment of Biological Opportunities and Constraints: Reportfor the City of Cupertino,
Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study (Trulio 2001) and Results of a One~Year Survey for
Amphibians on Lands Managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in the Santa
Cruz Mountains of California (Seymour and Westphal 2000).
Restoration activities would occur in three generalized areas: south end of McClellan Rd.
through the Water District parcel, Blackberry Farm, and the Stocklmeir Site. The McClellan
Ranch section begins where Stevens Creek flows beneath McClellan Road and encompasses
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 2-16
Project Description
everything downstream until the chain link fence surrounding the softball field just past the
abandoned walnut orchard on District property. The Simms property is included in this reach so
that plans are in hand for the time when the house is removed. However, the house would not be
removed during its useful life. The Blackberry Farm area begins at the end ofthe
abovementioned area and covers everything downstream to the end of the large paved parking lot
that is separated from the golf course by a tall mesh fence. The Stocklmeir Site is the remaining
downstream portion of the creek that includes a 5.1-acre home site and orange orchard with
access from Stevens Creek Boulevard.
2.5.1 Removal of Existing Site Features
Lowllow automobile crossings: Three low-flow automobile crossings, which pose
significant barriers to steelhead passage, would be removed. All three crossings are within
Blackberry Farm (see Fig. 4 and Photo 6). Two of the crossings are within creek realignment
areas and the third lies just downstream of the existing diversion dam.
Diversion dam: The diversion dam within Blackberry Farm would be removed to
improve passage for steelhead (see Fig. 4 and Photo 7). The purpose of this dam was to divert
water to the two Blackberry Farm Golf Course ponds. In the absence of this dam, the City would
use an existing 35,000-gallon underground cistern which would possibly be connected to an
existing nearby well. This cistern was a filtration gallery for the old Monta Vista Water System.
It would store water for all the irrigation needs ofthe golf course, including the ponds, and park
improvements
Pedestrian Bridges: Three pedestrian bridges spanning the creek within the Blackberry
Farm would be removed (see Fig. 4 and Photo 8). These bridges currently provide access to
picnic areas on the west side of the creek. However, due to the proposed creek realignments and
decrease in picnic area size they would no longer be necessary. One of the bridges to be
removed has historically provided public access from the Scenic Circle neighborhood and other
neighborhoods on the west side of the creek. At the request of some neighbors in that area, the
City Council directed that this bridge be removed and that no access be provided from the Scenic
Circle neighborhood. 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.
One 14-foot wide bridge that can support light duty City vehicles would replace the three
existing bridges in Blackberry Farm. The new bridge would connect the pool complex with the
proposed, consolidated west bank picnic facilities.
A second 8-foot wide bicycle/pedestrian bridge would be installed to connect the trail
extending along the Blackberry Farm Golf Course on the east bank to the Stocklmeir site on the
west bank.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Project Description
Page 2-17
Photo 6. One of the low-flow creek crossings within Blackberry Farm
Photo 7. Diversion dam within Blackberry Farm to be demolished and removed.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 2-18
Project Description
Photo 8. Pedestrian bridge to Sycamore picnic site at Blackberry Farm to be demolished and removed.
Concrete and Rock Bank Stabilization Structures: Where appropriate and feasible, the
existing concrete rubble, rock riprap, shotcrete and sacked concrete found within the project area
would be removed. These erosion control structures were originally installed to stabilize banks,
however, their continued presence along the creek banks have precluded vegetation colonization
and caused flow velocity and channel incision to increase, which has further degraded habitat for
steelhead. Therefore, the creek banks would be stabilized through a more natural means by
widening the creek channel and floodplain, decreasing both the creek grade and bank slope and
using bioengineering techniques such as willow wattles.
2.5.2 Creek Realignment
In addition to the removal of existing site features, the restoration project contains three
creek realignments, that have been categorized into subsections: Reach A, B, and C. Reaches A
and B are located within Blackberry Farm and Reach C is within the Stocklmeir site (see Fig.
16).
Reach A Realignment: Reach A begins upstream of the diversion dam and extends
through the Horseshoe Bend area (see Fig. 17).
The upstream portion of Reach A extends from the Blackberry Farm fence line
downstream to the diversion dam. In this area approximately 500 linear feet of large boulders
would be removed, the creek would be laid back at a 3: 1 slope, and the banks would be
revegetated with locally collected and grown native species.
Just downstream, Reach A continues from the diversion dam (to be demolished) to the
first low flow crossing. In this section of creek, the diversion dam and first low flow crossing
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Project Description
Page 2-19
would be removed and the existing pool and riffle habitat would be extended for 600 feet. A
small creek access would be preserved (in the location of the first low flow crossing) to facilitate
environmental education programs. This site was selected due to existing disturbances. In all
other areas in Reach A, sycamore-oak riparian forest plantings would be installed along the
banks where the in-stream structures were removed, to aid in stabilizing the creek banks.
Spawning gravels would be added to the riffle zones. The proposed work would occur within
the existing channel. These enhancements would provide higher quality habitat than currently
available.
The last proposed habitat improvement in Reach A includes the realignment of
Horseshoe Bend. The realignment would return the creek to its historic creek bed from which it
was diverted in the 1950s. The radius of the curve at Horseshoe Bend would be reduced and the
stream would be pulled away from the west bank. The realigned creek at Horseshoe Bend would
be 455 feet long. Concrete would be removed from the old channel and a natural crib wall
planted with native species would be installed to reduce erosion and undercutting of the bank
along Riviera Road (see Fig. 17). Pool and riffle habitat with revegetated creek banks would be
installed throughout this new channel.
Reach B Realignment: Reach B begins just downstream of Horseshoe Bend and includes
the area from the second low flow crossing through the third low flow crossing to the fence line
that separates the parking area from the golf course (see Fig. 18). The creek channel within
Reach B would be realigned through the existing west bank picnic area and parking lot. In order
to accomplish this, the City of Cupertino would relocate park and recreation facilities now along
the west bank of the creek and significantly reduce the parking lot on the east bank. Parking
spaces would be reduced from 1,100 spaces to 350 spaces.
In moving the creek, the channel would be lengthened to allow the current elevation drop
created by the low flow crossings to be spread out over a longer linear distance. This would help
to stabilize the new creek channel and diminish the active erosion occurring in the current
thalweg. In addition, approximately 200 feet of the current channel would be maintained as a
backwater wetland habitat where the new channel meets the original streambed. The remainder
of the current channel, 828 feet long, would be filled to divert the creek into the new alignment.
The new channel would offer pools and riffles and be planted with locally collected and contract-
grown sycamore-oak riparian forest plantings.
The project would reconnect the stream to the floodplain. A portion of the old channel
would be retained as a backwater channel. Structures would be removed from the creek channel
and creek banks that have contributed to the destabilization and resulting erosion of the creek.
This would reduce the sediment load in prime steelhead spawning habitat and reduce the
sediments moving downstream.
Reach C Realignment: Reach C is located in the Stocklmeir area adjacent to the
Blackberry Farms Golf Course and extends across much of the length of the Stocklmeir orange
orchard (see Fig. 19). The Reach C realignment consists ofthe construction of 729 lineal feet of
new stream channel. This realignment would reduce erosion and undercutting of the existing
east creek bank along the golf course. The new channel would use the existing west bank as the
new east bank. Therefore, revegetation efforts would only occur along the west bank of the new
channel. A steep riffle would transition the old stream to the new stream and seven pool and
riffle sequences would be developed downstream through the orange orchard. Sack concrete,
shotcrete and riprap would be removed from 600 feet of the old channel along the golf course.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 2-20
Project Description
This area would then be filled with soil removed from the excavation of the new channel and
planted with native shrubs to create a 600-foot long willow swale habitat providing additional
screening along the golf course.
2.5.3 Revegetation and Habitat Enhancement
Revegetation: Revegetation would occur on all areas along the creek that are disturbed
by project activities (e.g. creek realignment, trail construction, removal of rubble, sacked
concrete and rock riprap )(See Plate I). The list of plant species, or plant palette, to be used for
revegetation efforts have been determined based on existing native plants found along the creek,
historical native plant species recorded along the creek, and plant species observed in similar
tributary creeks within the watershed. The plant species to be used for revegetation have been
further broken up into three habitat zones found along the creek (see Tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4
below). These habitat zones would be determined by elevation areas ranging from the waters'
edge to the outer floodplain, groundwater hydrology and soil substrate. Intergradation of the
plant palettes in each zone would occur as site conditions demand and a site-responsive plant
layout would result. See Plate 1 for a schematic cross section of the extent of
revegetation/enhancement. Each zone would be delineated and illustrated so that areas disturbed
from construction activities would be readily identified for revegetation. Specific revegetation
areas within the project include the creation of 200 feet of backwater wetland habitat in Reach B
(see Fig 18) and the creation ofa willow swale in the old channel along Reach C (see Fig.19).
All plants used for revegetation will be grown from locally derived stock. The replacement ratio
for coast live oak trees removed as a result of project improvements is 3: 1 according to
regulatory agency requirements (Dave Johnston, California Department ofFish and Game
(CDFG) pers. comm.). Replacement of other riparian habitat would be according to a ratio
specified during the 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement process with the CDFG. Temporary
and permanent irrigation and plant quantities and plant establishment requirements would be
specified in the Plans Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) document prepared prior to
constructi on.
1-
El<t~,.,t M R_~~m 'Eilllm"""'"\
...
2oM'.i
~~""$ fJl;;~ r","'~c,~.................._
Rh)l:I-.ffM"
lfX:..l
If'''' R>ifflil" ,
Wft" s_r.::m
Ct~a:lmd
1<1""''' . lr~"''' ,
....~1lt*' ~ H>.i}I'l'''''~~.~''''rl' ~~
R1Mt'~": :
Plate 1 Schematic Revegetation/Enhancement
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Project Description
Page 2-21
Table 2-2
Zone 1 Low Riparian/ Within Bank flow
This is the first zone of planting, right above and within the ordinary high water (OHW)
line. This zone occurs on the lower channel bars and waters' edge, lower bank, and lower
bankfull benches. These species will be planted within 15 feet ofthe low-flow shoreline of the
creek, so they can access water year-round, develop root structures that stabilize the channel
banks and provide important instream shelter cover for fish, and reduce stream temperatures
through shading of the creek.
. Sand bar willow (Salix exigua)
. Mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana)
. Nut sedge (Cyperus eragrostis)
. Bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus)
· Willow-leaved dock (Rumex salicifolius)
. White alder (Alnus rhombifolia)
. Red willow (Salix laevigata)
. Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis)
· Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifiera)
. Wild grape (Vitis californica)
. American dogwood (Camus sericia)
. Douglas' false-willow (Baccharis douglasii)
. Western sycamore (Platanus racemosa)
Table 2-3
Zone 2 Middle and High Terrace Riparian
This zone is classified as the upper bankfull bench, upper bank, top of bank, and inner
floodplain areas. The species in this zone can tolerate periodic to infrequent flooding, and are
typically found on the upper creek banks, top of bank, and occasionally along the low flow
shoreline.
. Western virgin's-bower (Clematis ligustcifolia)
. California blackberry (Rubus ursinus)
. Valley oak (Quercus lobata)
. Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)
. Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus)
. California bay (Umbellularia californica)
. California Buckeye (Aesculus californica)
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 2-22
Project Description
· Wild rose (Rosa californica)
. Box elder (Acer negundo)
· Blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana)
. Chaparral clematis (Clematis lasiantha)
Table 2-4
Zone 3 Upland/Meadow
These species are found in outer floodplain areas.
· Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)
· Hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia)
· Hillside gooseberry (Ribes calffornicum)
· Wild cucumber (Marahfabaceus)
. Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia)
· Osoberry (Oemlaria cerasiformis)
. Blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus)
. Purple needlegrass (Nasella pulchra)
. California melic (Melica californica)
. California brome (Bromus carinatus)
Exotic Species Control and/or Removal: Part of enhancing the habitat within the project
area would be to remove and/or control exotic plant species. Decreasing the acreage of exotic
species found along the creek would increase the potential for quality native habitats to become
established, and thus improve conditions for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Exotic plant species
along the creek have been mapped and categorized into priorities for removal. Some of the
factors that were considered when prioritizing weed removal were the amount and location of
weed growth, its ability to spread, the amount of follow-up required to ensure eradication, and
type of seed bank being produced (some seeds may stay viable in the soil for up to 30 years).
Methods of removal vary greatly depending on the target species. Some methods that may be
used include hand removal, spraying of herbicides, or mechanical removal (e.g. chainsaws, weed
wackers ).
Long-term Monitoring/Additional Restoration Research Opportunities: Long-term
monitoring and research to measure the ecological function ofthe restoration effort would
include bird area searches, streamside bio assessment surveys for macro invertebrate species, and
plant survival and diversity.
2.6 PROJECT SCHEDULE
The project would likely be constructed in three phases, with the first phase to be started
in the end of 2006. The first phase would include:
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Project Description
Page 2-23
· Creek realignment in Reaches A & B
. Park/picnic upgrades
· Relocation of the golf maintenance facility further out of the floodplain
· Removal of barriers to fish passage
. Restoration planting
. A trail between Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch
· The first phase construction of the classroom for environmental programs
· Advance eradication of exotics vegetation
Blackberry Farm would be closed from October 2006 until April 2008 to allow for the
construction of the first phase of the project. McClellan Ranch would not be closed during the
construction ofthe Environmental Education Center (Therese Smith pers. comm.).
The second phase construction project, which, if funded, would take place in 2007. It
would likely include additional upland habitat plantings and completion of the environmental
classroom.
The final phase includes the realignment of the creek through the Stocklmeir property
(Reach C) and construction of the trail to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Construction is likely to
occur in 2009, but may be done earlier if scheduling and funding make it feasible.
2.7 MITIGATION INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT
2.7.1 Design Features that Avoid Environmental Impacts
During the preparation of the Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan, a number of design
features were incorporated in the project to avoid environmental impacts. In addition,
hydrological and biological studies were completed that helped guide the preparation of the Park
Master Plan and Restoration Plan. For example, the biological studies indicated that a maternity
bat roost and raptor nests were located in certain trees. The project was designed to avoid
impacts to these trees. Other features that would eliminate additional impacts from the project
include:
· Reduced picnic facility size
· Movement of maintenance facilities out of the floodplain
· Removal of seven structures (3 low flow automobile crossing, a diversion dam and 3
pedestrian bridges) crossing the creek in exchange for two new bridges (pedestrian and
light duty service vehicle bridges)
. Extensive creek restoration and upland restoration
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 2-24
Project Description
. Removal of 158,701 square feet (3.76 acres) of impervious asphalt surface
2.7.2 1995 Countywide Trail Master Plan and Interjurisdictional Guidelines
Santa Clara County adopted a Countywide Trails Master Plan and Trail Map in 1995.
This Master Plan identified potential trails for the entire County both in unincorporated and
incorporated areas. The Stevens Creek trail is proposed in the Master Plan as County-wide Trail
S2.
The Countywide Trails Master Plan contains Design and Management Guidelines. These
Design Guidelines summarize and depict optimum characteristics for siting and designing trails
for a variety of land uses and landscapes that may be present when implementing trail routes
shown on the Countywide Trails Master Plan Map. The Management Guidelines outline
optimum scenarios regarding the management of use, operations, and maintenance of trail routes
shown on the Countywide Trails Master Plan Map. The Stevens Creek trail proposed in the
Master Plan would be implemented by the City of Cupertino in accordance with the Master Plan
and relevant Design Guidelines. Where relevant, specific Design Guidelines have been
identified in this Initial Study to show how a specific trail section would be implemented. In
addition, the Design Guidelines make recommendations on trail development that minimize
environmental impacts. Specific recommendations will be discussed in the environmental
impact discussion under their relevant topics (e.g. drainage, erosion control, etc.).
2.7.3 Santa Clara Valley Water District BMPs
The 2005 Best Management Practices Handbook provides a list of Santa Clara Valley
Water District's (District) Best Management Practices (BMPs) and references. The purpose is to
assist environmental planners and project teams to identify measures that should be
recommended for incorporation into project designs, and operation and maintenance activities to
avoid, prevent, or minimized adverse environmental impacts (SCVWD 2005a). Some of these
BMPs have been incorporated into this project and are listed in Appendix A.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) 2001 Stream Maintenance Program
(SMP) and Program EIR considered and analyzed many of the same activities proposed in the
restoration portion of this project. Best Management Practices (BMPs) applied to the SMP were
approved by all the stakeholders and regulatory agencies that have jurisdictional authority over
these activities. To avoid or reduce project impacts on special status species, biological
functions and values, hydrologic functions and values, and geologic functions to less than
significant levels, the contractor implementing this project would use these BMPs. A listing of
BMPs from the SMP and from the 2005 BMP Handbook that have been incorporated into this
project are found in Appendix A ofthis document.
2.7.4 Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines
and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
The Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative developed Guidelines
and Standards that were designed to address land use activities near streams and to protect
surface and groundwater quality and quantity in Santa Clara County (Santa Clara Valley Water
Resources Protection Collaborative 2005). They are based on a recent compilation of the
existing practices the Santa Clara Valley Water District uses when reviewing permits for land
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Project Description
Page 2-25
uses near streams under its current requirements based on Ordinance 83-2. Each Guideline and
Standard is tied to a specific land use activity (i.e., structures built near channels, encroachments,
grading and drainage, erosion repair, etc.). The project would follow these Guidelines and
Standards during the detailed design of the project and during any of the proposed construction
activities that are adjacent to the creek. These guidelines can be found at
h!!P:/ /www.vallevwater.org/media/pdf/WRPC A ugust2005 .lli!f.
2.7.5 BAAQMD Air Quality BMPs
To avoid impacting air quality during construction, the contractor would use Best
Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District's (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines (1999). Use of each BMP listed here reduces air
quality construction impacts to less than significant (BAAQMD, 1999):
For projects disturbing more than 4 acres of ground:
. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
· Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging
areas at construction sites.
. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
public streets.
. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously
graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).
. Enclose, cover, or water twice daily or apply (non-toxic soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways
. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. (BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines, pages 14 and 15).
The City of Cupertino would be responsible for ensuring that these BMPs are in evidence
in the during project construction.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 2-26
Project DescripUon
2.7.6 Stormwater Quality BMPs
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program lists BMPs through
"Blueprint for a Clean Bay" (Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (2004).
These BMPs include: dewatering the site, using cofferdams or dikes (as appropriate); placing silt
fences on the downslope along the trail construction zone; and scheduling construction activities
for periods of dry weather. These BMPs would be in the Project Agreement and must be in
evidence before any construction is to start. The City of Cupertino would be responsible for
ensuring that these BMPs are in evidence.
2.8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
A Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been prepared for this project
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (see Appendix I). According to the Guidelines:
"In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are implemented, the Lead Agency, the City of
Cupertino (City) shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has
required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects." ( 915097 (a))
"The Lead Agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on
mitigation, or both. "Reporting" generally consists of a written compliance review that is
presented to the decision making body or authorized staff person. A report may be required at
various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure.
"Monitoring" is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. There is often no
clear distinction between monitoring and reporting and the program best suited to ensuring
compliance in any given instance will usually involve elements of both." (915097 (c))
The MMRP lists the Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Timing of the Mitigation
Measure (when the measure will be implemented) related to the Stevens Creek Corridor project.
The responsibility for ensuring that the mitigation measure has been implemented will be the
City's. All ofthe mitigation measures listed in the MMRP will be implemented by the City or
by its appointees.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (a) (2), "Mitigation measures must be
fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments."
Therefore, all mitigation measures listed in this MMRP will be adopted by the City when the
project is approved.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-1
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND RESPONSES
1. Project title: Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan and Restoration Plan
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
3. Contact person and phone number: Michael O'Dowd, Manager, Blackberry Farms,
City of Cupertino, (408) 777-3143
4. Project location: City of Cupertino along Stevens Creek between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and McClellan Road
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
6. General Plan designation: Multiple, please see Land Use Section 3.9.
7. Zoning: Multiple, please see Land Use Section 3.9.
8. Description of project:
Please see Section 2 of this document.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
The Stevens Creek Corridor is surrounded by suburban residential neighborhoods in the
city of Cupertino.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement.)
The City of Cupertino (City) is the Lead Agency under CEQA and would need to
approve the project and the CEQA document. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is
a responsible agency. As such, the District's Board of Directors would need to adopt relevant
findings of fact pertaining to the project. Permit approvals are also required from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, the California Department ofFish and Game and the Army Corps
of Engineers. A Joint Use and Construction Agreement would be needed between the City and
the District. Other approvals including building, grading plan review, and plan check review
would be required by the City
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-2
Environmental Checklist and Responses
!
Less Than I
Significant i .
Impact INo Impac~
. ~ ~
Potentially
Significant
Impact
.
i
,
! Less Than
i
i Significant with
,
Mitigation
!a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
Ivista?
0 0 0 .
--------------~--"-~ _________________~___c___~c~~_____
0 0 0 .
--
l
0 0 . D
r~------------------ --------------------.---------------------- --------------~..--~_. ------~--.--------------------------_.f
tb) Substantially damage scenic resources,
;
!including, but not limited to, trees, rock
ioutcroppings, and historic buildings within a
,
Istate scenic highway?
~) Substantially degrade the existing visual
icharacter or quality of the site and its
~urroundings?
id) Create a new source of substantial light or
!glare which would adversely affect day or
fillghtt~~_~i.~~s ~utheuare_~.
o
o
.
D
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The Stevens Creek Corridor project area is bordered by residential neighborhoods
including Monta Vista, Meadows of Cupertino, Scenic Circle, Phar Lap, and Linda Vista. The
project area is generally at a lower elevation typical of a creek valley bottom with the adjacent
homes at higher elevations above the floodplain.
Much of the area on either side of the creek is fairly well shaded by the canopy of existing
riparian trees. Other common views in the corridor are of the picnic area at Blackberry Farm and
golf course, the Stocklmeir and Simms properties and McClellan Ranch. The hillside slopes
between the residential areas and the creek corridor are densely vegetated with native and non-
native trees.
The trail would be developed according to the Uniform InteIjurisdictional Trail Design
Use and Maintenance Guidelines (Santa Clara County 1999) of the Santa Clara Countywide
Trails Master Plan Update (Santa Clara County 1995). Several policies related to the siting,
construction, design and maintenance of trails would limit the amount of visual impact that trail
could have on sensitive aesthetic resources. These policies include the following:
D - 1.3.1 General: Trail alignments and their associated facilities shall be sited and
designed to be in harmony with surrounding natural and cultural settings and to retain
natural appearances and values.
D - 1.3.1.2 General: Existing native vegetation shall be retained by removing only as
much vegetation as necessary to accommodate the trail width.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-3
". ,
D -1.3.1.3 General: Trail design shall include barriers to control use and prevent
environmental damage; barriers may include fences, vegetation, stiles, and/or fallen trees
or branches as appropriate.
D - 3.1.2 Trail Construction: Trail development should require the minimum
construction necessary to provide for public safety and protect natural and cultural
resources.
D - 3.3 Construction limits: Visible evidence of trail construction should be confined to
the trail clearing limit.
D - 3.6 Planting of disturbed areas: Any cut or fill slopes shall be immediately reseeded
or replanted with vegetation native to the general area. Criteria that would be used in
selecting plant materials include, but are not limited to: if the species is indigenous to the
area; pests and diseases; aesthetic characteristics; ability to provide shade; and ease of
maintenance.
In addition to these Guidelines, the Project Description states that all bare areas would be
mulched and planted. Thus, mulch would be added in areas where planting and seeding times do
not match the time of need or construction schedule. This mulch could include chipped on-site
trees that would be removed as part of this project, and can include Eucalyptus species (L. Spahr,
pers. comm.). To provide design flexibility for erosion control, if watershed specific seed is not
available at the time of construction, abiotic solutions for erosion control or aesthetics would be
implemented such as use of an erosion control blanket, mulch, or non-local ornamental natives
that comply with the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use near Streams (SCVWRP 2005).
Appendix H details the location, number, size, and type of trees that would be removed
due to the proposed Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan improvements.
DISCUSSION:
Will the proposed project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. The project area is located in the lower elevations of the relatively flat
portions on either bank of Stevens Creek. The majority of the proposed trail and creek
realignment is within Blackberry Farm, the Stocklmeir property and McClellan Ranch, where
most of the visual changes that would occur are located on relatively flat terrain and are not part
of a scenic vista. Therefore, the project will have no significant impact on a scenic vista.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Stevens Creek Co"idor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial StUdy
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-4
Environmental Checklist and Responses
No Impact. The project is not located next to a designated State Scenic Highway. The
closest State designated scenic highway is State Route 9 approximately 6 miles southwest of the
project area in Saratoga. Interstate 280, which is in the vicinity of the project area, is eligible for
designation as a State Scenic Highway, but is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway.
The project area is not visible from this highway, and therefore does not have a significant
impact on a state scenic highway.
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Less than Significant. Views would change for the various affected viewers (adjacent
residential neighborhoods) as a result of three general project components: trail installation, creek
realignment (Blackberry Farm and Stocklmeir property), new or updated buildings and facilities
and associated landscaping. The physical changes due to building demolition, construction, and
reconstruction are compatible with the proposed use as a community park, trail, and picnic area.
A restoration plan has been developed to address landscaping and replanting the trail and creek
corridors (TRA 2006).
A total of 187 trees will be removed as a result of this project within the entire reach. This
is not considered a significant impact, as 87 of these trees are orange trees in the Stocklmeir
orchard, and the other 100 trees are interspersed throughout the corridor. These trees are only a
very small portion of the trees that are within the corridor. For example, Blackberry Farm and the
Golf Course were surveyed for significant trees in 1995. In Blackberry Farm alone, there were
433 trees greater than 611 dbh ("diameter at breast height [4.5' above existing grade]") within the
area between the boundary fences (including the hill below Scenic Circle and the hill above the
west bank picnic area), and at the Golf Course there were 289 trees. These surveyed trees were
only those that met this 611 dbh requirement, many other smaller trees also exist. Since this tree
survey was done ten years ago, and because the last ten years have experienced either average or
above-average rainfall, most of the trees are now significantly larger, wth new willow,
cottonwood and oak saplings (most is used instead of all, since it is expected that some of these
trees surveyed in 1995 have died of natural causes.) A full discussion ofthe trees to be removed
from the project site from this process is found in the Biological Resources Section of this
document.
Trail Construction
The trail would be 8 feet wide, extending 5,900 feet ( 1.1 mile) from Stevens Creek
Boulevard (near Phar Lap Drive) to McClellan Road (at McClellan Ranch). The trail surface
would be an all-weather surface for bikes, strollers and walkers. The trail would be built on the
east side of the creek between McClellan Road and the 8th hole of Blackberry golf course where a
small pedestrian bridge would be constructed to connect the trail as it crosses to the west side of
the Creek and continues on to Stevens Creek Boulevard. A fence to protect trail users from
errant golf balls would also be constructed in this area. It would be a recurved fence similar to
what is shown in Photo 3. As described in the project description, a new crosswalk would be
installed at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Phar Lap Drive and would include a crosswalk painted
a red brick color, a median island with a pedestrian refuge in the center of Stevens Creek
Boulevard, and motorist warning lights on Stevens Creek Boulevard on both down grades that
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-5
approach the crossing. The existing crosswalk on McClellan Road would also be painted red and
motorist warning lights would be installed.
Other than the trail installation itself, the trail corridor aesthetics would remain largely
unchanged. The trail has been sited to minimize vegetation removal and major grading. The
overall aesthetics would be greatly improved with the addition of understory planting in the creek
corridor. Of the total 187 trees to be removed as part of the project, 22 trees would be removed
to accommodate trail construction throughout the entire project area, 12 are in the McClellan
Ranch Area and 10 are in the Stocklmeir site (see also Table 3-4 for a listing of trees to be
removed and Appendix H for a complete listing of all trees within the project site). Trail
construction itself would involve impacting a narrow construction zone to accommodate the trail
width and construction equipment access. The construction zone would be replanted following
installation of the trail (see Restoration Plan).
Blackberry Farm buildin2lfacilities modifications
The various improvements at Blackberry Farm include creek realignment and building
and facilities modifications. These modifications are geared toward enhancing the existing park
setting and retaining a natural look. Much of the black-top concrete and asphalt pavement in the
area would be removed and replaced with permeable pavement, paving stones, landscaping or
restored to natural ground. Some park features (like the pool fencing,) would be demolished and
replaced, in kind, with some minor changes. Some buildings (golf maintenance building and
yard, park entry kiosk, sport facilities) would be demolished and relocated and new buildings and
features would be constructed (catering building, trailhead and various parking areas) to support
the new park layout and consolidation of picnic activities to the west bank of Stevens Creek (see
Figs 4 & 7). A total of23 trees (including five native trees) would be removed as a result of
modifications of Blackberry Farm facilities or are natives in decline that could pose a safety
hazard. These 23 trees are unrelated to the creek realignment or trail construction and the effects
of removing these trees are discussed in the Biological Resources section of this document (see
also Table 3-4 for a listing of trees to be removed and Appendix H for a complete listing of all
trees within the project site).
Creek Reali~nment at Blackberry Farm and Stocklmeir l!!:!!Pertv
As a result of the creek realignment, some mature trees may be removed and some trees
may perish from relocation of their water source. The majority of trees impacted by the creek
realignment are in the vicinity of the Horseshoe Bend picnic area and the group picnic and large
parking area of Blackberry Farm and on the Stocklmeir property. As part of the construction
documentation process, final trail and creek design refinements would be reviewed by a soils
scientist and an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or the American
Society of Consulting Arborists.
Realignment of Reach A - At the Horseshoe Bend picnic area of Blackberry Farm, a 455-
foot section of the creek would be realigned to its original channel before it was diverted in the
1950s. The new channel would offer pool and riffle habitat and the creek banks would be
revegetated. The bank would be laid back at this location, and then would be planted with
willows below the Ordinary High Water (OHW) line to ensure bank stability. Uit is determined
that concrete removal (hard bank protection) from the old channel would not undermine the
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-6
Environmental Checklist and Responses
slope up to Riviera Road, it would be removed and replaced by a natural crib wall. This new crib
wall would be planted with native species to reduce erosion and undercutting of the bank.
The picnic area at Horseshoe bend would be eliminated and the pavement removed. A
total of 30 trees would be removed in this reach and the entire picnic area and pavement would be
removed to accommodate the creek realignment (see Appendix H). As a result ofthe tree
removal, the view from Riviera Road may be less obscured to the area below revealing a more
open canopy and the newly realigned creek. Over time, as the restoration planting matures, the
views of these features would diminish.
Realignment of Reach B - Trees would also be removed to accommodate the creek
realignment through the existing parking area near the group picnic area at Blackberry Farm.
Nine trees would be removed on the west bank and 12 trees would be removed on the east bank
(see Appendix H). The parking area would be greatly reduced from 1,100 spaces to 350 spaces
and the existing pavement removed and replaced with permeable pavement and native shade tree
plantings.
Realignment of Reach C - Tree removal to accommodate the creek realignment and trail
route through the Stocklmeir property may change views near Stocklmeir Court and Dean Court
slightly as an existing fence and landscape trees block much of the views to the property from
adjacent residences. The views through the gates at the end of the Dean Court cuI de sac would
be fairly unobstructed of the Stocklmeir property. The orchard trees closest to the residences
would be preserved, however many ofthe orchard trees closer to the creek would need to be
removed due to the creek realignment. A total of 87 orange orchard, 3 English walnut orchard
and 3 native species trees would be removed due to the creek realignment in this area. The
remaining 80 orchard trees would continue to screen the views in this area. Views of the project
would be of the newly realigned creek, trail, bridge and restoration planting. Much of the existing
riparian vegetation would also remain, however it is possible that some vegetation may not
survive once the creek watercourse is moved from its current location. New plantings proposed
in the Restoration Plan should compensate for the loss of existing creek vegetation due to the
realignment of the creek.
McClellan Ranch
Built feature changes at McClellan Ranch include construction of the 2,000 s.f. classroom
on an existing building pad formerly occupied by a double-wide trailer. Views of the new
building from McClellan Road are blocked by existing trees. The 4-H facility would be shifted
toward the meadow and the trail has been sited further down slope to avoid these trees along
McClellan Road near the new classroom. These trees would not be removed by project activities.
The architecture of the classroom should be designed to be compatible with the existing ranch
buildings. The construction of a building at the site of a previous building to be built with similar
architecture and coloring as the surrounding buildings would maintain the visual character and
quality of the site. Mitigation Measure LU-I will ensure that the building design is consistent
with the McClellan Ranch Master Plan.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page ~7
, .
Other changes at the McClellan Ranch site include moving part of the 4-H facility (a goat
pen and rain shelter) away from the proposed trail and relocating some garden plots. These
represent minor changes to the existing environment and do not change the overall aesthetic
character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
Considering the existing and proposed uses at the site, trail design according to the
Uniform Interjurisdictioual Trail Design Use and Maintenance Guidelines of the Countywide
Trails Master Plan, and the improvements proposed in the Stevens Creek Corridor Restoration
Plan, the proposed changes are not considered to substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant. The trail would not be lit at night. Blackberry Farm would retain
its operating hours from dawn until dusk and maintain the current level oflighting for evening
events. No new lighting is proposed in the parking area adjacent to the retreat center. If solar roof
panels are to be used at any of the buildings being constructed, they would be placed in a manner
which would not cause glare to reflect towards existing homes. If flashing lights are installed at
cross walks, they would also be sited so as not to disturb adjacent properties.
Stevens Creek Co"idor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-8
Environmental Checklist and Responses
. .
i !
~) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or!
Warmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), ! D D D .
las shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the I
Warmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of .
,
/the California Resources Agency, to non-
~gricultural use?
i
,
;
!b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
~se, or a Williamson Act contract? D D . D
!-m .__._.__._..._~~~~ __..... ,'OM.'_ --'0.1
!c) Involve other changes in the existing
lenvironment which, due to their location or D D . D
!nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
~o non-agricultural use?
r" ................ ......-............. ......... ........ ............ ...... ....................m..........+o<+..... .......n..... .......... ...........n ..... ......... ....~....... ..... ....... ......... ....... ........ n.n.n.n .................... >........... ............... ............. .T.........-.............. ..... ........... .......n .nT" ............., "+'''+''H'' H....... nr
l I" 1 I j
I ! Potentially Less Than i Less Than i !
, i Significant Significant with! Significant I !
! Impact Mitigation i Impact INo Impac~
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The project area is set in the suburban neighborhoods of Cupertino along Stevens Creek
between McClellan Ranch and the Blackberry Farm Golf Course at Stevens Creek Boulevard.
This area was first settled in the 1850s as rural farmland, which over time has increasingly
given way to suburban residential development. There are no working farms that would be
affected by the proposed project. The Stocklmeir orchard is the only remaining orchard on
Stevens Creek between the foothills of Cupertino and San Francisco Bay in Mountain View.
Historically, the area was a "pay to pick" nut farm. While orange and walnut trees still exist on
the property, the trees are not being commercially farmed, though service groups annually
harvest the fruit for food bank organizations. Remnants of an old walnut orchard still exists near
the creek on the District-owned property north of McClellan Ranch, but none of these trees are
maintained or harvested.
None of the project area is designated as "Prime Farmland," "Unique Farmland," or
"Farmland of Statewide Importance" according to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency.
A total of 175 orchard trees (144 orange and 31 walnut) currently exist on the Stocklmeir
property. A total of87 orange orchard trees and 3 walnut orchard trees would be removed to
accommodate the creek realignment. A total of 5 orange orchard trees would be removed to
accommodate the trail alignment.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-9
DISCUSSION:
Will the proposed project:
a. 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?
No Impact. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance in the Project Area (California Department of Conservation 2004).
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Cupertino General Plan Land Use
Map, the Stocklmeir property is designated "very low density" residential and zoned agricultural
residential on the Cupertino zoning map (Cupertino 2005). None of the parcels are under
Williamson Act contracts. While the project would result in the loss of approximately 95 orchard
trees on the Stocklmeir property, it would not conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use
or a Williamson Act contract. The property may need to be rezoned in the future depending on
the ultimate use of the property outside of the creek corridor; however this rezoning would be
addressed in a future CEQA analysis.
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Less than Significant Impact. Acquisition of the Stocklmeir property was motivated by
City policy to acquire property adjacent to Stevens Creek to preserve the floodplain as open
space and to develop a formal urban trail along the creek corridor. The old orchard at the
Stocklmeir property is not commercially farmed or maintained but the trees continue to bear fruit.
Service groups annually harvest the orchard for food bank organizations.
Approximately 95 orchard trees would be lost to accommodate the proposed creek
realignment and trail. There is a total of 175 orchard trees consisting of 144 orange trees and 31
other orchard trees (walnut, loquat, olive, lemon and tangerine) in the orchard, thus
approximately 54% of the orchard would be removed. The orange orchard, for the most part, is
in good condition and is still productive. However, the orchard is not currently maintained and
could benefit from regular fertilizing and mulching. Some trees are past their prime or are dying.
As much of the existing orchard (80 trees) would be retained as possible and would be actively
maintained by the City to prevent further loss of orchard trees. Service groups would still be able
to harvest oranges for food bank organizations from the remaining trees.
Historically, citrus orchards were not the main type of orchard in Santa Clara Valley, as
stone fruits were more predominant orchard type (e.g. plums, apricots, cherries). The orange
orchard was a hobby orchard planted by Mr. Stocklmeir. The loss of some of the orchard trees is
not considered a significant impact under CEQA.
Stevens Creek Conidor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cuperlino - April 2006
Page 3-10
Environmental Checklist and Responses
,
i
i
!
C r
! r
iNo Impac~
Potentially
! Significant
,
i Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
la) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
!the applicable air quality plan?
=:I
. ..
i I j
Iii
, .
: ~ ,
r-m-_m- -'~-~--'--'-"'-"""'-""""-' '--r-~' ,. -~ ......, T'-._...~_m_'__~Trt--~~._--------_..,._--t--._-_.-
ih) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
,
isubstantially to an existing or projected air
jquality violation?
l
o
o
o
i.
!
.--+-- ----------..>'c_mmm_.._.l
o
o
.
o
~) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
~ncrease of any criteria pollutant for which the
,
!project region is non-attainment Wlder an
~pplicable federal or state ambient air quality
~tandard (including releasing emissions which
!exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
!precursors )?
~) Expose ~~~:~~:~~';~~~Ptors to-:ubstan~~:~.'..'.'---T-'"
rollutant concentrations? I
o
o
.
o
-'r.'-- -.
!
- ~ ""-----r----.------...--
--1
o
o
.
o
j........................................................ n. ,. .. +h ", '"+n+" ...+.. ...m...............mm.... .................................. ,_ .'U. .,.................................................L........~ ......> , .>"Hh .,m<<... ..............................+......................................................~................................. .. ..
Ie) Create objectionable odors affecting a !
!substantial number of people? 0
o
o
.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
Regulatory Setting. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for air
pollution control and setting State ambient air quality standards and allowable emission levels for
motor vehicles. The State is divided into air basins governed by districts. The project site is
located in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD monitors and
enforces District, State of California, and Federal air quality standards. Monitored pollutants
include Ozone (03), Nitrogen Oxides (NO and NOz, collectively "Nox") Carbon Monoxide (CO),
Sulfur Dioxide (SOz), Hydrogen sulfide (HzS), Particulate Matter (PMIO and PMz.5),
hydrocarbons, elemental and organic carbon, and various hazardous air pollutant compounds.
Existing Ambient Air Quality. The San Francisco Bay Air Basin is in attainment for all
national pollutant standards set forth in the Federal Clean Air Act with exception of ozone. In
June 2004, the Bay Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the national 8-hour
ozone standard. The region also exceeds State ambient air quality standards for ozone and fine
particulate matter (PMIO and PMz.5). The state standards for these pollutants are more stringent
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-11
than the national standards. All other pollutants are designated as "attainment" or "unclassified"
for federal standards and state standard.
Geographically, the valley tends to channel pollutants to the southeast with its
northwest/southeast orientation. and concentrate pollutants by its narrowing to the southeast.
Meteorologically, on high-ozone low-inversion summer days, the pollutants can be recirculated
by the prevailing northwesterlies in the afternoon and the light drainage flow in the late evening
and early morning, increasing the impact of emissions significantly. On high particulate and
carbon monoxide days during late fall and winter, clear, calm and cold conditions associated with
a strong surface based temperature inversion prevail (BAAQMD 2005).
Cupertino's climatic conditions are characterized by warm, dry summers and relatively
cool, wet winters. The year-round average temperature is approximately 580 F, and the normal
annual rainfall, which occurs mostly during the period from October to May, varies from 18 to 26
inches (City of Cupertino 2004). The Santa Clara Valley's hills and mountains tend to trap
pollutants created locally and those brought by prevailing winds from San Mateo, San Francisco,
and Alameda Counties. Santa Clara Valley's concentration of industry, jobs, and population
produces the highest mobile source emissions of any subregion in the Bay Area.
Fuel combustion from automobiles produces exhaust with some level of criteria
pollutants. Principal concern is for nitrogen oxides (NO,,) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) which are precursors to ozone, or "smog" and for carbon monoxide (CO) and fine
particulate matter (PMIO).
The District operates a network of monitoring sites in the area and maintains a database of
air quality data collected from these monitoring locations. The nearest monitoring sites to the
project site are the Sunnyvale (tests for ozone and toxics) (about 3 miles away) and Los Gatos
(tests for ozone only) (about 8 miles away) monitoring stations. The nearest comprehensive
monitoring site is in San Jose at Jackson Street (ozone, PMIO, PM2.5, Co, Nox, toxics, S02)'
The BAAQMD is a State attainment area for 8-hour carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
sulfur dioxides, sulfur and lead. The BAAQMD is a State non-attainment area for I-hour ozone,
particulate matter (PMIO) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). San Jose's monitoring station alone
reported California PMIO Standard violations on four days in 2004. The entire BAAQMD
reported seven days in 2004 in which the California PMIO Standard was exceeded at one or more
stations. In addition, since PM 10 is only sampled every sixth day, the actual number of days over
the Standard can be estimated at six times the number listed. There were no monitored
exceedances of National Standards at any of the Santa Clara Valley monitoring stations in 2004
(BAAQMD 2004).
