14 Stevens Creek Corridor
CITY OF
CUPEIQ"INO
AGENDAITEM~
Summary
AGENDA DATE October 17. 2006
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Report on Stevens Creek Corridor Project - Phase I
a. Consideration of the Base Project Scope and Schedule and implications of
Alternative Project Scheduling and Options.
b. Consideration of the Project Budget for Phase 1- 2009 Completion in the amount
of up to $11.198 Million including a budget augmentation of $6.0 Million over
FY 07-08 and FY 08-09.
c. Consideration of the establishment of an FY 08-09 Project Contingency Reserve
of$1.0 Million
d. Adopt Resolution No. 06- 17~ , authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and
execute Amendment No.2 to the Agreement with HNTB Corporation, for an
additional $975.000 for completion of architectural design, civil design, project
management, and construction related management services for the bid, award
and construction of Phase 1 of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Project, extend
the term of the agreement from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2010, and
provide an additional amount of $50.000 for additional services, which may be
approved as necessary by the Director of Public Works, for a total contract
amount not to exceed $1,575,000.
BACKGROUND
Over a 25-year period (between 1971 and 1996) the City of Cupertino invested
$30,000,000 in the acquisition ofland between Stevens Creek Blvd. and McClellan Road.
Between 2001 and 2006, an extensive public process engaged hundreds of Cupertino
residents, first with planning for the Stevens Creek Trail; finally with Council adoption of
the Stevens Creek Corridor Park master plan and environmental document, June 20,
2006. Along the way, outside agencies awarded over $3.5M in competitive funding to
Cupertino for project implementation. Implementation of the first phase of the project
will result in a connection between McClellan Ranch and BBF pools, open up over 38
acres (18.7 at McClellan Ranch, 2.55 acre water district parcel and 17 acres at BBF
Picnic Grounds) to trail users, and provide a significant opportunity to develop the City's
natural science and outdoor recreation programs.
1
/L{-{
Printed on Recycled Paper
On September 24, 2006, the fully depreciated Blackberry Farm picnic facility closed, and
all but one staff member left the City's employ. Little in the way of maintenance has been
done on the facility since the City's acquisition in 1991. The existing condition of the
park, the alternatives for implementation of the park project, and the schedule and budget
are presented for the Council's consideration in this report.
Project Design - 50% Plan. Specifications and Estimate (PS&E)
On September 5, 2006, the City Council approved the First Amendment to an Agreement
with HNTB Corporation an amount not to exceed $150,000 for continued design, project
management and construction management services for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park
project for a total of$550,000.
It was noted at that time that a subsequent discussion with the Council would take place on
October 17, 2006 once the 50% Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) were
completed and more specific information regarding additional grant funding, project
priorities, and work flow was available, Staff advised that appropriate amendments for
further work on the project by the consultants would be recommended at that time.
The consultant team and staff have now reached the 50% completion point for the final
Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for the project. As a result, staff for the first
time, has a sense of the level of investment, the schedule and resources needed to develop
Stevens Creek Corridor Park in a manner that will meet the community's expectations.
ANALYSIS
The scope for the Phase I project as defined by the adopted master plan includes the
construction or reconstruction of nine different buildings, including the environmental
classroom, a new maintenance building, entry kiosk, picnic facilities, restrooms, and some
minor upgrades to the existing 4-H facilities. It also includes the realignment and
restoration work for Stevens Creek, demolition and reconstruction of picnic and other areas
in Blackberry farm and the construction of the Stevens Creek Trail system from McClellan
Ranch to the pool area at Blackberry Farm. A detailed description of these components is
attached to this report (Attachment B).
It should be noted that the work on the creek and other parts the Reach C area (northerly
portion at the Stocklemeir home and orchard to Stevens Creek Boulevard) is not included
in this phase but is provided for in a future Phase II project (see diagram - attachment A).
As has been noted before, this particular project is very complex with various types of
work spread over a large area of the park. As detailed in the environmental document, a
number of permits will need to be obtained from local, state and federal agencies. The
advance work of grading and planting will provide an appropriate establishment period for
the new creek banks to become stable with riparian veg~tation before the existing creek is
diverted into the new channel.
2
{L(-2.
ISSUES
This project, as noted above, has been developed around both a master plan and a grant
application effort. Both have achieved a success. Grant funds of over $3.3 Million and the
approval of the Master Plan and environmental document were approved by Council on
June 20, 2006.
However, three major components of this project that are required for the successful
implementation of any construction project, i.e., Scope, Funding and Schedule, were not
yet fully coordinated for Phase I implementation When the initial design contract with
HNTB was awarded by the Council in April 2006, it became increasingly clear that the
uncertainty regarding definitive scope, funding and schedule would need to be addressed
before the development of specific construction contract proposals for bidding and
construction.
The purpose of this report is to present the clear and complete implications of proceeding
with the final PS&E and the bidding, award and construction of this project. These
implications include the full funding and schedule necessary to complete Phase I and other
alternatives of the Stevens Creek Corridor Project so that the timing, completion and final
outcome, i.e., the utility and appearance of the project will be able to meet the expectations
of the Council and the Community.
Buded and Fundine
For the Council's information the current project funding as provided in the Adopted 2006-
2007 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and additional funding committed since CIP
adoption is outlined below (all numbers are rounded to the nearest $100):
Approved Grant Funds
General Funds (incl FY 07-08)
Enterprise Funds (FY 05-06)
$3,117,200
1,000,000
680,000
Total Adopted CIP
$4,797,200
Additional GF for Master Plan / CEQA
Additional SCVWD Funding for CEQA
Additional SCVWD Funding for Master Plan
Remove Federal Grant for other activities
327,000
124,900
139,600
(80.000)*
Total Additional funds Identified since CIP Adoption
511.500
Total Current Project Funding
$5.308.700
* A Federal Grant in the amount of $80,000 was not incorporated because of
procedural and specification issues and is proposed to be used for other purposes
separately from the construction contract.
3
{l{-J
In addition, a State Water Resources Grant in the amount of $800,000 has been
protested and initially withdrawn by the State and is not included in the above.
However, staff has been advised that it is being reconsidered by the State
Resources Secretary. Staff expects to be able to report the outcome of that
reconsideration before October 17,2006.
Proiect Costs
The current estimates for construction of the basic Phase I project with completion
in April 2008 (Alternative 2 described below) based on the 50% Design Plans and
Specifications, have been reviewed by staff with the consultant team are as follows:
Master Plan and Environmental (FY 05-06) 583,000
Design and Construction Services
Construction Management
Admin, Fees, Utilities
Additional Project Mgmt for April 08 Completion (FY06-07)
Construction
Project Contingency
1,575,000
200,000
479,000
400,000
7,632,000
300.000
Total Project Cost
$11,169,000
BUDGET SHORTFALL
The fiscal impact of the situation as it currently exists is the result of a shortfall in funding
based an the current budget and cost estimates from the 50% PS&E for the Basic Phase I
Project (Alternative 2) with an April 2008 completions follows. (All numbers rounded to
nearest $1000)
Current Project Cost
$ 11,169,000
Current Project Funding
$ 5.309.000
Budget Shortfall
($ 5,860,000)
Given the margin for error at the 50% design point (+/- 5-10%) and the inherent
uncertainty in the bidding climate in the next 12-18 months, staff recommends that for
simplicity and discussion purposes, the Council should consider the project in general
terms with a $6,000,000 shortfall
The actual amount of the budget augmentation will depend on whatever course of action is
ultimately approved by the Council.
4
lL{-Lf"
Project Contineencv Reserve
The Stevens Creek Corridor Park Project, even at the 50% PS&E completion, is one of
great uncertainty. Until permits are in hand, it is impossible to know what requirements
regulatory agencies may impose. Experience on other projects with similar characteristics,
such as the GuadaJupe River Park, affirms this need for caution.
It is prudent, even essential, that the City provide a contingency for this uncertainty to
assure that, in the worst case of unforeseen problems during construction, the project can
be successfully executed and completed. Staff is recommending that $ 1,000,000 of the
City's contingency reserve be set aside, should such unforeseen problems occur. Hopefully
(and very probably) these funds will not be required. Nevertheless, this reserve "trust"
should be maintained until the project's completion. No allocation of these funds in any
amount to any project activity would occur without specific Council approval.
AL TERNA TIVE STRATEGIES FOR PROJECT EXECUTION
Staff has formulated specific and alternative recommendations to the Council's
consideration. These recommendations include alternatives to both the scope and the
schedule along with the identification of additional funding that may be required to
complete the project as originally envisioned. A summary of these alternatives is provided
in the table in Attachment C to this report. A narrative discussion of each is provided
below. The Council should note that two of these alternatives (1 and 4) are not
recommended under any circumstances but are provided to give the Council a complete
range of the options available.