Sensitive Receptors. Given the project's location within a suburban neighborhood, the
closest sensitive receptors are the residences that surround the project area. Several schools are
within a one-mile radius of the project area including: Regnart Elementary, Stevens Creek
Elementary, Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Junior High, Monta Vista High School, and De Anza
College.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-12
Environmental Checklist and Responses
DISCUSSION:
Will the proposed project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Bay
Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (the applicable regional Air Quality Plan)(BAAQMD 2006) in effect
for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Less than Significant Impact. A traffic report prepared by Hexagon Associates
estimated that existing vehicle trips equals 5,184 trips per week vs. proposed vehicle trips at 5,591
vehicle trips per week. According to the report, the greatest increase is expected for the segment
of McClellan Road east of Byrne. At this location, average daily weekday traffic may increase by
as little less than five percent (less than 250 vehicles). All other study areas at the project site
were projected to experience a smaller level of increased traffic (less than five percent), or a
decrease in traffic. The Table 3 in the Traffic report (see Appendix D) shows projected traffic
volumes at various roadway segments in the vicinity affected by the project.
This type of use is not expected to result in violation of an air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project was
estimated to generate about 400 trips per week over existing vehicle trips. The BAAQMD
generally does not recommend a detailed air quality analyses for projects generating less than
2,000 vehicle trips per day, unless warranted by the specific nature of the project or project
setting. For comparison, project types likely to result in potentially significant emissions are a
320-unit-single family housing development, a 51 O-unit apartment complex, a discount shopping
store (87,000 square feet), and general office space (280,000 square feet)(Table 6, BAAQMD
1999).
Project construction would result in ground disturbance and/or construction at the project
site over 5 acres over several years beginning in fall 2006. If all of the control measures indicated
below for construction sites greater than four acres would be implemented, then air pollutant
emissions from construction activities would be considered a less than significant impact
(BAAQMD 1999). The project proposes implementation of the following BMPs from
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Table 2 (1999) to adhere to BAAQMD requirements. These BMPs
are listed here (for projects disturbing greater than 4 acres of ground):
. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
· Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
· Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-13
· Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas
at construction sites.
. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
public streets.
· Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously
graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).
· Enclose, cover, or water twice daily or apply (non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles
(dirt, sand, etc.).
. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
· Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. (BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines, pages 14 and 15).
While construction equipment emits carbon monoxide and ozone precursors, these
emissions are included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans,
and are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone and carbon monoxide
standards in the Bay Area (BAAQMD 1999).
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less than Significant Impact. The air basin is in nonattainment status for the State
standards of ozone and particulate matter. The project does not involve new land uses and would
not contribute to urban growth or introduce new sources of air emissions into the air basin.
Temporary construction activities would result in direct air pollutant emissions from heavy
equipment used during construction.
The air basin is in non-attainment for fine particulate matter (PMlO and PM2.5)' Because
the project would generate PMlO emissions during project construction, the proposed project has
the potential to contribute cumulatively to a violation of ambient air quality standards in the air
basin. However, because the emission ofPMlO is short-term and minor, the project's contribution
to the cumulative PMIO levels in the air basin is not significant. Further, the implementation of the
BAAQMD Best Management Practices for all construction sites would ensure that dust
emissions are minimized.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-14
Environmental Checklist and Responses
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed trail project does not generate air
pollutants or create air quality impacts. Other than the dust and particulate matter emissions
generated during project construction, the project would not generate air emissions and would
not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. The use of the construction BMPs (listed above) will
ensure that PM 10 concentrations remain a less than significant impact to nearby sensitive
receptors (residences and schools).
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. The activities associated with the construction of a trail, creek realignment
and operation of a park would not result in the creation of objectionable odors.
Stevens Creek Co"idor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-15
. .
!.....................-............................................................................................wHH..m..>.H......+"............m..................I.....................................................'T...........................................................<< m.m.UT........................................... ..... ...................................!
! ! Potentially! Less Than Less Than !
! Significant ! Significant witb Significant i
: t C
! Impact ; Mitigation Impact No Impac~
':!i1ilil___-I_-]-I~i~lit~l~ki~iii_i~li~1tJI~'I~~~i~~~~~~l~!~i]\!~~
. *"-~,w.."'...,' ~;;;.~Z""w$;C~~.w.~~~no~-'":"o:":Q>:Q;; ~o:;:C':; -;:0 ... .". ... ; ; ,;W; ~..;:;:.;t.,~"~"'-"'m~'m~..w~w..,.w., "." . "."' "." ~"o:~>:o,'". ,~~.:o~~:~>::;~il:';;:~~'~~~m~ ';~~'.':~;~"."~~o:Q;: ;.; ,;.;,,;...~' v..,~.~~~,..;. ".~~ ,.,...~:;.""':;: :;;;";Z:.~.;~:&i~cCj;:.;:.;,:;c~.;~.~~<<~~~~" . ,..>>..>>..~. ,~:~':~; ~~f :Q~Q":" ':1 .,.
; ,
~) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
!directly or through habitat modifications, on any 0 . 0 0
Ispecies identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
!special status species in local or regional plans, I
policies, or regulations, or by the California
fDepartment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
!Wildlife Service?
r ~ ~_~ U~_.~T -_. .--..-...-..-..-..-..-.-.. ..-.-.--.- - -------~~-~ ---------------~~~._~ -..-..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--. u
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
!riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 0 0 . 0
icommunity identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
!Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
iWildlife Service?
! -
Ie) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 0 . 0 0
ithe Clean Water Act (including, but not limited I
~o, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through I
!direct removal, filling, hydrological intenuption,
ior other means?
,
~
!d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
iany native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 0 . 0 0
~pecies or with established native resident or
~gratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of I
!native wildlife nursery sites?
ie) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
IProtecting biological resources, such as a tree 0 . 0 0
~reservation policy or ordinance?
~- ---.-.-.-..-..-.-.-.--.-..-.--.. --_.~-~ -~..._.. --.- ._....~_....._--_._..
if) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
!Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community 0 0 0 .
!Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
~egional, or state habitat conservation plan?
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
As part of the environmental review for this project, the following biological surveys and
assessments were conducted by Thomas Reid Associates 2006 (with the exception of the bat
surveys which were completed by H.T. Harvey & Associates):
I. A site assessment for the federally Threatened California tiger salamander (CTS
hereafter).
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-16
Environmental Checklist and Responses
2. US fish and Wildlife Service protocol surveys for the federally Threatened California red-
legged frog (CRLF hereafter)
3. A nesting raptor survey
4. Bat surveys (completed by H.T. Harvey & Associates)
5. Rare plant and botanical inventory surveys
6. A preliminary wetland delineation
The general purpose for each of the above studies was to assess potential impacts that
may occur to resources within the Stevens Creek Corridor due to the implementation of the
Master Plan and Habitat Restoration Plan. The existing biological conditions, potential impacts
and avoidance and minimization protocols included in this section were compiled using the
Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan (all surveys listed above). The
report is attached as Appendix B.
Habitats and Vee.etation
This section describes the existing conditions of the habitat types and vegetation within
the project site. The impact section starting on page 3-23 ofthis document contains a discussion
of the impacts and mitigation measures proposed to reduce or avoid impacts to these habitat
types and vegetation. Habitats and vegetation within the project site include Sycamore-oak
riparian woodland, coast live oak woodland, annual grassland, orchard, residential development,
golf course parklands and associated freshwater pond/emergent wetlands, habitat, and
community gardens. The dominant habitat types in the project site are Sycamore-oak riparian
woodland, characterized as the California Sycamore Series in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1 995),
and annual grassland, characterized as California Annual Grassland Series in Sawyer and Keeler-
Wolf (1995). California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia)
dominate the riparian canopy, with a mixture of valley oak (Quercus lobata), California bay
(Umbellularia californica), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa), box elder
(Acer negundo), and pines (Pinus radiata), among others. Understory vegetation includes
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), dogwood (Camus sp.), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis),
English ivy (Hedera helix), and blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), among others. A
complete list of plants recorded within the project area can be found in Table 7 in Appendix B.
Annual grassland is present in the southern portion ofthe project site within the Simms
property and McClellan Ranch Park McClellan Ranch and the Simms property are contiguous
parcels on the south side ofthe Creek. The grasslands are dominated by non-native grasses and
weedy herbaceous plants including yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), milk thistle
(Sylibum marianus), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).
Some native and non-native brush and trees are found scattered through the grassland, including
coyote brush (Baccharis pUularis), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus mol/e), almond (Prunus sp.),
and coast live oak, among others. The McClellan Ranch House, museum, blacksmith shop,
community gardens, and other associated out buildings are also present within this portion ofthe
project site.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-17
The Stocklmeir property comprises the northwest boundary of the project site and
supports an orange tree orchard, one vacant residence, and associated out buildings. The
Blackberry Farm Golf Course, situated on the northeastern portion of the project site, and on the
east side of Stevens Creek, is heavily landscaped and is dominated by lawn grass and sparse
mature pine trees (Pinus radiata). There are two ponds on the golf course. Just south of the
Golf Course is Blackberry Farm, which supports parking lots, picnic grounds, grass playing
fields, swimming pools, and a variety of park buildings and structures. The majority of this area is
paved.
Prior to development of the area, the project site was likely composed of mature riparian
woodland along the banks of Stevens Creek, wet meadows with riparian scrub, seasonal wetlands
and grassland on the floodplain, coast live oak woodland on moist north facing slopes, and dry
grasslands and chaparral on south-facing slopes. Grading, development, and farming within the
floodplain of the creek, introduced non-native plant species, and dam construction upstream of
the project site has resulted in changes to the vegetation composition within the creek and
adjacent habitats.
A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native
Plant Society On-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants resulted in a total of eight special-
status plants documented within a 5-mile radius of the project site. All of these plants are listed
by the California Native Plant Society as IB which means they are rare, threatened or endangered
in California and elsewhere. Table 3-1 lists the eight plants species and their potential to be found
within the project site.
Surveys were not conducted for plants documented as having no potential to be found on
the project site due to the absence of suitable habitat. Two plants, western leatherwood (Dirca
occidentalis) and Dudley's lousewort (Pedicularis dudleyi), were determined to have low
potential to be found on site. These rare plants were not found during the three field surveys
conducted on the site. One of the field surveys was completed in February 2005, to determine
presence during the blooming period of west em leatherwood. No field surveys were done during
the blooming period of the Dudley's lousewort, because it is extremely rare-it is known from
fewer than 15 occurrences and its closet occurrence is at Portola State Park which is over 5 miles
west of the project site. This species is most likely to occur in more coastal areas under stands of
redwood trees (Corelli, pers. comm.). Although there are some redwood trees at Blackberry
Farm, they are not native to the site and there is no understory associated with these trees.
Therefore, habitat types present on site were determined unlikely to support Dudley's lousewort.
Further, Jeffrey Caldwell, a local botanist who has hiked and documented plant species within
the Corridor for over twenty years, has never encountered Dudley's lousewort on site (Caldwell,
pers. comm.).
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-18
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Table 3-1. Special Status Plant Species Reported Within 5 Miles
of The Project Site And Their Potential to Occur Onsite.
S pedes Status Flowering Habitat Potential on
Period Project Site
Western CNPS List January - Broadleaved upland forest, closed Low potential.
leatherwood IB April cone coniferous forest, chaparral, Surveyed during
(Direa cismontane woodland, North Coast bloom period
occidenta/is) coniferous forest, riparian scrub, and not
riparian woodland/mesic; elevation 50- detected.
395 meters.
Ben Lamond CNPS List June - Chaparral, cisrnontane woodland, No potential.
buckwheat IB October lower montane coniferous forest Habitat not
(Eriogonum (ponderosa pine sandhills)/ sandy; present.
nudum val'. elevation 50-800 meters.
decurrens)
Caper-fruited CNPS List March - Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline No potential.
tropidocarpum IB April hills), elevation 1-455 meters. Habitat not
( Tropidocarpum present. Last
capparideum) seen in Santa
Clara County in
1957.
King's Mountain CNPS List January - Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, No potential.
Manzanita IB April North Coast coniferous forest! granitic Habitat not
(Arctostaphylos or sandstone, elevation 305-730 present.
regismontana) meters.
Arcuate bush CNPS List April - Chaparral; elevation 15-355 meters. No potential.
mallow IB September Habitat not
(Malacothamnus present.
areuafus)
Lama Prieta hoita CNPS List May- Chaparral, cisrnontane woodland, No potential.
(Haifa strobilina) IB October riparian woodland! usually Habitat not
serpentinitic, mesic; elevation 30-600 present.
meters.
Dudley's CNPS List April- June Chaparral (maritime), cismontane Very low
lousewort IB woodland, North Coast coniferous potential.
(Pedicularis forest, valley and foothill grassland, Habitat unlikely
dudleyi) elevation 60-900 meters. to support this
speCies.
State: Rare
Robust CNPS List May- Sandy places in coastal: scrub, dunes, No potential.
spineflower* 1B September strand Habitat not
( Chorizanthe present.
.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-19
Species Status Flowering Habitat Potential on
Period Project Site
robusta var.
robusta)
Notes: I. CNPS List IE - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, and elsewhere
2. * Robust spineflower appears in this table and not in Table 6 of the Biotic Report (Appendix B,
prepared in 2005) because it is a new occurrence from an updated CNDDB search completed as due diligence
for this document.
Hvdrology
Stevens Creek watershed encompasses 38 square miles in western Santa Clara County.
Stevens Creek is part of the Lower Peninsula Watershed, which includes six other creeks
including San Francisquito, Permanente and Adobe Creeks, and encompasses a total of 98 square
miles (SCVWD). The headwaters of Stevens Creek originates on the west slope of the Santa Cruz
Mountains in the vicinity of Skyline Drive and Page Mill Road and flows for approximately 8
miles through private, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) and County park
lands before reaching Stevens Creek Dam and Reservoir. Wetlands in the upper watershed
include a total of four ponds that drain into Stevens Creek Reservoir, and one pond downstream
of the Reservoir within a former rock quarry. Downstream ofthe Reservoir, Stevens Creek
returns to its channel and flows another 1.2 miles through Stevens Creek County Park and Deep
Cliffs Golf Course before reaching the project site. The project site extends for 1.1 miles from
McClellan Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Downstream of the project site, Stevens Creek continues to flow through the City of
Cupertino and then flows adjacent to Highway 85 through the cities of Los Altos, Sunnyvale and
Mountain View. This portion of the creek is completely surrounded by urban development, and
frequently goes dry in the summer time. After passing under Highway 10 I, Stevens Creek flows
into Whisman Slough and then empties into San Francisco Bay.
Within the project site, water flow through Stevens Creek is regulated at the Stevens
Creek dam. Winter base flows (N ovember to April) typically range from 10 to 30 cfs (cubic feet
per second) and dry season base flows (May through October) are typically less than 5 cfs
(SCYWD, Stream gauge #1482). Bankfull width averages between 22 and 23 feet. The elevation
of the channel ranges from 335 feet mean sea level at McClellan Road to 280 feet at Stevens
Creek Boulevard (Kier and Wright 2005). The majority of the banks are moderately steep,
dropping between 5 and 10 feet in elevation from the top of bank to the creek channel. Some
sections of the creek have been modified using riprap, sacked concrete and/or concrete for flood
control and erosion control purposes. The most extensive of these sections is located on the east
bank of the creek at Blackberry Farm Golf Course. Also within Blackberry Farm, three low-flow
vehicle crossings across the creek are present (see Photo 6).
Upstream of the uppermost low-flow crossing is a diversion dam and intake structure (see
Photo 7) that diverts Stevens Creek water to two golf course ponds. The two constructed ponds
within the Blackberry Farm Golf Course are approximately 0.2 acre and 0.05 acre in size. The
depth of the ponds is estimated to be between I and 3 feet. Both ponds are dominated by
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-20
Environmental Checklist and Responses
emergent vegetation (cattails) with some dense floating and submergent aquatic vegetation. The
two ponds are connected by a small ditch (approximately 50 feet long and 5 feet wide) that
contains sparse, low growing mostly non-native aquatic vegetation and grasses. An underground
drainage pipe, approximately five inches in diameter, conveys pond overflow back into Stevens
Creek.
To determine water depth in areas within the stream corridor, trenching was done in
November 2004 in various locations adjacent to the stream, including McClellan Ranch and the
Stocklmeir property. This was done prior to the start ofthe rainy season. At that time, the creek
was determined to be a "losing" system, and groundwater was not encountered in trenches 12
feet deep (Balance, 2004). In February 2006, the alignment of the future channel in Reach C was
trenched for presence/absence of historic resources. Twelve trenches were dug to a maximum of
eight feet, and groundwater was not encountered. These results indicate that riparian
restoration/enhancement planting would be limited to the top of bank in order to ensure success
of these species. Floodplain and upland plants would be planted further away from the stream
channel.
Wildlife
Surveys of the project area detected the following native aquatic species (all fishes): three-
spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), California roach (Lavinia symmetricus), Sacramento
sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), and steelheadlrainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Non-
native aquatic species detected included Louisiana red crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), signal
crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus spp. leniuscutus), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and koi
(Cyprinus carpio). Bullfrogs, crayfish, koi, carp (Cyprinus carpio), and mosquito fish
(Gambusia affinis) were also observed to be common to abundant within ponds located on the
Blackberry Farms Golf Course. Numerous red-winged blackbirds (Age/aius phoeniceus) and
waterfowl including mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps),
hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus), and American coot (Fulica americana) --all native
species-- were also observed at the ponds.
Terrestrial animals observed within the project site included raccoons (Procyon lotor),
mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), broad-footed mole
(Scapanus latimanus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), feral cat (Felis catus), and a variety of songbirds.
The most common bird species present within the project area include house finch (Carpodacus
mexicanus), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), black phoebe (Saynoris nigricans),
ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), and yellow-romped warbler (Dendroica coronata).
Raptors observed include white-tailed kite (Elan us teucurus), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo
lineatus), and barn owl (Tyto alba). Bat species detected during surveys include big brown bats
(Eptesicusfuscus), Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis), and Yuma myotis (Myotis
yumanensis). Additionally, a big brown bat maternity colony was found in a sycamore tree
within the Horseshoe Bend area.
Results of the biotic surveys and literature search conducted for the project area resulted
in finding ten special status animals species to have the potential to be present within the project
site (see Table 3-2). Two of these species (steelhead and white-tailed kite) were found within the
project area in 2005, and one species, the western pond turtle, was found within the project area
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cuperlino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-21
in 2004. All other species are documented as having low to moderate potential to be found
within the project area.
Table 3-2. Special Status Animal Species Reported Within 5 Miles
of The Project Site And Their Potential to Occur Onsite
Species Name Status Habitat Potential to be found
on site
California red-legged frog pond, creek, riparian, Low Potential.
(Rana draytonii) grassland Foraging/aestivation
FT,CSC habitat present. No
breeding habitat present.
Not detected during 2005
field surveys.
California tiger salamander seasonal wetlands in No potential.
(Ambystoma californiense) FT,CSC grassland and oak-savannah Habitat not present.
Western Pond Turtle ponds, creeks in woodlands, Moderate Potential.
(Clemmys marmorata) CSC grassland Not detected during 2005
field surveys, but found in
spring of2004.
Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Shallow flowing water in Very Low Potential.
(Rana boylii) valley - foothilI riparian, Not detected during 2005
CSC mixed conifer, coastal field surveys, not reported
scrub, chaparral and wet within 5 miles of project
meadow rocky streams. site since 1953.
Steelhead-Central California moderate to fast flowing, Yes.
Coast esu (Oncorhynchus IT well oxygenated waters for Visually observed during
mykiss) breeding 2005 field surveys.
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter Dense stands of riparian Moderate Potential.
cooperi i) CSC habitat or live oak and Habitat present, but not
deciduous forests near detected during 2005 field
water surveys.
Burrowing Owl (Athene Open, flat sites such as Very Low Potential.
cunicularia) vacant fields, golf courses Only small isolated
CSC and airports where ground patches of habitat on site,
squirrels provide nest not detected during 2005
burrows. field surveys.
Long-eared Owl (Asio otus) Dense vegetation adjacent Low Potential.
CSC to more open areas such as Some suitable habitat
grassland present but not detected
during 2005 field surveys.
White-tailed Kite (Elan us Riparian habitats adjacent to Yes.
FP
leucurus) open fields, oak woodland, Breeding pair recorded at
. .. I ~ . . . . -
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial StUdy
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-22
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Species Name Status Habitat Potential to be found
on site
and/or grassland habitats Blackberry Farm Golf
Course in 2005.
Yellow Warbler (Dendroica Early succession riparian Yes.
petechia) CSC habitats with dense thickets Breeding recorded within
of young willow trees. project area.
Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) Arid, low-elevation regions; Very Low Potential.
CSC roosts in deep crevices in Little foraging habitat
rock faces, buildings, and present within project area.
bridges
San Francisco Dusky-footed Variety of brushy and Low Potential.
W oodrat (Neotoma fuscipes CSC wooded habitats with dense Some suitable habitat
annectens) understory present but not detected
during 2005 field surveys.
Notes: FE - Federally Endangered; FT - Federally Threatened; CSC - California species of special concern;
FP - California Fully Protected.
DISCUSSION:
Would the proposed project:
a. 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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. This section discusses the significance
of potentially significant impacts to occurring or potentially occurring special status species
within the project area, including nesting birds, bats, special status plant species, special status
wildlife species are discussed in this section. Impacts from the introduction of on-leash dogs
within the trail corridor are also analyzed. All impacts would be avoided or reduced to less than
significant levels with the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), Design
Guidelines and Mitigation Measures BIO-l through BIO-5, contained in this section
In Table 3-3 below, arrows indicate months when the most sensitive species are active.
The first method in any mitigation protocol is avoidance; if work cannot be avoided during the
periods listed below in this table, implementation of mitigation measures in this section would
reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-23
Table 3-3. Months When the Most Sensitive Species are Active.
--T
Species i Jan
, ... ----.--- 1
I ;
! ;
Feb March April May June July August Sep ; Oct Nov Dec
i ,
;
i ;
~
Bird
Nesting
;
i
--r--~
,
i
i
!
~ -~---
,
!
!
i
i
i
_-L_~~_
i
i
i
I
!
!
Steel head
Migration*
Bat
Roosting
~~~___ci-.-.~_,_~
, ,
! i
! ~
* Steelhead season is shorter than other analog streams due to the mid-reaches of Stevens
Creek remaining naturally dry for most of October through December (Abel, pers comm.)
1. N estine: Birds
Nesting birds, including raptors, are protected by the California Department of Fish and
Game Code 3503, which reads, Hit 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." Passerines and non-passerine land birds are further protected under the Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 V.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) which prohibits killing,
possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of the Interior. This Act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and
eggs.
A number of songbirds are known to breed within the project area including house finch,
chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), western-wood pewee (Contopus sordidulus),
black phoebe (Saynoris nigricans), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) and oak titmouse
(Baeolophus inornatus). Raptor species documented nesting within the project area include
white-tailed kite (Elan us leucurus), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and barn owl (Tyto
alba). Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for raptors and songbirds exists throughout the
project area. For a more detailed discussion see Chapter IV. Nesting Raptor Surveys of the
Biotic Reports located in Appendix B.
Construction Activities
Project construction activities including creek realignment, trail construction and building
removal and/or demolition would remove vegetation, trees, and buildings that could poten~ial1y
result in disturbance to nesting birds including, but not limited to, bird species listed in Table 3-2.
However, impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant with the
incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-I.
Impact: The removal of structures and the removal or trimming of shrubs or trees could
impact nesting birds, if present.
Mitigation Measure BIO-l: Vegetation, tree, bridge, and building removal activities
within the project area shall be scheduled to take place outside of the nesting season
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Pian and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-24
Environmental Checklist and Responses
(February 1 to August 31) 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 trees that could support raptor nests shall be completed. Every attempt
shall be made to protect trees and nests that contain raptor nests.
However, 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 5 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.
Implementation:
Qualified biologists
Timing:
During the construction phase of the project
Monitoring:
Project manager to schedule removal and/or trimming outside of
nesting season. If not feasible, project manager shall ensure that
removal/trimming is completed within five days of the completion
of nest surveys. If nests are found, project manager and
implementation biologist would ensure that buffer is maintained
until chicks have fledged. The biologist would provide a memo
report on the results of the nest survey to project manager.
Post Construction Activities
Potential long term impacts to nesting/roosting birds present within the project area
include abandonment of roost trees due to an increase in ambient noise and roost tree mortality
due to soil compaction or creek realignment. As discussed below, none of these potential
impacts exceed standards of significance and the realignment of the Creek within this area and
most of the proposed changes in park use would improve conditions. Noise generated from
picnic use would consist of less people on weekends and more on weekdays. These noise levels
are not expected to increase above existing and may decrease as the daily attendance would
decrease. No mitigation measures are needed.
2. Bats
Bats, which are considered nongame mammals, are protected by the California
Department ofFish and Game Code ~4150, which reads, "All mammals occurring naturally in
California which are not game mammals, fully protected mammals, or fur-bearing mammals, are
nongame mammals. Nongame mammals or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed except
as provided in this code or in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission."
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-25
The Biotic Report for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan reports the big brown bat
population found on the project site to likely be the largest occurring on the Santa Clara Valley
floor. It is estimated at 30 to 40 females and between 60 and 80 males. About 20 females have
been observed to regularly night roost under the Stevens Creek Blvd. bridge during the warm
months of the year. A maternity roost colony was discovered during surveys in the summer and
fall of 2005. This roost colony was located in a sycamore tree in the Horseshoe Bend area of the
project. (TRA 2006). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (listed below) would ensure
that this tree would be avoided during construction and thus significant effects to bats from this
project would be avoided.
Construction Activities
The Biotic Report (Appendix B) discusses the following potential impacts to bats:
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 roost site. Bat colonies often have alternative
roosts, but maternity colonies mayor may not have alternative roosts that are adequate
for raising young. Therefore, construction activities such as grading or the noise
generated from a chainsaw or other loud noises could potentially result in the
abandonment of the maternity colony roost and impacting the on-site big brown bat
population.
Additionally, the loss of the tree providing the maternity colony roosting site would likely
impact the on-site population of big brown bats. Similarly, the direct loss of individuals in
hibernacula could eliminate an entire colony due to the loss of the pregnant females.
Due to this report conclusion, the project has been modified to protect and avoid the
sycamore tree being used as a maternity roost. Further protection to the bat colony and roost tree
is provided in Mitigation Measure BIO-2.
Construction activities such as, but not limited to, grading or the noise generated from a
chainsaw or other loud noises could result in the abandonment of the big brown bat maternity
colony roost and therefore impact the on-site big brown bat population.
Mitigation Measure BI0-2: The following avoidance measures shall be implemented
as necessary and as determined by a qualified bat biologist (defined as a biologist
holding a CDFG collection permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with
CDFG allowing the biologist to handle and collect bats):
a. Temporal avoidance. To avoid disturbance to an active maternity colony,
construction activities adjacent to the roost tree shall commence after young are volant
(flying) (i.e., after July 31) and end before maternity colonies form (i.e., prior to March I).
CD FG considers the maternity season to occur from March I to August 31. Thus the
project construction can be scheduled from September I through March I to avoid
potential construction disturbance to the maternity roost.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
Cny of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-26
Environmental Checklist and Responses
b. Construction buffer zones. Depending upon the type of potential disturbance to the
big brown bat maternity colony roost, a qualified bat biologist shall determine the extent
of construction-free zones around the sycamore tree #278 identified as the active
maternity colony/day roost. Although impacts to the roost are greater during the
maternity season, a buffer zone for the non-breeding season day roost shall also be
established by a bat biologist. This buffer would be placed to prevent the loss of roots
and branches. California Department of Fish and Game would need to be notified of any
active nurseries within the construction zone.
c. Preconstruction surveys. Because the big brown bats could move their primary day
roost to an on-site building or tree (and other species of bats occurring on the project site
could form a new roost), a predemolition survey for roosting bats shall also be conducted
prior to any construction or large tree removal. The survey shall be conducted by a
qualified bat biologist.
d. Exclude bats prior to construction disturbance of, or loss of, roosts. If any
roosting area with a nursery as determined by the preconstruction survey is planned (and
required) to be removed, a qualified bat biologist shall exclude bats outside of the
maternity season (i.e., prior to March 1 or after July 31 when young are volant or flying)
with the use of one-way doors. Tree cutting or construction shall then follow no less than
three days after because all bats may not exit each night. If a nonbreeding bat
hibernaculum is found in a building or tree that needs removal, the individual bats shall be
safely evicted also through the use of one-way doors as described above.
Implementation:
Qualified bat biologist.
Timing:
Prior to construction
Monitoring:
Project manager to schedule construction activities near maternity
roost tree outside of maternity season. If not feasible, project
manager shall ensure that measures a-d listed above are followed.
Bat biologist completing work would submit a letter to CDFG and
project manager of monitoring activities and results.
Post Construction Activities
Potential long term impacts to bats present and roosting within the project area include
abandonment of the roost tree due to an increase in ambient noise, roost tree mortality due to soil
compaction or creek realignment. As discussed below, none of these potential impacts exceed
standards of significance and the realignment of the Creek within this area and most of the
proposed changes in park use would improve conditions.
1. Noise generated from picnic use would consist of less people on weekends and
more on weekdays.
2. Trail placement is approximately 25 feet to the east of the roost tree. Even
though trail placement is fairly close to the roost tree, it is out of the dripline of
the tree, which lessens the potential for an effect of soil compaction on the
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - Aprif 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-27
roots. Calculations for Recommended Tree Protection Zones would be done
for this tree and all others adjacent to the project facilities. This would be done
by a qualified arborist during the preparation of the construction
documentation. Based on these calculations, the trail could be sited farther
from this tree to ensure that the effects to this roost tree of trail placement or
construction activities would be less than significant.
3. Creek realignment in Reach A would actually move the creek bed closer to the
roost tree and could potentially provide more water to the root system, thus
increasing its potential for survival.
4.
Visitor activities within Blackberry Farm would consist of passive park uses (i.e.
walking and lunching) and are not expected to increase noise levels that would
significantly impact the roosting bats. Additionally, these impacts seem even
more unlikely given the existing uses of Blackberry Farm, which are more
intensive than the projected uses.
5. Currently, there are picnic tables and parking surrounding the roost tree. Visitor
use would be shifted away from the area surrounding the roost tree to the picnic
areas on the west side of the creek north of the Horseshoe Bend area.
Therefore, fewer visitors would be walking on soils surrounding the roost tree
and creating less ambient noise.
6. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the roost tree is lost from a project
related activity or long-term impact, there are a number of existing suitable
roosting trees in the immediate vicinity. Given the fact that roost trees change
from time to time, the overall objective for preserving the bat population within
the project area would be met by keeping a large amount of habitat within the
project area intact.
3. Special-Status Plant S~ecies
As documented in Table 3-1 and discussed above, there are only two special-status plant
species that could potentially be present within the project site. These are western leatherwood
and Dudley's lousewort, which are listed as IB by the California Native Plant Society. As stated
above, neither plant was found. Since no special status plant species or the habitat for the
Dudley's lousewort were found within the Stevens Creek Corridor. no significant impacts to
these special status plant species are expected.
4. Special Status Wildlife Species
Special status wildlife species include species that are legally protected under state and
federal Endangered Species Acts, and species listed by the state as fully protected or species of
special concern.
Federal Endangered Species Act provisions protect federally-listed threatened and
endangered species and their habitats from unlawful take. "Take" under FESA includes activities
such as "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound. kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-28
Environmental Checklist and Responses
engage in any of the specifically enumerated conduct." The USFWS's regulations define harm to
mean "an act which actually kills or injures wildlife." Such an act "may include significant
habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering' (50 CFR ~
17.3). Activities that may result in "take" of federally listed non-marine wildlife are regulated by
the USfWS while National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries Service (NOAA
FS) is charged with protecting federally listed marine wildlife including anadromous fish.
California Species of Special Concern are species that are of either limited distribution or
the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations
may be imminent. Thus their population should be monitored. They may receive special
attention during environmental review, but do not have statutory protection.
According to the USFWS, critical habitat includes areas found to be essential to the
recovery and conservation of a listed species, and may include habitat that is or is not occupied at
the time of listing. The presence of critical habitat requires federal agencies to ensure that the
activities they fund, authorize, or carry out do not jeopardize the survival of listed species or
adversely affect critical habitat. Designating critical habitat does not, in itself, lead to recovery of
a listed species, but is one of several tools that can be used to achieve recovery. Designation of
critical habitat can help focus conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that
contain the physical and biological features that are essential for the conservation of that species.
Designation of critical habitat alerts the public as well as land-managing agencies to the
importance of these areas.
Special Status wildlife species listed in Table 3-2 that could potentially be impacted by
project activities include steelhead, western pond turtle (WPT), California red-legged frog
(CRLf), San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (woodrat) and various raptor species such as
white-tailed kite. Potential impacts to raptor and other bird species are addressed in the Nesting
Birds section above. Steelhead, WPT, CRLF, and woodrat are protected as Federally
Endangered, Federally Threatened, and/or California Species of Special Concern. Additionally,
the project area is within Federally Designated Critical Habitat for steelhead.
San Francisco Duskv-footed Woodrat (California Species of Special Concern),
Surveys conducted in 2005 failed to detect woodrat nests or other woodrat sign within the
project site. However, due to the presence of suitable habitat within the project site, there is still
some potential they could be present or could move into the project site prior to construction.
The McClellan Ranch area downstream to the beginning of Blackberry Farm supports the most
suitable habitat for woodrats because of the denser understory vegetation found along this stretch
of the corridor.
Construction Activities
Woodrats and/or their nests, ifpresent, could potentially be directly impacted during
ground disturbing activities that may crush a woodrat or remove vegetation containing a woodrat
nest. Indirect impacts include the temporary loss of potential nesting and foraging habitat due to
creek realignment activities. However, construction and realignment activities that would be
occurring in Blackberry Farm and the Stocklmeir property have only marginal woodrat habitat.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3--29
These areas have very sparse understory vegetation and are not likely to support the woodrat. In
the unlikely event a woodrat were to move into the construction footprint, implementation of pre-
construction surveys included in Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would ensure that no significant
impacts occur. Additionally, the restoration portion of the project would provide better quality
denser nesting and foraging woodrat habitat within the Stevens Creek Corridor in the long term.
Western pond turtle (California Species of Special Concern)
Surveys conducted in 2005 failed to detect WPT within the project site. However, there is
still some likelihood they are present within the project site in very low numbers because of other
recent observations. In the spring of 2004, there were two separate sightings of western pond
turtle within the McClellan Ranch portion of the project site. Another WPT was observed in
2004 wandering in a residential neighborhood approximately 0.25 miles from McClellan Ranch.
This turtle was brought to Stevens Creek and released within the project site (Banfield, pers.
comm.). (TRA,2006)
Construction Activities
Western pond turtle (WPT), if present, could potentially be impacted during ground
disturbing activities including operation of heavy equipment and other vehicles driving through
the project area. Individual turtles may be crushed during these activities. The removal of
vegetation and/or rocks within the creek and along the creek banks that provide cover and refugia
for the WPT may also cause short-term impacts such as an increase in predation. Loss of
potential nesting habitat due to laying back of the creek banks and removal of existing upland
habitat may cause additional short-term impacts. However, the restoration portion of the project
would provide better quality nesting, basking, foraging, and cover in the long term. All impacts
discussed above would be reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-3.
California red-lef!f!ed frof! (Federallv Threatened and California Species of Special Concern),
There are a total often CRLF occurrences within a 5-mile radius ofthe project site. Of
the ten records, three are from 1939 and are considered historic. The other seven records are more
recent, ranging from 1977 to 2000. However, three of the seven records are from outside of the
Stevens Creek watershed and have significant urban development between them and the project
site. The remaining four records are all from within Stevens Creek including three from
approximately 1.2 miles upstream (1980s, 1990s, and 2000) and one from 3.5 miles downstream
(1977). (TRA, 2006)
In 2005, CRLF protocol surveys were completed within the project site by TRA. In 2001,
the Santa Clara Valley Water District also completed protocol surveys along Stevens Creek
between Homestead Road and McClellan Ranch Road (SCVWD 200 I). Both of these protocol
surveys were conducted according to Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for
California Red-legged Frogs (USFWS, 1997). No CRLF were detected during any of these
surveys. (TRA, 2006)
Survey and research results concluded that there is a low potential for CRLF to be present
within the project site because of the documented occurrence less than 1.2 miles upstream of the
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-30
Environmental Checklist and Responses
project site. Furthermore, even though potential breeding habitat is present within the project
site, there is very low potential for CRLF to be successfully breeding there. This is due to 1) the
lack of any CRLF observations during the surveys; 2) the dominance of Bullfrogs within the
ponds, and 3) the fact that lotic (stream) systems such as Stevens Creek do not provide optimal
breeding habitat for CRLF. Lotic systems such as Stevens Creek where flows are relatively
consistent and strong are not typically utilized as breeding habitat by CRLF because there is a
lack of instream aquatic vegetation for CRLF to deposit egg masses, and high stream flows can
easily washout egg masses. Stream systems that do support CRLF breeding habitat are typically
low-elevation, slow moving streams that support dense aquatic vegetation. However, CRLF
cannot be ruled out from occurring within Stevens Creek, and may still be detected within the
creek due to the high mobility of this species. CRLF can move readily within streams as well as
across upland terrain during the rainy season in search of refugia and/or breeding habitat. (TRA,
2006)
Construction Activities
California red-legged frog (CRLF), if present, could potentially be crushed during all
ground disturbing activities, operation of heavy equipment and other vehicles driving through the
project area. Direct impacts to CRLF would be reduced to less than significant with the
incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Indirect impacts to CRLF that may occur during
project construction include hazardous material spills (i.e. gasoline, oil) or sediment washing into
the creek. These impacts would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of
BMPs as discussed and listed below in the steelhead section. Additional potential indirect
impacts to CRLF include the temporary removal of potential breeding pools within the creek
and/or burrows used for aestivation found adjacent to the creek, in the grassland habitats at
McClellan Ranch and the Simm's property, and in the orange orchard on the Stocklmeir
property. However, due to their temporary nature and the long-term habitat enhancement
component of the project, these impacts are considered less than significant. Other impacts and
minimization measures to CRLF would be determined during the Section 7 Consultation process,
which is further discussed under the steelhead section below.
Impact: Ifpresent within creek or adjacent upland habitat, CRLF, WPT, and woodrat
nests could be crushed by project activities or by vehicle or human access.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The following avoidance measures for WPT, CRLF, and
Dusky-footed woodrat shall be implemented:
a. Preconstruction Survey. In the two days prior to the start of project activities, a
qualified biologist shall perform one daytime survey for CRLF. The entire work area,
including any burrows, rocks and woodpiles that may be disturbed by construction
activities, shall be inspected for CRLF. IfCRLF is detected, work shall be delayed and
the USFWS shall be contacted on how to proceed (since it is a Federally Threatened
species). If during this survey WPT or woodrat are also detected, the CDFG should be
contacted on how to proceed (since they are State Species of Special Concern).
b. Employee Education Program. An employee education program shall be conducted
prior to the initiation of project activities. The program shall consist of a brief
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-31
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 ofCRLF, WPT, and woodrat and
their habitat needs; an explanation of the status ofCRLF, 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 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 and CDFG must be notified immediately.
c. Daily Monitoring. During the construction phase of the project, a qualified biologist
or a trained, on-site monitor shall check the site in the morning every day before
construction activities begin for the presence of CRLF, WPT, woodrat or other wildlife
present within the work area. If CRLF, WPT, or woodrat is found, construction would be
halted and the monitor would immediately notify the appropriate regulatory agency.
Subsequent recommendations made by the USFWS or CDFG shall be followed. The
monitor would not handle or try to relocate any special-status species. (An alternative
strategy for action in the event a CRLF, WPT, or woodrat nest is found would be to create
a Handling/Salvage Plan to be agreed upon by USFWS and CDFG. This Plan would
potentially avoid any long delays associated with finding a CRLF, WPT, or woodrat and
would need to include procedures such as how and where to move individuals.)
d. Speed Limit. Vehic1es 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.
Implementation:
Qualified biologists, project supervisor and all crew members.
Timing:
Prior to construction and during construction as specified above.
Monitoring:
(a) Survey biologists to submit a letter report of survey results to
project manager. (b) Project crew to sign a sheet for receipt of
CRLF, WPT, and woodrat training. Sign-in sheet held by project
supervisor. (c) Biological monitor to report daily to project
supervisor. (d) Project supervisor to enforce speed limit and parked
vehicle check.
5. Steelhead (Federallv Threatened)
Construction Activities
Construction activities that could potentially impact steelhead include creek realignment,
trail construction, and revegetation. Realignment activities would require the creek to be
dewatered when redirecting flows from existing channel to new channel. When the water is
redirected to the new channel, pools would form in the existing channel that may contain
steelhead. There is potential for steelhead to become stranded in these isolated pools. Stranded
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-32
Environmental Checklist and Responses
steelhead would need to be captured and relocated back into the creek. Relocation activities have
the potential to take steelhead. Therefore, a Section 7 consultation with the National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration fisheries Service (NOAA) through the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) would most likely be initiated to address potential impacts to steelhead. The Corps
would also be determining impacts to existing wetlands and Waters of the U.S. The most likely
outcome of the Section 7 consultation would be the Corps issuing a Nationwide 27 permit or a
Standard Individual Permit (yet to be determined).
The project already incorporates several construction-phase features and practices to
avoid and/or minimize impacts to protected biological resources (e.g., the channel bypass
structure approved by NOAA Fisheries, the USACE and CDfG), dewatering monitoring by
fisheries biologist(s) and, if necessary, relocation of individual organisms, as approved by permit
conditions. Additionally, following conclusion offormal consultation under Section 7 of the
federal Endangered Species Act, all other Terms and Conditions of the issued Biological Opinion
would be implemented. See Appendix F for a more detailed discussion on this permitting
process.