(Note: The cost and shortfall numbers do not include the unallocated contingency reserve
fund of$l,OOO,OOO as recommended above.)
Alternative 1 - Postoone Project Indefinitelv - Maintenance Project 2007
It is not possible to re-open the facility without addressing an extensive amount of deferred
maintenance. Blackberry Farm has been in operation for 53 years, and little has been done
to upgrade the facility. When the City acquired the land in 1991, connections were made
to the sanitary sewer (from the old septic system) and minimal accessibility improvements
were made.
In 1993, when the bridges came out in the flood, temporary bridges were installed that
have never been replaced with permanent structures. Vehicles continue to drive through
Stevens Creek. Last summer a number of old trees finally fell; some of these supported the
overhead electrical system. Two electrical panels burned out when the tree and the
attached electrical lines fell into the creek.
Public Works staff has considered the minimum expenditure to get some of the Blackberry
structures tuned up for re-opening and has identified nearly one million dollars in needed
work. The cost of this alternative includes the design and construction costs for the
maintenance work to be done to buildings and creek side picnic areas.
5
{l{ - S-
The funds already invested in the master planning (MP) and environmental review
(CEQA) process up to this point would be lost, as well as the lost opportunity costs of the
grant funds already committed but unexpended. The costs of Alternative 1 are approximate
but estimated to be as follows:
Building Repairs
Creek crossings and Picnic Areas Work
$ 1,000,000
$ 1.000.000
Total budget required for Maintenance Work
$ 2,000,000
Funds expended to date on MP / CEQA
Opportunity Cost of Lost Grant Funding
$ 600,000
$ 2,900,000
Total Opportunity and lost costs
$ 3.500.000
Total Cost impact of this Alternative
$ 5,000,000
F or all the reasons noted above, staff does not recommend abandoning the master plan and
re-opening the "old style Blackberry Farm", To do so would mean setting aside five years
of public process and investing funds in a facility that would not meet the community's
expectations.
Alternative 2 - Basic Phase I Proiect - Comoletion Aoril 2008
Cost: $ 11,169,000
Shortfall:
($ 5,860,000)
This is the most ambitious, and risky of the alternatives because it will require a
concentrated and urgent effort in the face of considerable schedule and resource
limitations, to begin work in the spring of 2007.
Schedule Limitations
There still remains the task of completing the PS&E in time for bidding in January 2007.
The schedule is being driven by the State Department ofFish and Game restriction of only
allowing work in the Creek between June 15 and October 15, 2007. Under those
conditions, the earliest that the construction could begin, if every single milestone were
met from October 17 forward, would be April 2007. That would require advertising the
project for construction in January 2007 and awarding the contract in March 2007. Any
significant slip in that schedule could cause the project to be delayed for another season.
The risk associated in advertising the project for construction bids in January of 2007 is
that it allows less than three months time (interrupted by the holiday season) to complete
the tasks associated with the completion of a bid package. There is no assurance that the
necessary permits from Federal and State Agencies will be approved by the time the
project goes out to bid. With possible permit conditions unknown or unforeseen or
potential delays in permit approval, it is imprudent at best, to send a project to
construction. It is staff's professional judgment that such an unnecessary "forcing" of the
6
Jl{-& .
schedule for the project would have the greater potential for errors, omISSIons with
resulting, and likely significant, cost impacts.
Resource Limitations
This effort, if attempted as a "hurried" timetable is beyond the current capacity of the city
project management staff in the face of other priorities and demands. For example the
Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge, a $10 Million plus effort that has a 95% complete PS&E
and is fully funded is nearing its bid and award schedule to begin construction in March-
April 2007 as well as $3-4 million in smaller facilities projects in the approved CIP. The
schedule for these other projects would necessarily be concurrent with the work on the
Corridor project.
It is very nearly impossible (from a time standpoint) under any circumstances to pursue
this alternative. However, if the Council directs staff to pursue this option, staff limitations
will require that the City hire additional contract staff from construction and project
management firms to assist the City staff in this effort at a cost of up to an additional
$400,000 (included in the above figure). Even with this augmentation, the City staff will
face severe challenges in managing these two projects along with other demands on the
department.
Staff does not recommend this alternative.
Alternative 3 - Basic Phase I Proiect - Completion April 2009
Cost: $ 11,198,000
Shortfall:
($ 5,889,000)
Pursuit of this alternative provides for and recognizes the limitations and risk associated
with Alternative 2 as noted above in a positive way by providing an additional year to
complete the final PS&E, ensure that all permits from regional, state and federal agencies
have been secured. In so doing, it removes the risk of awarding a construction contract
before all the regulatory requirements have been addressed in the bid package.