Impact: Potential take of steelhead due to realignment, dewatering and relocation
activities.
Mitigation Measure BI0-4: The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) from
the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) 2005 BMP Handbook and Stream Maintenance
Program would be used during project implementation to avoid impacts to steelhead due to
dewatering or sediment filled runoff entering the creek because of trail construction, bank layback
and/or, erosion stabilization structure removal (see Appendix A for full text ofBMPs). These
measures may be modified depending on the outcome of the NOAA Biological Opinion.
2005 BMP Handbook
WQ-12 Dewater/ Bypass Water at Non-tidal Sites
WQ-16 Avoid Erosion When Restoring Flows
WQ-18 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
WQ-3 Pump/Generator Set Operations and Maintenance
WQ-5 Soil Stockpiles
WQ-IO Concrete Use Near Waterways
WQ-15 Groundwater Management
BI-7 Minimize Stream Access Impacts
BI-2 Salvage Native Aquatic Vertebrates from Dewatered Channels
BI-3 Conduct In-Channel Work During the Dry Season
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial StUdy
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-33
BI-8 Remove Temporary fills as Appropriate
WQ-6 Stabilized Construction Entrance
HM -10 Vehicle and Equipment Fueling
HM-II Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
BMPs are also included to minimize impacts from installing the two new bridges, which
would require the use of concrete. Migrating steelhead would also be protected through
implementing BMPs and Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) (see Section d below). Newly
created stream banks would be planted and mulched according to the Restoration Plan to
minimize the effects of bank erosion during the first rains after the completion of construction.
Implementation:
Project manager and qualified fisheries biologist
Timing:
Prior to project approval
Monitoring:
Qualified fisheries biologist to submit a letter report of survey
results to project manager, Corps and U.S. fish and Wildlife
Service. Any additional monitoring requirements called out in the
Corps permit would also be followed.
Although the steelhead critical habitat area would be temporarily affected by project
construction, the project would result in important long-term improvements of the critical
steelhead habitat by removing barriers within the creek, such as low flow crossings and the
diversion dam, that are restricting upstream migration and movement through the stream system.
Additional impacts to steelhead include a temporary loss of in-stream habitat due to the
creek realignment and loss of trees present along the creek. Many of these trees are non-native
pine and eucalyptus trees that are suppressing the native riparian understory, however some of
these trees and their root structures are providing in-stream shelter cover for steelhead. To
compensate for the loss of existing fish refugia, the realignment proposes to incorporate the
downed woody debris (tree trunks, rootballs, branches) from existing blow-downs that have
occurred within the corridor or from trees within the corridor removed as part of this project.
These trees would be used as anchors for pools and cover for steelhead. Long and short-term
habitat would also be provided by the placement of spawning gravels within riffle zones of the
realigned sections of the creek. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure BIO-7 requires tree
replacement ratios in accordance with CDFG standards (see Section d below). Besides replacing
removed trees, this replacement ratio along with project restoration requirements would offset
other potential tree mortality caused from the realignment which would move the channel several
feet from existing tree roots.
Post-Construction Activities
In the long term, the creek realignment would improve stee1head habitat by removing all
barriers to steelhead migration and movement within the project site, increase rearing habitat
through the increase of in-stream shelter cover and pool habitat and increase spawning habitat
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-34
Environmental Checklist and Responses
through increasing the number and size of riffles and the amount of suitable sized gravels within
riffles. Removal and control of exotic species as specified in the Restoration Plan would enhance
habitat for other native species found within the project area, including sensitive wildlife species.
Upon project completion, the entire project area would be open to recreational users via
the multi-use trail. There are some potential long-term impacts associated with this change in use
such as the loss of vegetation due to recreational users traveling off trail. A decrease in vegetation
cover could contribute to bank erosion and increased sediment filled runoff entering the creek
during the rainy season, which could further result in a potential decrease in steelhead
reproductive success and survival. Furthermore, steelhead and WPT populations and their
associated in stream habitat may be more directly impacted by users moving off trail beyond
creek banks and into the low-flow channel thus disturbing resting steelhead, basking WPT, or
spawning gravels. Potential for the spread of noxious weeds may increase with the amount of
users along a trail. Seed can be carried on clothing and/or shoes and become dislodged while
walking the traiL
Another recreational use within the project area would be to allow visitors to walk the
multi-use trail with leashed dogs. Dogs would not be permitted in the picnic areas at Blackberry
Farm or on the nature trail at McClellan Ranch. Impacts from permitted dog use in the project
area include dog waste not being properly disposed of and a higher concentration of urine along
areas adjacent to the trail. The accumulation of dog waste could result in increased degradation
of water quality and increased levels of nitrogen in the soil. In areas where nitrogen levels in the
soil are higher than average, weedy plant species have a better chance of dominating over the
growth of native plants. Currently dogs are not permitted within the entire project site. However,
visitors to Blackberry Farm after hours or during the off-season have been observed with dogs
roaming off-leash. Therefore, permitting visitors to have leashed dogs is also likely to increase
unauthorized off-leash dog use. Off-leash dogs could potentially impact wildlife by chasing,
biting, barking, digging, and/or otherwise harassing and injuring animals. Off-leash dogs could
also potentially impact Dative habitat through digging up and/or trampling vegetation. Damaged
vegetation from digging and trampling could result in bank erosion and an increase in sediment
filled runoff entering the creek during the rainy season. Off-leash dogs could go in the stream,
potentially affecting aquatic resources such as spawning gravels, micro-organisms, and/or
disturbing sediment.
To offset these potential long-term user and dog related impacts, Mitigation Measure BIO-
S and several other measures listed below have been incorporated into the project. Users would
be allowed access to areas on the west side of the creek via the construction of two bridges.
These bridges would allow users to cross the creek without walking through the creek bed to
prevent degrading habitat and releasing sediment. Spread of weeds along the trail can be reduced
with the implementation of the Uniform lnterjurisdictional Trail Design, Use and Management
Guidelines (see below). Additionally, providing various user groups with controlled uses along
the creek (i.e. hikinglbiking trail, picnic area) would decrease unregulated use such as the creation
of new foot trails. The Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management
Guidelines as listed below would be incorporated into the project would further decrease long-
term potential impacts.
UD-13.3.3 Washes, Freshwater Streams, Riparian Zones, and Wetlands
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-35
UD-3.6 Planting of Disturbed Areas
UM-3.3 Clearing the Trail
UM-3.7 Casual Trails
UD-4.3 Signs
UM-5.0 Trail Patrol and Information
Impact: The expanded visitor use and new dog use within the project area has the
potential to impact sensitive wildlife and habitat through off-trail use, improper disposal of dog
waste, and increased sedimentation in the creek. Native animals could leave nests or otherwise
flee from dogs intruding into the habitat areas.
Mitigation Measure BIo-S: To protect sensitive wildlife and habitat from impacts
due to visitor and dog use throughout the project area, the following minimization
and/or avoidance measures would be implemented:
a. Post signs. The City shall post signs intermittently along the trail to inform the public
to stay on the trail, clean up dog waste, and leash law requirements.
b. Patrols and Citations. The City Parks Service Officers shall complete patrols of the
project area to enforce the leash law provisions, issue citations for violations and educate
the public on the presence of special status species within the project area.
c. Volunteer Patrols and Education. Volunteers shall provide frequent patrols of the
project area (as much as once per day) to educate dog owners about the leash law
provisions, inform visitors that use outside of Blackberry Farm is confined solely to the
trail, and educate visitors about the presence and natural history of special status species
found within the project area. The City would be responsible for volunteer training and
coordination.
d. Creek Use. Recreational use of the creek, such as wading, would be confined to one
area in Blackberry Farm outside of the steelhead migratory and spawning season (October
15 to June 15 of any given year) to minimize creek disturbance. Likewise, students
participating in guided educational programs through the environmental education center
at McClellan Ranch would be limited to creek access in only one location.
e. Park Cleanup. Park maintenance crews, or other City employees as designated by the
Recreation Supervisor for Blackberry Farm, would clean up accumulated dog waste
found within the project area. City Parks Service Officers and volunteer patrols would
monitor accumulation rates and provide direction on the frequency and need for cleanup
activities.
f. Screen Trail. In order to provide wildlife refuge and cover, approximately I acre of
upland and riparian understory planting would be provided. This would compensate for
indirect effects associated with increased human and dog use within the corridor.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-36
Environmental Checklist and Responses
g. Adaptive Management. If it is determined at any time that mitigation measures listed
above are not sufficiently minimizing impacts to the native flora and fauna and restored
habitats, the City shall discontinue permitting dogs within the project area. Likewise, if
habitat disturbance or decreased steelhead survivorship is determined to be a direct
impact from visitor misuse, appropriate measures shall be implemented, such as closing
or fencing off portions of the trail, to avoid further impacts.
Implementation:
City of Cupertino
Timing:
Immediately following project construction
Monitoring:
The Recreation Supervisor for Blackberry Farm shall coordinate
the posting of signs, ensure patrols completed by both City Parks
Service Officers and volunteers, provide direction to maintenance
crews for clean up of dog waste, and coordinate with SCVWD
biologists to assess impacts associated with visitor and dog use
within the project area and any adaptive management that needs to
be completed.
The restoration portion of the project includes several long-term monitoring activities that
would evaluate the success of the restoration goals (i.e. provide improved habitat for steelhead
and other sensitive species). If it is determined through monitoring that the restoration goals are
not being reached, changes would be made to the management program to increase the
effectiveness (i.e. adaptive management). If future monitoring along the creek determines that a
special status species or habitat is present, additional BMPs would be implemented. If a specific
area along the trail appears to be more prone to the creation of illegal foot trails, the following
Guidelines would be implemented:
UD-l.3 .1.3 General Trails and Environmental Protection
UD-l.3.2.1 Special Status Species Habitats
UM-1.4 Trail Closure
b. 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact. A total of 187 trees will be removed as a result of this
project within the entire reach. This is not considered a significant impact, as 87 of these trees are
orange trees in the Stocklmeir orchard, and the other 100 trees are interspersed throughout the
corridor. These trees are only a very small portion of the trees providing habitat within the
corridor. Blackberry Farm and the Golf Course were surveyed. In Blackberry Farm alone, there
were 433 trees greater than 6" dbh ("diameter at breast height [4.5' above existing grade]") within
the area between the boundary fences (including the hill below Scenic Circle and the hill above
the west bank picnic area), and at the Golf Course there were 289 trees. These surveyed trees
were only those that met this 6" dbh requirement, many other smaller trees also exist. Since this
tree survey was done ten years ago, and because the last ten years have experienced either
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-37
average or above-average rainfall, most of the trees are now significantly larger, with new willow,
cottonwood and oak saplings (most is used instead of all, since it is expected that some of these
trees surveyed in 1995 have died of natural causes.)
As listed in Table 3.4, only a few nonnative and some of the orchard trees at the
Stocklmeir site would be removed during trail construction. See also the complete Tree Survey in
Appendix H. The trail, which is the major constructed feature through many of the natural areas
of the Stevens Creek Corridor, has been sited to avoid removal of any native trees, including oaks
and sycamores. All efforts would be made to site the trail outside of any native tree drip line,
however, there is one area behind the Community Garden in McClellan Ranch that the trail could
be within the drip line of five native oaks. Calculations for Recommended Tree Protection Zones
would be done by an arborist certified by either the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)
or the American Association of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) during the preparation of the
construction documentation. The arborist would use either the City's Standards of Protection
During Construction, the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, by the Water
Resources Protection Collaborative for Santa Clara County, or Trees and Development by Nelda
Matheny and James Clark, or a combination of the three resources to provide the greatest
protection to trees within the project area and ensure that no substantial adverse effects on
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would occur.
Habitat types identified within the project area as characterized by Sawyer and Keeler-
Wolf (1995) are California sycamore riparian forest, non-native annual grassland, and coast live
oak woodland. Of these habitats, the California sycamore riparian forest is considered to be a
sensitive natural community by CDFG.
Appendix H shows that the project activities including trail construction and creek
realignment would remove 13 specimen trees including two Deodar cedar, one California
buckeye, and ten coast live oak trees. Coast live oak trees are not considered riparian trees; the
discussion of the loss of these trees is found in the answer 3.4 Section e. A total of 10 coast live
oak trees would be removed due to the entrance road at Blackberry Farm (3 oaks), creek
realignment along the west bank of Reach B (6 oaks), and creek realignment along Reach C (one
oak) (See Appendix H). Mitigation Measure BIO-7 requires all coast live oak trees removed
during project construction be replaced at the CDFG required 3: 1 replacement ratio.
The third page of Appendix H states that two sycamores would be removed as a result of
creek realignment in Reach A. One of these two trees has a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of
31 inches and the other has a DBH of 6.05 inches. No other native sycamores would be removed
as a result of creek realignment. Appendix H also reports that of the 37 native trees to be
removed (see Table 3-4 below), 17 are considered native riparian trees. These include one arroyo
willow (Salix lasiolepis), four red willow (Salix laevigata), seven black cottonwood (Populus
trichocarpa), three white alders (Alnus rhombifolia), and the two sycamore trees as mentioned
above. These trees are only a very small portion of the trees present and providing habitat within
the corridor.
The project contains a restoration element that would enhance habitat functions and
values within the Corridor. The Restoration Plan discussion in the Project Description section of
this document lists the plant palettes that would be used; native sycamores, willows,
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-38
Environmental Checklist and Responses
cottonwoods, and alders would be planted in the revegetation areas of Zone 1. All planted areas
would be mulched as soon as possible. Mulch can be newly felled and chipped trees removed as
part of project construction, and can include Eucalyptus. As stated in the Project Description,
areas of sacked concrete, rock rip-rap and other hardscape would be removed as much as
possible, as would areas ofnollllative plant infestation. This removal would then create more
area to be enhanced and revegetated. Mulching would be done in all areas as soon as possible.
Trail Placement
Riparian Setback: The Santa Clara County Trails Design Maintenance and Guidelines
requires a riparian zone setback for new trails to be a minimum of 100 feet from the top of bank
or from the outside edge of the riparian zone. The guideline is as follows:
D - 1.3.3.1 Washes, Freshwater Streams, Riparian Zones, and Wetlands: When parallel
to a stream or riparian zone, new trails shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from the
top of bank or from the outside edge of the riparian zone, whichever is greater as
measured from the edge of the low flow channel, except where topographic, resource
management, or other constraints or management objectives make this infeasible or
undesirable. Based upon advice of a professional biologist and concurrence of reviewing
agencies, riparian setbacks may be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.
This project is not consistent with Santa Clara County Guideline D-I.3.3.I. However, a
100-foot buffer is not feasible for the majority of the project area since the many of the areas
where the trail is proposed do not have more than a 100-foot width. Other land uses such as the
golf course, playing fields and swimming pools that already exist within the buffer zone
contribute to this inconsistency. The function of the buffer is to protect riparian species from
construction effects and human intrusions into sensitive habitat. Indirect impacts from future
trail use ( or misuse) can be achieved through proper management and enforcement as suggested
in this document. The entire length of proposed trail is unlikely to directly impact a sensitive
species or sensitive species habitat. Any impacts associated with trail construction within the
suggested 100-foot buffer would be offset with restoration activities, including removal of hard
bank protection and replanting that would enhance and improve habitat functions and values
within the existing buffer area.
The existing band of riparian vegetation is narrow because of the existing hydrology.
Consistency to this Guideline would be achieved through the adjustment of this 100-foot setback
by a qualified biologist.
Community Gardens/4-H facility: Trail placement on the south side of the community
gardens/4-H facility in the McClellan Ranch area has been moved away from the drip line of old
mature oak trees found on the slope between the community garden/4-H facility and McClellan
Ranch Road. The trail was moved to avoid impacting this sensitive oak woodland community
and to satisfY the requirements of the City of Cupertino Tree Ordinance (see Section e). Moving
the trail away from the oak trees may result in the loss of some garden plots. To maintain the
existing number of garden plots, eleven new plots would be created on the west side of the
garden. The plots would be placed within the non-native annual grassland habitat found in the
McClellan Ranch meadow. These newly created plots would remove approximately 11,092 sq.ft
(1/4 acre) out of the 298,903 sq. ft. (6.86 acres) meadow. The ~osed garden expansion would
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-39
result in the loss of 4% of the grassland habitat. Loss of foraging habitat provided by the
grassland has been determined to be below significance thresholds due to: I) the relatively small
amount of habitat lost in this area (1/4 acre, as stated above), and 2) the garden plots provide an
alternate foraging habitat for species such as songbirds and small mammals while still providing
open space for raptor species to effectively hunt.
c. 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The two constructed ponds on the golf course, which are
connected to each other by a small channel, are approximately 0.2 acre and 0.05 acre in size. The
smaller pond is fed from Stevens Creek, and drains to the larger pond, which then drains to
Stevens Creek through a pipe. These ponds support wetland vegetation dominated by cattail
(Typha sp.). Because they are constructed and maintained, these ponds do not fall under U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction. However, if any modifications were proposed for
these ponds, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California
Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) would need to review the project. No modifications to
these ponds are proposed as part of this project.
Based on the wetland delineation that was conducted within the project site as part of the
biotic investigations, the Stevens Creek Corridor contains 0.2 acre (10,792 square feet) of in-
stream seasonal jurisdictional wetland dominated by bulrush and willow-leaved dock (see
Appendix B). This stretch of the creek also contains 0.2 acre of riparian bank vegetation
dominated by blackberry and a canopy of Shaded Riverine Aquatic (SRA) trees.
The proposed realignment and creek restoration activities would remove 4,961 sq ft of
these wetlands, thereby reducing the 0.2 acres of wetlands to 0.13 acres, or 5,831 square feet. The
proposed realignment and creek restoration activities would enhance existing wetlands, and the
proposed backwater channel in Reach B and willow swale in Reach C would add a total 4,000
square feet of wetland habitat. In addition, wetland bank habitat (willows, cottonwoods,
mugworts, sedges, etc. as listed in the Zone I plant palette found in the Project Description)
would add another approximately 20,000 square feet of wetland/riparian planting.
In addition, the project proposes to complete the following activities, which would avoid
significant impacts to jurisdictional wetlands:
a. The project would create sand and/or gravel bars and/or other substrate within the
creek channel that would provide habitat to support in-stream seasonal jurisdictional
wetland and riparian bank vegetation.
b. Any native bank vegetation that is removed during project activities would be replaced
with native vegetation to provide similar or improved riparian functions and values to the
section of bank impacted.
c. The proposed project would increase the width of the creek low-flow floodplain, and
retain wetland habitats within sections ofthe creek that would be realigned. These
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-40
Environmental Checklist and Responses
improvements are intended to increase the overall amount of jurisdictional wetland within
the creek channel, as well as increase the amount of riparian vegetation on the banks and
the upper flood plain.
d. Bank stabilization and wetland and wildlife values would be improved through the
removal and control of exotic plant species.
Please note that compensatory mitigation is not required for activities authorized under a
Nationwide 27 permit, provided the authorized work results in a net increase in aquatic resource
functions and values in the project area. This project and implementation of the planting as
shown in the plant palettes in the Project Description, and plant ratios and compliance and
effectiveness monitoring as specified by the regulatory permits that would be applied for in the
next phase of this project would result in a net increase in aquatic resource functions and values
in the project area.
Jurisdictional wetlands found within the project area are still subject to verification and
impact evaluation by the Corps. The wetland delineation prepared for the project has been sent
to the Corps requesting that the Corps make a preliminary determination of wetlands on the
project site. For more details regarding the wetlands regulations, see the permitting discussion in
Appendix F.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. To avoid any potential impacts to migratory steelhead
within the Stevens Creek corridor, SCVWD BMP 3.10 Complete In-Channel Work During the
Dry Season has been incorporated into the project. This BMP protects migrating steelhead by
requiring work within the creek channel to be completed outside of the migratory season
(October 15 to June 15 of any given year). If, for any reason, the project is unable to adhere to
this BMP, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 requires minimization measures, determined by the Corps,
to be followed, which would reduce impacts to steelhead, including migratory steelhead, to less
than significant levels. For a complete list ofBMPs implemented to protect steelhead, see
Section a.
One of the overall goals of the project is to improve passage for steelhead. Improved
passage would be achieved through the removal of barriers including three low-flow crossings
and a diversion dam. The long-term monitoring program as described in the Restoration Plan,
provides a means of assessing fish passage through the project area. The Plan would require the
project reach to be surveyed periodically with an emphasis at the improved sites where previous
impediments had been identified. Monitoring would provide information on what future
management would be needed to ensure appropriate passage is maintained. The project would
not cut off any wildlife corridors, or inhibit movement of terrestrial wildlife through the Steven's
Creek Master Plan Corridor. Upstream of the project reach, Steven's creek is bordered by open
space and includes Stevens Creek County Park, whereas downstream of the project reach, the
surrounding land-use is primarily residential or commercial and riparian setbacks are minimaL
Wildlife such as black-tailed mule deer, bobcat, coyote, skunk, raccoon are known to utilize the
Stevens Creek corridor, and most of these species likely move primarily between the southern
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-41
portion of the project reach (i.e. the Simms Property and McClellan Ranch) and habitats located
upstream. Urban adapted wildlife species such as raccoon, are likely to also use areas
downstream of the project reach. The project work zones are primarily located along the lower,
downstream sections of Stevens Creek within Blackberry Farm. Temporary fencing would be
erected around restoration zones during the construction phase of the project, however; open
areas surrounding the work zones within Blackberry Farm would still provide corridors for
terrestrial wildlife movement in both upstream and downstream directions within the Stevens
Creek corridor.
The project is intended to improve the value of the project area as a corridor for wildlife.
The riparian restoration component of the project would improve habitat within the corridor for
terrestrial wildlife through increasing the quantity and quality of native riparian habitats along the
floodplain.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Four separate organizations (City of
Cupertino, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and California Department of
Fish and Game) have policies regarding tree removal and/or trail construction. Detailed accounts
of these policies are as follows.
Creek Realienment and Tree Removal
CityafCupertino
The City of Cupertino Tree Ordinance requires a permit to remove heritage and specimen
trees. Specimen trees include three native (oak, California buckeye, and big leaf maple) and two
nonnative (Deodar cedar and blue atlas cedar) tree species of varying circumferences. The single-
trunk diameter at 4-1/2 feet from natural grade is 10 inches for the Oak trees and California
Buckeye, and is 12 inches for the Bigleaf Maple and for the Cedars. The multi-trunk diameter at
4-1/2 feet from natural grade is 20 inches for the oak trees and California Buckeye and is 25
inches for the Bigleaf Maple and the Cedars. Specimen trees also include trees required to be
protected as a part of a zoning, tentative map, use permit or privacy protection requirement in an
R-l zoning district. Heritage trees include "any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors
including, but not limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or species, has been
found by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee to have a special significance to the
community." No heritage trees have been designated within the project area. The project
proposes to remove 13 specimen trees including two Deodar cedar, one California buckeye, and
ten coast live oak trees. See Appendix H for a complete list of trees to be removed for the
project. A tree removal permit would be obtained from the City of Cupertino prior to the start of
construction activities which would determine if replacement trees would be necessary. Since the
native trees listed here (California buckeye, coast live oak) would be planted in greater numbers
in the newly constructed reaches and restored areas, the removal of this Buckeye and the ten
coast live oaks is not considered a significant impact. Potential impacts to all other specimen
trees due to construction activities would be minimized by implementing Chapter 14.18
Appendix A: Standards for the Protection of Trees during Grading and Construction Operations
of the City of Cupertino Tree Ordinance.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - AprU 2006
Page 3-42
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Consistency: A tree removal permit will be obtained and on file with the City of Cupertino, thus
ensuring consistency.
Impact: The proposed trail may affect the root zones of native and/or heritage trees ifit
is placed within the dripline.
Mitigation Measure BI0-6: Calculations for Recommended Tree Protection Zones
will be prepared by a Arborist certified by the International Society of
Arboriculture or American Society of Consulting Arborists prior to preparation of
construction documents. These calculations will be made using the Conceptual Trail
Plan. Based on these calculations, the trail will be rerouted and realigned to be
outside of the dripline of any native trees.
Implementation:
City of Cupertino
Timing:
During trail design
Monitoring:
City of Cupertino
California Department of Fish and Game
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) recommends that certain tree
species removed be replaced at a set ratio. For example, any coast live oak trees to be removed
for the project should be replaced at a 3-to-l ratio (3 trees planted for each tree removed). Ratios
vary depending on the tree species. These ratios have been established in order to compensate
for possible mortality in the replacement trees and to expedite the restoration of wildlife habitat.
Consistency: A total of 10 coast live oak trees would be removed due to project activities
including trail construction and creek realignment (See Appendix H). Mitigation Measure BIO-7
requires all coast live oak trees removed during project construction be replaced at the CDFG
required 3: I replacement ratio.
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Santa Clara Valley Water District requires tree replacement per the Stream Maintenance
Program. BMP 2.8 Replace Trees states that the District shall replace trees as follows:
1. Native trees that are lost to bank protection impacts shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio and
non-native trees that are lost shall be replaced at a 2: I ratio.
2. Trees removed for installation of bank protection measures shall be replaced at the site,
if feasible, or at the mitigation site created for that bank protection activity.
3. The Plant Selection Criteria, Planting Techniques, Maintenance, and
Monitoring/Reporting protocols prescribed by the "Protocol for Revegetation Associated
with Bank Protection" (Appendix E of the SMP) shall be implemented, as applicable to
tree replacement. Local natives grown from onsite sources are preferable to larger
container grown stock with is typically not local.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-43
4. Replacement of heritage-sized trees (greater than 18 inches dbh) would be consistent
with local ordinances.
5. All trees would be replaced with local native tree species; oak trees shall be replaced by
direct-seeding with acorns locally collected from the Stevens Creek watershed.
Consistency: It is highly unlikely that any trees would be lost to bank protection impacts given
that no additional bank protection structures would be installed as a result of this project. It is
possible that a new crib wall may be installed at the existing bend along Reach A in Horseshoe
Bend, however, this would be to replace the existing sacked concrete bank protection. As stated
in the Project Description, where feasible and appropriate, bank protection structures such as rip-
rap and hardscaped banks would be removed and planted with native vegetation. The project is
consistent with number 3 above. While the project may not be consistent with item 4 above,
replacement oflocal natives grown (seedlings) for this project (and thus smaller than heritage
trees) "should supercede the requirements for replacement of heritage trees in larger container
sizes which typically are not locaL The ecologically-based criteria for watershed specificity
should supercede the aesthetic criteria" (Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2006).
The proposed project plans to remove a total of 187 trees throughout the heavily-wooded
riparian corridor. Of the 187 trees to be removed only 37 are native. A total of 13 trees slated for
removal are considered to be specimen trees and 10 fall under the replacement requirements of
CDFG. See Table 3-4 below. Appendix H contains a complete listing of all trees proposed to be
removed at the project site.
A total of 22 trees would be removed to accommodate trail construction throughout the
project area, 12 are in the McClellan Ranch area and 10 are in the Stocklmeir site. Of the 12
removed in McClellan Ranch, only two are native, and of the lOin the Stocklmeir site, none are
native. A total of23 trees would be removed as a result of modifications at Blackberry Farm that
are unrelated to the creek realignment or trail construction. Five of these trees at Blackberry Farm
are native. A total of 50 trees would be removed in Reaches A and B to accommodate the creek
realignment. A total of 87 orange orchard, three English walnut orchard, and three native trees
would be removed in Reach C for creek realignment.
While the removal of many of the 150 non-native trees would have a long-term positive
effect on the overall health of the ecosystem, the native species being removed would temporarily
decrease the habitat value found throughout the project site. However, trees would be removed
in phases as funding for the project becomes available. Therefore, replanting would most likely
already be complete in one area before trees are removed from the next area. Although replaced
trees would not immediately provide the same forage and cover as the removed mature trees,
impacts would still be reduced due to the presence of this vegetation and the reduced number of
trees removed at anyone time due to the phasing of project construction. Mitigation Measure
BIO-7 would reduce the impacts of tree removal to less than significant.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-44
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Table 3-4. Trees to Be Removed from Project Site
Trees to be Removed
Area
Native Specimen Total
McClellan Ranch 2 0 12
Blackberry Farm 5 4 23
excluding Reach A&B
Reach A 18 I 30
Reach B 10 7 20
Reach C 2 I 92
Stocklmeir Site 0 0 10
excluding Reach C
TOTAL 37 13 187
Impact: Tree trimming or removal could violate City of Cupertino and CDFG policies
regarding protected trees.
Mitigation Measure 810-7: The following measures would be implemented to
ensure that no significant impacts would occur as a result of tree removal activities:
a. To satisfy the requirements ofCDFG, all coast live oak trees removed from the project
area would be replaced at a 3: I ratio (3 trees planted for each tree removed). These trees
are to be replaced in oak woodland habitat found throughout the project area. Oak trees
would be replaced using direct-seeded acorns collected from the Stevens Creek
Watershed from as close to the project site as possible.
b. In the event that construction activities require the removal of specimen or heritage
trees not included in Appendix H, an additional tree removal permit would have to be
obtained from the City of Cupertino. All requirements for removal as stated in the tree
removal permit would be followed.
c. All planting activities shall be consistent with the Restoration Plan and with Guidelines
and Standards for Land Use near Streams (SCVWRPC 2005), including guidelines
regarding landscaping near natural vegetation such as "Use of Locally Native Species"
and "Use of Ornamental or Non-native Landscaping".
Implementation:
Project manager would apply for and obtain permits; contractor
would remove trees.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-45
Timing:
Appropriate permits would be obtained for tree removal prior to
project approval. Trees would be replaced at required ratios post
construction activities.
Monitoring:
Project manager to supervise tree removal contractor. Project
manager shall keep permits on file for five years, the restoration
monitoring period.
Trail Construction
Relevant trails policies are found in the Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan Update
(1995), including Trails Strategies and Design and Maintenance Guidelines. Several policies
related to the construction, design and maintenance of trails limit the biological impact that the
proposed trail could have on sensitive species and habitats. These policies include the following
excerpts:
Policies under Trails Strategy #2: Provide recreation, transportation, and other public
trail needs in balance with environmental and landowner concerns.
PR- TS 2.1: Trail routes shall be located, designed and developed with sensitivity to their
potential environmental, recreational, and other impacts on adjacent lands and private
property.
PR- TS 2.2: As provided for in the Resource Conservation Chapter, trails shall be located
to recognize the resources and hazards of the areas they traverse, and to be protective of
sensitive habitat areas such as wetlands and riparian corridors and other areas where
sensitive species may be adversely affected.
PR- TS (i) 2.D: Develop design guidelines that ensure sensitive species and the habitats
they rely on shall be protected, and where possible enhanced, by trail development and
trail use.
Consistency: The proposed trail along Stevens Creek conforms to the above policies. The trail
has been designed to avoid sensitive habitats and species.
Policies under the Santa Clara County Trails Design and Maintenance Guidelines
D - 1.3.1.2 General: Existing native vegetation shall be retained by removing only as
much vegetation as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width.
D - 1.3.1.3 General: Trail design shall include barriers to control trail use and prevent
environmental damage; barriers may include fences, vegetation, stiles, and/or fallen trees
or branches as appropriate.
D - 1.3.2.1 Special Status Species Habitats: To the maximum extent feasible, trail
alignments shall avoid impacts to known special status plant and animal habitats. Trail
alignments shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a professional biologist to
identify impact avoidance measures or mitigation measures for biotic impacts.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-46
Env;ronmental Checklist and Responses
Consideration shall be given to: rerouting the trail; periodic closures; revegetation
prescriptions including replacement vegetation based on habitat acreage or plant quantity;
buffer plantings; and other appropriate measures. Removal of mature native vegetation
shall be avoided as much as possible to protect the productivity of the landscape and the
aesthetic quality of the trail. The appropriate resource agencies, including the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the California Department
ofFish and Game would be contacted for consultation regarding any trail alignments that
are identified as having potentially significant impacts to special status species or their
habitat.
D - 1.3.2.2 Special Status Species Habitats: In special status species habitat areas, trail
use levels shall be limited as appropriate to ensure protection of resources. Techniques
for limiting use may include, but are not limited to: physical access controls; seasonal or
intermittent closures; restricted use permits; exclusion of domestic pets.
D -1.3.2.3 Special Status Species Habitats: Existing access routes.. . shall be used
wherever possible to minimize impacts of new construction in special status species
habitats.
D -1.3.3.4 Washes, Freshwater Streams, Riparian Zones, and Wetlands: New
vegetation should be planted in the setback zone, where practical, to complement existing
growth.
D -1.3.3.5 Washes, Freshwater Streams, Riparian Zones, and Wetlands: Trails
would avoid wetlands, including seasonal wetlands, wherever possible. .. Trails adjacent to
wetland areas would be constructed so that trail fills avoid wetland impacts. ..
D - 3.6 Planting of Disturbed Areas: Any cut or fill slopes shall be immediately
reseeded or replanted with vegetation native to the general area. Criteria that would be
used in selecting plant materials include, but is not limited to: if the species is indigenous
to the area; habitat value; rate of growth; ultimate size; fire resistance; strength of root
system; resistance to pests and diseases; aesthetic characteristics; ability to provide shade;
and ease of maintenance.
Consistency: The Master Plan and the Restoration Plan are consistent with all policies under the
Santa Clara County Trails Design and Maintenance Guidelines with the exception ofD-I.3.2.2
Special Status Species Habitats. While Guideline D-l.3 .2.2 suggests excluding pets from an area
to ensure protection of resources, the project proposes to allow leashed dogs solely on the multi-
use trail. As long as dogs are kept on leash and unauthorized off-leash dogs are kept at a
minimum through the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5, special-status species
habitats would still be protected. Furthermore, this project proposes to adhere to a more strict
guideline than is provided by D-3.6 Planting of Disturbed Areas. Disturbed areas would be
planted with appropriate native plants grown from locally derived stock contract grown for this
project. Erosion control blankets on new creek slopes and mulch in all planted areas would be
used. This mulch could include chipped on-site trees that would be removed as part of this
project, and can include Eucalyptus species (L. Spahr, pers. comm.). To provide design
flexibility for erosion control, if watershed specific seed is not available at the time of
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Inmal Study
City of Cupertino - AprU 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-47
construction, abiotic solutions for erosion control or aesthetics would be implemented such as
use of an erosion control blanket, mulch, or non-local ornamental natives that comply with the
Guidelines and Standards for Land Use near Streams (SCYWRP 2005). Follow-up care and
maintenance of these planted areas would be the responsibility of the City.
Policies under the City of Cupertino Draft General Plan
Policy 5-8: Public Project Landscaping: Encourage public and quasi-public agencies to
landscape their city area projects near native vegetation with appropriate native plants and
drought tolerant, non-invasive, non-native plants.
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.
Consistency: All landscaping would be native, new structures would only replace existing
structures that are slated for demolition. Structures to be removed would provide more habitat
enhancement opportunities and connectivity within the project area and the entire watershed.
Policies under the Uniform Inter jurisdictional Trail Design, Use and Management Guidelines
All design guidelines within UD - 1.3 Trails and Environmental Protection section
including 1.3.1 General to 1.3.4 Other Habitat Areas are relevant to the project design. The
proposed project is consistent with these Guidelines.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, N at!lral
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact. The project would not conflict with any local conservation plans.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-48
Environmental Checklist and Responses
r...................................................-...............................................................................................mm......."."H.,.............................................m.......r.._..............................................._.........:.......................................................[.................-HH..+..-H.H......C..~
: I: t:
i i Potentially. Less than Less Than I :
: ~. i
i I Significant I Significant with Significant I
, t,
, i Impact ! Mitigation Impact jNo Impac~
, ' ,
i ~ ;
!a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the I ; .
isignificance of a historical resource as defined in!
I~ l5064.5? I D D,.. 0 ,
j.........................................................................................................'.....H.,..'........,........ ,........mmmmmcnc..hH.ThH....mcnmm.........m.......m.....UTm.!'..............................................................["...............................................'......r........."..m..m...m..cnmcn'~
~ . .r :
~ ; ~
jb) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
!significance of an archaeological resource
~ursuantto ~ 15064.5?
t..._...._._._._-_._--~~----------~-~------~ -
Ic) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
!paleontological resource or site or unique
igeologic feature?
Id) Disturb any human remains, including those
!interred outside of formal cemeteries?
i
I
;
i
_._.,-~-."- ~ f
I
;
,
!
o
o
D
.
o
o
D
.
o
.
D
o
The text contained in the setting and mitigation measures of this section is excerpted from
the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for this project by Basin Research Associates
(2006) (see full report in Appendix C).
REGULATORY SETTING:
The regulatory framework that mandates consideration of cultural resources in project
planning includes federal, state, and local governments. Cultural resources include prehistoric and
historic archaeological sites, districts, and objects; standing historic structures, buildings, districts,
and objects; and locations of important historic events or sites of traditional and/or cultural
importance to various groups. Cultural resources may be determined significant or potentially
significant in terms of national, state, or local criteria either individually or in combination.
Resource evaluation criteria are determined by the compliance requirements of a specific project.
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a review to determine if the
project will have a significant effect on archaeological sites or properties of historic or cultural
significance to a community or ethnic group eligible for inclusion in the California Register of
Historic Resources (CRHR). The CRHR (Section 5024.1) is a listing of those properties that are
to be protected from substantial adverse change, and it includes properties that are listed, or have
been formally determined to be eligible for listing in, the NRHP, State Historical Landmarks, and
eligible Points of Historical Interest A historical resource may be listed in the CRHR if it meets
one or more of the following criteria:
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-49
. it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
. it is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
. it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
. it has yielded or has the potential to yield information important in the prehistory or
history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Historical Resources
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1 stipulates that any resource listed in, or
eligible for listing in, the CRHR is presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Resources
listed in a local historic register or deemed significant in a historical resource survey (as provided
under PRC Section 5024.1 g) are presumed historically or culturally significant unless the
preponderance of evidence demonstrates they are not. A resource that is not listed in or
determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register or historic
resources, or not deemed significant in a historical resource survey may nonetheless be
historically significant (PRC Section 21084.1). This provision is intended to give the Lead Agency
discretion to determine that a resource of historic significance exists where none had been
identified before and to apply the requirements ofPRC Section 21084.1 to properties that have
not previously been formally recognized as historic.
CEQA equates a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
with a significant effect on the environment (PRe Section 21084.1) and defines substantial
adverse change as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration that would impair historical
significance (PRe Section 5020.1).
Archaeolol!ical Resources
Where a project may adversely affect a unique archaeological resource, PRC Section
21083.2 requires the Lead Agency to treat that effect as a significant environmental effect. When
an archaeological resource is listed in or is eligible to be listed in the CRHR, PRC Section 2 1084.1
requires that any substantial adverse effect to that resource be considered a significant
environmental effect. PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 operate independently to ensure that
potential effects on archaeological resources are considered as part of a project's environmental
analysis. Either of these benchmarks may indicate that a project may have a potential adverse
effect on archaeological resources.
Other California Laws and Regulations
Other state-level requirements for cultural resources management appear in the California
PRC Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5 "Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites," and
Chapter 1.75 beginning at Section 5097.9 "Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred
Sites" for lands owned by the state or a state agency.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-50
Environmental Checklist and Responses
The disposition of Native American burials is governed by Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code and sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 ofthe PRC, and falls within
the jurisdiction of the NAHC.
City of Cupertino
The Land Use Element of the Cupertino General Plan (2005) has several policies to
protect historically and archaeologicalIy significant structures, sites and artifacts. These are:
Policy 2-59: Landmark Rehabilitation. Undertake an active partnership with private
owners of landmark structures to rehabilitate the buildings for public or semi-private
occupancy in order to retain their historic character.
Policy 2-60: Archaeologically Sensitive Areas. Protect archaeologicalIy sensitive areas.
Policy 2-61: Native American Burials. Protect Native American burial sites.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The Ohlone Native Americans are the aboriginal inhabitants of the Santa Clara Valley
extending from 5000 to 7000 years ago. In the mid to late 1700s a number of Spanish
expeditions passed through the area and shortly after presidios, missions, and secular towns were
founded. Individual ownership of land came during the Mexican period around I 820-the mid-
1840s. Soon after followed the American period spurred by population growth, the Gold Rush
and completion of the Transcontinental Railroad. Invention of the refrigerated railroad car in
around 1880 also greatly influenced land use in Santa Clara
County. During the later American period and into the
Contemporary peri od, (187 6-1940s), fruit production
became a major industry and remained until after WWII.
FINDINGS:
Record Search Results
One prehistoric site was recorded in the project site,
described as a "low visibility earth midden". No historic
era sites were recorded or reported adjacent to the project.
One site, the Blackberry Farm Site has been informally
noted on the California Historical Resource Information
System, Northwest Information Center (CHRIS/NWIC)
Cupertino, California topographic map. No known
ethnographic or contemporary Native American resources, including villages, known trails,
sacred places, traditional or contemporary use areas, have been identified in or adjacent to the
project.
Photo 3.5-1: Historic marker in McClellan
Ranch
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-51
No Hispanic era sites or ranch dwelling and or features (including the Auza Juan Bautista
de Anza National Historic Trail [1776]) have been identified in or adjacent to the project as a
result of research conducted for this project. A plaque at McClellan Ranch states, "Lt. Colonel
Juan Bautista de Anza and party crossed this area..." but the project area does not include any
part of the designated Auza Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail.
No Historic Era archaeological resources have been formally recorded or reported in or
adjacent to the project. One historic era site, "Blackberry Farm Site" has been informally
recorded in the project area by CHRISINWIC.
No California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) listed historic properties have been identified in or immediately adjacent to the
proposed project area. One California Point of Interest is present and five properties within or
adjacent to the project are listed either on various Santa Clara County Heritage Resource
Inventory(ies) and/or are identified as City of Cupertino Historic Sites according to the city's
2005 General Plan. These include Blackberry Farm, Site of Elisha Stephen's homestead, Louis
Stocklmeir home, Doyle winery site foundation, McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve (including
Baer's replica blacksmith shop and Enoch parrish tank house), and Simms house. For additional
detail of these features, see Appendix C.
Archaeoloeical Field Inventory and Presence! Absence Testine Results
An archaeological field inventory of selected areas within the project area was completed
by a Basin Research Associates' archaeologist in February 2006. The inventory focused on the
proposed route of the bicycle and pedestrian trail and did not cover the developed areas of the
project. Basin also attempted to relocate previously recorded prehistoric site CA-SCI-715. No
prehistoric or significant historic era archaeological materials were observed during the field
inventory .
Exploratory trenching was performed in February 2006 along the proposed creek
realignment in the vicinity of CA-SCI-715 to determine the presence or absence of culturally
significant deposits. Twelve backhoe test units (BTUs), generally located near the area of
proposed improvements and CA-SCI-715, were excavated and screened for cultural resources.
The exploratory trenching concluded there was no significant prehistoric or historical cultural
material either on the surface or observed in the twelve BTUs suggesting that CA -SCI-715 is not
present within the area tested. Observed findings included a thin charcoal lines and oyster shell
fragment in BTU 4, two charcoal flecks (one BTU 8 and one in BTU 9) and a clam shell was
recovered near the entrance of a squirrel burrow. All of these materials were in a highly disturbed
area. Standard archaeological recordation, including written description, sediment profile, and
photographs, were completed for each unit; soiVcharcoal samples were also collected from
selected units. All BTUs were backfilled and wheel-rolled.
Unknown Cultural Resources in the Proiect Areas
The research suggests a low potential for archaeological resources at each of the project
locations based on past earth disturbance at each location and the low to moderate regional
archaeological sensitivity suggested by the few locations of recorded prehistoric and historic
archaeological sites within a quarter-mile of each project area.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-52
Environmental Checklist and Responses
There appears to be locally moderate to high potential for inadvertent discoveries of
buried archaeological deposits during subsurface construction at each project location. However,
any archaeological deposits exposed during subsurface construction could contain potentially
significant buried prehistoric and/or historic cultural materials, including Native American human
remains. Disturbance could result in the loss of integrity of the cultural deposit and subsequent
loss of scientific information, which would be a potentially significant impact.
DISCUSSION:
Will the proposed project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in ~15064.5?
Less than Significant. While the site of Blackberry Farm and Elisha Stephen's
homestead, Doyle winery site, McClellan Ranch (including Baer's replica blacksmith shop and
Enoch parrish tank house), Simms house, and Louis Stocklmeir homesite, are listed in the Santa
Clara County Heritage Resource lnventory(ies) and/or are identified as City of Cupertino Historic
Sites according to the city's 2005 General Plan, none of the facility improvements as part of the
project would affect any structure that is eligible for inclusion in the California Register of
Historic Places or the National Register of Historic Places.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to fi15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation.
Impact: Even though no significant archaeological resources were recovered in the
presence/absence testing for CA-SCI-715, the proposed project could reveal as yet unknown
prehistoric or historic archaeological resources, so the following mitigation measures are
proposed.
Mitigation Measure CUL-l: Prior to the initiation of construction or ground-
disturbing activities, the City of Cupertino Project Manager shall conduct a tailgate
meeting to inform all 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.
Implementation:
Timing:
Monitoring:
City - Public Works Dept.
During a pre-construction field meeting with contractors
City - Public Works Dept.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-53
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Upon discovery of possible buried prehistoric and
historic cultural materials (including potential Native American skeletal remains)l,
work within 25-feet of the find shall be halted and the City of Cupertino's Project
Manager shall be notified.
The Project Manager 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.
rfthe 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 Project
Manager 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 non-
redundant archaeological data to address important regional research considerations. The
Project Manager 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 including immediate notification of the County Medical Examiner/Coroner.
Implementation: City - Public Works Dept.
Timing: During construction
Monitoring:
City - Public Works Dept.
I Significant prehistoric cultural resources may include:
a. Human bone - either isolated or intact burials
b. Habitation (occupation or ceremonial structures as interpreted from rock rings/features, distinct ground
depressions, differences in compaction (e.g.. house floors)
c. Artifacts including chipped stone objects such as projectile points and bifaces; groundstone artifacts such as
manos, metates, mortars. pestles, grinding stones, pitted hammerstones; and shell and bone artifacts including
ornaments and beads.
d. Various features and samples including hearths (fire-cracked rock; baked and vitrified clay), artifact caches, faunal
and shellfish remains (which pennit dietary reconstruction), distinctive changes in soil stratigraphy indicative of
prehistoric activities.
e. Isolated artifacts
Historic cultural materials may include finds from the late 19th through early 20th centuries. Objects and features associated with the
historic period can include:
a. Structural remains or portions of foundations (bricks, cobblesfboulders, stacked fieldstone, postholes, etc.).
b. Trash pits, privies, wells and associated artifacts
c. Isolated artifacts or isolated clusters of manufactured artifacts (e.g., glass bottles, metal cans, manufactured wood
items, etc.
d. 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
pnvles.
Stevens Creek Co"idor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-54
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: AU 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 Conditions section of any
contract that has the potential for ground disturbing operations.
Implementation: City - Public Works Dept.
Timing:
Monitoring:
Include in Plans and Specifications document
City - Public Works Dept.
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Archaeological monitoring on a full-time basis shall be
undertaken during subsurface construction within and within a 100-foot buffer zone
of the recorded boundary of CA-SCI-715.
Actions that potentially require monitoring include habitat restoration, trail
construction, and pedestrianlbicycle bridge construction. Archaeological monitoring on
an intermittent basis to allow for spot checking of subsurface construction shall be
undertaken for areas outside of the recorded boundary ofCA-SCI-715 and the 100-foot
buffer zone. Monitoring in these areas shall be at the discretion of the Professional
Archaeologist retained to provide archaeological monitoring services.
Implementation:
Timing:
Monitoring:
City - Public Works Dept.
During any subsurface construction activities within CA-SCI-715
City - Public Works Dept.
Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Archaeological monitoring on a part time basis to allow
for spot-checking of subsurface construction shall be undertaken for areas outside of
the recorded boundary of CA-SCI-715 and the 100-foot buffer zone.
Monitoring in these areas shall be at the discretion of the Professional
Archaeologist retained to provide archaeological monitoring services.
Implementation:
Timing:
Monitoring:
City - Public Works Dept.
During development of construction documents
City - Public Works Dept.
Mitigation Measure CUL-6: Construction methods and procedures to minimize
subsurface disturbance shall be implemented where feasible and practical.
These may include: (I) planting by seed, and hand excavation for planting in the
habitat restoration areas within 100-feet of the recorded boundary ofCA-SCl-715; raising
the grade of the proposed trail (capping) by engineered fill within 100-feet of the recorded
boundary of CA-SCI-715. Fill shall be no less than 12-inches deep. Rubber tired or
tracked equipment shall be used to minimize surface disturbance.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-55
Implementation:
Timing:
Monitoring:
City - Public Works Dept.
During development of construction documents
City - Public Works Dept.
Impacts to cultural resources will be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the
implementation the above mentioned mitigation measures.
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
No Impact. There are no known unique paleontological resources or sites or unique
geologic features in the project area.
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Mitigation measures are provided above (CUL-l
through CUL-6) will guide subsurface construction and specifies actions to be taken in the event
that significant or potentially significant unknown cultural resources are discovered during
construction.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-56
Environmental Checklist and Responses
-r.
!
I Potentially Less Than i Less Than
! Significant Significant with! Significant
. Impact Mitigation. Impact !No ImpacG
. ..
. ..
. ..
i
-.'.-."1
i
ia) Expose people or structures to potential .
!substantial adverse effects, including the risk of !
iloss, injury, or death involving: . 0 D i
i..cncn.......,.....,............................................................,...... ,..,,.cncn......cnc.mm..'.........................m...t...................'..'..................-.......--.--t-.-mnTnTm.................'.............................t...................
! ~ .
i ~
! }
o
.
."..mcm.m..'..........t.........,....... ......,.....,.......~
Ii) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
!delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
!Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
!State Geologist for the area or based on other
~ubstantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
)Division of Mines and Geology Special
!publication 42.
t" _.....-~~--~~.._._.-
jii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
o
o
D
.
-L-_.~__
i
I
''--r-~--'-~-~-'''''1
r-
o
o
.
o
!iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
lliquefaction?
o
o
.
o
,.
o
o
.
!
I
: 0
-"~---~-'--~-----i
!iv) Landslides?
. ..
. ..
r---._.~-~~..._..."-~..._-_.._-_._...._....~....._.~-~......~~.~--t._..-...-_.--------....i-.__.~~~--_.
~) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
iof topsoil?
o
o
.
o
~) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
itmstable, or that would become unstable as a
~esult of the project, and potentially result in on-
lor off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
~ubsidence, liquefaction or collapse? . .
,.................................................................. ... ...<0...... ....... .........................................................................................,... ...................................,............................................ ........... ..... m...................................................I......... .............>.. .......Tn.,
; : i;
~) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in i I:
trable l8-I-B of the Uniform Building Code I
:(1994), creating substantial risks to life or 0,
i
!property?
~...._-~-- . ---..~------_.-.---4-
1 :
~) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting I
~he use of septic tanks or alternative waste water!
~isposal systems where sewers are not available I
l~~~_!h~ dispos~l ~f '-"a~~=-~_~!~~?_____._~___ _L
o
o
.
o
o
.
o
-.-.----..--.--~-r--
!
!
. .
. .
. .
-----...-~i .-.-. ~ ----..f----
o
o
D
.
-----I_~-_._.._._.:
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial StUdy
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page ~57
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
Soils
The soil within the Stevens Creek Corridor is classified as Sorrento Fine Sandy Loam, recent
alluvium from sedimentary rocks. This alluvium has been deposited by Stevens Creek, as the
entire project corridor is within the Stevens Creek floodplain. The permeability of both the
surface soils and subsoil is moderate, as is the water-holding capacity, and the erosion hazard is
negligible. The valley floor slopes are mild, and generally vary from I to 3 percent. The
sideslopes from the valley floor are classified as Pleasanton gravelly loam with steep slopes to the
top of bank, with permeability and erosion hazard classified as moderate, and generally are within
20 to 30 percent grade (U .S. Department of Agriculture 1956).
Regional Geology and Geologic and Seismic Hazards.
The City's General Plan (2005) states that "the primary geologic hazards within Cupertino
are landslides and seismic impacts related to local active fault traces. Seismically induced
groundshaking, surface fault rupture, and various forms of earthquake-triggered ground failure
are anticipated within the City during large earthquakes. These geologic hazards present potential
impacts to property and public safety."
The General Plan also states that "Cupertino is located in the seismically active San
Francisco Bay region, which hosts several active earthquake faults... One of the largest and most
active faults in the world, the San Andreas fault, crosses the western portion of Cupertino's
planning area. In addition, two other faults that are closely associated with the San Andreas fault,
the Sargent-Berrocal and Monte Vista-Shannon fault systems, cross the western portion of the
City. These faults manifest in a variety of displacement styles. Movement on the San Andreas
fault is predominantly right-lateral strike-slip, where the earth ruptures in a horizontal fashion
with the opposite sides of the fault moving to the right with respect to each other. Movement on
the Sargent-Berrocal and Monte-Vista-Shannon faults is more variable in style. Both ofthese
faults are characterized by "thrust" faulting, where a significant amount of vertical "up-down"
displacement occurs on an inclined plane, and one side is elevated (i.e., thrust over) the other
side." (City of Cupertino 2005)."
Several categories of Geologic Hazards are within the project area. The Monte Vista fault
rupture zone is located within 0.25 miles of the project area near McClellan Ranch (see Fig. 20)
and could be subject to intense groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. This area is also a
mapped zone of potential earthquake induced landsliding prepared by the California Geological
Survey (2002) and Santa Clara County (2002) (see Fig. 20). The project area also has
characteristics that indicate a potential for liquefaction under seismic conditions. Flood
inundation is also a concern as the area is within the 100-year floodplain.
The City of Cupertino General Plan Policy 6- I provides a process to reduce risks
associated with geologic and seismic hazards. This process requires all development proposals
within mapped potential hazard zones to use a formal seismic/geologic review process.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-58
Environmental Checklist and Responses
DISCUSSION:
Will the proposed project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alq uist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
No Impact. A review of geologic maps for the project area indicates that the site is not
located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the Cupertino General
Plan Seismic and Geologic Hazards map, the project area is within 0.25 miles of the Monta Vista
Fault zone (Cupertino 2004) (see Fig. 20).
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant. As stated in the Existing Conditions of this section, the project
site is located in Santa Clara County within a seismically active area. The Monta Vista fault is
located about 0.25 mile southwest of the project site, resulting in the high probability that the
project site would be subject to very strong seismic shaking during the next major earthquake on
this fault or the San Andreas fault. All structures to be built as part of this project would be
reviewed by the City according to Cupertino General Plan Policy 6-1 to ensure the proper seismic
precautions are taken when designing the park structures.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant. Areas near creeks and streams are susceptible to liquefaction as
shown on the geologic hazard map by the City (see Fig. 20). City policy requires a
seismic/geologic review ofproject plans prior to project approvaL Since all structures within the
Corridor are on City-owned land, they would be reviewed for adequacy by the City to ensure
that they are not susceptible to ground failure.
iv. Landslides?
Less than Significant. Areas near creeks and streams are susceptible to liquefaction as
shown on the geologic hazard map by the City (see Fig. 20). City policy requires a
seismic/geologic review of project plans prior to project approvaL Since all structures within the
Corridor are on City-owned land, they would be reviewed for adequacy by the City to ensure
that they are not susceptible to landslides.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant. The project would be constructed using the Santa Clara Valley
Water District's (District) Stream Maintenance BMPs as appropriate (see Appendix A) and
BMPs set forth by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association and the Santa
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-59
Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (Blueprint for a Clean Bay 2004) to
protect areas from substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil during and after construction.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant. The project would be subject to City geologic/seismic review and
grading plan review by the City Public Works Department to ensure none of the proposed
improvements would cause instability of the project site or result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B ofthe Uniform Building
Code (UOC 1997), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant. The project would be subject to City geologic/seismic review and
building permits which requires conformance with UBC requirements.
e. 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?
No Impact. The project does not propose the installation of new septic tanks.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-60
Environmental Checklist and Responses
,......................................................................,....,.-H"<.....+..+..+......<..H....~.'UT....._.._....._..........................................T....'................................................1.................................................................!O................_._................................. ...................................,..>.
; i: ~
i ! Potentially! Less Than ! Less Than
! i Significant I Significant with i Significant
I ".
, . Impact ! Mitigation i Impact No Impact
T[!1~r~~1~;f~~~f~IflMli~ff~
~) Create a significant hazard to the public or the! r
ienvironment through the routine transport, use, od I
,disposal of hazardous materials? . 0 !
~ .:
r.......<.H .>..'H"<m.m.............cnm....m.....................................,................................,............................................T...............>.<..h.m'm........cn...........T.............................................................. .............,................>..>...<..+..>.......... ....... .................................
~) Create a significant hazard to the public or thei i
!environment through reasonably foreseeable I
jupset and accident conditions involving the 0 I
~elease of hazardous materials into the i
; i
ienvironment? !
; . i
~.........................................L......................<.......>..h.H.....,.....................m...................................................._'.....'"!"..'............'....................................''!'>..........cn................................................ ................_....................................+ ......+...+..>.h.H......m...........
ic) Emit hazardous emissions or handle i i
~ ~ ~
Ihazardous or acutely hazardous materials, i i
lsubstances, or waste within one-quarter mile of 0
!an existing or proposed school?
o
.
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
r~-
f
i
.1--_......
~) Be located on a site which is included on a
!list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
land, as a result, would it create a significant
~azard to the public or the environment?
Ie) For ~;r~;~;t-located ~it~~"~:-:irport ~and
luse plan or, where such a plan has not been
~dopted, within two miles of a public airport or
jpublic use airport, would the project result in a
Isafety hazard for people residing or working in !
i h . ? "
~ e project area. ! i
!.......................................................................................................................................................................m..[.......................................................1.............................................................................................................................................................
If) For a project within the vicinity of a private
!airstrip, would the project result in a safety
~azard for people residing or working in the
project area?
f--.~-----
o
.
o
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
19) Impair implementation of or physically
linterfere with an adopted emergency response
jplan or emergency evacuation plan?
o
"."'.r
i
i
i
,
,
!
~
,
o
.
o
....................._.m._mc'H..cncncncncn.'..cn....,......................... ......................................,..................,........ . ~ T' C
~) Expose people or structures to a significant
!risk ofloss, injury or death involving wildland
!fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
iurbanized areas or where residences are
I~~~~~.i:".~~.~i~~~i~~~~~?..................mm. mm................................................... ..
.
.........................................n.................................. ..mn...nn...n.....................J..m..................
o
o
o
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-61
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
A material is considered hazardous ifit appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared
by a federal, state, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such all
agency. Chemical and physical properties such as toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity,
cause a substance to be considered hazardous. These properties are defined in the California
Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Sections 66261.20-66261.24. A "hazardous waste" is any
hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or to be recycled. The criteria that render a
material hazardous also make a waste hazardous (California Health and Safety Code, Section
25117).
According to this definition, fuels, motor oil, and lubricants in use at a typical
construction site and lead built up along roadways could be considered hazardous. Excavation
may expose buried hazardous materials resulting from prior use of the proposed site or adjacent
property.
There are no known hazardous material sites identified in the project area based on a
review of the Cortese List (pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5).
The creek restoration portion of the project would be implemented using Best
Management Practices (BMPs) developed for the District's 2005 BMP Handbook. These BMPs
include (see Appendix A for the full text ofthese BMPs):
HM-I Herbicide Use Requirements
HM-2 Types of Pest Control
HM-7 Herbicide Use in Upland Areas
HM-8 Herbicide Use in Aquatic Areas
HM-9 Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
HM-I0 Vehicle and Equipment Fueling
HM-Il Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
HM-12 Hazardous Materials Management
HM-13 Spill Prevention
HM-14 Spill Kit Location
DISCUSSION:
Will the proposed project:
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-62
Environmental Checklist and Responses
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. If all of the above listed BMPs are implemented for this
project, the risk of creating a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be minimized. The
proposed changes in operations in the area as a result of the project do not represent an increased
risk from hazards or hazardous materials compared to existing conditions.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The only hazardous materials to be used at the project
site during construction are the fuels, oils and lubricants associated with various on-site vehicles
and construction machinery, and as stated above, the use ofBMPs would minimize the risk of
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
The project involves the demolition of existing buildings at the project site which may
contain asbestos. Buildings constructed prior to 1980 often include building materials containing
asbestos. Airborne asbestos fibers pose a serious health threat. The demolition, renovation or
removal of asbestos-containing building materials is subject to the limitations of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District's Regulation 11, Rule 2: Hazardous Materials; Asbestos
Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing. The BAAQMD's Enforcement Division should be
consulted prior to commencing demolition ofa building containing asbestos building materials.
Any demolition activity subject to but not complying with the requirements of District
Regulation II, Rule 2 would be considered to have a significant impact (BAAQMD 1999). Ifit
is determined that the buildings to be demolished as part of this project do contain asbestos, the
demolition would be in accordance with the requirements ofBAAQMD (1999) Regulation II,
Rule 2.
Herbicides may be used to control exotic species as part of the Restoration Plan. A
licensed herbicide applicator either employed by the City or contracted by the City would be
responsible for the proper handling of all herbicides. If the herbicides are stored onsite, all
material would be stored in containers as specified in the Hazardous Material Business Plan
approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Marshal. BMPs are also provided in Appendix A for
dealing with the handling and application of herbicides and pesticides within the stream corridor.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or hazardous waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
No Impact. The changes proposed by the project would not cause the emissions of
hazardous materials. Air quality impacts from construction and construction related vehicles are
addressed in the Air: Quality Section.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial StUdy
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-63
d. 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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A search of the California Department
of Toxic Substances Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (Cortese List) did not yield
properties in the project area or in the immediate vicinity. The only result for the City of
Cupertino was at 10910 N. Tantau Avenue which is about 4 miles east of the project site. Neither
this site would be impacted by project activities, nor would that site impact the Stevens Creek
Corridor site Qillp://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca. gov/public/profile report.asp?global id=43360032
accessed 2/6/06).
A Phase I report was completed for the Stocklmeir Property in May 1999 (City of
Cupertino 1999). Because the property had been a commercial orchard until the late I 960s, this
report recommends that a soils report be completed prior to any major disturbance of soil at the
subject property, to determine if hazardous levels of pesticide residue still exists in the soil. Since
the rest ofthe creek corridor was also in orchards at one time in the past, all areas where major
soil disturbance would occur would be subject to the following mitigation measure:
Impact: Major disturbance of soil on the Stocklmeir Property, and also at the former
walnut grove at the Santa Clara Valley Water District property could occur as a result of this
project. This disturbance could uncover pesticide residue in the soil, potentially causing impacts
to terrestrial and aquatic species, including fish. This pesticide residue could also get into the
water column and contaminate the water supply, thus endangering humans.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-I: Perform soil testing for pesticide residue where major
soil disturbance will occur (such as the areas of creek realignment). If pesticides are
detected, follow the appropriate contaminated material and handling protocol prior to and
during any soil disturbance.
Implementation:
Timing:
Monitoring:
City of Cupertino- Public Works Department
During construction design
City of Cupertino- Public Works Department
e. 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?
No Impact. The project is not located in an airport land use plan and is not located within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport is Moffett Federal Air Field
on the border of Sunnyvale and Mountain View approximately seven miles north of the project
site.
f. 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?
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cuperlino - April 2006
Page 3-64
Environmental Checklist and Responses
No Impact. There are no private airstrips in the project vicinity.
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant. The project would not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project
was reviewed by the Fire Marshal to ensure that emergency access is sufficient.
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wild lands?
No Impact. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. There are no wildland areas with a fire risk near the
project site.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-65
;
Potentially Less Than Less Than !
Significant Significant with Significant I !
,Impact Mitigation Impact iNo Impact!
~ , ;
i
i
!
t...........................................................m...........................................................................,..,............................f....,.......m..m..cn....cn....,.........m..mfm.....m.....cncn'..'..'mm...m.'
~) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
jinterfere substantially with groundwater recharge
jsuch that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
~olume or a lowering of the local groundwater
~able level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
~xisting nearby wells would drop to a level
!which would not support existing land uses or
!planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
:a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
idischarge requirements?
o
.
.
....... ..... ."H~
o
o
o
.. .m'r HmHHmHHHH ..
!
!
i
I
!
~
,
m'"
.
D
o
~) Substantially alter the existing drainage
iPattern of the site or area, including through the .
ialteration of the course of a stream or river, in a i
!manner which would result in substantial erosion!
!or siltation on- or off-site?
o
.
o
o
~) Substantially alter the existing drainage
iPattern of the site or area, including through the
ialteration of the course of a stream or river, or
!substantially increase the rate or amount of .
. .
isurface runoff in a manner which would result in i
. .
. .
!flooding on- or off-site?
_~__~"'~-'r'_~~' ;
: ~
Ie) Create or contribute runoff water which would!
iexceed the capacity of existing or planned !
istormwater drainage systems or provide I
isubstantial additional sources of polluted
!runoff?
o
.
D
_.f...~._~____~~___....t-.__.______
o
!
i
i
,
~
!
~
!
I
i
!
..--.-....-......-.-.+---....-...-.......------.--+
I
i
~
.
o
o
. .
i......................................................................................mmcnmm.............m...UT......mmHH..WWH"...<..+H+..+H+."..[...................................................................................................................... ..................................................... L...................................... '
19) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard [
~rea as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard !
!Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other !
iflood hazard delineation map? '
if) Otherwise substantially degrade water
iquality?
r............................................m......................................................,...,............cn....'....mm<e c. n, Hc,m. ~
o
.
o
D
o
.
o
D
.... ,................... . ,.........."'...........,...........,............................,........j-.....................,.................................c-......._..n_n........ .mmn.m.~
jh) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
Istructures which would impede or redirect flood i
i~~~~?u..uu....m.....................................................................u....uJ..u......uu.u~.....u..u.....u....um.m.H~"H
. 0
___._c_,c_,cn...cm,.__nmc_..mc_m m_____' _.__..__.______,.__>_.__.......................................
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-66
Environmental Checklist and Responses
,
t-........-...-.----- ---~------.---------~---.-.-~.-~-~~.~--....-..-.----.-..'f-----
ji) Expose people or structures to a significant I
jrisk ofloss, injury or death involving flooding, i
iincluding flooding as a result of the failure of a I 0 0 0
'I da ? '" I
i evee or m. !! i I
!..........H<hh.....m............................................................................................................>..>...............mm..m........l................... ..................................)...............................................<.....+"...>...,.....,.................................................!...........................+.....,.H...f
p) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? i ;'
. ,
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less ThaD i
Significant with i
M"t" t" I
I Iga IOn :
_.~~~~_.._.._.._._.-t._-_.
,
;
;
Less Than !
;
Significant ! :
Impact !No Impac~
--------~------f.-~~-~--~
! l
i
,
.
i ~ , ,_~_____
o
o
.
--~--j
~~ ~~-~~...
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The Stevens Creek watershed is located along the eastern slopes of the Santa Cruz
Mountains in the western portion of Santa Clara County, west of the City of Cupertino. The
watershed encompasses approximately 30 square miles at its outlet to the San Francisco Bay, and
includes a mixture of urbanized and natural habitats. Stevens Creek has been a regulated stream
since 1935 when the Stevens Creek Reservoir was completed and by the Santa Clara Valley
Water District (District). The reservoir was built and is operated by the District for the purpose of
aquifer recharge. The project site is located in the upper watershed of Stevens Creek near the
mountain front, approximately two miles downstream from the Stevens Creek Reservoir,
between McClellan Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Stevens Creek runs the length of the
project site for a distance of approximately 5,920 feet (I .12 miles). Upstream from the project
site, in the Santa Cruz Mountains, the watershed is relatively un-urbanized, with the first
substantial downstream residential and recreational development occurring adjacent to the
project site.
All surface water originating in, or passing through, Cupertino ultimately discharges into
San Francisco Bay. Runoff is collected in an underground storm drainage system that discharges
into the creeks within the City. The system has been designed to accommodate a lO-year flow,
and the City now requires that all new development conform to this standard. Although the City
has not conducted a detailed study of the existing system, it is assumed that it could
accommodate runoff from a IO-year to a 40-year flow with some overflow along the street gutters
that would ultimately dissipate into the major storm drainage channels and creeks able to
accommodate a 1 OO-year flow.
Cupertino's climatic conditions are characterized by warm, dry summers and relatively
cool, wet winters. The year-round average temperature is approximately 580 F, and the normal
annual rainfall, which occurs mostly during the period from October to May, varies from 18 to 26
inches (City of Cupertino 2005).
Historical Land Use and Stream Conditions
Aerial photographs from 1948 and 2003 and topographic maps from 1953, 1968, and 1977
were used to assess post-settlement land use along the Stevens Creek corridor at the vicinity of
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-67
the project site. The dominant land use at the project site and surrounding areas during the 1940s
was orchards.
The creek channel planform (how the creek appears from above) has remained relatively
stable since the 1940s. Little to no natural large-scale changes, such as meander cut-offs or
channel migration across the floodplain, are apparent. However, streambed changes attributable
to human activities are visible at two locations, both in Blackberry Farm, when comparing the
1948 and 2003 aerial photographs and the 1953 topographic map. The meander bend at
Horseshoe Bend was pushed westward to its current location and the channel was realigned and
straightened just downstream of Horseshoe Bend at the West Picnic Area. Other channel
alterations have occurred in the recent past throughout the length of Stevens Creek, including: a)
placement of rip rap and concrete along the channel banks at the Blackberry Farm Golf Course b)
construction of three low-flow road crossings and a diversion dam around and upstream of
Horseshoe Bend; and c) placement of concrete slabs and rubble in the channel near McClellan
Ranch. Riparian vegetation has been removed along several areas of the creek that are adjacent to
high-impact park activities, such as the pool and picnic areas near Horseshoe Bend.
Existin!! Stream Conditions
Channel Conditions
Several site reconnaissance visits were conducted by Balance Hydrologics (Balance)
along the Stevens Creek corridor during the winter of2005 to qualitatively assess stream
conditions and develop a field program. A quantitative field effort was then conducted during the
summer of 2005 that included cross-section surveys, pebble counts, and a detailed longitudinal
profile to characterize slopes and geometries of different stream reaches and to identify reference
pool and riffle sequences that were used for subsequent restoration design.
A primary use of the extensive cross-sectional and longitudinal profile survey data was to
identify and characterize existing pool and riffle sequences which are presently stable and use
their characteristics to guide channel design along the restoration reaches within Blackberry Farm.
As such, the restored and realigned channel reaches within Blackberry Farm would reflect
existing and stable pool and riffle sequences and sideslopes located in elsewhere the Stevens
Creek watershed. Statistical analysis of survey data indicates stable ranges of channel widths,
channel depths, channel slopes, pool-riffle spacing, and other key design parameters that were
used to develop the proposed channel designs within Blackberry Farm. Unstable cross-sections
were also assessed to provide insight on channel forms that lead or have led to instability.
Within the project site, Stevens Creek generally exhibits a relatively stable channel
planform, although bank erosion has occurred at several locations. Most of the bank erosion sites
are along the active, park areas of Blackberry Farm and the golf course, from Horseshoe Bend
downstream to Stevens Creek Boulevard, where native riparian vegetation was removed from the
banks to build structures. From Horseshoe Bend upstream to McClellan Ranch, the banks of
Stevens Creek are relatively stable and there are no plans to alter the existing channel planform in
this reach.
Within the project site, the channel bed of Stevens Creek exhibits an irregular longitudinal
profile (slope or grade of the channel bed) with irregularities focused around man-made
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-68
Environmental Checklist and Responses
structures built across the channel bed. For example, a low. flow road crossing was constructed
in the past near the swimming pool to provide vehicle access from the main area of the park to
the West Bank Picnic Area. Over many years, the action of streamflow moving over this low-
flow road crossing has resulted in the development of a large scour hole downstream of the
crossing that is 4 to 5 feet deep. From the diversion dam downstream to Stevens Creek
Boulevard, four similar irregularities occur around low-flow road crossings, with scour holes of
differing depths. These irregularities have resulted in accelerated rates of bed and bank erosion
and are currently characterized as partial-passage barriers to migrating steelhead. Accelerated
erosion of the channel bed results in incised (or over-deepened) channels that are no longer
hydrologically connected to adjacent floodplains during small- to moderate-sized flow events.
Incised channels with rip-rap banks offer very little habitat for salmonids or terrestrial wildlife.
Between these man-made irregularities, the channel bed has a more natural profile which is
generally steeper through riffles (rapids) and more gentle through pools.
In non-eroding (or stable) reaches, the existing channel cross-section is characterized by
two lower floodplains located approximately I to 3 feet higher in elevation than the channel bed
elevation and one upper floodplain located approximately 6 to 8 feet above the channel bed. The
City of Cupertino swimming pool, the Blackberry Farm golf course and other associated
structures have been constructed on the upper floodplain, while the lower two floodplains are
contained within the "active channel corridor", defined as the channel area occurring between the
adjacent upper floodplains. It is important to note that no lower floodplain exists for
approximately 50 percent of the reach through McClellan Ranch and Blackberry Farm, where the
channel has eroded or is actively eroding. The reach which most exemplifies this occurs from
Horseshoe Bend downstream to the end of the adjacent park parking lot.
Channel Corridor Hydrology
Creek flows are regulated by the Stevens Creek Reservoir, which retains low and
moderate stormflows for the first part of each winter. Runoff from late winter storms and large
flood events generally passes through the reservoir rapidly due to the limited storage capacity,
which is usually maximized by late winter. Winter base flows (November through April) typically
range from 10 to 30 cubic feet per second (cfs) during the active rainy season, while summer
baseflows (May through October) are generally less than 5 cfs based on flow data from the
stream gage at Stevens Creek Dam (Gage No. 1482, operated by the District).
Through the project reach, the estimated existing channel flow capacity is 1,500 cfs. The
swimming pool, golf course and west bank areas regularly flood during flood flows similar to the
1,500 cfs value. The picnic grounds on the west bank of the creek and the park swimming pools
are currently closed during the winter when flood flows are most likely to occur. Flows
exceeding this value overtop the channel banks inundating the upper floodplain. The estimated
100-year flow through the project reach is 5,500 cfs?
The channel flow capacity through McClellan Ranch and the Blackberry Farm was
exceeded several times during the past 20 years including during water years 1963, 1965, 1969,
2 This value represents the flood estimate provided by the Santa Clara Valley Water District's working hydrology group for
this reach of Stevens Creek.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-69
1986, 1995 and 1998 at flow rates of at least 2,090 cfs, 1,370 cfs, 1,460 cfs, 5,250 eft, 1,060 cfs,
and 1,390 cfs, respectively.3,45 Park infrastructure, such as the swimming pools and pedestrian
bridges, were flooded and damaged during both the 1995 and 1998 floods, with two pedestrian
bridges destroyed in the 1998 event (M. Q'Dowd, pers. comm. 2006). These direct observations
of overbank flow correspond well with the channel capacity estimate of 1,500 cfs.
~ional Ground Water
The project site is located within the unconfined aquifer of the Santa Clara Valley
Subbasin and serves as a recharge area for the County's water supply aquifers. The Santa Clara
Valley Subbasin has a surface area of225 square miles and extends from the Coyote Narrows to
the northern County boundary, bounded on the east by the Diablo Range and on the west by the
Santa Cruz Mountains. The general ground-water gradient is from the edges of the subbasin
toward the San Francisco Bay, roughly following surface topography.
The District manages surface water for the purpose of increasing ground water storage by
using reservoirs, percolation ponds, and stream channels for recharge. Monitoring conducted by
the District shows that ground water storage in the Santa Clara Valley Subbasin increased by
11,000 to 13,000 acre-feet in 2002 and by 15,000 to 17,000 acre-feet in 2003. During the years
2002 and 2003, approximately 100,000 acre-feet of ground water is extracted each year for
municipal and industrial uses in the County. Stevens Creek is currently managed by the District
to provide artificial recharge to the deep aquifer during the dry season (Santa Clara Valley Water
District 2005).
~ulatorv Context
The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional
Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have the authority in California to protect and
enhance water quality, both through their designation as the lead agencies in implementing the
Section 319 non-point source program of the Federal Clean Water Act and from the State's
primary water-pollution control legislation, the Porter-Cologne Act. The San Francisco Bay
R WQCB Region 2 office guides and regulates water quality in streams and aquifers within
portions of the nine counties surrounding the San Francisco Bay through designation of
beneficial uses, establishment of water-quality objectives, administration of the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program for stormwater and
3 A water year is defined as the period beginning October 151 of any year and ending September 30'h the following year; for
example, water year 1983 occurred from October I, 1982 through September 30, 1983.
4 Flow rates cited are from gage records reported from SCVWD's Hydrologic Data Base (HDB) System at the Stevens
Creek gage 1482, located just downstream from Stevens Creek reservoir, These flow rates likely underestimate actual
peak flows at McClellan Ranch and Blackbeny Farm because the gage is located approximately two miles upstream from
the project site and the record does not include inflows to the stream downstream of the gage.
5 The 1986 flow estimate is italicized to denote a possible error in the stream gage reading for this event. The stream gage
reading for 1986 shows a peak flow of5,250 cfs. However, review of the data with the Water District showed that the
stage was increased by two feet because of a blockage. Additionally there were some problems with the weir. Based on
other measurements made by the District, such as reservoir stage, actual flow measurements, etc, the peak flow for 1986 is
estimated to be between 1,000 and 1,500 cfs. This would be consistent with other observations of the magnitude of
flooding in 1998 versus 1986 (D. Sen, pers. comm. 2006).
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-70
Environmental Checklist and Responses
construction site runoff, and Section 401 water-quality certification where development results in
fill of jurisdictional wetlands or waters of the U.S.
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act [Section 402(p)] provided for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) regulation of several new categories of non-point
pollution sources within the existing NPDES program. Phase I of the stormwater runoff program
relied on NPDES permit coverage to address urban runoff discharges from "medium" to "large"
municipal separate storm systems (MS4s) located in cities or counties with populations of
100,000 or more, from plants in industries recognized by the U.S. EP A as being likely sources of
stormwater pollutants, and from construction activities that disturb more than five acres. The
U.S. EPA has delegated management of Cali fomi a's NPDES permit program to the SWRCB and
the RWQCB. The Phase II Final Rule, which took effect on March 10,2003, extended permit
coverage to certain regulated "small" MS4s and construction sites that disturb one or more acres,
including smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale.
F or those projects that result in the disturbance of more than one acre of land during
construction, the applicants of those projects are required to apply for coverage under the
NPDES Construction Activities general permit by submitting a Notice of Intent to the State
Board. Administration of these permits has not been delegated to cities, counties, or the
RWQCBs but remains with the SWRCB.
San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan
In addition to the NPDES permitting program, the RWQCB regulates water quality in the
Bay Area in accordance with the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan
presents the beneficial uses that the R WQCB has designated for significant surface waters,
aquifers, and wetlands, as well as the water-quality objectives and criteria that must be met to
protect these uses. The Basin Plan designates specific existing beneficial uses for the Central San
Francisco Bay, including: a) ocean, commercial, and sport fishing, b) estuarine habitat, c)
industrial service supply, d) fish migration, e) navigation, f) preservation of rare and endangered
species, g) non-contact water recreation, h) shellfish harvesting, i) fish spawning, and j) wildlife
habitat. Project storm runoff would be discharged to the existing stormwater drainage system
and subsequently to San Francisco Bay.
Provision C.3 Municipal Stormwater Permit
The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), a
consortium of thirteen municipalities, Santa Clara County, and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District, was flIst issued a county-wide NPDES permit in 1990, and reissued the permit in 1995
and 2001 that requires the submission of an Urban Runoff Management Plan and to reduce
pollution in urban runoff to the "maximum extent practicable." The C.3 provisions of the
recently-amended NPDES permit further enhances these requirements by requiring that best
management practices (BMPs) to treat stormwater runoffbe designed to meet specific criteria.
Since the project is larger than one acre, it would require a Storm Water Pollution
Protection Program (SWPPP) and a Stormwater Management Plan. (SWMP). Details of these
programs are found in Appendix F.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-71
,-
DISCUSSlON:
Will the proposed project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Than Significant. The construction phase of the project consists of creek
restoration in addition to urban parkland and building improvements. The creek restoration
component of the project involves extensive grading and creek realignment and the risk of water-
quality degradation from sediment discharges would be highest during the construction-phase.
Risks of construction-related turbidity to Stevens Creek would be reduced because much of the
creek realignment would occur in areas outside the existing stream channel or corridor. As much
ofthis work as possible would be done "off-line", meaning that the channel realignments would
be excavated during the dry season and would not be connected to the creek (and the water in the
creek) until after the planting and mulching would be installed. The side slopes of the realigned
creek in Reaches A, Band C have been designed and engineered to be stable without vegetation,
thus the proposed planting would ensure that these slopes would not increase erosion or
turbidity. This methodology would reduce risk of erosion from the newly constructed banks.
In addition to these measures, conventional construction Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for erosion and sediment control would be installed before the rainy season. These
measures, such as placement of silt fencing at the top of the existing creek banks to prevent
discharges of runoff from construction areas into the creek, would be detailed in the SWPPP
submitted to the City prior to the start of construction. Another example of construction BMPs
would be to install 100% natural fiber erosion control fabric on all side slopes in the realigned
creek sections that would be able to withstand moderate to high flows. A different suite ofBMPs
would be used to prevent erosion and water-quality impacts when the new channel segments are
connected to the existing stream channel and receive flows for the first time. All proposed BMPs
are found in Appendix A of this document.
The new large parking lot at Blackberry Farm would be permeable, minimizing sheet flow
of runoff during the most frequent small flood events. Maintenance of this parking lot and other
water quality control measures would be detailed in the project SWMP.
The new golf and park maintenance facility would be covered, and the materials used to
maintain the golf course facility would be stored in containers as specified in the Hazardous
Material Business Plan approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Marshal (M. O'Dowd, pers.
comm. 2006).
Due to the phasing of construction as described above, no post-construction water quality
issues related to the channel realignment and relocation are anticipated. As previously stated, the
project must prepare and submit both a SWPPP and a SWMP. These documents would contain
further measures to ensure that water quality standards and Non-Point Source (NPS)
requirements per the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) would
be met.
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-72
Environmental CheckUst and Responses
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)?
Less Than Significant: The Stevens Creek Corridor project would re-connect the
existing well that was previously used for golf course irrigation. This well would extract
approximately 45 acre-feet per year (M. O'Dowd, pers. comm. 2006). The amount of ground
water that would be extracted for use within the golf course is less than 0.5 percent of the total
water extracted from the Santa Clara Valley Subbasin for industrial and municipal uses in the
County. The amount of water extracted from the on-site well to irrigate the golf course falls well
within the City's existing water rights, and, therefore does not pose a significant impact.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant. Although the existing drainage pattern would be altered from the
current configuration, implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site. All earthwork associated with the creek realignments would be
balanced, meaning that no dirt would either be imported or exported to/from the site. The
proposed alteration would reduce erosion through the project reach and decrease siltation of
downstream reaches because the designs have been developed to provide for a more natural and
stable channel bed and banks through the project reach by:
a) developing channel design characteristics that are based on data which describe
existing, stable channel reaches in the Stevens Creek watershed that are similar in channel
type and geometry to the design channels;
b) widening the creek channel and constructing the lower floodplains through reaches
where they have been eroded or unable to develop, which would result in lower flow
velocities and lower erosive forces;
c) creating more gentle channel bank sideslopes to reduce the magnitude of erosive forces
on the bank, resulting in fewer bank failures and encouraging streamside vegetation to
colonize the banks;
d) removing channel bed irregularities by constructing a natural channel profile consisting
of riffles (rapids) and pools with vegetated channel banks;
e) designing the side slopes of the realigned creek sections to be stable without vegetation,
then planting them to provide more slope stability;
f) using bioengineering techniques, when and where possible, if extra channel bank
protection is needed, such as at the outside bend of a stream meander;
g) removing much of the existing concrete rubble, riprap, shotcrete, and sacked concrete
found within the channel through the project area, where feasible, which would provide a
general beneficial improvement of in-channel habitat conditions, and
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-73
h) removing a net amount of 158,000 square feet (3.6 acres) of impervious surfaces within
the project site, thereby substantially decreasing stonnwater runoff from this area.
The project would occur in phases, with Reaches A and B constructed prior to Reach C.
After construction of Reaches A and B but before construction of Reach C, a grade control
structure would be installed at the downstream end of Reach B to protect the realigned channel
segments from erosion caused by bed instabilities originating from downstream.
As stated in the Project Description, Stevens Creek in Blackberry Farm would be re-
aligned (moved) along three different and defined reaches of channel: reaches A, Band C (see
Figures 16-19). Figure 16 provides an overview of the proposed channel realignment designs for
Reaches A, B, and C. Reach A is shown in Figure 17, and is located in Blackberry Farm. This
reach begins downstream of the existing diversion dam and extends for approximately 450 feet
through the Horseshoe Bend area. Reach B, shown in Figure 18, begins just downstream of
Horseshoe Bend and extends for approximately 830 feet. This reach includes the area from the
second low flow crossing through the third low flow crossing to the fence line that separates the
parking area from the golf course. Reach C is shown in Figure 19 and is located in the Stocklmeir
area, adjacent to the Blackberry Farms Golf Course. Reach C extends across much of the length
of the Stocklmeir orange orchard. The Reach C realignment consists of the construction of
approximately 840 lineal feet of new stream channel.
The creek channel within Reach A would be realigned so that the new channel would be
located east of the existing channel, more similar to the historic channel planform in this area
prior to human modification. By moving the channel in Reach A, the channel would no longer
be forced against the adjacent steep hills lope, which is severely eroded. The existing channel
would then be back-filled and planted to assist with the long-term stabilization of this hillslope. A
series of pools (a deeper reach of channel characterized by lower flow velocities and generally
occurring in between rapids) and riffles (rapids) would be constructed along the new channel.
The newly constructed channel banks and lower floodplains would be planted with locally
collected and contract-grown riparian forest plants native to the Stevens Creek Corridor.
The creek channel within Reach B would be realigned so that the new channel passes
through the western portion of the existing parking area. By moving the creek alignment within
Reach B, the channel length would slightly decrease from approximately 850 to 830 feet. Despite
the decrease in length, the proposed channel would provide the necessary length for a stable
channel slope (grade) based on stream conditions measured upstream through McClellan Ranch
where stable channel reaches occur. A key benefit gained from moving the channel into a new
alignment is that it provides a wider floodplain area along the eastern bank in the vicinity of the
swimming pool, providing a buffer against periodic storms. In addition, approximately 206 feet
of the current channel would be maintained as backwater wetland habitat providing refuge for
salmonids and other aquatic wildlife during storm flows. This backwater habitat would be on the
western side of the new channel. The remainder of the current channel, approximately 600 feet,
would be back-filled in order divert the creek into the newly constructed channel. A series of
pools (a deeper reach of channel characterized by lower flow velocities and generally occurring in
between rapids) and riffles (rapids) would be constructed along the new channel. Newly
constructed channel banks and lower floodplains would be planted with locally collected and
contract-grown sycamore-oak riparian forest plantings.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-74
Environmental CheckNst and Responses
The Reach C realignment consists of the construction of approximately 840 linear feet of
new stream channel west of the present channel alignment. This realignment would reduce
erosion and undercutting of the existing east creek bank along the golf course, where an existing
sewer line is threatened by future channel migration to the east. The new channel would use the
existing west bank as the new east bank, thus preserving and utilizing existing riparian habitat.
The new channel would be slightly shorter and steeper than the existing channel. To compensate
for these changes to channel characteristics and to stabilize the channel, several pool and riffle
sequences would be constructed. Sacked concrete, shotcrete, and riprap would be removed from
600 feet of the old channel. This area would then be filled with soil removed from the excavation
of the new channel and planted with native shrubs to create habitat and additional screening
along the golf course.
The project would construct two lower floodplains through McClellan Ranch and the
Blackberry Farm, where, as previously stated, about half of the reach lacks lower floodplains.
Construction of these floodplains would create sediment depositional surfaces which may help to
slightly decrease the sediment load transported to reaches downstream of Stevens Creek
Boulevard. This project result would be beneficial for steelhead and in-channel habitat. The
project would also remove man-made structures from the creek bed and banks that, over the
years, have contributed to channel destabilization and resulting erosion of the creek. This would
further reduce the sediment load transported to those reaches downstream of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and would also enhance steelhead and in-channel habitat.
While the three reaches of Stevens Creek would be changed dramatically, each reach
would remain within the broader floodplain that defines the valley floor, and therefore the
existing drainage pattern of the area would not be altered. The realigned channels would replace
currently eroding and degraded channels.
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course ofa 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?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The project would not substantially result in an
increased flooding hazard on- or off-site or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff from the
project site. Because the park is currently closed to recreationalists during the non-summer
months, introducing new users as a result of this project may result in risks to safety to those
users during big storm events. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-Ol as described
below would reduce those risks to less than significant levels.
The results of the HEC-RAS model and discussion follow:
Hydraulic Modeling Results
Balance ran a Army Corps of Engineers HEC-RAS one-dimensional steady state
hydraulic model to assess potential hydraulic impacts associated with implementation of the
proposed channel restoration project. Two different models were built to represent existing
channel conditions and proposed channel conditions. All tables and most figures showing the
findings are located in Appendix G of this document.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-75
The 100-year flow value used is 5,500 cfs while the channel capacity flow value used is
1,500 cfs. Sources for these flow values and their hydrologic significance were previously
described within the Existing Stream Conditions section. Tables 3.8-1 and 3.8-2 as well as
Figures 3.8-1 through 3.8-5 illustrate hydraulic modeling results (see Appendix G). Cross-section
stations were derived by measuring up-valley distance perpendicular to Stevens Creek Blvd. at
the lower end of the project reach. This was completed to enable comparison of flooding-related
impacts at similar points along the channel between the existing and proposed channel
alignments.
Model results suggest that the proposed channel design would minimally affect the
associated water surface elevations for the 1 DO-year flow through the project reach. Comparison
of the post-project and existing condition model results shows that the estimated water surface
elevation would likely decrease at a number oflocations, increase slightly by 0.1 feet in two
locations, decrease by 0.1 feet at the upstream end, and remain the same at the downstream end
ofthe project. These results are shown graphically in Figure 3.8-1, which shows the existing-and
post-project profiles, as well as the bed profiles and the locations of developed features. The
location and magnitude of these water surface elevation changes indicate that the flooding risk
from the proposed project under the 1 DO-year flow condition would generally be unchanged and
possibly reduced in some locations relative to existing conditions.
Table 3.8-2 and Figures 3.8-2 through 3.8-5 of Appendix G illustrate results for the 1,500
cfs flow scenario. Within reaches A and B, the proposed channel may result in increased water
surface elevations at five cross-section locations starting at Horseshoe Bend and extending
downstream of the area adjacent to the swimming pool. Specifically, from upstream to
downstream, those cross-sections are at river stations: 1911, 1702, 1574, 1315, and 253 feet (Table
3.8-2 and Figure 3.8-2). The increase in water surface elevation at these locations likely would
range from 0.4 to 2.8 feet. Further evaluation ofthe modeling results indicates that the increase
would be most pronounced at river stations 1702 and 1574 feet, which are adjacent to the
swimming pool. At these locations, the modeling results further indicate that flooding would
likely be (a) below the elevation of the swimming pool and (b) restricted to the west bank within
the picnic area (Figures 3.8-3 through 3.8-5). Five additional cross-sections show minor post-
project increases in water surface elevations ofless than 0.2 feet compared to existing conditions,
which is considered negligible and within the limits of modeling uncertainty. Downstream ofthe
swimming pool, flooding is predicted within the golf course area bordering the new channel
alignment. All of this flooding occurs now, under existing conditions
Discussion
As discussed above, the proposed channel design should have a minimal affect on the
associated water surface elevations for the 100-year flow through the project site (Table 3.8-1).
Subsequently, the proposed project is not expected to affect flooding conditions off-site, either
upstream from McClellan Ranch Road or downstream from Stevens Creek Boulevard during this
flow event. Slight changes would occur to both the channel planform and profile, and the 100-
year water surface elevations, however, and since this portion of Steven's Creek is designated by
FEMA as a floodway, a letter of map revision (LOMR) would be submitted to FEMA after
construction of the project to officially redefine the flood map.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-76
Environmental Checklist and Responses
As stated above in the results section of this discussion, the project is predicted to cause
the 1,500 cfs flow to exceed channel capacity in several locations, including the Blackberry Farms
pool, west bank picnic area and the golf course. Also as stated above, these features would
currently experience flooding during these flow events, so no change to flooding would occur.
Blackberry Farm is currently open 100 days a year from early May to late September, and the
proposed project includes the opening of the Corridor to the public 365 days/year. Therefore,
park users during the winter could be subjected to impacts from flooding ifusers are recreating
during heavy rainfall or flow events.
As stated in the Project Description, the new picnic tables that would be installed on the
west bank at Blackberry Farm would be removable and other major features within the area
would be able to withstand some flooding without major reconstruction. As stated in the Project
Description, the west bank picnic area would be signed and closed at the end of the summer
season (Labor Day Weekend). Also stated in the Project Description, due to its location in a
flood plain, the entire park, including the trail, would close during seasonal flooding events. To
ensure that trail users are not substantially impacted from heavy flood flows, the following
Mitigation Measure would be implemented to ensure human safety:
Impact: Park and Trail users could be subjected to health risks from heavy flow events.
Mitigation Measure HYD-Ol: In the event of significant flood events, the City would
close the trail corridor and would post signage at the Stevens Creek Boulevard and
McClellan Ranch Road entrances alerting trail users of this closure.
Implementation:
City of Cupertino- Public Works Department
Timing:
As needed, during significant flood events over 1500 cfs.
Monitoring:
City of Cupertino - Public Works Department
e. 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?
Less Than Significant. As stated above, the project proposes to remove 158,000 square
feet of impervious surface (3.76 acres), thereby decreasing storm water runoff associated with this
area. This decrease in impervious surfaces would be a beneficial effect of the project.
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant. The project would be required to prepare and submit both a
SWPPP and a SWMP to describe in detail how water quantity and quality control measures
would be designed and operated to avoid impacts to downstream infrastructure and maintain the
quality of storm runoff.
As stated in answer A, above in this section, the new golf and park maintenance facility
would be covered, and the materials used to maintain the golf course facility are stored in
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-77
~ -
containers as specified in the Hazardous Material Business Plan approved by the Santa Clara
County Fire Marshal.
g. Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
No Impact. The project does not involve construction of housing.
h. Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant. No structures, channel features or bridges proposed as a part of
this project would impede or redirect flood flows in a manner which significantly differs from
that which occurs due to the present pattern of structures and development at the project site.
Also, as stated above and in the Project Description, the new picnic tables that would be installed
on the west bank at Blackberry Farm would be removable and other major features within the
area would be able to withstand some flooding without major reconstruction. As stated in the
Project Description, the Master Plan proposes construction of a 2,000-square foot environmental
education center with two classrooms, an office and restrooms on an existing building pad
formerly occupied by a doublewide trailer in McClellan Ranch. Also, the existing park
maintenance facility and yard located behind the adjacent private residence would be
demolished. A new 1,200-square foot park maintenance facility with a 1,200-square foot fenced
yard would be constructed behind the adjacent private residence. The existing chain-link fence
does not represent a flow obstruction. Addition of these structures on the upper floodplain
would have a less than significant impact to flood flow movement because it represents less than
0.1 percent of the total upper floodplain area from McClellan Ranch through Blackberry Farm.
While this structure would be built in the IOO-year floodplain contour, there are many structures
within McClellan Ranch that are lower in elevation (and thus more prone to flooding) than the
new environmental education center. Implementation of mitigation measure HYD-Ol would
ensure that no significant human safety impacts from flooding at the environmental education
center would occur.
The Project Description also states that the two existing bridges would be replaced by two
new bridges, and that these bridges would be designed to have less impact on the movement of
the I DO-year flood. The new bridges would clear-span the creek channel, with abutments or
footings set back approximately 3 feet from the top of bank (upper floodplain approximate
elevation). The footing width and bridge transition would be designed to obstruct overbank flow
area as little as possible. The bridges would be slightly arched to provide additional clearance
above the water surface. The proposed bridge designs would be in conformance with the
SCVWD Guidelines & Standards for Land Use near Streams (SCVWD, August, 2005) for Bridge
Crossings Page 4-14 through 4-15. These Guidelines include the following criteria: "At new
bridges, freeboard shall be the same as in the existing or proposed channel either upstream or
downstream, whichever is greater. When the bridge structure encroaches into the freeboard area,
there shall not be an increase in water surface for bankfull flow."
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-78
Environmental Checklist and Responses
The proposed channel design has also been assessed for impacts to flood movement and
water surface elevations associated with the lOO-year and channel-capacity flood flows. The
assessment is described in more detail below.
i. 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?
Less Than Significant. The proposed project does not create more risks of flooding,
because the amount of impervious surfaces would decrease and in some reaches of Stevens
Creek, the channel capacity would increase.
The Stevens Creek Reservoir is owned and operated by the District. In 1985, the reservoir
was successfully seismically retrofitted to meet current design standards put forth by the Division
of Dam Safety. The design earthquake utilized for the retrofit was an 8.3 earthquake centered on
the San Andreas fault zone, and has been modeled under these conditions with no catastrophic
failure. A seismic safety evaluation would be conducted again for the Stevens Creek Reservoir
over the next five years (D. Hook, pers. comm. 2006). The reservoir has a total capacity of3,138
acre-feet of water. The project does not include any modifications to the dam and, therefore,
would not change the amount of risk associated with the upstream reservoir. The project impact
would be less than significant.
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. The project site is not located in area that is subject to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-79
! ----- I Potentially i Less Than I Less Than
. i Significant i Significant with I Significant INo Impac~
! i Impact ! Mitigation ! Impact: i
~'lm'~;!'ll.",.:~:.:t"iri
til~l.tlg_~.~illl~>l::!~:Mfi;~li~~iijiji!~]!ill~llgr~~fii!~1rl~;.I~~l1l~iliiillmli:;lil;
i ~
a) Physically divide an established community? I
D
o
o
.
______ ________.___...........................................................................................,...................'......mm..mc.mf'c , ,.. ,
.....'..'...............t..'................................m........................t.......................cn...cncnc'm-c
i
I
_________{-_______H
--.-......................1
I
o
~) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
1P0licy, or regulation of an agency with
uurisdiction over the project (including, but not
llimited to the general plan, specific plan, local
Icoastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
ifor the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
~nvironmental effect?
t -......-..---. ..-------.-
~) Conflict with any applicable habitat
jconservation plan or natural community
fonservation plan?
o
.
o
._._...~t-~~~---...-.._....._."'"
I
I
o
o
o
.
DISCUSSION:
....,-.
Will the proposed project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project would not physically divide an established community. Many of
the facilities associated with the project are existing facilities such as the Blackberry Golf Course,
Blackberry Farms Picnic Area, McClellan Ranch and the driveways and parking lots that support
these facilities. The project proposes to relocate a portion of Stevens Creek within Blackberry
Farm. This would not divide an established community. New features proposed under the
project such as the recreational trail, a new environmental education center in McClellan Ranch, a
bus pullout, a pedestrian crossing, and various other improvements would not divide the
community. The project site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods and many public
meetings were held during the master planning process to gather community input into the plan
and to ensure community concerns were considered in the proposal. The project would not
divide the surrounding residential communities.
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-80
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. There are numerous Federal, State,
Regional and Local plans, policies and regulations that apply to this project. For a complete
description of all of the relevant Federal, State and Regional regulations see Appendix F. The
project would be subject to review by agencies summarized in Table 3-5. The review by these
agencies will ensure the project is consistent with their various regulations.
Table 3-5: Applicable Regulations for the Stevens Creek Corridor Project
Regulatory Agency Permit/Certification/Consistency
Federal us Army corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 27 (Stream and Wetland Restoration Activities)
(USACE)
NOAA Fisheries Service (NOAA Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation for Steelhead
FS)
US Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act Informal Section 7 Consultation for Red-
Legged Frog
State California Department ofFish Section 160 I, Streambed Alteration Agreement
and Game (CDFG)
San Francisco Bay Regional Clean Water Act (Water Quality Certification) Section 401 Permit
Water Quality Control Board
(SFBRWQCB) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
Local Santa Clara Valley Water District Joint Use and Construction Agreements
(SCVWD)
Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan
Santa Clara CountyfWater Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
Resources Protection
Collaborative for Santa Clara
County
City of Cupertino General Plan, McClellan Ranch Master Plan
City of Cupertino Building Permits, Grading plan review
City of Cupertino Cupertino Sanitary District plan review
Local Re2ulations
Santa Clara Valley Water District (District)
The District is a special purpose governmental agency with a Board composed of five
publicly elected and two appointed Directors and authority to levy assessments to fund its
activities. The District's jurisdiction and authority is generally independent ofthe jurisdiction and
authority of other local public agencies, including the general purpose governments, the cities and
the County of Santa Clara. The District does not have the authority to directly control the land
use actions of the county or cities even though they may affect District responsibilities for flood
protection and maintenance.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-81
All creeks, channels, and floodways that are within the District's boundaries are subject to
the District's jurisdiction, but the ability of the District to perform maintenance activities may be
affected by District ownership, easements, or right to access. The District generally owns either a
fee simple interest or an easement in the channels; however, the right of way on a creek varies
greatly. Land rights on natural channels usually include 20 feet from the top of the bank. On
modified channels, right of way is usually several feet outside of the maintenance road. The
District also has jurisdiction and generally land rights over its water supply and conveyance
facilities including canals.
Under Section 6 of Ordinance 83-2, the District prohibits all persons or agencies from
performing the following activities without first obtaining a permit from the District:
a. Construct or place any structure or perform any grading within a designated floodway
between the banks of a watercourse, or within 50 feet of the top of such banks.
b. Construct, place, or maintain any structure or perform any grading upon a levee or on a
District project.
c. Excavate within a designated floodway, upon a levee, or upon or between the banks of
a watercourse or District project.
d. Deposit material of any kind within a designated floodway, upon a levee, or a District
project, or upon or within the banks of a watercourse.
e. Construct or place any outlet for discharging drainage waters within a designed
floodway, upon or within the banks of watercourse, or District project.
f. Plant any form of flora upon or within the banks of a watercourse or District project.
g. Trespass in any manner whatsoever including the driving of vehicles on any property in
which the District owns a fee simple interest or on which the District owns an exclusive
easement for flood protection, drainage, water conservation, or distribution purpose,
except such areas as have been opened and developed for public recreational or other use
(Santa Clara Valley Water District, Ordinance 83-2, Section 6.2).
Joint Use Agreements between the District and other Public Agencies
The District supports joint use activities. District Ordinance 83-2, Section 8 states:
"The use of District Projects jointly with a public agency, subject to conditions
established by resolution of the Board, is favored whenever such joint use is possible and
conformable to the District1s public duty."
The District and the City of Cupertino entered into a collaborative agreement for the
Steven Creek Restoration Project in July 2004. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with
District Ordinance 83-2.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-82
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Fish and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort (F AHCE)
The District has a commitment through the draft Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat
Collaborative Effort (F AHCE) Settlement (Settlement) to improve and maintain habitat for
threatened fish in the watersheds of three specific streams, one of which is Stevens Creek. The
draft F AHCE Settlement is expected to be presented to the State Board in 2007 for resolution.
After receiving State Board approval, the 3D-year program will be implemented. The draft
FAHCE Settlement document recommends habitat restoration, capital projects and other
improvements such as removal of barriers to fish passage along Stevens Creek for steelhead
trout, a "threatened"species. The stream reach between Stevens Creek Reservoir and Interstate
280 has been identified as a "Cold Water Management Zone" so water will be supplied here year-
round to provide good spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead trout. Restoration efforts will
also be undertaken to improve the quality of the aquatic habitat in this reach. The Master Plan
project area is centrally located within the cold water management zone and as a result is a key
target for fisheries habitat improvements identified in the draft Settlement. The draft Settlement
specifically identifies several actions to be taken within the footprint of Blackberry Farm
including: removal of three low-flow creek crossings and removal of a water diversion structure
(qualified as priority I and 2 obstructions to fish passage). In addition to the removal of these
barriers to fish passage, the project will also be evaluated to see if it also satisfies a draft
Settlement requirement to complete a geomorphologically -based stream restoration project and
in-stream and streamside habitat restoration.
Consistency: The District is a partner in the implementation of this project. The District has
reviewed the Master Plan and Restoration Plan to ensure consistency with District policies.
Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan
The Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan (1995) contains Strategies, Policies and
Implementation recommendations that have been adopted and incorporated into the Parks and
Recreation Chapters of the Santa Clara County General Plan (both the Countywide and Rural
Unincorporated sections ofthe General Plan). The Countywide Trails Master Plan lists the
Stevens Creek Trail 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.
Trails policies contained in the Master Plan guide continued planning, define processes for
implementing trails and coordinating their implementation with private property owners, establish
priorities, mitigate environmental impacts, and direct detailed design, operations, and
management. Policies are organized into the following six major strategies including: Plan for
Trails, Balancing Recreation and Other Public Trail Needs, Environmental and Landowner
Concerns, Implement the Planned Trail Network, Adequately Operate and Maintain Trail,
Establish Priorities, and Facilitate Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination.
Consistency: In addition to the Strategies, Policies and Implementation recommendations, the
Countywide Trails Master Plan includes Design Guidelines and Management Guidelines. The
Design Guidelines summarize and depict optimum characteristics for siting and designing trails
for a variety of land uses and landscapes that would be present when implementing trail routes
shown on the Countywide Trails Master Plan Map. The Management Guidelines outline
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-83
optimum scenarios regarding the management of use, operations, and maintenance of trail routes
shown on the Countywide Trails Master Plan Map. The Stevens Creek Trail is one of the routes
shown on this map. As discussed in the Project Description of this document, the proposed
Stevens Creek Trail would follow the Guidelines set forth in the Trails Master Plan. Where
applicable, specific Guidelines are referenced throughout this environmental analysis.
There are three specific areas where the trail would deviate from these Guidelines. The
Guidelines (UD 4.1.2 Trail Bridges) recommend a minimum 12 foot width for bridges, however
the proposed bridge at the golf course would be eight feet wide to accommodate only pedestrian
or bicycle traffic. This narrower width is proposed to minimize impacts on the creek and to avoid
removal of trees in the area. Maintenance or service vehicles do not need this bridge for access
because they can access the Stocklmeir property from Stevens Creek Boulevard and the rest of
the corridor from Blackberry Farm or McClellan Ranch.
The Guidelines (D-l.3.3.l) also recommend a 100-foot riparian setback, however in some
places the trail may travel closer than 100 feet. As discussed in the Biology section, the 100-foot
buffer is not feasible for the majority of the project area given the property owned and/or
available to the City. Other land uses such as the golf course, playing fields, and swimming pools
that already exist within the buffer zone made a 1 DO-foot setback unrealistic.
Lastly, the Design Guideline G-3 for a shared use trail with Natural Tread (see Fig. 9)
recommends an optimum width of a 12- foot trail, whereas the proposed trail is only 8- feet wide.
The City feels that the narrower width is more appropriate for this particular trail corridor given
the sensitive resources in the area and the narrower width is more consistent with the natural feel
of the area.
With the exceptions noted above, the proposed Stevens Creek Trail is consistent with the
Countywide Trails Master Plan and the Design and Management Guidelines. The exceptions to
the Countywide Trails Master Plan listed above would avoid impacts to the creek and riparian
trees, limit the number of trees that need to be removed for trail construction, and would create a
narrower recreational trail that is more consistent with the natural feel of the Corridor.
City of Cupertino
General Plan and Zoning Designations of the Corridor
The Cupertino General Plan Land Use Map designates the Stocklmeir property as Very
Low Density Residential, the Water District property is designated Public Facility, and the rest of
the project area including Blackberry Farm and Golf Course, the Simms property, and McClellan
Ranch are designated as Parks and Open Space (Cupertino 2005). The surrounding residential
areas are designated as Low Density Residential and Low/Medium Density Residential.
The Stocklmeir property is zoned A (Agricultural Residential), the Simms property is
zoned Rl (Single Family Residential) and the rest of the project area is zoned PR (Public Park or
Recreational) on the Cupertino zoning map (Cupertino 2006). The surrounding residential areas
are zoned Single Family Residential and Single Family Residential Cluster.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-84
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Consistency: The proposed trail and Restoration Plan is consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning designations for Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch. However, the Simms property
would need to rezoned from Residential to Public Park/Recreational once it is no longer used as a
rental property. The Stocklmeir property would also need to be rezoned from Agricultural
Residential once future plans for property by the Cupertino Historical Society have been decided.
Since this rezoning is not included as part of this project, additional CEQA review would be
required at the time of rezoning.
City of Cupertino General Plan Policies
The City of Cupertino adopted a new General Plan in December 2005. Overall, the
project is consistent with the Policies of the General Plan. The Stevens Creek Corridor project is
discussed in the General Plan (p.2-49 & 2-51):
Blackberry Farm is a 33-acre park, open space and golf course facility along Stevens
Creek Boulevard between Scenic Boulevard and Byrne Avenue that charges a per-person
entry fee and is only open weekdays in the summer. The City is preparing a master plan
for this facility in combination with the adjacent McClellan Ranch, Simms and Stocklmeir
properties. Council goals for the plan include accommodating year-around use,
incorporating a trail system, minimizing neighborhood impacts and restoring Stevens
Creek corridor. The City's master plan for this entire acreage is intended to convert the
facilities from majority non-resident to majority resident use and would allow the
inclusion of the acreage in the park inventory.
The Stevens Creek Flood Plain is Cupertino's most prominent urban open space/trail
resource. The land is designated for recreation and farming, with adjoining properties set
aside for low-density residential use. The Stevens Creek Trail plan retains open space
character of the Stevens Creek Flood Plain between the Stevens Creek reservoir and
Stevens Creek Boulevard and offers historical significance relating to the Juan Bautista De
Anza Trail designation. Since the late 1950s, many jurisdictions have advocated a formal
urban trail following Stevens Creek, extending from the San Francisco Bay to the Pacific
Ocean. Cupertino's 1964, 1972 and 1993 General Plans have all proposed an ambitious
plan to lands for this purpose. The City's acquisition of Linda Vista Park,
McClellan Ranch, Blackberry Farm, and the Simms and Stocklmeir properties support
these plans. The City's master plan for this 60-acre corridor would connect these
properties into an urban trailllinear park. The Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility study
concluded that it is feasible to construct miles of separated and on-street multi-use paths
connecting Rancho San Antonio and Stevens Creek county parks. To complete the trail, a
public trail easement through the 150acre former quarry property south of Linda Vista
Park would be established when the property is proposed for development and City
review takes place. The former quarry haul road connects Linda Vista Park to McClellan
Road. It is under the same ownership as the quarry and is necessary to link these
properties. Full build out ofthe Stevens Creek trail expected to take 10 to 15 years.
Two elements of the General Plan, Land Use/Community Design and Environmental
Resources, contain specific policies that are relevant to the proposed project. The relevant
policies from these General Plan elements include:
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial StUdy
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-85
. -
Land Use/Community Design
. Policy 2-66: Retain some form of revenue-generating potential at Blackberry Farm
(through the life of the municipal bond that financed its purchase) as the uses are
transitioned from non-resident to resident use. Increase community park acreage, and
consider the financial implications of this transition.
. Policy 2-70: Dedicate or acquire open space lands and trail linkages to connect areas and
provide for a more walkable community.
. Policy 2-71: Provide parkland equal to a minimum of three acres for each 1,000 residents.
. Policy 2-72: 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, streets with heavy traffic. Wherever possible, provide pedestrian
links between parks.
Environmental Resources
. Policy 5-8: Encourage public and quasi-public agencies to landscape their city area
projects near native vegetation with appropriate native plants and drought tolerant,
noninvasive, non-native plants.
. Policy 5-13: Limit recreation in natural areas to activities compatible with preserving
natural vegetation, such as hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking and camping.
. Policy 5-14: 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
. Policy 5-27: Retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, watercourses and
associated vegetation in their natural state protect wildlife habitat and recreation potential
and assist groundwater percolation. Encourage land acquisition dedication of such areas.
Consistency: The project is consistent with the above Land Use policies as it would retain the
revenue generating potential of Blackberry Farm, while opening up the rest of the park to the
public. In addition, the project would dedicate open space lands and trail linkages to connect
areas of the City by providing a trail connection through the corridor between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and McClellan Road. The project would also help the City further its goals of _
providing three acres of parkland for every 1,000 City residents and providing a park that is a half
mile walk from each City household by opening up Blackberry Farm and a new trail corridor to
the public.
The project is also consistent with the above Environmental Resource policies. The
proposed project would provide open space linkages for both recreational and wildlife activities,
would limit recreational use compatible with preserving natural vegetation, use native vegetation
in the restoration of Stevens Creek, and restore Stevens Creek back to its historic creek bed.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial StUdy
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-86
Environmental Checklist and Responses
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 will be
discussed in the Noise section).
Heritage and Specimen Tree Ordinance
As stated in the Biology Section of this document, the City of Cupertino Tree Ordinance
requires a permit to remove heritage and specimen trees. Specimen trees include three native
(oak, California buckeye, and big leaf maple) and two nonnative (Deodar cedar and blue atlas
cedar) tree species of varying circumferences. The single-trunk diameter at 4-1/2 feet from
natural grade is 10 inches for the Oak trees and California Buckeye, and is 12 inches for the
Bigleaf Maple and for the Cedars. The multi-trunk diameter at 4-1/2 feet from natural grade is 20
inches for the oak trees and California Buckeye and is 25 inches for the Bigleaf Maple and the
Cedars. Specimen trees also include trees required to be protected as a part of a zoning, tentative
map, use permit or privacy protection requirement in an R-l zoning district. Heritage trees
include "any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors including, but not limited to, its
historic value, unique quality, girth, height or species, has been found by the Architectural and
Site Approval Committee to have a special significance to the community." No heritage trees
have been designated within the project area. The project proposes to remove 13 specimen trees
including two Deodar cedar, one California buckeye, and ten coast live oak trees. See Appendix
H for a complete list of trees to be removed for the project. A tree removal permit would be
obtained from the City of Cupertino prior to the start of construction activities which would
determine if replacement trees would be necessary. Since the native trees listed here (California
buckeye, coast live oak) would be planted in greater numbers in the newly constructed reaches
and restored areas, the removal of this Buckeye and the ten coast live oaks is not considered a
significant impact. Potential impacts to all other specimen trees due to construction activities
would be minimized by implementing Chapter 14.18 Appendix A: Standards for the Protection
of Trees during Grading and Construction Operations of the City of Cupertino Tree Ordinance.
Consistency: A tree removal permit will be obtained and on file with the City of Cupertino, thus
ensuring consistency.
McClellan Ranch Master Plan
In 1993, the McClellan Ranch Ad-Hoc Committee prepared a Master Plan for McClellan
Ranch Park. The Master Plan includes a mission statement, goals and objectives, and a building
and site use plan. It also includes City Ordinance 710 which designated McClellan Ranch Nature
Preserve a nature and rural preserve in 1976 and identified regulations and guidelines for its use.
The mission statement and goals are summarized below. The McClellan Ranch Master
Plan is available on the City's website.
The Mission Statement: The mission of McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve shall be to maintain
and protect the ecology of the area, conserve the natural features and scenic values, expand
community awareness and understanding of natural history and the environment, and provide
enjoyment of the resources present consistent with their preservation.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial StUdy
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-87
Goall: To foster stewardship of the earth by providing environmental education,
leadership, and resources
Goal II: To protect and preserve for the people of Cupertino the natural habitat and rural
property
Goal III: To utilize this rare riparian environment for enjoyment and study
GoalIV: To share the rich history of this site with the community
Goal V: To provide appropriate care and management for site and structures
Goal VI: Identify mechanisms to fulfill the stated goals
Consistency: Several elements of the McClellan Ranch Master Plan have been incorporated into
the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan and Restoration Plan. These elements are addressed by
this CEQA analysis, which, if approved by the City, would help these elements to be
implemented. These elements include: developing an environmental education center (Goal I,
Objective 4), working with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other jurisdictional agencies
to protect and enhance the quality ofthe Stevens Creek Watershed (Goal II, Objective 4), control
invasive exotic plants and work to reestablish native plant communities (Goal II, Objective 5),
conduct a study to assess the ecological status of the park (Goal III, Objective 1), and expanding
existing trails to connect with other open space areas and trail systems (Goal III, Objective 3.
There are some elements of the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan that may be
considered inconsistent with the McClellan Ranch Master Plan. The proposed multi-use trail
may be considered inconsistent with the Master Plan's ecological goals, however; the effect of
the trail is minimized by its 8-foot width. It is unlikely to be a big thoroughfare for bicyclists like
other creek trails (eg. Los Gatos creek trail) because of its relatively short distance ( 1.1 mile). The
existing nature trail would be fenced off to ensure that bicyclists would not be allowed on the
narrow footpath. The project would bring more users to the park, but if the impacts of new users
can be minimized, the rich historical and ecological features of the park would be shared with
more people, and the City of Cupertino is committed to ensuring that this project would be done
in an environmentally sensitive way.
<.
Dogs on leashes would be allowed on the new multi-use trail that would go through
McClellan Ranch Park. This may be considered inconsistent with the ecological goals of the
McClellan Ranch Master Plan. Currently dogs are not allowed in McClellan Ranch Park. A City
Parks Service Officer would be employed by the City to help ensure that users do not enter other
portions of McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve with their dogs. The biological effects of allowing
dogs on the trail is evaluated in the Biology section of this document.
As discussed in the project description, the portion of the Stevens Creek Trail that is
proposed through McClellan Ranch would extend through the existing 4-H goat pen area. The 4-
H facility would be relocated to the west into the existing community garden. The movement of
the 4-H facility would result in the loss of nine community garden plots (pers. comm. Smith
2006). No one with an existing garden plot would lose a plot, however some of gardeners may
need to relocate their plots to a new location once vacancies in the program occur. The City
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3--88
Environmental Checklist and Responses
would work with the community gardeners to ensure that those potentially losing their plots
would be able to relocate to existing vacant plots or to new garden plots. The new plots and
expanded irrigation system would be constructed on the western edge of the community gardens
(see Fig. 13), which has better sun exposure for gardening. Approximately eleven new plots
would be created resulting in a small expansion of the community garden program. Soil that has
been worked by the gardeners in the impacted plots would be moved to the new sunnier garden
plots. The effect of expanding the community gardens into the meadow is evaluated in the
Biology section ofthis document.
The exact design of the proposed Environmental Education Center is not known at this
point. The McClellan Ranch Master Plan (Goal II, Objective 3) states that construction should be
consistent with the Mission Statement for the park. Therefore, the following Mitigation Measure
would be adopted to ensure that the final design is consistent with the existing buildings and the
Master Plan
Impact: Since it is not known at this time the exact design of the proposed
Environmental Education Center, any design submitted to the City may not be consistent with
the McClellan Ranch Master Plan.
Mitigation Measure LV-I: The proposed Environmental Education Center at
McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve shall be designed to fit in with the existing
buildings and to be consistent with the McClellan Ranch Master Plan Mission
Statement.
Implementation:
Timing:
Monitoring:
City of Cupertino - Public Works Department
Prior to construction
City of Cupertino - Public Works Department
City Ordinance 710
City Ordinance 710 designated McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve as a nature and rural
preserve in 1976. It prescribed specific uses that are allowed at the park and states that:
Uses shall be limited to those which will maintain and protect the ecology of the area,
conserve the natural features and scenic values, expand community awareness and
understanding of natural history and the environment, and provide enjoyment of the
resources present consistent with their preservation.
Consistency: There is nothing in the Ordinance that specifically precludes the proposed trail and
environmental education center as long at they are designed with the above factors in mind. In
addition, the Ordinance contains Regulations and Guidelines for McClellan Ranch Park. One
Guideline states that: "No additional buildings shall be placed within the park without approval of
Parks & Recreation Commission unless unique to the concept of the park." The project would
require approval by the Parks and Recreation Commission who would also review the design of
the Environmental Education center to ensure that it is consistent with this Ordinance.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-89
Grading and Building Ordinances
The project would require that grading plans be prepared for all of the grading required for
trail construction, creek realignment and other improvements. The City's Public Works
Department would review these grading plans to ensure consistency with the City's Grading
Ordinance. In addition, building permits would be required by the City's Building Department
for all of the new structures proposed, this would ensure conformance with the City's Building
Code.
Consistency: Review of the grading and building plans by the Public Works and Building
Departments would ensure that the project is in compliance with the City's Grading Ordinance
and Building Code.
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No Impact. The project site is not located in a habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan area.
,"
, "
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-90
Environmental Checklist and Responses
i
ia) 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? .
i...............,..... ,....'nT.'.mc'..m....'..c.......c....m.......................,..........................................................,...........,\..................._
~ ~
!b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
!important mineral resource recovery site
~elineated on a local general plan, specific plan
if other land use plan?
-.-.--"
I i
Potentially! Less Than ! Less Than
Significant I Significant with i Significant
Impact I Mitigation i Impact No Impact
! !
! i
I I
! '
.
o
D
D
. i
uuuu....m......m..f.m......m.........m.u......u.........m..............f..............m.um.u..uu.m.............u.., .
~ ; !
~ ~ ~
. .
. .
D
D
D
.
ENVIRONMENTAL 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.
DISCUSSION:
Will the proposed project:
a. Result in the loss of availabUity of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. Construction of the project would not result in the loss of availability of
known mineral resources of regional or state-wide importance. No regional or state-wide
important mineral resources are designated in the project area.
b. 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?
No Impact. No locally important mineral resources are designated at this site in the Santa
Clara County General Plan (1995). The project would not result in the loss of availability of any
locally-important mineral resources.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-91
!..............................hn>....m.....T..c............. ...+..+nH..,.+...........................................................................................";".....................................................r............................................................... ,.......+.......m.......m........H..>H>m...... ..........+n>.........,.................
: ~
i Potentially! Less Than
; f
! Significant j Significant with
Impact Mitigation
i
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
:a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
1levels in excess of standards established in the
Ilocal general plan or noise ordinance, or
iapplicable standards of other agencies?
; -_.._..._._~.~_._.._._._._._.._.._.._._._._.
o
!
i
!
_____L
o
.
o
o
o
!
i
I
!
,..O...,....~_......"--"-----"---~~.*-- -_..._~--_._._....;:
I
~---! --~----------
ib) Exposure of persons to or generation of
lexcessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
inoise levels?
r~--.-.-.._--~....--.,._......_._-~
lc) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
inoise levels in the project vicinity above levels
lexisting without the project? 0 D... 0 .
:............................................................................................................................................cn.............m.............,....<.....m.....<..+.."............H"+..+."...... ..............................................................f.......................................................:.........................................
; 1 !! ~
!d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase i i i .
!in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ! .
~bove levels existing without the project? 0 0 0
. . . ~ .
~~-;:~-:~~~j:~~ locat~~:~~in an airport l:~~_n.~r_nn_~__~~n~~____--------r----------------------_..._~
iuse plan or, where such a plan has not been
iadopted, within two miles of a public airport or
!public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to i
~xcessive noise levels? '
~
o
.
o
o
o
.
if) For a project within the vicinity of a private
~irstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
Fxcessive noise levels?
- !
i
,
~
o
o
o
.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound levels are usually measured and
reported in decibels (dB), a unit which describes the amplitude, or extent, of the air pressure
changes which produce sound. The major noise sources in the vicinity ofthe Stevens Creek
Corridor are traffic on roadways including Stevens Creek Boulevard, Byrne A venue, and
McClellan Road, and large picnic groups at Blackberry Farm during the summer.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-92
Environmental Checklist and Responses
According to the Cupertino General Plan (2005), the maximum normally acceptable
Community Noise Exposure CNEL (dB) level for outdoor recreation areas is 70 dB for
playgrounds and neighborhood parks and 75 dB for other uses such as golf courses, riding
stables, water recreation and cemeteries. The City of Cupertino has a noise ordinance which
regulates both temporary (construction) and permanent noise levels that are allowed within the
City. The project would be required to comply with this noise ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
Will the proposed project result in:
a. 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term noise levels would be generated by heavy
equipment during project construction. Construction would be limited to daytime hours as set
forth by Cupertino Municipal Code. Monday through Friday, between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
and Saturday and Sunday, between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Construction, grading and demolition
activities are further limited to weekdays and non-holidays for construction in areas within 750
feet of residences. The project would not generate or expose people to a permanent increase in
noise levels or to noise levels in excess of standards and would adhere to the Cupertino
Municipal Code as follows:
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 1O.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.
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.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-93
E. The use of helicopters as a part ofa construction and/or demolition activity shall
be restricted to between the hours of nine a.m. and six thirty p.m. Monday through Friday only,
and prohibited on the weekends and holidays. The notice shall be given at least twenty-four
hours in advance of said usage. In cases of emergency, the twenty-four hour period may be
waived. (Ord. 1871, (part), 2001)
Helicopters would not be used in the construction of this project.
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
. ,
No Impact. There are no existing or proposed sources of ground vibration, such as may
occur from railroad lines or blasting activity at the project site.
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact. Once construction is completed, the project would not
affect ambient noise levels. Activities allowed at the park would not change, in fact the reduction
of the Blackberry Farm capacity from 4,000 persons/day to 800 persons/day would reduce the
amount of noise during peak weekends. Picnic facilities would be consolidated to the west bank
of the creek and allow a maximum of 800 people. Under current conditions, this same area
serves a maximum of 1600 people, so the project would decrease the maximum number of
people by 50%. The change of Blackberry Farm to a year round community park is not expected
to increase the amount of noise dramatically over existing levels. The trail would also be open to
the public year-round, however, the use of the trail is not expected to generate a significant
amount of noise over existing levels.
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant. The project would not create a substantial permanent or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels. Construction of the trail, creek realignment and other project
improvements would result in short-term, localized increases in ambient noise levels from
equipment used during demolition, building, grading, and channel construction. Construction of
the project would adhere to the City of Cupertino's Noise Ordinance and the Cupertino
Municipal Code Section 10.48.053 Grading, Construction and Demolition as discussed above.
e. 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?
No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the Moffett Federal Air Field located
seven miles north of the project site. The proposed project site is outside of the airport safety
zone and overflight area of airport traffic. The Rancho Rinconada neighborhood in the northeast
corner of Cupertino is the only neighborhood affected by air traffic to Moffett Federal Air Field.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-94
Environmental Checklist and Responses
The project would not expose people to excessive noise levels associated with the Moffett
Federal Air Field.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would
not expose people to excessive noise levels from private air strips.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-95
......................................................................................................................................................................m..r..................................................... .............................................................r...................................................... ........................................
. I
I Potentially Less Than i Less Than
. ,
i Significant Significant with I Significant
, ,
I Impact Mitigation i Impact
No Impact
,
~) Induce substantial population growth in an i i !
~rea, either directly (for example, by proposing . .
lnew homes and businesses) or indirectly (for 0 0 0
lexample, through extension of roads or other
iinfrastructure )?
j-'._~ ~~._-_._--_.. --- ._._._-_......_._._.~~. 0--___..
~) Displace substantial numbers of existing
ihousing, necessitating the construction of i
~eplacement housing elsewhere? 0 ; 0 0 .
j.....................................................".">....m.................................................................................................;.................. .>..........................;.............................................................).................................>..>,.....,,>...... OTO...................................1
: ~: > :
k) Displace substantial numbers of people, I I
lTIecessitating the construction of replacement
~o~~~~~..~!.~~~~~~e? ....._m..................................L.__ 0 _...."mJ...._.......... 0
!
o
.
DISCUSSION:
Will the proposed project:
a. 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)?
No Impact. The project is a part and recreation facility and as such would not affect
population projections, housing supply, or induce substantial growth in the area. The project
would not induce population growth in the community. No new roads or other infrastructure
supporting new development is proposed.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project involves building park and recreation facilities, realigning
Stevens Creek within the project site, and associated habitat restoration/enhancement.
Development of the project would not displace any existing housing.
c. Displace substantial numbers of existing people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project is located in Blackberry Farm Park and golf course, McClellan
Ranch and Stocklmeir property. No structures on the Stocklmeir property would be altered by
the construction ofthe project The house on the Simms property would continue to be a rental
property. The development proposed at the project site would not displace people or require
replacement housing elsewhere.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-96
Environmental Checklist and Responses
r........................._......................................mm.....mm.H.....................................................................................T.....................>................................ ............................................................. .....................................nT...m...H... "'.....................................
~ ~
I Potentially
i Significant
i Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
~~~; . t:@1?_<<~E3~!Brr~3~~~_i*f~~zg~€;~~_:+8t.jji&$.iit~4@t~i~i~. ~~.~.if.~~. :~.'~.~~r:' ",': :~1@~f~~00~~Jj~2Ep~t~ ~w~~~~~~~~.~~~.~~~~..o~9~p.~~"w~~%~ijfl]!]~~I:~J~~
~ ~ , :?~ ~w'"' '. ' '-, ,~..>:~~~>>.-::-m'~;+;:Ew&~.p~w:k~~:;:;;;:-~1fM~~~~.-.&~::eF~J~t~~1W3EWmootffi?J%t-w";j~:<mJ%G;t~.~ -~W:&----=~~ -'?ili~~i.;;;?~-M~,<%~N7'~f~~
ff~ ~Pb~~~~~~:;;.:.:".~x ..9:,i~~o-: :ff..)~~~~~~;:::~e~- >>:~:~:,;:"~~-0htE~1if~[~.i1t1B4;:igj~~f$:~:t.mi~=~~':;;w~1W;~~1~~~W~E~i]RGmwr~Qlff2g~~~~b~~~;':.~.+Whr0::~~- ,~~~~i4~bi~%;~:!:,~TItj~==i
I
i
I
i
i
i
!
i
i
~
i
,
,
!
I
i
!
I
i
i
,
i
i
t :
...............,...............................m...+ ..........n.......................................TOt....... ......cnmmmm.d. .. ... :
i i
, ,
~ ;
i !
.
.... .................................................f................................cnc.."..mc_mm._-f-_n-c_
~) Would the project result in substantial
jadverse physical impacts associated with the
Wrovision of new or physically altered
!governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
iconstruction of which could cause significant
!environmental impacts, in order to maintain
jacceptable service ratios, response times or
~ther performance objectives for any of the
[public services:
j............................................................................,.......cncn"nT.m' .
Ii) Fire protection?
D
D
D
: ; [
. . .
I>..H............................................................ ............................................,..........c..............mH.>...+....<,............................................................................ ............c......+..cm+..c,.Hm<..+..'..,.H.+......... .......................................................:.........................................
. ' .
jii) Police protection?
D
D
D
i
~
i.
i
i
i
i .
T--'---']
j..~~~.~~._~~_.OTO.C___.nT__TO__C_>T____~.,,__.....____...._._.........~~~--i- TO~.____~..c .....
!iii) Schools?
D D D .
~~~._~..._-
iiv) Parks?
D D 0 .
i) Other public facilities?
D D
I
!
i
i
mum+r:]HH........L....H..~.......,
DISCUSSION:
Will the proposed project:
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered 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:
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-97
"r_---,'
i. Fire protection?
No Impact. The proposed project is the construction of a trail and realignment of
Stevens Creek. The Santa Clara County Fire Department's Monta Vista Fire Station, located on
Stevens Creek Blvd (just west of South Foothill Boulevard) is located about one mile away from
the project area. The project does not increase the need for fire protection services or create an
adverse impact on fire protection services. Adequate fire and emergency access would be
maintained on the project site during and after construction.
The Countywide Trail Master Plan Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design Use and
Management (1999) Guideline UD - 4.9 would be followed:
UD - 4.9 Fire Suppression: During preparation of design plans for specific trail alignments, the
implementing agency should:
· review in conjunction with local fire protection services, available water sources at staging
areas and or along the trail and provide for "draft" systems to allow fire suppression
equipment access to emergency water supplies;
· and to the maximum extent feasible, select plant materials and or seed mixes utilized at
staging areas or along trails for their low maintenance and drought and fire resistant
characteristics to minimize additional fuel available.
ii. Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is the construction of a trail and
realignment of Stevens Creek. The Santa Clara County Sheriff Department provides police patrol
services, criminal investigation, traffic enforcement, accident investigation and tactical teams for
the City of Cupertino. The project could potentially increase the need for police protection
services because the trail would be located in areas not previously open to the public (eg.
Stocklmeir property). However, this would not result in the need for new police facilities to be
constructed. The City proposes to hire a City Parks Service Officer to patrol the park and trail,
which would offset the potential increase in need of police protection services.
In order to ensure a safe design ofthe trail, the project would incorporate the following
Design Guideline from the Uniform Intetjurisdictional Trail Design, Use and Management
Guidelines (1999):
UD - 2.5 Sight Distance: Clearing widths and trail curvature design should be prov~ded to
assure an optimum 100-foot (30.4 m) average sight distance where possible. If sight
distance on curves, around hills or through densely vegetated areas are less than 100 feet
(30.4 m), safety signs and reduced speed limits should be considered.
iii. Schools?
No Impact. The proposed project is the construction of a trail and realignment of Stevens
Creek. The project would not result in increased number of students served by local schools.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-98
Environmental Checklist and Responses
.
IV.
Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is the construction of a trail and
realignment of Stevens Creek and would provide year round access to a community park. Some
large groups would need to use other picnic facilities for their events as the capacity at Blackberry
Farm is being decreased from a maximum of 4,000 people to 800 people. A review of attendance
by the City concluded that there are only a few groups that would be displaced as a result.
According to the City's Park and Recreation Department, there were only three groups over 1000
people who used Blackberry Farm in (two were on weekend days and one was on a weekday).
Over 70 percent of the groups attending Blackberry Farm were sized between 50 to 100 people.
Nearly 20 percent of the groups were 101-200 people in size. Of576 groups over 50 at
Blackberry Farm, only I percent (6 groups total) was from groups greater than 750 people. It was
determined that currently, on most weekends, Blackberry Farm serves around 800 visitors (T.
Smith, pers. comm.).
In addition to local city and county parks in the area, there are several other group picnic
facilities in that can accommodate parties displaced by the restricted group size including:
. Paramount's Oreat America - 15,000 maximum capacity in Santa Clara about 9 miles
away
. Ardenwood Historic Farm - 6,000 maximum capacity, in Fremont about 25 miles away
. Saratoga Springs - 4,000 maximum capacity, Saratoga, about 6 miles away
. Castle Rock - 3,000 maximum capacity in Walnut Creek about 50 miles away
. Little Hills - 1,500 maximum capacity in San Ramon about 43 miles away
Several Santa Clara County parks including Anderson Lake, Mount Madonna, Santa
Teresa, Stevens Creek and Vasona County parks have picnic facilities for groups up to 100
people. Other sites including, Ed R. Levin (I site, 200 people), Hellyer (2 sites, 300 people each),
Joseph D. Grant (1 site, 400 people) and Sanborn-Skyline (1 site, 200 people) have picnic sites for
groups of 100 to 400 people.
No new picnic facilities would need to be built elsewhere as a result of the lost capacity at
Blackberry Farm considering the limited number of groups that would be displaced by the
change and the availability of other parks in the area.
v. Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed trail staging area and trail
segment would result in an increase in the need for maintenance by the City of Cupertino Parks
and Recreation Department. The trail would require regular maintenance such as litter and dog
waste pickup, emptying trash receptacles, sweeping the trail after flooding, and repairs. Lack of
maintenance of the trails results in the degradation of the facilities and could result in safety,
security, and liability issues. The City has proposed to hire a City Parks Service Officer that
would perform maintenance duties at the park and on the trail.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-99
The following Trail Use and Management Guidelines are listed in the Countywide Trails
Master Plan Update (1995) that would help ensure that the proposed project would be adequately
maintained:
M - 3.1 A yearly inventory of all trail maintenance, including drainage, vegetation
clearing, signing, surfacing, need for graffiti removal, and repair of structures, gates,
fences, and barriers shall be done in early spring, prior to heavy summer use period.
Based on maintenance reports, trails shall be subject to closure or repair as warranted.
M - 3.2 Short segments oftrail may require permanent rerouting, due to landslides or
other problems. The original route should be closed to use and reclaimed when a new
route is provided. The managing agency should determine when such routing is
necessary. Should rereouting involve private lands, all trail policies and guidelines shall
apply.
M - 3.3 Vegetation growth shall be cleared and obstacles shall be removed where
necessary. Good pruning practices along trails shall be followed. Ground cover plants
and low shrubs shall not be cleared except from the actual trailhead. Noxious plants (e.g.
yellow star thistle) shall be controlled along the trail in a timely manner.
M - 3.4 Within the trail clearing limit, understory grasses and herbaceous annuals shall be
inspected annually during the early summer months and prior to the fire season, and
where appropriate, mowed.
M - 3.5 Corrective work for drainage or erosion problems shall be performed within a
reasonable amount of time. Where necessary, barriers to prevent further erosion shall be
erected until problems are corrected. Missing or damaged signs shall be replaced as soon
as possible. Damaged gates, fences, and barriers shall be replaced as soon as possible.
Trail shall be closed if corrective work cannot be accomplished within a reasonable
amount of time. If monitoring reveals that undesirable soil compaction is occurring in
sensitive habitats adjacent to trails, erection of barriers or other appropriate measures
(such as trail rerouting) would be employed as needed to discourage off-trail use.
M - 3.6 Where trails are paved, they should be swept periodically to keep them free of
loose gravel, debris, broken glass, and other litter. Damaged pavement should be replaced
as soon as possible. Unpaved Shared-Use Trails should be regarded as necessary to
maintain smooth surfaces.
M - 3.7 Brush should be used to cover bootleg trails, abandoned trails, or shortcuts to
discourage use until natural vegetation returns.
M - 3.8 Periodic monitoring of known sensitive habitats near trails will be conducted to
determine if unacceptable soil compaction is occurring. Sensitive habitats include
saltlbrackish marsh, riparian, wetlands, serpentine, and oak woodland.
Stevens Creek Co"idor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-100
Environmental Checklist and Responses
M - 3.9 Maintain trails and staging areas in a manner that meets defensible space and fuel
modification standards. The level of maintenance should be commensurate with the level
of surrounding fuel loads/topography and adjacent values at risk, as well as meet relevant
standards in effect for the specific locale.
While the proposed trail and staging area would result in an additional area to be
maintained, the existing maintenance facilities of the City of Cupertino would be adequate to
serve the project. There would be no need for any new or additional maintenance facilities. To
ensure that adequate funds are available for a City Parks Service Officer/maintenance staff, the
following mitigation measure is recommended:
Impact: Lack of maintenance of the trails results in the degradation of the facilities and
could result in safety, security, and liability issues.
Mitigation Pub~l: The City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department shall
ensure that adequate funds exist in the parks maintenance budget for park and trail
maintenance prior to project completion.
Implementation: City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department
Timing:
Monitoring:
Prior to trail implementation
City of Cupertino
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-101
,.......,.......m....+......m.....................m...........................................................................................W..<.H..mm...,...:..................................................._..r.............................+........HHOH<<..+...........T...................................................... ........................................
i ' i
I Potentially i Less Than ! Less ThaD
i Significant I Significant with 1 Significant
, . .
i Impact i Mitigation . Impact No Impact
ilt~'II!:.~._~~..~,~
~) Would the project increase the use of existing
!neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
!physical deterioration of the facility would occur:
lor be accelerated? !
~~~-_...~~ ----..--.. -~-.-.--+.
o
o
.
o
"'-'--T
"1
, .
, .
!b) Does the project include recreational facilities!
~r require the construction or expansion of
~ecreational facilities which might have an
~dverse physical effect on the environment?
o
o
.
o
DISCUSSION:
Will the proposed project:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant. The project would change visitor use at Blackberry Farm.
Currently, Blackberry Farm is open during the summer time, about 100 days roughly between
early May and late September to a maximum of 4,000 people (average weekend use is 800
people). Blackberry Farm would change to a 365 day-a-year community park. There would be
no fees charged to enter the park. Fees would only be charged to people using the group picnic
facilities (800 people max) or the swimming pooL The project would increase existing
recreational opportunities by spreading the park use over the year and access would be improved
to Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch and proposed trail recreation areas. Overall these
changes represent a less intensive use of the area than existing conditions and it is not anticipated
that these changes would result in the accelerated or substantial deterioration of the existing park
facilities.
Due to the decrease in capacity, some groups would need to use other facilities for large
group events (over 800 people) and smaller groups as well when the picnic area reaches the 800
person maximum. See Section 3.13a.iv Public Services above for other picnic facilities that can
accommodate large groups. It is estimated that up to 10 large groups annually would be
displaced (T. Smith, pers. comm.). The displacement of these 10 large groups per year would not
result in accelerated or substantial deterioration of other park facilities.
b. 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?
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-102
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Less Than Significant. The proposed project would include a recreational facility
whose environmental impacts are being considered in this Initial Study. All impacts are less than
significant with mitigation incorporated into the project. Mitigation measures are recommended
throughout this document that will avoid or reduce all impacts to less than significant levels. The
implementation of the project would not require the expansion of other recreational facilities that
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-103
r...........................................................................................................................................................................1.....................................................--:-.............................................................T...................................................... ........................................
l . ~ ~
! ! Potentially I Less Than i Less Than
I i Significant r Significant with I Significant
, i Impact ' Mitigation ! Impact No Impact
, ,
~!~!f~._.lgI.Ym1f;IIL~"l
!substantial in relation to the existing traffic load !
!and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a 1
, ,
isubstantial increase in either the number of !
/vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on !
, ,
r?~?~:...~.~..:?~~~.~~.~?~...~.~..i.~~~.r.~.~~~~?~~!.?...................................1......................................................,........................................................,..................................................... ......................................!
jb) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a! .
ilevel of service standard established by the
jcounty congestion management agency for
!designated roads or highways?
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
~..............,...........,....................... .. ....... . oem. .cuen. .cncn...,......,..,..,........................................................c- ...........................,_.......__._._.
1 ~
;c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, i
lincluding either an increase in traffic levels or a I
!change in location that results in substantial J
~afety risks?
Id) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
!feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
!intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., fann
~quipment)?
Ie) Result in inadequate emergency access?
---.---.i...............,..,..,..,...................
.......r.........................................1
i
'Tm.m.....,
o
o
o
.
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
.
If) Result in inadequate parking capacity? D...
j____.____.T...m....mcn.....m.cn.....................,.............................................. .............................................. .......... .'"r . '............mm..'..'............'............t.....................................'........................t...
~) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or i '
programs supporting alternative transportation
i~~.~.~:.:..~.~.~...~~.~.~~~~~...~~.~.~~.~~H~~~~>.:....mm.........m.................................................~..................................... ...~.......................,......................~....................................~...............
o
o
~
-- --mmm..m...m........r-.....................................
!
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Hexagon) prepared a traffic analysis for this
project, titled Stevens Creek Corridor Park - Traffic Impact Ana~vsis, September 16, 2005
(Hexagon 2005a). The report methodology including existing traffic volumes and trip
distribution are presented in this setting section. The entire report as well as the traffic figures and
tables referenced in this traffic section is provided as Appendix D.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-104
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Existing Traffic Volumes
Six roadway segments were selected to provide a representative sample oflocations
where traffic attributable to park activities would likely affect the magnitude of traffic. The traffic
study locations included:
. San Fernando Avenue, west of Byrne Avenue
. Byrne Avenue, south of San Fernando Avenue
. Stevens Creek Boulevard, west of Phar Lap Drive
. Stevens Creek Boulevard, east of Imperial Avenue
. McClellan Road, east of Byrne Avenue
. McClellan Road, west of Clubhouse Lane
Traffic was counted hourly at five of the locations from June I through June 7,2005. The
San Fernando Avenue count was conducted on Monday, June 13 when Blackberry Farm was
closed. All other activities within the Stevens Creek Corridor (golf course, Blue Pheasant
Restaurant, and at McClellan Ranch) were operating normally on Monday, June 13.
Counting the traffic on a day when Blackberry Farm was closed provided an opportunity
to measure the Non-Blackberry Farm related traffic volumes just outside the main entrance to
Blackberry Farm Park and on the other roadway segments being studied. Therefore, the traffic
counted on Monday, June 13,2005 is referred to in the figures and tables as the Background (No
Blackberry Farm) Traffic. Traffic Figure 1, Background Daily Traffic Volumes, displays the
estimated background traffic volumes at each of the studied roadway segments (Traffic Figures
can be found in the Traffic Report in Appendix D).
School and camp groups who currently use the facilities at Blackberry Farm and
McClellan Ranch travel to and from the site in school busses. The school busses access
Blackberry Farms using San Fernando Ave. During the days when traffic counts were taken
(June 1 - June 71h) bus traffic ranged from 0 to 44 roundtrips at Blackberry Farm. The high
number of buses on certain days was because the Farm was hosting an end of year school picnic.
The parking lot configuration at McClellan Ranch is currently too tight for school busses
to negotiate so groups using the ranch are let out on McClellan Road at Linda Vista Drive (Jana
Sokale pers. comm.).
Trip Distribution
The distribution of traffic in and out of the Stevens Creek Corridor activity centers was
determined based on the proportion of traffic attributable to Blackberry Farm related activities.
These proportions were calculated based on the difference in traffic volumes for a day with a high
level of Blackberry Farm activity compared to the traffic counts collected on the Monday when
Blackberry Farm was closed. Traffic Figure 2, Trip Distribution, shows the trip distribution
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-105
percentages by direction for each of the study segments located on Stevens Creek Boulevard and
McClellan Road (see Appendix D).
A slight majority (~56%) of the inbound traffic to Blackberry Farm uses Stevens Creek
Boulevard to reach the site, while nearly two-thirds (62%) uses McClellan Road when departing.
The reason is probably because most visitors find it easier to turn right (south) onto Byrne
Avenue and then use McClellan Road to travel back to the freeway or other major arterial street
versus finding their way back through the neighborhood in order to use Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
Existing Blackberry Farm Traffic Volumes
The existing traffic volumes for the study roadway segments were estimated by adding the vehicle
trips attributable to Blackberry Farm activities on weekday and weekend days (as shown in Table I, Existing
and Projected Trip Generation Estimates, Appendix D) to the background traffic volumes shown on Traffic
Figure I, Background Daily Traffic Volumes (Appendix D). Tmffic Figure 3, Blackbeny Farm Traffic
Existing Project Trips (Appendix D), shows the amount ofBlackbeny Farm traffic using each roadway
segment and Table 3-6 below swnmarizes the estimates of existing (2005) two-way total daily traffic levels.
The resulting traffic volumes provide a good indication of existing weekday and weekend
day (see Traffic Figure 4, Existing Operations + Background Traffic Volumes, Appendix D)
traffic volumes on all six roadway segments. Traffic from the golf course, the restaurant, and the
McClellan Ranch activities were not added to the background traffic because traffic from these
uses was already included within the background traffic counts.
Table 3-6: Existing (2005) Weekday and Weekend Daily Traffic Volume Estimates (both
directions)
Traffic Volume Estimates
Roadway Segment
1. Byrne Ave. (North of San Femando Ave.)
2. Byrne Ave. (South of San Fernando Ave.)
3. Stevens Creek Blvd. (West ofPhar Lap Dr.)
4. Stevens Creek Blvd (East ofOmnge Ave.)
5. McClellan Road (West of Byrne Ave,)
6. McClellan Road (East of Byrne Ave,)
Weekday
1,555
1,927
12.1 00
21,200
4,153
4.514
Weekend Day
2,115
2,557
12331
21,529
4,319
4.705
DISCUSSION:
Will the proposed project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-106
Environmental Checklist and Responses
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Less Than Significant Impact (questions a and b).
The projected traffic impacts were assessed based on comparisons of the expected change
in average daily traffic volumes. Existing traffic volumes were counted, the amount of traffic
attributable to existing and planned park activities was determined, and the net change was
calculated for weekday and weekend day conditions.
Based on the results of the Hexagon report, the project would not result in a substantial increase in
traffic in relation to the existing traffic volumes. The traffic counts taken by Hexagon show that
current traffic levels in the project area are typical of a normal residential area (Mike Waller,
Hexagon, pers. comm.). Most of the traffic is neighborhood traffic which is demonstrated by the
traffic counts taken when Blackberry Farm is open versus the day when it was closed. The
increase in park related traffic is very small in relation to normal levels and is unlikely to be
discernable.
The proposed change in weekday traffic under the project would fall within the range of
normal day-to-day traffic variation. The results indicate that the planned change on weekdays in
park activities and the expected change in the number of participants would cause a slight
increase in traffic volumes on the roadways in the vicinity. The greatest increase is expected for
the segment of McClellan Road east of Byrne. At this location, average daily weekday traffic
may increase by a little less than five percent (less than 250 vehicles). All other study locations
were projected to experience increased traffic of less than levels of 5 percent.
The results for weekend days showed that there would be less traffic on most of the
nearby roadway segments. The expected decline in area traffic on weekends is attributable to a
significant reduction in picnicking at Blackberry Farm. The most notable traffic reduction would
occur on Byrne Avenue. Reductions of more than 300 vehicles (15 to 20 percent) per weekend
day are projected for the segments of Byrne Avenue north and south of San Fernando Avenue.
The expected change in traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road is projected to
be less due to slight increases in activity at McClellan Ranch, the golf course and the Blue
Pheasant Restaurant. Only the segment of McClellan Road east of Byrne A venue is projected to
experience an increase in weekend traffic. Weekend traffic on this segment is projected to
increase from about 4,705 to 4,766 daily vehicle trips. This represents a 1.3 percent increase in
daily traffic on McClellan Road east of Byrne Avenue.
Michael Q'Dowd, the Special Projects Manager for Blackberry Farm, derived estimates of
existing and projected annual, monthly, and daily participants attributable to activities happening
within the Stevens Creek Corridor. Hexagon evaluated the estimates and worked with Mr.
O'Dowd to estimate the associated number of daily vehicle trips for weekdays and weekends.
Traffic Table 1 in Appendix D shows the Existing and Projected Trip Generation Estimates, and
lists the estimated number of existing and projected vehicle trips for weekdays and weekend days
for each access point and program.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-107
The information in Traffic Table 1 shows that based on the planned changes in park
operations, overall weekday traffic would increase from about 576 auto trips per day to about 769
auto trips per day. On weekend days the total amount of auto traffic would decrease from about
1,152 to 873 trips per day. These changes represent an increase of33.5 percent for weekday
traffic and a traffic decrease of 24.2 percent for weekend days.
It is important to note that there are three main entrances to the Stevens Creek Corridor
and the projected change in traffic is not the same at each of these locations. Relatively little
change would occur at the Stevens Creek Boulevard entrance. A relatively large percentage
increase will occur at the McClellan Road entrance. At the San Fernando A venue entrance
weekday traffic would increase a little and weekend traffic would decrease a lot (See Traffic
Figure 1, Appendix D).
New programs would account for 137 (71 %) of the 193 total new weekday auto trips.
Increased participation in existing program activities make up the other 56 new weekday auto
trips. New programs would add about 170 weekend day auto trips, but a very significant
decrease in weekend picnicking would result in an overall decrease of about 279 daily auto trips
on weekend days (See Traffic Figure 1, Appendix D).
Cumulative traffic
The Traffic Report concludes that the project's increase in traffic is minor and it would
not contribute substantially to cumulative traffic impacts.
Construction traffic
It is expected that 20 new truck trips per day for hauling of materials (10 trips in, 10 trips
out) during the construction period would occur in each phase. This amount would be roughly 3
truck trips per hour. These construction trips would occur from 9 am - 5 pm, Monday through
Friday, and would be at the closest point of entry. Since most of the construction is centered
around Blackberry Farm, most ofthe construction access would occur at the Blackberry Farm
entrance on San Fernando Avenue from Byrne Avenue. The driveway at the Stocklmeir site
would be used for the Reach C construction and Stevens Creek Boulevard would be used as the
point of entry to upgrade the parking lot at the Blue Pheasant Restaurant. It is expected that 80
new construction vehicle trips per day of workers (40 trips in, 40 trips out) at all points of entry
along the corridor would occur, these trips would be typically at 7:30 am and at 5 pm, at starting
and stopping time for work.
Bus traffic
Bus traffic to the project site, particularly to McClellan Ranch, would gradually increase
over existing levels as new educational programs are implemented and school and camp groups
take advantage of the new 2,000 square foot environmental education building to be built at
McClellan Ranch (See section 2.4.4 in Project Description and Figures 8 & 13). McClellan Road
already carries school bus traffic associated with existing school education programs at
McClellan Ranch and with Monta Vista High School on McClellan Road across from Byrne Ave.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-108
Environmental Checklist and Responses
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The proposed project is not near a private or public airport and would not
affect air traffic patterns (Cupertino 2005).
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Two new features proposed by the project, the
pedestrian/bicycle crossing on Stevens Creek Blvd. and the school bus pullout on McClellan Rd.
could create safety hazards if they are not designed properly. In addition, an existing pedestrian
crosswalk on McClellan Road would be enhanced to increase pedestrian safety. The following
discussion focuses on the three new features.
Other than these three new features proposed by the project, no other safety hazards have
been identified. Final designs ofthe parking lots would be prepared according to the City of
Cupertino Zoning Ordinance and would follow standards for pedestrian travel through parking
areas.
1. Stevens Creek Boulevard Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing
As described in the Project Description, a pedestrian/bicycle crossing at Stevens Creek
Boulevard at Phar Lap Drive is proposed in order to provide pedestrianlbicycle access to the new
trail and project site, and to connect the new trail segment with the existing bicycle lane on the
north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard (Figure 11).
Residents living to the north of Stevens Creek need a pedestrianlbicycle crossing to reach
the project area. Bicyclists leaving the project site on Stevens Creek Boulevard who wish to
travel west toward Foothill Boulevard must use the existing bicycle lane on the north side of
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The crossing at Stevens Creek Boulevard would be located on the west side of the Phar
Lap intersection. The crosswalk would include safety and traffic calming measures. The
crosswalk would be painted a red brick color, similar to the crosswalks near the Post Office
further east on Stevens Creek Blvd. A median island with a pedestrian refuge would be installed
in the center of Stevens Creek Boulevard to direct trail users to the crosswalk and to provide
some traffic calming in this residential area. Flashing motorist warning lights would also be
installed on Stevens Creek Boulevard on both down grades that approach the crossing.
The safety hazards associated with this crossing will be less than significant as the
crossing would be designed and constructed according the requirements of the City of Cupertino
Public Works Director. It would be similar to other existing intersecting crossings in the City
such as the one in front of Monta Vista High School on McClellan Road and on Steven Creek
Blvd. by the Post Office. As described above, the crossing would be designed to give motorists
warning of the crosswalk and to provide a clearly identified crosswalk with a median island for a
pedestrian refuge.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-109
2. Bus Pull Out on McClellan Road
The parking lot configuration at McClellan Ranch is too tight for school busses to negotiate so
school and camp groups using the ranch are let out on McClellan Road at Linda Vista Dr. (Jana Sokale pers.
comm.). The Master Plan proposes to construct a bus pullout on McClellan Road in front of the
Simms property for students visiting McClellan Ranch (see Fig. 14). The students would exit the
bus at the Simms property and then cross Stevens Creek using the existing pedestrian bridge that
parallels McClellan Road.
The bus pullout would be designed and constructed according to the specifications of the
City of Cupertino Public Works Director. The pullout is proposed to be located on the north side
of McClellan Road on the front of the Simms property, immediately west of the driveway. The
pullout would measure 195 feet long and would range in width from 10 to 20 feet and could
accommodate up to two full-sized school busses at a time. A new eight-foot wide concrete
sidewalk would be constructed along the north side of the pull out and would travel south to
intersect with the existing sidewalk and pedestrian bridge crossing the creek. Construction of the
pullout would require the relocation of a street light, a power pole and a guy pole. Based on the
topographic survey data gathered for the master plan effort, minor cut of the existing slope would
be required.
For traffic and pedestrian safety reasons, the busses would have to approach McClellan
Ranch from the east, pulling directly into the pullout without crossing traffic and discharging the
passengers away from traffic (the bus door would open out toward the Simms property and away
from traffic). The school groups would then use the new sidewalk and existing bridge over the
creek to walk to the Ranch. Busses would then leave the pullout and continue to travel west,
towards Foothill Rd. Pick-up of the children would be done in the same manner.
McClellan Road, west of the pullout begins to climb a grade. Busses would leave the
pullout, merge with traffic, and gather speed as they climb the grade. The speed limit on
McClellan Road is 25 miles per hour. Busses would travel some distance before they reached the
speed limit. During the design phase of the pullout, there were concerns that busses could not
accelerate up McClellan Road after being stopped at the pullout. Based on information gathered
from bus drivers, this should not be a problem (Michael Q'Dowd pers. comm.).
As long as the bus pullout is designed and constructed according the City specifications,
and the busses approach the pullout from the east and continue traveling west, traffic and
pedestrian hazards would be less than significant.
3. Existing Crosswalk on McClellan Road
There is an existing crosswalk on McClellan Road near the driveway of the Simms
property that serves the local residents in crossing McClellan. Currently the crosswalk is just a
striped crossing. Because of the curves in the road and the inclines in each direction, concerns
over pedestrian safety were expressed during the master planning process, particularly since
construction of the new trail may increase neighborhood use of the park. Flashing warning lights
would be installed on each hill and the crosswalk would be painted red to enhance visibility of the
crosswalk.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-110
Environmental Checklist and Responses
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. Emergency access to the project site would be available via the parking lot at
the Blue Pheasant, Blackberry Farm, and McClellan Ranch. Existing driveways and parking
areas would be able to accommodate emergency vehicles. Larger emergency vehicles may not
be able to negotiate the tight angles in the McClellan Ranch parking lot and would have to access
the Ranch and that section ofthe recreational trail from Blackberry Farms.
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Less Than Significant Impact. A parking analysis for the proposed project was
prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Hexagon) and is summarized below (Hexagon
2005b). The report is provided as Appendix E. A summary of existing parking demand and
supply is shown below in Table 3-7, a summary of projected parking demand and supply is
shown below in Table 3-8, and a listing ofthe Proposed Number of Spaces is shown below in
Table 3-9.
These summaries show that of the three parking areas, both the Central Parking Area and
the Southern Parking Area has adequate demand for both proposed and cumulative parking
capacity, and the number of additional spaces needed at the Northern Parking Area is 12. After
consultation with the City of Cupertino's Fire Marshal, it was determined that the Northern
Parking Area could not accommodate the additional 12 spaces and that the maximum new spaces
allowed is nine. These would be added to the Northern Parking Area as part of this project.
However, this is three short of the projected 12 spaces needed. Therefore, as part of the proposed
project, a sign would be erected at the Blue Pheasant parking lot that would direct trail users to
the Blackberry Farm where a new 17-car staging area would be constructed to accommodate trail
users. Trail users would also be allowed to use the proposed 350-vehicle parking area at
Blackberry Farm. These parking lots would be open year-round. With the changes listed in this
paragraph to the Northern Parking Area, and with utilization of the new lots listed here, no new
impacts from inadequate parking capacity would occur.
The parking analysis looked at the parking demand for the existing and planned activities
associated with the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan and separated the analysis of the project
site into three different areas based on access and existing uses. These three major parking areas
serve the various activity sites within the Stevens Creek Corridor and provide a total of ~ 1,222
parking spaces, as follows:
. Northern Parking Area (91 parking spaces primarily serving the Blackberry Farm Golf
Course and Blue Pheasant Restaurant)
. Central Parking Area (1,100 parking spaces primarily serving the Blackberry Farm picnic
and activity sites)
. Southern Parking Area (31 parking spaces primarily serving activities at McClellan Ranch)
Hexagon derived parking demand estimates for weekday and Saturday peak hour time
periods based on participant estimates provided by Michael Q'Dowd, Special Projects Manager
for Blackberry Farm. The derived estimates of existing parking demand were calibrated through
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-111
the use of auto occupancy (2.5 people per vehicle) and time of day factors to closely match
observed parking levels at the three parking areas. These factors provided a basis for deriving
similar projections of future parking requirements based on the planned activities at the various
activity sites within the Corridor.
The Hexagon analysis originally identified a need for at least 20 new spaces in the
Northern Parking Area to serve existing and proposed uses. This included eight spaces that were
required for people visiting the proposed Cupertino Historical Society facility at the Stocklmeir
site (tentatively called the California Living History Center). Plans for this Center are too
preliminary and have not been formalized,
Analysis of Existing Parking Demand
Hexagon's analysis of the parking demand for the northern parking area (Blue Pheasant
parking lot) shows that on an average weekday during the peak month (August) the peak hour
parking demand is for approximately 95 spaces and that on an average Saturday the parking
demand would be for approximately 88 parking spaces. These results suggest that the existing
parking area is not quite large enough to adequately serve the parking needs of the existing uses.
Hexagon also researched the typical trip rates and parking needs for similar sized restaurants and
determined that there was a potential for a restaurant the size of the Blue Pheasant to require an
even larger amount of parking.
The analysis of the existing parking demand for the central parking area (Blackberry
Farm) showed a demand for approximately 1,000 parking spaces during a peak event involving
4,000 participants being held on a Saturday. Since the parking area only contains ~ 1,100 parking
spaces, events of this magnitude would likely cause some participants to seriously consider
parking outside the Blackberry Farm central parking area (within the San Fernando
neighborhood) because ofthe difficulty of finding an unoccupied space. This problem would
most likely affect the later groups of arriving participants. Parking demand on an average
weekday during the peak month of operation (August) is considerably less. Approximately 80
parking spaces would typically be required to serve the weekday parking demand in the central
parking area.
The southern parking area at McClellan Ranch is most active on weekdays and
Hexagon's analysis suggests that the number of existing parking spaces adequately serves typical
uses. The parking supply is also adequate to serve the demand associated with Saturday usage.
Table 3-7 summarizes the comparison of the existing parking demand versus the existing parking
supply at each of the three major parking areas serving the Stevens Creek Corridor activity sites.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-112
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Table 3-7: Summary of Existing Parking Demand and Supply
Existing Weekday Supply Saturday Supply
Parking
Parking Areas Parking Demand Minus Parking Minus
Spaces Demand Demand Demand
Northern Parking Area 91 95 -4 88 3
Central Parking Area 1,100 79 1,021 1,002 (a) 98
Southern Parking Area 31 11 20 3 28
Totals 1,222 185 1,037 1,093 129
Notes: (a) Saturday peak event involving -4,000 parlicipants.
Projected Parking Demand
The Hexagon analysis concluded that parking demand in the northern parking area would
increase by 13 to 26 percent under the project and projected a peak demand for approximately
III parking spaces for the northern parking area which is 20 spaces less than the current supply
of91 spaces. However, this project demand included a Living History Center which was talked
about for the Stocklmeir property. The analysis calculated that this center would need 8 of the 20
projected spaces. Therefore the project still would demand an additional 12 spaces without the
Living History Center.
The parking demand for the central parking area would also be significantly affected by
the proposed change in park operations. There would be some additional activities, including
recreational swimming, trail access, community events, swimming lessons and day camping, that
would generate parking demands that do not currently exist. However, the most significant
operational change would be a reduction in the number of participants involved with the largest
permitted peak Saturday event in the group picnic area. The number of peak participants would
be reduced to about 800 people. This would be much lower than the ~4,000 participants who
have attended peak events in past years. The parking analysis projected that the parking demand
associated with a peak Saturday event would decline to about 105 parking spaces. The additional
activities proposed for summer weekdays are expected to generate a demand for about 115
parking spaces during the peak hour.
The projected parking demand for the southern parking area would be mainly affected by
a new trail access point and an anticipated increase in the number participants in the nature
educational programs offered at McClellan Ranch. The peak hour parking demand for summer
weekdays would be about 18 parking spaces. On Saturdays the parking demand would be
approximately five parking spaces.
Table 3-8 summarizes the comparison of the projected parking demand versus the
existing parking supply at each of the three major parking areas serving the Stevens Creek
Corridor activity sites.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-113
Table 3N8: Summary of Projected Parking Demand and Supply
Existing Weekday Supply Saturday Supply
Parking
Parking Minus Parking Minus
Parking Areas Demand
Spaces Demand Demand Demandol<
Northern Parking Area 91 to7* -16 I Ii * -20
Central Parking Area 1,100 115 985 to5 (a) 995
Southern Parking Area 31 18 13 5 26
Totals 1,222 240 982 221 1,001
Notes:
a) Saturday peak event involving ~500 to 800 participants.
01< This amount includes a projected 8 spaces for the Living Hist01Y Center proposed at the Stocklmeir property but it is
no longer part of the current project.
The Master Plan proposes to provide the following number of spaces:
Table 3-9: Proposed Number of Spaces
Area Existing Spaces Proposed Spaces
Northern Parking Area 91 toO
Central Parking Area 1,100 367 (350 festival style parking plus
17-car trail head staging area)
Southern Parking Area 31 31
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact. The recreational trail component of the project is consistent with policies in
the Cupertino General Plan regarding bicycle transportation and encouraging alternatives to the
use ofthe automobile. The project would provide a pedestrian sidewalk on Stevens Creek
Boulevard to connect this project with other portions of the Stevens Creek Trail and the existing
bicycle lane on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Bike racks would be provided in various areas of the
project (Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch) to accommodate visitors who bike to the
facilities offered in the project site.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-114
Environmental Checklist and Responses
! !
Potentially i Less Than Less Than
Significant I Significant with Significant
Impact ! Mitigation Impact No Impact
ia) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
~he applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
o
o
.
o
!b) Require or result in the construction of new
!water or wastewater treatment facilities or
!
!expansion of existing facilities, the construction
~fwhich could cause significant environmental
!effects?
l
o
o
o
.
,
-'-
!c) Require or result in the construction of new
!storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
iexisting facilities, the construction of which 0 0
!could cause significant environmental effects? !
;!ro~~..~~~~~.mm_..c.mOTO>T________'___'_'_'_'_'_"'_'.'_'"..........._.._.~_<_~.~~(o-o..T~_~_.>T oc" T.m>T m.co_ ~ ...,. ~. ----.--.---.--....---.-.-......
1
!d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
!serve the project from existing entitlements and
~esources, or are new or expanded entitlements
!needed?
.
o
-~._._.~._._._m1
o
D
.
D
r...................................................................................................................c........nT..........<.....+.,..w....,............... .........................................-......... .............................................................-;-....m..m...........c..................H..........r.......................................!
Ie) Result in a determination by the wastewater I.!
Itreatment provider which serves or may serve !
~he project that it has adequate capacity to serve 0 0
ithe project's projected demand in addition to the
~.r.?~.~?:~.'.~..~~.~~~~~.~..~?~~~.~~~~?...........................................T................................................... ............................................................ ..................................................... ,......... .... ......................i
if) Be served by a landfill with sufficient i i
~ermitted capacity to accommodate the project's! . i
!solid waste disposal needs? i 0 0 0
o
.
t._.~~~._._._~.mm>T-.c-.-._----~.----_..__._-_..._---_...._......._..__~~.~.~.~.~~_~.~~._T.._m_._.m.__.>T~OT....,.._mm ~ ..~ ._~.
--:---,- .--1
!g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
land regulations related to solid waste?
D
o
L_,~~~_
DISCUSSION:
Will the proposed project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
Less Than Significant Impact. New restrooms are proposed at the staging area in
Blackberry Farm and also in the new Environmental Education classroom. These additional
restrooms would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-115
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The project involves trail installation and creek realignment. The project
would not 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.
As part of the creek restoration plan, an existing water diversion structure would be
removed from the creek. This diversion dam, built sometime prior to 1946, used to supply water
for the irrigation of approximately 25 acres of orchards at Blackberry Farm and was a part of the
Monte Vista Irrigation and Domestic Water system.
Adjacent to and part of the diversion dam structure is a concrete infiltration gallery that
draws water from the creek and distributes it by underground pipes to a couple of ponds on the
golf course through a gravity feed system. These two ponds receive the water from the creek
where the water is allowed to slowly run back into the creek via another underground piping
system.
The Monte Vista Water System also consisted of four wells, one of which was used to fill
a large above ground water tank. The water, once collected in the tank, was pumped and piped
approximately 2,500 feet to irrigate the nine-hole golf course. Approximately three years ago, the
water tank developed a significant leak that could not be repaired and the irrigation of the golf
course was switched over to the local domestic water system. The Master Plan proposes
removing the damaged water tank and possibly connecting the existing well to an existing
35,000-gallon underground cistern near the old tank, also a part of the earlier Monte Vista Water
System, to irrigate the golf course and to irrigate other parts of Blackberry Farm.
Since the well and cistern exist, no new water facilities are necessary.
c. 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would install a new 8-foot wide by I. I-mile
long trail along Stevens Creek in Cupertino. The trail itself would not require the construction of
new stormwater drainage facilities. Other changes proposed by the project would actually
decrease the amount of impervious area at the Blackberry Farm site. The large 1,1 DO-space
festival style parking lot would be demolished (asphalt pavement to be removed) and replaced
with a permeable pavement surface reduced in size to accommodate a maximum of 350 spaces.
Other impervious areas throughout the facility would also be removed including the asphalt in
and around the snack bar and adjacent picnic seating, the horseshoe bend picnic area would be
removed and the 200-space overflow parking area near the existing sports facilities would be
reduced to accommodate 17 cars. As a result of the project a total of 158,701 square feet (3.76
acres) of impervious surface would be removed (this total amount takes into account any new
impervious surfaces created by the new trail, new roads and conference center parking).
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-116
Environmental Checklist and Responses
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would construct a trail and realign a creek.
Irrigation of the restoration planting and golf course irrigation would come from existing water
entitlements and resources. New or expanded entitlements are not needed.
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
No Impact. The proposed project is not expected to change the demand for wastewater
treatment. The capacity of the local wastewater treatment plant serving the local community is
not affected by the proposed project.
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
Less than Significant. Users of the trail would generate new garbage which would be
collected at trash bins located throughout the trail and park areas. In contrast, decreasing the
amount of picnickers from a maximum of 4,000 to a maximum of 800, would decrease the
amount of trash disposed of at this site. The total amount of trash generated would not impact the
solid waste disposal system.
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
No Impact. The project would comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-117
-...--..---.
;
PotentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Less Than i Less Than
Significant with! Significant
Mitigation ! Impact No Impact
!!_~":I~1fi~
ja) Does the project have the potential to degrade j! !!
~he quality of the enviromnent, substantially !. !'
~educe the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, D D 0
~ause a fish or wildlife population to drop below I
~elf-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a i
~lant or animal community, reduce the number :
lor restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
lor animal or eliminate important examples of the
~ajor periods of California history or
~rehistory?
~) Does the project have impacts that are
iindividually limited, but cumulatively
~onsiderable? {"Cumulatively considerable"
lI11eans that the incremental effects of a project ;
iare considerable when viewed in connection with!
~he effects of past projects, the effects of other
!current projects, and the effects of probable
!future projects)?
o
.
o
o
. .
. .
. .
t....---.------.-~.L.~~-- ....T._'.OTO_...._._.__~_.~._~~_~..+-._........___.._.......---...-..-.--1.---------~--~-u.+,..-..f.~~..n----~~
lc) Does the project have environmental effects
!which will cause substantial adverse effects on
ruman beings, either directly or indirectly?
--..----.1
o
o
o
.
DISCUSSION:
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. One of the primary purposes of the
project is to improve wildlife habitat conditions along the Steven's Creek corridor. Steelhead
which are listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act would benefit from the
removal of barriers within the creek that are restricting upstream migration and movement
through the stream system. Implementation of mitigation measures to mitigate impacts of
project construction are included in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. These
measures would ensure that all potentially significant impacts from the project will be avoided or
reduced to less than significant levels and that vegetation and wildlife will not be significantly
Stevens Creek Co"idor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial StUdy
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 3-118
Environmental Checklist and Responses
impacted by the project. Overall the project would positively benefit native vegetation and
wildlife.
Air Quality
BMPs specified for implementation during construction will ensure that temporary
impacts from PM 10 emissions (dust) will be less than significant. Construction vehicles will not
produce cumulatively substantial ozone emissions.
Biological Resources
Potential impacts to sensitive species, as well as sensitive habitats, can be categorized in
two types: potential impacts associated with the trail and creek location, design, and construction
and potential impacts associated with increased human uses and influence in the trail areas. All
potential impacts can either be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels through the mitigation
measures listed in the Biological Resources section and the BMPs in Appendix A. Overall the
project would positively benefit biological resources in the project area.
Cultural Resources
The project is not expected to impact cultural resources. It is unlikely that project
construction would impact CA-SCI-715 as presence/absence testing in the site's vicinity and
proposed construction zone was negative for significant cultural resources. Due to the mapped
vicinity of CA-SCI-715 and the sensitivity of the project area to yield as yet unknown buried
cultural deposits, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce these potential impacts to less than
significant levels.
Geology and Soils
Cupertino General Plan Policy 6-1 provides a process to reduce risks associated with
geologic and seismic hazards. This process requires all development proposals within mapped
potential hazard zones to use a formal seismic/geologic review process. The project is in an area
identified as subject to slope instability and inundation/liquefaction according to the Cupertino
General Plan. This plan review process will ensure proper seismic considerations are
incorporated into plan features. BMPs from the District's Stream Maintenance Program will
ensure erosion will be minimized.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A Phase I Site Assessment for the Stocklmeir property revealed the potential for
hazardous levels of pesticide residue in the soil due to previous agricultural use prior to 1960.
Implementation of the mitigation measure to conduct soil testing will determine if hazardous
levels of pesticide residue exists in the soil.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Page 3-119
Hydrology and Water Quality
The project would not substantially increase the existing flooding hazard on- or off-site or
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff from the project site. Because the park is currently
closed to recreationalists during the non-summer months, introducing new users as a result of
this project may result in risks to safety to those users during big storm events. A mitigation
measure is proposed that will reduce these safety risks to less than significant levels.
Noise
Construction activities for the proposed project could result in noise levels greater than
the existing noise levels. Since construction activities would move around the respective project
area as construction proceeds, it is unlikely that anyone location would experience high noise
levels continuously for extended periods oftime.
Construction noise would only occur in the hours allowed by the City's noise ordinance
for construction activities. This temporary impact is therefore less than significant.
Land Use
A mitigation measure is proposed to ensure that the proposed environmental education
building will be in conformance with the McClellan Ranch Master Plan, therefore, the potential
impact will be less than significant.
Public Services
A mitigation measure requiring adequate funds to provide sufficient park and trail
maintenance will ensure safety and security is maintained, therefore, the impact is less than
significant.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects?")
Less than Significant with Mitigation. This project would not have cumulative impacts
on water quality, wildlife, and or vegetation as the mitigation measures listed in this document
would avoid or reduce identified impacts to less than significant levels.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact. The project would not have environmental effects that will cause substantial
adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
References Page 4-1
4.0 REFERENCES
4.1 SOURCES
Basin Research Associates. 2006. Cultural Resources Assessment Including Results of
Presence/Absence Archaeological Testing - Revised, Stevens Creek Corridor Master
Plan. February.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1999. CEQA Guidelines. December.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2004. Bay Area Air Pollution Summary.
.ht....to ://www.baaqrnd.gov/pio/aq summaries/pollsum04.tllif. Last accessed 3/6/06.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Adopted
January 6, 2006.
California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
f!p://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dJrp/FMMP/2004/. Santa Clara County. Last accessed 3/6/06.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. 2006 California Freshwater Sport fishing
Regulations. Imp ://www.fgc.ca.gov/2006/06freshfishregbook.1!Qf. Last accessed 4/10/06.
California Native Plant Society. 2006. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants. http://cnps.web.aplus.netlcgi-binlinv/inventory.cgi_Last accessed:
January 2006.
California Native Plant Society. 2001. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants of California 6th Edition. Published: August 2001, California Native
Plant Society. Sacramento, California.
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2004. Version 3.0.5. California Department of
fish and Game. January 2006.
City of Cupertino. 2006. Cupertino, California Municipal Code. American Legal Publishing.
h!!p://www.amlegaLcomlcupertino ca!. Last accessed 3/6/06.
City of Cupertino. 2005. General Plan. Cupertino Planning Commission and City Council.
November.
City of Cupertino. Cupertino FEMA Floodzone Map.
h!!p://www.cupertino.org/downloads/Pdf/ map fema flood zones.llilf Last accessed
3/13/06.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 4-2
References
City of Cupertino. 2003. City of Cupertino Urban Runoff Management Program: Stormwater
Quality Guidelines for Development Projects.
hUp:/ /www.cupertino.org/downloads/Pdf/es Cupertino Storm water Guidelines.lli!f
accessed 3/22/06. July.
City of Cupertino 2002a. Draft Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Report. Prepared by Jana Sokale
for the City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department in Conjunction with the
Stevens Creek Trail Task Force. May.
City of Cupertino . 2002b. Public Dialog Consortium - Stevens Creek Corridor: Stakeholders'
Visions, Final Report. Barnette Pierce and Suzette Merchant.
h1!p://www.cupertino.org/downloads/Pdf/PDC Final Report.tlli.h Last accessed 3/6/06.
City of Cupertino. 2002c. Godbe Research and Analysis: October 2002 Survey of Residents.
Conducted for City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department. October.
http://www .cupertino.org/city _government/departments_and _offices/parks Jecreation/ste
vens _creek _ corr/index.asp. Last accessed 3/6/06.
City of Cupertino. 1999. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: 22120 Stevens Creek
Boulevard. Cupertino, CA. Camp Dresser and McKee. May.
City of Cupertino. 1960. Official Statement and Notice of Sale: $905,000 Water Revenue Bonds.
1960, Series A
Corelli and Chandik, 1995. The Rare and Endangered Plants of San Mateo and Santa Clara
County. Published by Monocot Press, Half Moon Bay, California.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2005a. Stevens Creek Corridor Park - Traffic Impact
Analyses. September.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2005b. Preliminary Parking Analysis - Stevens Creek
Corridor Master Plan. January.
Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1992. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment for the Stevens
Creek Trail and Wildlife Corridor Project. August 19, 1992. (JSA 92-049). Sacramento, CA.
Prepared for the City of Mountain View Community Services Department, Parks Division,
Mountain View, CA.
Kier and Wright Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Inc. 2005. Preliminary Topographic Survey:
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Byrne Ave, for City of Cupertino. July.
Matheny, Nelda and James Clark. 1998. Trees and Development. International Society of
Arboriculture.
McClellan Ranch Park Community Advisory Committee. McClellan Ranch Master Plan. 1993.
Submitted to Parks and Recreation Commission, City of Cupertino. May.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
References
Page 4-3
Santa Clara County. 1995. Santa Clara County General Plan, 1995-2010. Adopted December 20,
1994.
Santa Clara County. 1999. Uniform Interjurisidictional Trail Design Use and Maintenance
Guidelines. In fulfillment of County General Plan Policy PR-TS(1) 6(A).
Interjurisdictional Trails Committee. April.
Santa Clara County. 1995. Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan Update: Final Countywide
Trails Master Plan. November.
Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2005a. Best Management Practices Handbook: SCVWD
Comprehensive List. Document number WW75 I 09. Revision R2. November.
Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2000. Preliminary Environmental Review: Stream
Maintenance Program. October.
h!!p:l /www.valleywater.org/water/technical information/Technical Reports/ Reports/SM
P Preliminary Envronmental Review.shtm. Accessed 1/30/06.
Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2002. Best Management Practices Under the Stream
Maintenance Program. Accessed October 7,2005.
{http://www . valleywater.org/W ater/T echnical_
InformationlTechnicaC Reports/Reports/SMP _ BMP _ 051702.pdf}
Santa Clara Valley Water District. July 2001. 2001 Stream Maintenance Project: Final Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2005c. Groundwater conditions: 2002/2003.
Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative (SCVWRPC). 2005. Guidelines
and Standards for Land Use near Streams. August 2005.
Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant
Society: Published in Sacramento, California.
State Water Resources Control Board. 2006. Construction Storm Water Program.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov /stormwtr/ construction.html) accessed 3/22/06.
Thomas Reid Associates. 2006. Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Cupertino, California. January.
Thomas Reid Associates. 2002. Stevens Creek Trail Study Area A Public Draft Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared for City of Cupertino. July.
Trulio, L.A., 2001. Assessment of Biological Opportunities and Constraints: Report for the City
of Cupertino, Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study. May 10.
Tuttle, Merlin D. 1988. America's Neighborhood Bats. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Page 4-4
U.s. Department of Agriculture. 1956. Soil Survey: Santa Clara Area California. Soil
Conservation Service.
4.2 PERSONS CONSUL TED
City of Cupertino
Therese Ambrosi Smith, Parks and Recreation Director
Barbara Banfield, City Naturalist
Mike Q'Dowd, Manager, Blackberry Farms
Vicki Guapo, Senior Traffic Technician
Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Ciddy Wordell, Senior Planner
Terry Greene, City Architect
Carmen Lynaugh, City Public Works Department
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Jason Christie, Engineering Unit Manager
Kristen Q'Kane, Environmental Planner
Jennifer Castillo, Environmental Planner
Jae Abel, Biologist
Doug Padley, Biologist
Linda Spahr, Plant Revegetation Specialist
Janell Hillman, Botanist
California Department of Fish and Game
Dave Johnston, Biologist
Consultants
Toni Corelli, botanist
4.3 REPORT PREP ARERS
Thomas Reid Associates
545 Middlefield Road, Suite 200
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 327-0429
Christine Schneider, Senior Associate and Project Manager
Barbara Beard, Senior Associate
Janet Cochrane, Senior Associate
Virginia Justus, Associate
Victoria Harris, Senior Associate
Terese Kastner, Associate
Patrick Kobernus, Senior Biologist
Christina Lau, Associate
References
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan fnitial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
References
Page 4-5
Jana Sokale
Environmental Planning
7788 Hazelnut Drive
Newark, CA 94560
(510) 793-3490
Balance Hydrologics
841 Folger Ave
Berkeley, CA 94710
(510) 704-1000
Stacey Porter, Senior Hydrologist
Basin Research Associates
1933 Davis Street, Suite 200
San Leandro, CA 94577
(510) 430-8441
Colin Busby, Principal
Hill and Associates
479 N. Santa Cruz Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Bruce Hill, Principal Landscape Architect
Dominic Lopez, Associate Landscape Architect
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
40 South Market Street, Suite 600
San Jose, CA 95113
Mike Waller, Principal Associate
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Figures
Page 5-1
5.0 FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure II
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Regional Setting Map
Master Plan Study Area
Aerial photo of Study Area
Blackberry Farm Demolition Plan
Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Master Plan
Existing Blackberry Farm
Blackberry Farm (Master Plan)
Stevens Creek Trail within Stevens Creek Corridor Park
Design Guideline G-3
Stocklmeir Master Plan
Stevens Creek Blvd crossing
Byrne Ave access
McClellan Ranch
McClellan Bus turnout & crossing
Demolition Plan (overall)
Creek realignments Reach A, B, and C with starting and ending elevations and
linear feet of realignment.
Reach A Creek realignments
Reach B Creek realignments
Reach C Creek realignments
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
FEMA Flood Map
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Figure 1. Regional Setting Map
,.... .<~ ",. . .. . . ... rn""""" ~I I. '\. r~..""U~11 .
!)~1Z i~' :'~ ~rfwy..IJ! I:~~t., .m LN\ \ i ~z~~ ll~ ~ ;~: >! . .~~. ""'\ ~) Uej
it; ..;,.' I 01:, ~ A 3 JI tT. 8lllFORO :.T:R~ _...;~~l t~:~~ ~ i ~tI............ ....S>n~ ~_RiC::nd
11A~"~ ~>-." :.OR. il~ ~~:\ ~T~~~~"'~ "OR 8M~.i ....................,.. ..{. loco
AY ~. ; Ci" C~I-lltiti~;..i ~~ . ~ I , ,.
I !~~. ~ArU _' ~~ 1<i - i ! C!lU; Aft I.- ::.~~~~DH.~ !i~: u ~"';k':
I~ <ij*i l C ~ ~.::: f:j4,,.-~ Wlf. ~a ~"<<",.. "j I ~~~'"
:~ n~ :;......, i~ ~"". ~.r' f- lilt'< ; cOliUllIl'A\.~. :"'.'~R ..... P'r' o",j."'''t.At'..e' a' '. . .. '. .. ~J
I ... <:1. ,- iIi All. i THE DAll~S w 2 THE : llAlLES ."'" ...... ~
. C: tl'c; IlS' '" . \ ~ ,~ .
...tt!.~. ,,1;' ~ .."WN~.! _l!i~ r.' ~rt. '" AV. f- -~~1IlG ~I Ij{ '" · u l!ii ,/icinitY'l '-,.,; J~n
'"' .... ~ '4 /. . 'lrt~':f~lll · ... . "( ~..,_,
~ Of ~ ~ <f.l~.!Ii . 1 '~'." ~ u.v. HH.ENJo "" ~ rw IlR H~lf."<," ; . '.~ . )
'~..&: ~~1E\~' 13'~ ~. -: .}'~~Jl ~.. ~~. "'- ('~bC'UZ '~J
~. &-.. H~HJ11 ~~ !Ill;!' ~~.<. ~ I ~ '" - ~....,.:," $,;r;:- l!i 0 ! ~ ,N ......on.,I~
I......~ "<10 ~" <:1.~":i~~ . ,,,'J ::;! - -~ C-;o'~I~.;/ _"_~r :: A
~ . ... or ., :l..' ~. ~ . :::". '" h ~_$ =l ... )
l'.o~ &f rrt . . at STEVENS u!'......HAi.i.~1.~ i e ",A>. ~ ~,;;; ~ LOUISE 0 Ii
4' 1'1" H I .I --.. ,~.~ liE"'"" "...
~ ~ .
'w ~i').t 1" ti ,ti,l</ti .'=," y ""'~!<>Dll ~I<fN<E ..1 O. 2.0 ~I;."
<> \ :tt,,~ il\' ~ "IF"fR 't'Ji:li I .PA'UTrAY <>r DJl~, ..
,~<f' I~"(C' <' ~ J!!L;~' S .....~;:: o$~". #~ . ~ ~ i ~Ii~ I ! Dl'~ ....1i. Mlle. ...idr
"4'" ..~.......~ '~~~ I~~~~ ':\' !;;: Pf~":"T ~.. ..~. ~~' ~ Ba.emap: OeLOTme, Sli'eetAtla." 2(1(10 0....6
" A" ~( ~_.e.. ;: t.~~ ~ ~ ~l~...... ~ Ii ii' _ . !I
. ~ !l\\. . '.. "<1-. 0.. ~ Q ~' 5;1,", ill ~I::; :os'. 2 ~....AO ~ "~.",
6t1JO!i"'J. .... \ "fJ:w" <I. if ~ Id!<>! -I j\Jl&U-~ , t__._.__: . _.--\,ijiiF-
~ . I Cft "-,'J!, ~ l:AAoum P_fLllD .;.. ::: ~k IlAIID1'"A Da. DI/
l{M~ "-
ill' .JliIWlT....... ~J-'~ . ~'!:@i~. ,'lAC''''' I o...i _ F. GRHNL~ g, . ~1fENLf'" MARIANI
~.\. tv i\:'"'f1er.\ g ~~=S! ".;.% '('~ "{ i'-.." ";;:;t;;!~.... ~ .J """DOlO 0.. 1!'1l ,A OK [l1 '" <1tJljiAH DR
'Ill'"' '~.w-- "'~, ~ . "V"'\....' :~~ lO";l. .. .Jl oC co DR. <c
;t l:5'" ",,-, .,."-,, ,"i!;... "': irf.o;:::/ 1/ :t~ TU~ lS fAHGO" <<' N
\ ~~ -4>: _r~ ~ 4: ~ i:. ,!! tl ~~ l C:"~ ~ 7' !!L c i
" ",,:<: _tIlRO DR III
j Q. ~ ~<j,"r~ ~ '"' ...~:!= . llJl.lIMfDIIllOR V.u1ll.TTA ~ 1;; CI ~I~
/ 7l i;l ! <TM~" ~": _,~ Area ie/OAt DR ," .-!4Iilc1iDOl>)J1ft; t\~, ~'t. ~ aIilJlDf.N GATF-" OR. ILA~AIlEO" of ~Il
I ! ~ 0 "''' ~ ~.t: (:lllilr<m 1!' tHIIIST=.. EteNllJ,.8 .jA;.;, ,.. z
II~ J'DI'f'I'OR i"'ClI,mJ>> .-.. -~ ~\\. \t I' -;: '>Io!"!'l ~ 'r.'~ 11II. .. r:f:\ "'f'l' i; w: ~i
~~ SALE Iii ~1 ORIT E ~i !"",,,,', $1 'J 6 .r" .~<l 1j.1"'1 ~~ ~ ~ AtVf.S y.....\" ~.wl 00. ~!i. ~
1%:,):$ M. . t ~~~: ~ i lfIMfMEW i . i ~ ~~. ~ t PAItJ( - ! I ~ I iN I Q.
~i II,~ ~I ;;:: ~<~~.;x:K~\\; ~ ~ ~ ! l.. '" ,.. !i, l\+"i/l' 1>// Au: :1~;"J~Ji CU ,."EI f IllliO "'.
"i~,sriC .~'. "OW< '" '~~"".'EA~""P " "': \ ~)'~~PC"'~.'i ~ ~, ~ ~
j,:f!tl:!~~ '~~~~{~~7 E ~ \~\ '~~. ~=~~1~=""1;7 ~
Ijl:~ S "s ~ Q .5 '" ~.~ ~IJ""'l'.S r]ll ~;""f''''''' lO~Il. .. \ '" ,- l:1:5 :;:~ ....15. oN. Q ...'
Q.. lE;!'" ....'!Q ~ /& ~ lC"'I.~'~ .. ~ -, ::;
.f Go"... ""iiiiii'.. I....!~" J"' k;\.. (.~"""', ~~~~ I~ '~...:... PEP""'",,< .~. " fI{lO~IGlJfS ID.V
*"r.IIIll-CIfCf.. J-= . ~ : .' \: Cd'Ji.F ~ ;:UL I~; CAAhtflHAd 1 #1:..00 !W
M:~Uir--;:; 1'Ji~:fi.' ~t)'-..I""~f)(P..I$.f~ ,jILMAi.1UtA'YLrvf."Sl.?:M'MJ\J(~R(;"~: ~. IU~.pr,. COLLEGE u:::f!iSl'i'fHYCfI". CflH~A.
;l\.~ /" tf1<r ;s.J:(1P1(. .. ~':! , ", ..", ' ,f'lo_nD<l AY ~ ~. ~..........--.. '" 1< TOWN
'l!; r -" " !l!~J, .... 'z · n ~. '" c..... ~ !.N.
' NV "j~:;; J$ if;'" ~ ~~. -. ~ . '" ~~IJ., S ~ $ ~ cr. "" - lO'. '
il.t;@:Jt8 ~ ~.~ tl'" ~ Vol '~$!!f.... '...~ 'dGAlAA I:.IAY f,.,? ~TfOIIJ ~ Sl -tl: .. ~!'i!.t.:~ f'
:(-,y- ~ ~&!.. JPMM '" "AV -~f\;,""" r 'it 'S' ... ~.;;!~U\_ ~:i u:-" :"'i
'a,f'~ "" 1:=. ~,: ~!::.~.~, I ~ !l-eL~p.!'"3 fI"" :NOI')'ioUl ~ 'Ili"."':;' -- .I,:~~ 'IV :s II" ~ ~ - :5- PAClfI[.A U/
,r~ ~g ~._'" ~,;;&. ~ ~ ~ \ 'C' <> ..""Rn p. "
"\ c:.: -. WI' S>>tlA, ;PAUlA "'V ~ _ .... I;D MeCUI,.t,.AH'" T AD, MtClflLJJil . to jIj". RO
:; "lC"'P~ llD. ~ ~ tL:~~(;' ,. " , P....:>.; ~\. '-I't'i. I~ "<. \1"';' 5 " 0; ... iSllV:R.<~,. w.
i:.! ff~~ ; ~E g a~~ r, I,,". '.<. '" "" '" "'1'-'1.~' o.l,%;, . ~-i.;-Il"""~' ...., ~ wr. ~ z. ' ~-,>:
W-... is if. tl !W<Ct~ {! ~.... =~,_.!). "'lil CIlI. ~ \ .;..\.....~ fj ~_t""C'- 1:.9.\N ".' ~ ~ !::
"'... w "'~.. . "'- S ~.. """,.......... _. ~ l~ III .".,...
""' ~ <.]1 sr. _W/ +c' .... f 't"': ~ ~ PQEStOtl) ~ \ rAft,f:. ....tl!. O'flI\'Cl';a \ tl.II'I.WfU ' . Q &r
~/;<M" ~\,/il.~~:) .?i ~~~.~~;~r.~~~...mm~~ d~I~!~il~~I:R.~R..~~' ~\ ... \~~~~;)6i.. It.. if _aUlU~ER Rn.. W ~~''"'':
lR""" ...... ...i1;........."""'!!.!!!'if. ~ ~ - "~.. ''''- [ij 90 '" ""AIItl1'.n~ ~'" r ~ CT. r~ YJ:.' ".... JO'l_ '" DEtro,M. "'I ~
~(,f ~ ~/f'1~~' '~'" ~:?"I'b' r<T .w. ltoUYtllI.K ~\\, cr .".'tlil[I(jf_.~_._._...' _ :ill ~
~'... ~~~IJ(; .:";~""",""",,;,}oc"P'~,,,,~ $...n'.b~r"),OH.:!i. ,." ~?"~\\.~. ."JY~~It.. <"~.$OI.J.YM";,1 ~":='S UH. S;;,:;;
-Z:({;Ik4li ~ ~iJrc" ...: S(L~ ! CuFF ~ C!. ;; ~ 0.1 ). PU~ ~-l~ ~u C:ft..Q MfW( !I~LA~~G~)..,.....~ _. ~ _
~lJ..~ D 'f., ((1.Jx ...;; : 1/1: (b JQ. ~ _~ :\ '\!!r::JR: =.;.. .... OF! '-~ or::i.
~<""' ..r.~~ l!f Dk. ~M1.l;!l GOI..P ~ ~ t ~ llot\ARl.IJ!N. e 3 ~ 0:) ~ ...~l!U 'J1eI - "%:::...- - - - ~. t11:~TM-f.WGlll)~. l,t' g
._--....."0, .-(:l~ :t,""3.~.. r('.Q'~ ~.~ f ~ ~ j~k ~I~ .u '1"\ it:! <a. . 1~~~l(? ~ _ u,,, ~l Dif1~ ~
JlllCAAUD ~ "', .'. .\ '"' RUCKeJl 0.. !l1 c:'" ED..._...., ! 101OOOI" ',~ ~.~. ~~ ~ ,,,fJllMf i~ C,.AlleNDOIl
I~ ow. ::41 <E"";: '. ' ., .........', ~~'OLU..BUS ~ il"t'" t:"" ~~ ''''!lIIll.I..l ;50 ~, . ". ,
~'+ -<T" '" ',-..,::- .' : ~ ,~~ il ~I: :;J:l, All. COl.lAISU::O: "to t;. :-=:Ir~ 'Pi. i.. ~.:' -ci~ fOE l:N'. r'
~ot!.":' ~~ .' ;:,.... ~,,'! i:~\rWrA l)lr ~ :;;t; .:R ~ ~ ,,;, it!-~- ft~'":; ~ ~<;: . 'i '"
'. ~ w. "", ': """" '", II ~ l:l !-iFASTl.nDN il _ :.t ~ 111 i'i!0I."'" :ot\' {~ ~.o.o 01 ~. ~
.~'. ;:f~. -:.' ~~ ;"'... ~'""~..' q 'h~~ ~ 2L. ~ ~ VAl f4V_ ;(ORroft~ ~!.11 cr. r;., IC;I ~
~~""'1~,c ~ w~/~: ., .... ~ ~')I" ~ ~i: e.... ~~~t E ~[..J ~, . ~UNOl)rt(:t OJt t/.\Y1CO Ct
nt:t.w.: ..a:~'Il.n r:;~ ~ : '!\.R~!,';~.pl.. :~~ t\.'~~ . A. l:~~~ l"t. ~
"'g,.,.,.,,,,,",d <:f.:" '" ''';\ "01 l!i IREWOOD. illt b
N 0 2000 if!" :;! D~: ~ f. ~ ';;;;;-;;! ~ ::; :\Ii..... ~r..." ...1. iJ w Iii
A \>llB:iilh-;~rti Ii! ~'I. lW iii g ~ ""W'6iiU<:-'{ lfA1iii CI B.U~ H~l
;l' ii':l . '" ~ \ j;; It ,,' 1$1" ii
Feet ~;OT.5"""~'~''''~~'W' .~.,-o~ ~ ~NoL~e""""" $> '<"'; ,,-!,
8fUA9l' .~ T i ..~," """ ""'" . PI. ..... A~ BAAII l'
: .0 "I . 0;': o.,.,......:.\. ftl. w," KU i:T ~ m : it i': It'~. -'i-
~~~~~:, ~~r~~a~~~tomobile Association, (Q 2003 ~;~~~,. :.~1:,:: ~8f~~;Rb:::~: ~"'~1 J ;~;~ jt ~k.. ~. \P:::, 0
;
..j-"
~'. .,~.
" ~
~
"-'joch
"""
I" I__..::-r-
r'.~;;r+~
) 0"
~
AV.
~
'-.fl.
-;''-:,.::''~':."'., <
"TI
lO'
r:::
~
(I)
I\J
s:::
Il>
'"
-
(I)
,.. ~
""0
ii>
::3
UJ
-
r:::
a.
'<
>
<il
Il>
EXISnNG PROPERTY lINE
~..'
::?TOCkL~E;IR-
. '5JTE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD;
r---..-.---..-j
I f
", 'J "f,;i,~~f;'
. ),,0. ~___.l' .
!
(
i
i
\
,
l.
\
'\
\
)
BLAC.t(BERR-r FA:Rt....t < (
GOl-r GO~R.SE;"__>
. ~R,"C\ t
,,~
.~,
~
\
\
\
.~
i
I
j
{
.'"
LEGEND
~
STEVENS CREEK
- ~~~
."",,~
..~
~,
j
"
.,/'
./
./
PRQP'ERTY ./'
L'''E (~-
\
~
)
;
)
./
/.
/.
: ~
11
'"
,f"
"
I
___1 -
,';-.," . . .)~,...C
. (! .~;'^",
,T~ '. ." 1 )f",~
.:.L........~.
~__ _..__.";..;i:;' '.
y~ " \~~ ",' ,i
"~.~,~~~:~~<, '\
'''~):X\''
'".' "--\
i,' ,(
" E'<'ST'I-le> )
" <.\ J. S-O~~~;LL ;:.'
r-"~ ", ,..'1' j
(' " "~"C;~/~,"4--''-':--,'~-lj
~,J t2f--~::~ ltf ;~~;I
j X/ \')
I' / ../ MG~~~~~"N \. '.. ;/
. r':,J. .// . "-"1;1 .
f: ../ ( . I....'.
',! . \',' .;or.,.,' ~r" .
I ' : ~ -..',--r-i (:>~: .~ t
(!. (p'~-" ;\ -I
!, j "PI<O"'!:'RT...- ; -,)\y/
H[: \. '1.'Nr - ':1':.'.1::'" )~\
. 0'><"0' \ .. , ,/
" .. DROP"'RTY . -./, " c
.~ - \ /; i ';I!>
\. )1 ..~~.
.\..,. '" ~.,
~".......-........,._..... ':'t\ ,~ . ,;.~~.~-..;:..:.-?'.-
... .~
\ .'. .' ,.-.
.';\-; ," ..;;i:-~"'" . .,
-"-L_:~>;~
6L~G+-":8ERRY
r......RH
FA.R+-..:
'<..;,:
~
-.~:. '
1
~--:
,,;----, .
C,'
, ~
,
'1
, "
I
Ii,.
1
o
N
A
100 feel
Source: Hill Assoc.. April 2006
Figure 3. Existing Habitat and Surrounding Land Uses of the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Project.
N
A 0
1 000 feet
.
Map: TRA, March 2006
""".'
/ //
/
il~
~~'.
GOLf" c..Ot.,'
rACTOTY SE MA.INTENA.~~
',//
if
LEGEND
~',-
/: "
//
~.
(.~ '
, -
, .
.
EIIII] EXISTING
PA.VlNGT~T
REMO\IEl)
EXISTING CO
STRUClURE NCRETE PARK
STOBE
EXISTING C REMOVED
TO BE. FILLE=eeD
EXlSTI D REVEGETATED
TO BE NO BUILDINGS
REMOVED
~~NG BRlOOES
REMOVED
EXISTING LOW
AND DI\lERSlO:~ ~O CROSSINGS
4-H ANO C BE AENOVEO
TO BE REL OMMUNITY GARDEN
OCATEO AREAS
J
~-'---~ I "
,~
_,~_~~ I,
---0' ---
exiSTING
TO BE REM""'"
OVED
<<:;;
100 feet
E ,,6;1"16 B
. RJC;>CE
!i;."::-T~R'P~'
,
~
: '\
, ,.
"\
: : ,\
I I "
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
'"
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
" ,
, ,
,
i
N
A 0
Hill Assoc
.,
);
1',',,1
.' r
,),1
/J~"
~ ;' ~;~~.
/',' ""',
Source'
March 2006
tZ~,~C' 8 ....NK-
A.RC':'
.u~~J:F':-IST.
c..R6S~~~ .
<>
"",,--;:-':;--
~'""",,;:'";;:;<
',I
I
1
I
I
I'
I
f
I
1
o
I
1,_,~L
, I
.J (H
J IJ
-',
/
- -, ~_ 1
i '1
,
I
i
_E'SITN6
':::'OFTBA.LL
rltLD
'':'
j
I
oC:
~+~--~
~"'"Il
-'.-:-3-:::;).:
-. .,..
-n
cC'
c
Cil
~
OJ
III
o
:><"
0-
m
~
-n
III
3
o
m
~
:=+
o'
:J
-0
5l
:J
"
"'
.~.'
-'
-1.)3:~.. ....
-
L~
LEGEND
~ PROPOSED
REALIGNM:EAM
.. ..
.. ~DONED
mEAM CHANNa..
,----
""] 8' WIDE STEVENS
CREEK TRAIL
=-.J \ h--i ..
',-~L~
m= I" ~-~'
o
,?~~o
--, ,
'.1
I
N
A
o
S Feet
ource: Hill A
SSOC" 2006
"
to'
e:
<i1
~
en
(j)
ai
::J
(JI
()
<il
<D
'"
()
o
3.
a.
o
..,
-0
Q)
..,
'"
Q)
::J
a.
::0
<D
(JI
S-
ill
-
O'
::J
~
Q)
(JI
(j)
..,
-0
m
::J
500
T
i
Horseshoe Bend 8
50-150
Horseshoe Bend A
100-200
"
(C'
~
m
0')
,
Fallen Oak
Right side
200-300
m
~.
(fJ
0:
:::l
CO
OJ
D)
o
"
0-
CD
...,
-<
"
D)
...,
3
Fallen Oak
Left side
SO- 1 SO
Walnut Court
B C
1 00.200 50-1 SO
I
..
'0
I
i~ :
..
~
VI
w
::I
"l'l
i
CL
, 0
'>
~
Entrance to Pltnic GroundS
~..Avenue .. . .
Hlil Restroom
(\ Horseshoe Pit
~ Picnic Site
/i'
"W
o
200 feet
Basketball
>z
(approximate scale)
.. Swimming Pool
<~,', F' Id
'V' Ie
^ Concession House
J,'7^\ Volleyball
..\~~i
Source: City of Cupertino, 2006
Map: TRA, March 2006
900e; ljOJel^J sale!ooSSV II!H :aoJnos
c:
III
a.
....
Q)
-
U)
III
:::iE
E
....
III
LL
~
....
Q)
..c
-'"
u
III
iIi
,....
~
::l
Cl
u:
.~^' " ,.,' - J "1..'.-.1 r' J
~", ,'. . , . '-C ' .", ,!.,/'V)r _
(I '.' > ,,)' \~~~ '~E..:T i~J);
" ,.:". '~:\' "~ " " ""~~~/;::r 2/ II V J,
b' ,,~ ,.", ~~'\ , ". ~ .
~'., ~"",~ .~,:.',:,::\~ \~~':" ~\.~ _~~ ~":". ' . ',. ~~.>-J.> ~ )
! . """. x, .,'". . "" ~"" " "".. "" ~
't'i' ,';,X ,'~ .. / -1 n_,..___ '"
r---~ 2 ,,':~,'-.' . J"~ ','". , '.. ...;j",y", .... ",' "
.-- (" 'V'. "~"''''''''', .' ',''''
0~ ". ._~.~-~-"~<~: : ~" - "",,, :Ai, ... . '"
I~~" ,*.1 :,' ~ .~y ,)7) :.J'\;,{. \ I)"" "'., .'.J.... }~'-/ ,.,' ~;. t\\,\,'
.' ./'~"j -' v..;: ii"..V\ \" '.' ~r--" ". ~ '\,:.
..... ..,...,......,. ,......' ....~.... "-~. '~'".'
,~Ju ..l.91Xii1 ~ ................,....... _', c ,
._~ ,.' ~r' _f /.~~},"" ~,r..... '.. --- ... ,,',' ''}: ~
~ ~ Ay ~ ","~}i' '//'n__" . ,:- , I ky NoU.~~ .. /~ , .;' .
r'\.. -. -,.... -'''~",'''Y "'(rrj7'f,' -q.-;<; ,,~,~~ - ,i ". . . r/
,,-v" v ./.' . ~,~~h " \ ." -~...., . .:1
, ..'. .' ~.~ ,)22' :.~., ; ... . ?;:i:'i:- .l~p}...... __' r . J .. f "t,;; ·
,', f . . 'C1 f -~, \I>~_' ...:l. ~'
.. <:,... ',{ ~~- .0 ," or,. '",,~ f ' ""
,-" (,(;:~ f f ~', '~ Qv-a "" v~, .
1 ' / ,,"""'"
. \,] ~ />........., Ao..... ,k" :.....:... 'A " :
, I '?N~""" no, . .ii.<'b.. '<'''<;~ ~ ft ,\ ___ x: :
:'>'~~' ". ,.' ~D"o ___ ,.
.~o,;' '" ~ ,0 IJfi;'" /~&~'>. ,
-=~".. \ ,;~~, ~l- ..".' ,0 ~;:~ i!1.i\t ..... ..... ]J
'X. \ '"l .~~. -q; '.' ~ .... ~.~?; ~ .'. D:::;-
\.. ~ ~~~. ~!:l :;.. "~~17i.i LI
",'\
'<.. "., 'V ...< ~ ~~ , .. ~,~ ," . \""""",' \
~ ~ ~J~ [ ~ ~ h~ d 4 1 If'r I \'- " ,
,., ~tr". '<.. ~ ~ ~ ..."t..o~";" ",:r.' ,: i\ ~ :"' < ,::" ':,v
.-i~ '-< 9 ~ ~ ., ~ h.\. }) r~ !/.". . . ,1,';'" \
~ ,,~~~ ~~~.: ,r:r."I.:i" ~dHff..t,: ';, .(
~ -~~ ~~ r. ').If.,," .y. :..l~-~ :8 :,: ' ~~
%~ ~~ ~'~"V, ~ ".ki-:ii Q;~' < ~ L..-.-
o ,~~~~\ ~:: 1~~~~~ ,': .,.,...
'. \ 1," ',.. o..r~.~ J' .)~' " ".. : . .
'L'I/.,,;
, ". i1, '~V~"
; '\, j/' ',) .... ',' :, '.;; ,,:'
," ": .' ~Y:;..' ," .
. ,,/#"\ :A.D'U<_"'",' !,!.I~ '~.'
, ~i ... m r,~.' . . " .., __ f"
,
,
/
<>
.. "
, ,
I
, 0
, "
\ "
, : ,
i , ,
,
, : ,
, ..v'
,
.
I"
i
,
'-I"'-/
/\ i
,i
I ;'
, 1
\ '
I
; i c;::::l
,
, ~nO? dlOp>
;
.on 'OJ" ,
!'\ \
l'
"
,p.'p,
,LJ
" , '
OJ1
.~
),
"
l
,
"
188j OO~
o
TtIW.)4:Bl1:)~3CIIM.llC
~~ ......
\f
N
.IN.....~1l ~ .-
~Q3SOdOlfd ~
aN3E>31
Figure 8. Stevens Creek Trail
Source: City of Cupertino, 2006
Map: TRA, March 2006
~'.~"t.~
~--'J::.::~w.0
? c<::<!
Proposed Restoration Area
Trailhead restrooms
to be renovated (total
200 sq. ft.), 2 benches
and directional signs
in this area
rm.'.7".'.
. '>""-."
of'-' '-;"
Existing Healthy
Riparian Habitat
. . . Existing Nature Trail
New Pool
and Rtffl
Restoration
"
- - _ Proposed Bike/Ped Trail
,-....
~-.
N
A
o
200 feet
11 Space Partdng
Area
1
€mano'me
~\
V...1liKj:
Environmental classroom
to replace caretaker's
trailer
Figure 9, Design Guideline G-3
Shared-use Trails
Natural Tread "Poul:1le Trac;k Trail
~uee;trian6, Hikers & 6iaYGlee
Shar&l-us6 Trail RoutB: tl traIl roUt.eA661~ned.
developed, and manageel for all typee of UEi-ere. U6e
would be accommodated eitner on one 5hared-uee
TraU, ora cornt;.il1stion of parsllellimit8d-ue6 (&68
Fi~urt: G-4) and/or 5inele-purpoee Trail6
(eee FJ6ure G-5) .
NatIve mllttrlal or Pae8 rock
2'-0" minimum vll6_.t1on clearance
on each elde of1>rall. Prune all borueh
over 12" In helfJht & 112" In dlameur
that 1I1Ctends In1:o 1>rallway.
Lan&lSGape Peslgnatlon
Vall Floor AreJill>
I
; Optimum width varias ,
Optimum 2~ Cross..lorr for Drainage
Typ. Maximum I' Average
Trail Grade . Terrain Slops
,
O(Mmum
Trail Tread Width
8.35%
0.157-
1 .
12'-O~
1 -
NlA
Foothill Areal>
10%
D-15Y.
16-:30 .
>30"-'
Mountain Areal>
12.5%
6'.0-
"
>:30"4
4'-0" to 6'-0.
Notef.':
.. ... ,. . _. .
. for traile typically ouUide or Url1an Service Area9 a& ghown on the Counr,y General Plan Land Ue>e Map.
. "Optimum:" the Vest or moet favoral1l~ condition for a particular trail 51UJation from t;he perepective of
responell1le management.
"" Should a eituat.lon 116 encounter&:! where the optimum width il1dicsted can not l1e achieved or a etaged
development approach Ie; ue&l whel"Cl narrOM:r traile precede the optimum l1uildout width, mitigation
meaeure9 ehould l1e uee.:! to provide for trail ueer sarety. Such meaeuree could include, l1ut are not limited
to: I1rueh removs.l and clearing to augment. Iin6e-of-eight, trail pullout6 at regular inUrva]e, one-way trail
managm8nt. e;ignaae. or dlemounting requlremtmt5.
Source: Countywide Trails Master Plan. Santa Clara County. 1995
, ' " '. "
\ \ \ ' '\ \ \ \.... \, \
: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
I \ \ \ \ '\ \'.... \ \ \
) ,,__'_....1 ; \ \ \ \ '''-,'',
,/ / /-" ,..__~ ./ ' I "
.;:;;/>::<:>.-~ ---<:. ~-
;/;~~~\
~o:.""--:;--:--- ~_.....::::
~
~
~
~('--- :
i;J!
,
,
,
,
:
,
:
;
[
(~
~I I 10 I / 'iJ'1)
, L-J -r /J
,_ /___// )/J
__________ .-?7f I
----------------- -~ -~-~' "-- ~
JI
r ) __
\ "....- _.
,., /~,/
- -- -:...-----
__ ---= --\ - E~. BRIDGE
/\ -
LEGEND
~ -.......
-- "--- REALKJNUENT
......
,- -=:J
""""""'"
.......CHANNa
" WIDE STEVENS CREEK TRAIL
o 0
---
.;.T
N~W ~=~
.;.
Ili
D
,~
~': ~- - - -
_~/ ~ L-f_~--/)-- 0
~//////r//,'////r~'/////~
.~T_bV ~CB.EF:K
RI .::LJ:2......-- --
N
A
~ 100 feet
APPROXIMATE SCALE
Source: Hill Assoc., 2006
"T1
ca"
e
CD
0=
en
S-
o
0:
3
CD
::;"
-
Figure 11. Stevens Creek Blvd. Crossing
.(r I ...~, .~ '~~1"~1 .~ ~) ,...~, "'~ /.......~\ < ,:":-.\)...~-..".,.",-~.::::..., ......-..~...~,l~...:.,
~ I ". ..~. 1;; \ ~:... .~ ".,'... ,.j., ~~';;:."''' ........." ~
~ i '. ~ ....~,~. '~, ......... ", ....... ...,,)..
. ) \ lIt ::'1 '-'-~.m'.___...."~~_"..)." '. """""".,,""".,./, '.
. ; I I:i I::.' 'c^. .>""',,,; "'"
\ ~"\'i' \ ~ 1 \ 'n"..,;,', "', \) ~,..;':.,.""'.,.,,,,~~\..,-,
.. , iti I ;'.1 ,-.' ", " -.,.,:', ',"'.
f' 'L~ 1 }:'i./.,,: ......j...., ,'. ".~." "~., "<'>
. , a'\. . ;.(,. ' . ~ "", ........;. \(-~..
, \.'-' ~:' .r '.~'" .. ,r...... .. '.... ::....
(:~J \ \ 1'1 ~l"L.; ;/ '.'.',";' ( ,:"
'\ ' I ~~l;: () ~.::::J
, ' 1 "'lit: :4''-'lt.:----...
, . I .-if I :1 i -I-II~
) ,I ~,.. ~ II.............
.- ./' :,1 "'. {..., --+--....
)1 '~! II~
:\ "i-lll~
",,,...,.,.A"2 1 : ~'n -I II ~ "-
{, .~~ i 11-- ~"
" :;~ -1.11-
':I \t -I II
~\ II-
i I -111=
( I 11_
: II-
I -1-1---
1---
~Itr
III
1 I
,IV\'\ \ \ \\:)
,I .\(
\1 ./,_~/
'j".. .;/~." I . .,.".
C. "j,' '- ',.. ,...".
- /~ / : au ~ . ..' ,
...-' ~ ,..!(~ ..' 0
~. J' ~1fI/,' ..
'-.. ./1".... i:,
2' '. /'
" ",/./ c'" __y~ .
:' ~< y. .'
~ / /'11 ,:
.;I I .::'
-- I);
1 \ If'
;f
r
>
)
,
'-
,
)
~
'. ....
,........
c~~
~
fJ--
h.F
~-
,.
"
.,. ..
,
,
,
,
o
~
8
X
9
~
~
o
;
!
;
,
d;"
,'~' ~I
:-:>-
~~,e
,
,
'"
<(
~
~
i:j(:rd'V1 WHcI
iIi!J
-<...-.,~.......... .......,
. "-
~ -......
"-
,"'"....
" "\
, \
\,\
"., \J I:
;' r\' l!
.' i Ii
'\ ,I l
I' \
~ :
, ' \
' '
;' 1: \
F ..'~ ',\ \
J ~ \' \
, \'" \
h.........
~. \
I'
~ \
\, \
r' \
1 ~ \
,
,
,
,
\
'.
"
~~. .
",', ~ I
\1:
'~ 1
~' I
\1
~
'\
1\
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
.1
~"., .
~,. '.'l.
':'p
"
i
)'0
.,
/
,
,
[~
'.
..,
:
~ . ,-
-
CD
.l!!
0
0 (0
..... 0
0
N
0
lil
z....;;;;( ~
I
~
:I
S
0
GOLF c.OUR5E
"Tl
-.
(C
r::::
m
....l.
I\)
.
to
'<
~
~
CD
...--' ~
CD
:::::l
r::::
CD
I )>
()
()
CD
en
en
MAINTENANCE ENTR'f
TO <SOLI' COI.'R5E
.
AT eRADf: 4' ~1Df:
PATH
,
PEDESTRIANI5lc.'fGLE Ac.c.ESS
RESTROOM
f'OR 6OLf'
G~
'.
"',
"'"
.'......
.......>
:2 SG. FT.
OUTDOOR
MAINTENANCE
~
","
..
~
TREES TO eE
\ >. \ ~OVEO , __-::
~ --- ---
-- --
- --
I _-_- i-_
---- ,..
--
_.r'-----
;::::;-0"
-;:;::?'...
..'
I
I
I
--{ f
1
~D
N 0
A.
100
Feet
Source: Hill assoc., March 2006
Map: TRA, March 2006
\
III
'-.'L
~rr-"
-, I ~~J~\
i L--J )
~
I'
!
P
i
i
;rl
:
i
I
I
~.i, .
o
D
'I
L
(//
\
\
\
\
\
"
ce'
l:
Cil
~
~
s:
o
o
(!)
III
::>
:0
" III
::>
'0
::T
1
"
_ O~D,~~A,RY i-+ -
,C+-I)Al1 .- .1<..;>l::i'I"lA,T
DELINE~TlciN,~R
NEJrl ROL^!
6AR.DE--- OF
N PLOTS ,-
-'--
0....
I
I
8' i^lJQE T<:<A.iL
o
. \1
GLl
rr
.: r>r/./// ~<.'-'-:\"
'G.-:.<' <</. .. ." .\
/" .'(v.' .'
. '. -"I'
".~\
~, ,\
,
,..,...-,..,...
o
N
A
100 feet
Source: Hill A
ssoo M
_, arch 2006
: :11 I I
, I: I::
1;;;:"1
.~ ~r""1
:1
t:~::~-~~ :1
cc.........1
;;;~?{1d
EXISTING
PAVINGT~PHALT
E REMOVED
EXISTING C
STRUCTUR~SNCRETEPARK
TO BE R
EXISTING EMOVED
TO BE FIL~EREEK BED
DAND REVE
EXISTIN GETATED
TO BE R~"BUILOINGS
OVED
EXISTIN
TO BE R~"BORIDGES
VED
EXISTING LOW
AND DIVERSIO~~~'Z ~~T~E CROSSINGS
4-H AND COM REMOVED
TO BE RELOC~~~~TV GARDEN AREAS
,..>~
-.J i"</;,>:t-"c.c.
,-><-'-.-
~ LrLd ~)
.==-=,-~...!I J~ c.-.J
. -:-: ,..J ':-~" ~
c.,.
:!!
c:
@
......
?'
o
CD
3
o
;:+
0"
~
-0
ji)
~
LEGEND
~ISTING TREES
BE REMOVED
=- I ,-'----..J'fl I~
"ill' .. -:.~~:..
,~
!j :BP ~~
~~1 -
r~~;'-'
: r
o
N
A
Source:
100/eet
Hill Asso
C., March 2006
ll! ll! II
~ii Ilul N
;~~ii~i!l; A
1[:;]1 0 J.J \ \
;;
.!!
-J;
r'1 I
t 1\ I
~
Ul
1:
CJ>
E
c::
.g>
Cll
~
-
o
8i
-
....
Cll
CJ>
.!;;
"0
c::
Cll
Ul
C
o
~
>
CJ>
<ii
0>
C
'5
c
CJ>
"0
C
Cll . ~:.::..-)
0>
c
'E
Cll
U5
J::
-
.;:
u
"0
C
Cll
cO
<i
J::
al
CJ>
a:
Ul
-
C
CJ>
E
c
.2l
Cll
CJ>
a:
-'"
Q)
~
Q
<0
,....
~
::>
0>
u:
o .
._~~~
. r
i
J
_...r,
Figure 17. Reach A Creek Realignments
'I'~
>~
I
~)
.~".;;.
,~
"
'~...
~
\
, ~--........._---
'\
}
/( t'
I ! /",
I I ( ,
(I .
I '
i
,
I
/
i
,
,
, ,
I .
.
/
I
I
!
.
4
!
I
I .
I'
I
I '/
I.
/'
I
I '
/
!
i
.
I
I
I
I
.
€I~..
RE1>.CH A ·
.. LENGTH 5'
€I
"0
.
, ,
/ EXPLANAnON
_ L.IVE CRIB WALL
lZZl CRBiiK CORRIDOR
IIlil RIFFLE
STEP-POOL
o POOLS
~ OIGGER LOG STRUcnJRE
~ SPIDER LOG STRUCTURE
___ DESIGN CROS5-SECTION
.......... EXISTING CHANNEL CROS5-SE
>z
.
.'
./
I
I
I
. I
,in-
"~, Ii i ,i.1
. .~{
II
/
/
\ /
", / /
"') I ;/
II
1/
I,
/"1
!II ,
:/",
,/) ;; /
/// 1/ / ./
, / /
,~" ..!'
///"
~:; ;//' / /
.. /.
/
Ii'
t )n
Je \ ~ ' fi
: . R() CH A \
. ~~EL VATlO \
I \ .
..! \
, \~
. I '
. ' ! . <)
I
\
I
I'
"
\
,
\
~
0\
\
~--r', =,~~. \
,~"'~ ""
'\,
\.
-
..
/
,
,
.
II
.
,
..
~
:{,
.
.
r
.V
oJ
/
.
^'
,~
100laat
.
,
.
.'
'.
. .
. .
. . ..
.
.
.
REACH B
Source' Bala H
. nce ydrologics, March 2006
~., \..
",
\.. t
\ \
\ \
\ \ I
\ . \ t
I .. I .
:11
. 1.1
r 1\ ~;J'
I' I
/ / I r .'
i ( I I'
tl f \
~\\)f;'
. \ I \ I
I );) ) I)). "I,
1/1111
\ I r II I I
, \ I \ I I II' t
\ . II I I \ \ \
I I \ \.\ '
II ..1'1'/.1111..'......\\ .
fl, J L I,' 1111,1.. , ",'
IIUPl1llljit,j' ~
.' ..
~ Q)
:z ;;
~ ~ l5 ~ ~
Z!l< ~@~d
~;ij ~~~~
~~8 5 ~~5g N
rr5~w~(,O)ffiO::l5z A
~~~~~~~im~
.~I 0 Ji\ \ \
1
I
r
L~
<:
o
j::
co
o
o
N
\ '\1 .
" \ \
\ '
0~>
o
\
,.
'\." '
,'- ,
\
\
I
. .
CD
~
::::l
o
if)
. ~----
t
.i~_
-.I .
LI.J
~.
~
.. ,<II U
ex::
----~-
--
--
-~-----
~---
.'
.
. ~
. ~
.
..
. .
..
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
alJ:
J:.....
<..)(9
. US ffi
: IX:...J
.
..
.
.
.. ."
.
" .
.
. '
.
,.
. . \- /_-----------~
. I.'
.. (" . -,- ------
~ /
.s . . /
j-:-l> '
I'J " :c/
c:
<I>
E ~
c:
,2'
11I
<I> ~( :<
c:::
-'"
<I>
<I>
....
() .^'> ~
CD )
..c:
0 r
11I \
<I>
c:::
cO . /
......
~ .,' . . . dg >
::::l . -
OJ
u:: " .. --~' .
.
.. .'
..
..
- -- ~ - -- ~ ~ -- -~_._._- -,-~ --...--..-
Figure 19. Reach C Creek Realignments
EVAT10N
I
!
I
"
EXPLANA nON
"
\
\
Ix --
'r"
,; :,
~~)
(.1
""
_..~
\
_ LIVE CRIB WALl.
IZZl CREEK CORRIDOR
I&l RIFFLE
STEP-POOL
290.3'
. REACHq .
\ LEVA nON
\~
~~.
'/ -., '. "\~.
~. ... .' ~-/~,':'
., .
---
~ .
.....--.~
~.
/~
r
I
,I (/
(\
\,~,
.
. .
o POOLS
'" DIGGER LOG STRUCTURE
iJIt= SPIDER LOG STRUCTURE
__ DESIGN CR0S6-SECTION
.,..... EXISTING CHANNEL CR0S6-SECT
\
\
.,
\
.
." 11-11. . ..
.
o
>z
100 feet
..
... ,-4
.
\
~---- .-
___n___
~--
. ~-
. .. ~..----:- . .
__~n..-.,-_N--:-~."""""'---"---:-'-"'~ '
'\
!
.
.
~\\
. f ) /I~
(I ;/'./ .~r'
j , I", l
.... / \
.. I .1\
~\ 1\
~--~/ I
I
I
.
f
/
/
\
\
\
!
;
"-
~.\
\
j
I
____/1
j
j"-'-"
,
,
i
I
i
~~.
I. r
I
1
,
J.
WILLOW.sWALE
Source: Balance Hydrologies, April 2006
,
RELOc.ATED POHE~
POLE
XI THe DRI . 'WAy
0,
;
c
"TI
cO'
c:
~: en
,.
, ~
~
s:
(')
()
CD
-
Q)
:J
OJ
c:
(J)
-t
c:
.,
:J
0
c:
...
Q)
:J
~
()
a
(J)
(J)
:J
to
',.-<f
'"\'"':'
. ~ "
, - ,
"
(\~
.~
",
,
K
.
,
i
,;
"
Mc.C.LELLAN RANC.H
o
,,-I'
.-'
_~,'I'
";. ......
,.,.-
/
/
"
, ~.... '..-
'".. ,+ e' Io>IIDE TRAIl.
~'" c
:-.
, ~ ,. .
,.
,. ,
".'
. ,~-
;
EXISTINe c.~~i:.
TO BE PAINTED"r "
,'l"!::~GlTY STANDAF<.D5
, ,
.-
"
HeCL<" ,
-"AN
. ::::,....~ ~Ao
,< ~
/'~'~
,." '-. ' "-
)>d ~ ...
, .
,......,
,
,
0'-
,;-
",' .V,"
. . ,','-- . '~'~o.-,..~:. ..
LEGEND
TC 333.33 .
NEW GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
""("(""0 -'"~..-~'"'=: -"'i:'.(;
J .....~. .~~_:,,:~.~...,..o~. $
D.'
.'
. .
. .. . ....
. .
I'" . ,I
NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK
N
A
o
100
EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK
Feet
Source: Hill assoc., March 2006
Hazard Zones
_ Fault Rupture
_ Slope Instability
:"1': Hillside
'-....""--.~.
.. Inundation I Liquefaction
........~........: Valley Floor
- Known Fault
-... Inferred Fault
......... Concealed Fault
---- Urban Service Area Boundary
_.- Boundary Agreement Line
o 0.5 1 Mile
SOUral: City of Cupertino, 2005
Map: TRA, March 2006
/
" i
j./
, ..
.~"" i
,;
\;
,,~..
-'.
/_......... ....\ .
"'c t,. I /
,>-..' '. ,
/
,
,
,.-.,1
.-i
I
fl.'''''''
L.A..
\
OL"
<
< -"- " ~~-
.......~ u~.<.--
._,..n"
'"
\
,
..., ',.. ....","'..
l"(:_.(I~
"'-"'" ""'"
"
V
n_. _u........ __. "--. ____.. _. __ _~_
"
."
/
.,...........-
N
A
......._"
.....'"
'.-
,~..,-
i
I
~
I
&
..
c
~
it
.
-- QE& '1lW
V
...........
-
~. ~._--
: --........:.
i I
r~.J !
"
'-.
,.--.-",.,......,,-
".c....d's......
'-'-'-'f--
I !
. I
\1 ..... "\
) . ...\
ni - \\..
"~'<Ic j ~'............",
~~~ / \
~ !
!(
i-
f
,,~.
'~ '.
\\
~~.
\~
~. ~,
.r.
.,
""
0;. '.
t'.. '
..." ,
AI
..
"10
i
!
,
/
\
;
./~"
..
"-
".
.-./
/
./
.,,~
'-.
./
/.
-......-(
~...-- ~
(~ \
)... ., /
.......---...... '...-"-
/ '" :r
"./t
F
\
,
,
,/
I
\
1
i
'_~..J
""" ~'~"
Tl'IIc.,d
-<In
I'
f
"T1
US.
e:
..,
CD
'"
o
{
(j)
(1)
o
6"
(Q
cr
Q)
:J
a.
C/J
(1)
Ci),
3
o'
::r:
Q)
rii
a.
m
Figure 21.
City of Cupertino FEMA Flood Zones
II
! !
! '
! r
u
A>
0#
I
L__J
~ "
~ \
"
"
'"
~ ~ ~ ~
~ - ~
.,
~
WtG~......
.~
Ltf.cfl:E.'!-l'lJA
.~ ~
H~
~ ?
8
VilHl1 LItd::'I. .....""TA M
jf,.t v'l ~;o UfMlE!>I NI€
" ~x ~ .
BEl AIIlf I'!' ~ UAl1iSltlV!
i: ~ >::T ~~ ...;
MRfA '\l: 1"ER(i9J>, J>\. ~
DOl
''''''''
':1:" VI$'U..:J\-
~
~
~
s
~
'.
~s .
~ !1AA.\r;;l~ IE W'lua~~
~'J-.~ ~.w~. ""'"""'"
't'<.r'" ,"'" rl K
,p^' ,....;.,:Ii - e
~ t:~:l .1:!lU'iltlllND ~
~ .........,.,.hiP:ru'OC~r;:~;;;
~ %. ,-,~ . ~"
.~ ~ <Ql<~"'" ~ :; lkIl i
~ ~..,. ~
~ 1:.,",~UMV i
" ~ I ~ r:~ '4 Cf.AAlC8rrm
.1 ...lW'IlB -.w
~
~ !i:
"""......
wy
i 7Di I::I ;_~~
. ~ " " 1 f
~ ~UBB RD .. '~: ~ g ~ g t
'-~nt':
L
....rER~1o:.
'000
.'
~
,
>,
.
...~.....
~
1:
\.
'" ~
.... )
~ ;'.'o,jo ::
<<""'B l
i
.....~J
i
~
~
~
;'1
M......'<)J,I.....
.
~ ;;
i
;II
~
l' .;~
~ \1\ D
,;f"'~~'" \ ~. ~,
t ~ "f:'i;;'lIl ~~yY
~t<l '';'~;l~'1f' I:
t;I!.;JAwr~::.r. oN- \,J n
\ J'., ...r;~" :: ~ ~~~ ~
~'..\ . { . ,-" % t'" ~. m~'
z .~~~..<-r ,
... ~"*- <~r ~~~I:I' MU'iHIf,MMM
~~'Ii . i> :t!) \ ~~; ! ~ ~ Z
~t'rt -,..~ iW"'i!:U
"~. o~ ~i~ ~."." ,.< 0
~ ...! 'I H(1'2" ~
:lTE\,1l"iG
m
, ~
~
o
.
..
'"
~
.~
"",,"'"
\Il"I "...~
."......"" ~ ~ ~
~7 :OfiFti!VSIHRE 'tm
.; i ~ ~NnFu;1l)N Pl
! S STELLING RD'
~ ~
~i,,~f
~~
~ lo:' ld"'H\i~{u
~ ,J,~'" ....:I""NG"~)
~o/ "'- if;
~f-'; ?! .IO\.~f""'~
4 .:Ii <:.l CF "'Ill
~ ~ ~ :;
~~~"al~~~"~~~
,0 ~~ ~.. c-.@
'" d' go, ~. :...
t ~~$Y I 'll ~ S; Mi~nn... I"" b
.......-iia.-t.~lwmr:lTE" W'o' ~~----.._~.-... F:'\
.'T .~T rJ ; ::n
~.~~ ~ I::r.
0I4-._'~"-"'"-j,. _~,_,.' ; D
""" '''''' M SDEANZA8lVQ
.. F:! n l':
~ -c ~ HOI.~V>l~u.
c ~
P.NE!)'''
,/
<+.
~
;
,
.
:; '"
~H.JM"'1'
r:'I<'(;.-
eJ~ ~
"""",
1Wr- ~
~"~
~ 0 <
::II <.-i-:'
/'
ft,.1\< $"'
tU,AI.'I
,
"
.
.
'"
.
.
~ ~ ~
>~
&o311f'r ... OR
OR :.-r~'r
:I: r.
q
,
,
1
',",
~
"",EstifRU: [Ht
"
~
1'"ONllh ~1 ~
,
~
-;; U~,,; Uf
,
.
o. ~
~ ~~ i
l'l\."~,",bft
o
~
"
~
o
::0
I'l''lRV"r/'( i5
c:
I'll
II>
~
.....
w_
~(~ T..-.j>< w"<
m
1, ~
~
D'
i
.
;:\
"
,
i
~
~
.
~
e
.
~
~
AlioNOJlUi'
~
~
".
"
~
~
.
n.)f"'~e AVE z
w
~
~
g
~
Ii
g
lYli'iEJVfl'N
t~
Ii
j
J;;
~ Ii i
~
.
.::i:B~:":":,;dt.'i~~it.~:;;:;
""
oW('l\'IItlAl.-lS' ~,.
z
l'\:INDIlOR .$T
!l oInftDOOi<:
_ Flood Zone
>-z
o
2000 feet
Source: City of Cupertino, 2005
Map: TRA, March 2006
.if"
I~~~~
~ t~ ~
ii; i' ~~~
~
6. ......'fi'!iil
~""""""'"
,
~ . """ ~
~L", -m.wii.
"
~ ~
~ ~
~~~~
""'""" ~
~
ft,.
.....
""
~~
\fJ~
m
..
.
~
m
~
~ 9.'o'$l1fll\.uJ
k ~"(:.R~
WU-~"'tIf'l:~
;
.
~
Ii
Ii
..
, -,
m ~
i
m
""'"
.. 'H:J..&
\~':~
! ffi
"
.."
~,...,..
.~I'K...!Wi'
, rf
.,........- ~ ~
,,\~<'.'''':~ g
..-pi' ~ "
. >
N.l-I:~ffilF.
! 4r
"....
(I
"
...
NM...,;'ln'
~...
~
~
~ .
~,"", ~
~>
'.-
'.J~!l.~
~ ,. p
,~ .. ~ !
"',;II"'.~ '.JN~ i
'-'H,.\l-....!il
~
<'lI.r./.lCO'- ~
~
~
~
'P
~
~
!!j
~
~~1(:i'<I m
II>
o
1Il
m
:rtI B.o\!<<EV 'i
,;:: (l~ 1:1....)
m
~
.."'''''''
...""
~
t
I(
..
~
;jf
!i
1\IIl~~aol< 11<< .~
,
~
"
!i
~
~ "
i ~
~ :t :: i
~:::t 'i: n ~
H~ >&~}
STELUNG RO
~fNCO€Gfl
I
~
~
~
i
f;
i
t03tlO
!if
!i
Ii!
Ii!
if
"'"
BA.liOU'"
~
~
JIi
~
~
Ii!
~
~
,
~ ~
} "" ~
N DE ANZA BLVD
!i!
""",n
MlI"'....
i :
~
1 A'l!tISH PL "*~~
~ ~Lt:I
-"'''-!:~,;j CT-"l
Vl!;i:1... l)FI ~....:;:
"""oY' j~ ~ ~ ~,. ~ ~,,^D. ,..""
("""Em\....yP:"tL~ ~;r RI1P/O'"
~ ~ '1ft
(:.'I/i-.:w:.U:i.OR:f ~:j PRLlHiii1~u.c ~i OJW>GHHU.lh!
:;: 1. l'I9; m=l ~
:I. ~ -l m :: <:tl>>o~, ~
i 1.fi'~N """' ;: ptO)lrfF~'::lJII i'i ",,:u_
~ c'L\I BLANEY AVE Ii " ~
l"AI:i~';:H fJL
E"IJI::"'PL
!i
RlEtlli.l'CJl
~l)'AH:""
\
l
!ffl'll.IlIiLo[l(}JJ
"
:\l,..~.'l!rJ
"
~ fJ'l;J\:Il"TREE
~"
~ '"l':n~~
E C1 .~
"
...."""""~
C1 :1':
~,,~~
~
-, ~
\I;'(.otll'"
l'I(:".~
OF.
i !
~"'~V';<l I
~~V'jjIJ' ~ i
1 u; - fr"
1,~ ~'I
I~~."'\" ~n ~
~~~" -, ~~I,IE
'; i ~'\?',., i: l
~i~~ ~~~l:., ~ ,
f. ,-" ,,~ ,
~:,,",H''''''~;<W" I
:':;"._"1" "'''''~C''_
"<'-" .~,,,'~I so
~ . ~
~,',,:- ~ : ':~: ' I: ~
','1=:'. ~ ~ to
..~, ~ ~ II:
,\Nt' 1m
_i!!j
L...,~
'0
.
~
m
,
""
'"
~
E
I
"Kfi
ff .
"''<<~\
,
~~t(rU.
~....
,/
,
,
~
"
;
...
~
.>~
c,'~
'%
i
~
;;,
~
~
~
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan
Initial Study
Addendum to reflect Project Changes; September 2006
City of Cupertino - September 2006
Mitigated Negative Declaration
DATE: 9/27/2006
SUBJECT: Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pursuant to the California State Public Resources Code and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as amended to date, the City of Cupertino (City)
submits a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Project
(Project).
PROJECT OVER VIEW
The City of Cupertino (City) has developed a Park Master Plan and Conceptual
Restoration Plan for a proposed 60-acre Stevens Creek Corridor Park. The Stevens Creek
Corridor Park would be 5,900 feet in length bordered by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the
north, McClellan Road to the south and residential neighborhoods to the east and west.
Plans include converting the City-owned Blackberry Farm picnic grounds into a
community park, realigning the creek and restoririg in-stream and riparian habitat along
sections of Stevens Creek within the 100-year floodplain, enhancing adjacent upland oak
woodland habitat, constructing a 5,900-foot all weather trail, developing new park and
golf maintenance facilities at Blackberry Farm and an environmental education center at
McClellan Ranch.
The Stevens Creek Corridor Park was the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared pursuant to CEQA and approved, along with the Stevens Creek Corridor Park
Master Plan, by the City Council on July 20, 2006. Certain clarification and revisions to
the Project were made in September 2006. These Project Changes are the subject of this
Addendum.
This Initial Study has been prepared for the City of Cupertino, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines 15162, 15164, to review the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed revisions to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project and to allow an informed
decision regarding approval of the revised project based on this additional environmental
reVIew.
FINDINGS
The City, having reviewed the Initial Study for the proposed project finds that:
1. The proposed project will provide recreational opportunities in the 60-acre Stevens
Creek Corridor Park. For the reasons set forth in detail in this Addendum, all potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts can be either avoided or reduced through
implementation of the mitigation measures listed in this document.
2. The Project will not affect the following environmental effects identified in the Initial
Study Checklist as exceeding significance thresholds. All significant effects can either be
avoided or reduced through the implementation of mitigation measures found in this
document and in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) attached as
Appendix I of this document.
3. In addition to the mitigation measures described in the Initial Study, the design
features of the project which include mitigation measures and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) directly incorporated into the project description either avoid,
minimize, or reduce environmental effects to a point of less-than-significance; and
4. A Mitigated Negative Declaration, augmented by this Addendum, will be filed as the
appropriate CEQA compliance document for the Project.
5. None ofthe Project Changes September 2006 involve new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
BASIS OF FINDINGS
Based on the environmental evaluation presented herein, the Project will not cause
significant adverse effects related to aesthetics, agricultural resources, cultural resources,
geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use/planning, mineral resources,
populationlhousing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities/service
systems. In addition, substantial adverse effects on humans, either direct or indirect, will
not occur. The Project does not affect any important examples of the major periods of
California prehistory or history. Nor will the Project 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. Along
with the designs of the trail components, BMPs incorporated into the project descriptions
for the Project avoid, minimize, and reduce impacts to air quality, biological resources,
including fisheries, hydrology/water quality, and noise to less-than-significant levels.
Based on the Initial Study, the project designs and incorporated BMPs avoid, minimize,
and reduce impacts to listed environmental effects to a less than significant level.
Attached is the Addendum to the Initial Study prepared for the Project. The public can
review documents used in preparation of the Addendum and the original Initial Study at
the City of Cupertino, Department of Parks and Recreation, 10300 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino, California 95014.
Addendum to the Initial Study
1. Introduction
The City of Cupertino has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan. The
City of Cupertino is the Lead Agency for the project. The Santa Clara Valley Water
District is a Responsible Agency for the project.
The findings for this project state that:
. The proposed project will provide enhanced riparian habitat for the federally-
listed Steelhead trout, and
2
. The project's negative effects can be avoided or reduced through the
implementation of mitigation measures as listed in the IS/MND:
A public review period for the IS/MND was from April 28, 2006 to May 30,2006.
Although respond to comments on a Negative DeClaration is not required, the City added
Responses to CEQA comments generated during the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master
Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study public review, dated June 13,2006 to the public
record.
The whole of the environmental record which was before the Cupertino City Council
when it approved the Negative Declaration is referred to as the "Adopted IS/MND".
The Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan is now subject to the
certain clarifications and additions which expand on the existing project description.
Collectively these are referred to as "Proiect Changes September 2006".
City staff and the City environmental consultant evaluated the substance of Project
Changes September 2006 to determine the appropriate manner for the City to comply
with CEQA.
The Project Changes September 2006 either do not affect the physical environment or
have a less than significant effect. Several changes serve to reduce impact or to further
mitigate impacts identified previously. None ofthe changes reduces mitigation
previously incorporated in the project.
The Project Changes September 2006 were evaluated under Title 14. California Code of
Regulations, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
Article 11. Types ofEIRs, Section 15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations.
It was determined based on careful study that Project Changes September 2006 involve
only minor revisions to the MND, and they are attributed to proposed alterations in
operations, minor physical changes in Project details and phasing of improvements,
rather than "major revisions" within the meaning of CEQA Guideline 15162. In
particular, the Project revisions cause no new significant environmental effects and no
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant adverse
environmental effects and that none of the conditi.ons in Section 15162 requiring a
subsequent EIR apply:
"(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a
project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead
agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light ofthe whole
record, one or more of the following:
"( I) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects;
3
"(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; or
"(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted,
shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure
or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt
the mitigation measure or alternative." Title 14. CCR Section 15162
As described in detail herein, the Project Changes September 2006 are characterized as
"minor technical changes" within the meaning ofCEQA Guideline 15164, due to the fact
that they cause no significant adverse environmental effects not discussed in the MND,
and the potentially significant effects previously examined will not be more severe than
denoted in the original MND. Therefore it was determined that the appropriate course of
action was to prepare an addendum to the Adopted Negative Declaration as described in
Title 14. CCR Section 15164. Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration:
"(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a
previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of
the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent
EIR have occurred.
"(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or
negative declaration have occurred.
"(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in
or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
("d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or
adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
4
"(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant
to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's
findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be
supported by substantial evidence." Title 14. CCR Section 15164.
2. Addendum to Project Description
A. Clarifications.
1. Basketball Courts in the Blackberry Farm ("BBF") Recreational Area.
Two (2) new half-court basketball courts, in west bank group picnic area, are proposed in
the master plan for use by fee based customers during 1 OO-day operation only. The
existing softball, basketball and volleyball areas on the east bank will continue to
function until the small parking area is constructed. At the time this parking area is
constructed, the basketball and volleyball facilities would be eliminated. The softball
field will remain. A single replacement sport facility (volleyball or basketball) may be
rebuilt if space and/or interest exist.
2. Operational Features of Blackberry Farm Picnic area Use.
Blackberry Farm picnic area facilities, including Swimming pools, will be for use by all
fee-based customers during 1 OO-day operation for recreational swim. No fee-use
activities will be allowed outside the 1 OO-day period.
3. Rationale for Capacity and Operational Features ofBBF and Steven Creek
Parking Lots.
The Council decided on a program that retained the golf course, reduced the picnic area
to an 800-person size and provided for a healthy amount of habitat restoration. It is
important to note that the minimum size necessary to keep the big Cupertino community
picnics in Cupertino like the Lions Club and Cupertino Community Service barbeques is
500. The 350 vehicle festival-style parking spaces for the picnic grounds were derived
by the use of auto occupancy (2.5 people per vehicle) and projections of parking
requirements based on planned activities at the activity sites within the Corridor.
4. Definition ofBBF Snack Bar Use.
Currently there is an existing snack bar with a window that opens towards to the pool and
operates during the 1 OO-day operation. The project proposes adding an outside window
so that people using the trail can purchase beverages and snacks without having to enter
the fee-based pool area.
5. Access to "West Bank" Picnic Area.
A new 14-foot wide pedestrian/bicycle/light duty vehicle bridge is proposed from festival
parking area and pool complex to the west bank picnic area and is to be used only for the
100-day operation. During the "off season" period, the West Bank picnic area will be
accessible to pedestrians only (except for city maintenance vehicles).
B. Additions
5
1. Task Force. Promptly following completion and official opening of the
planned trail connecting Stevens Creek Boulevard to BBF, as described in the MND, City
will form and convene an official "Task Force" charged with responsibility to consider
and recommend to the City Council potential future changes to the Project's design,
operations and implementation schedule.
a.. In particular, the Task Forc.e will consider the advisability, features
and implementation of a program to replace some or all of the existing
infrastructure, commercial operations and other improvements presently
comprising the Blackberry Farm picnic area, parking lot, snack bar and basketball
courts.
b. In particular, the Task Force will develop a proposal for long term
use of the park..
c. The membership of the Task Force shall be open to all
"stakeholders" and shall include residents from the immediate vicinity of the
Blackberry Farm picnic area.
2. Noise. City will implement a program for reducing noise generated by
maintenance machinery on the Blackberry Farm Golf Course, with the goal of not
increasing the present ambient noise level attributable to the combination of park and
golf course maintenance machinery. Construction noise will be regulated by the
standards contained in City ordinances which regulate construction noise. City will
remove speed bumps on all streets near the park, used by Project construction traffic, for
the duration of construction, and will design post-construction speed bumps so as to
reduce ambient noise.
3. Parking Increase. City will provide for up to fifteen (15) curbside public
parking spaces along Stevens Creek Boulevard adjacent to the Blue Pheasant Restaurant.
City will eliminate all signage on the northern and southern ends of the corridor that
directs park users to the BBF parking areas. During the 265-day "off season" City will
reduce public parking in the BBF parking lot to thirty-one (31) parking spaces which, if
needed, may be expanded to a total of no more than one hundred (100) parking spaces.
When the trail is fully open, meaning connected from BBF to Stevens Creek Blvd.,
busses and shuttles, excepting vehicles for handicapped persons, will be prohibited from
using the San Fernando entrance. The existence of these 100 parking spaces shall not be
promoted by the City as being available for overflow or additional parking for other uses
within the corridor by means of signs, flyers, or other publicly distributed information
(i.e., Web sites, etc..).
4. Shuttle and Trail Connection Usage into BBF. City will allow (and
encourage) busses and shuttles serving BBF to drop off and pick up park users at the bus
pull outs located at Stevens Creek Boulevard (existing) and at McCellan Road (planned).
5. Trail Use Restrictions. City will prohibit all motorized vehicles, including
electric scooters on park trails.
6
6. Tree Protection. Prior to the start of construction, the City will identify
and mark all trees to be removed during construction for the Project. The City will hire
an outside arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or American
Society of Consulting Arborist to observe tree health throughout construction. The
arborist will provide regular recommendations to the City to ensure the health of trees
intended to remain after construction. The City will install protective chain link fencing
and/or orange construction fencing around the drip line of all trees in the proximity of the
construction zones to ensure that construction does not harm trees intended to remain in
the corridor.
7. Corridor Patrol. City will hire a Parks Service Officer that will provide patrol
and maintenance functions throughout the corridor.
8. Alcohol Restrictions. The City will enforce Ordinance Code Section
13.04.130a, which limits alcohol consumption to beer and wine and only in conjunction
with food.
9. Implement a Neighborhood Litter Control Program.
10. Implement Neighborhood Permit Parking if the neighbors wish it and the City
Council approves it (see Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 11.27) .
3. Addendum to Environmental Assessment
A. Summary of environmental effect
The Project Changes September 2006 contain Clarifications and Additions. The
"Clarifications" are expansion of existing elements of the project and therefore have
already been subject to environmental evaluation in the adopted IS/MND. The
"Additions" are generally neutral or beneficial changes which result in no new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects.
1. Task Force. This addition has no potential to affect the physical environment.
The City routinely invited citizen participation in planning. The Task Force would be
integrated with normal City governmental practice.
2. Noise. This addition provides more specific noise reduction. In the Adopted
IS/MND, Best Management Practices (BMPs) incorporated into the project
were found sufficient to avoid, minimize, and reduce impacts to noise to less-than-
significant levels. The additional restrictions on noise generated by maintenance
machinery on the Blackberry Farm Golf Course are consistent with the established
BMPs.
The City already regulates construction noise by ordinance. In addition, the City will
remove speed bumps on all streets near the park, used by Project construction traffic, for
7
the duration of construction, and will design post-construction speed bumps so as to
reduce ambient noise. This will further reduce noise in the affected neighborhood.
3. Parking Increase. The adopted IS/MND determined that the Project will not
cause significant adverse effects related to transportation/traffic. This project addition
provides more parking thereby further reducing parking impact. The City will provide
for up to 15 curbside public parking spaces along Stevens Creek Boulevard adjacent to
the Blue Pheasant Restaurant by marking existing pavement where the street width is
sufficient to add parking safely. There will be no new construction.
The other additions are parking management through signage, directing traffic, and
blocking off parking spaces during the 265-day "off season". The net effect will be a
reduction in traffic attracted to the San Fernando entrance.
4. Shuttle and Trail Connection Usage into BBF. This addition will reduce traffic
congestion during certain events which could result in overflow parking.
5. Trail Use Restrictions. This addition will reduce noise and public safety
impacts on trail users and trail neighbors.
6. Tree Protection. This addition expands the BMPs already identified for
protecting and retaining trees on the restoration site.
7. Corridor Patrol. This addition will improve public safety.
8. Alcohol Restrictions. This addition will improve public safety.
9. Implement a Neighborhood Litter Control Program. The adopted IS/MND
determined that the Project will not cause significant adverse effects related to aesthetics.
This addition will help reduce annoying litter around the park.
10. Implement Neighborhood Permit Parking. This addition would be adopted
through the established City petition process if the majority of affected residents want to
install a parking permit requirement for their neighborhood. If adopted, it would
presumably be a benefit to control on-street parking by visitors.
B. Environmental Checklist and Responses
The Project Changes September 2006 will not result in any change in the Environmental
Checklist and Responses as presented in the Adopted IS/MND (April 2006, as amended).
The Environmental Checklist and Responses is incorporated by reference.
##
8