The cost differential between Alternatives 2 and 3 is minimal (approximately $30,000)
because although the construction cost escalates approximately $430,000 for the additional
year, the need for augmented project management services is removed because of the
restored capacity of the City staff with Mary Bridge completion. In summary:
Phase I - 2008 Completion (Alt. 2)
Escalation for 2009 completion
Elimination of PM costs in 2008
$ 11,169,000
430,000
(400.000)
Phase I - 2009 Completion
$ 11,198,000
If the Council commits the resources and support to the project, the expectation is that all
the approved grant funding will remain available to the city, even on this revised schedule.
Grant funds relative to the 2007 to the 2007 construction season are from the Department
of Water Resources and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Given the construction
7
1\.(-7
timing limitations, staff is confident that these agencies can be persuaded to maintain the
funding commitment for an additional construction season.
Staff highly recommends this alternative because it represents the best approach to ensure
the successful and orderly outcome of the Project that would meet the expectations of the
Community.
Alternative 4 - Both Phase I and Phase IT Proiects Completion April 2010
Staff also considered an option to construct all phases of the park (between Stevens Creek
. Blvd. and McClellan Road) in a single project, but has determined that there are too many
variables present to give the Council any sense of what a proj ect of that magnitude would
cost. A considerable unknown is what will happen when the Blue Pheasant lease expires
again in two and a half years. Also questions remain regarding the Stocklmeir orchard and
the creek alignment in Reach C.
Staff has identified this alternative simply to show the Council the range of options but it
would be precipitous and presumptuous in the extreme to recommend moving ahead with
this alternative at this time.
DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Because of the complexity of the Stevens Creek Corridor Project, staff suggests that some
fundamental issues be framed as policy choices for Council consideration.
These fundamental issues are as follows:
1. It will be important for the Council to reaffirm the project purpose accepted on
June 20, 2006 that the City "... is implementing this community vision constructing
a park in which community use, a multipurpose trail, revenue generation and
habitat restoration can happily coexist. "
2. In reconfirming the objectives of the project, it is requested that the Council then
consider the above alternatives, all of which will require additional funding, for
implementation. (Staff recommends Alternative 3).
3. If the Council elects to fund and move forward with implementation, there are
other matters related to the staff's administration and implementation of the work
that staff would ask the Council to consider and support. These are:
· A clear policy delegating the authority to the City Manager and on his behalf
when appropriate, the Director of Public Works, for the administration of the
project and control of the adopted project budget for the duration of the project.
· Council approval of a complete restriction of access to the construction site by
other than authorized contractor, consultant, grant agency or city personnel
covered by the construction insurance policies of the contractors and the city.
8
{ l( .-J
· Council approval of the budget resources recommended including the Reserve
fund of $1 Million described above for the duration of the Phase I Project.
In conclusion, Staff recommends selection of Alternative 3, Basic Phase I Project -
Completion April 2009.
FISCAL IMPACT
With the passage of AB 117 and the additional revenue to accrue from property tax, the
General Fund can afford to revise the phase out of Park Dedication Fees over the next 5
years and possibly accelerate the phase out. To take a conservative approach, we
recommend that the fees be retained 100% in the Park Dedication Fund for FY 07/08 and
08/09. This will provide $1,000,000 towards this project with the additional funding
coming from the General Fund CIP reserve, which is fully funded as of 6/30/06.
Budget appropriations are proposed as follows:
FY 07/08
· Park Dedication Fund
· General Fund CIP Reserve
$500,000
$5.000.000
$5,500,000
FY 08/09
· Park Dedication Fund
TOTAL
$500.000
$6,000,000
Staff will continue to pursue grant funding to reduce the City's obligation. In addition,
Park Dedication Fees over $500,000/yr can vest to this project and if General Fund
revenues increase over projections, additional Park Dedication Fees received in FY 06/07
can supplant the CIP reserve funds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of Alternative 3 for the implementation of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park.
Approval of the Project Budget for Phase I - 2009 Completion in the amount of up to
$11.198 Million including a budget augmentation of $6.0 Million over FY 07-08 and FY
08-09.
Approval of the establishment of an FY 08-09 Project Reserve of Fund $1.0 Million
9
{4-1
Adopt Resolution No.06- , authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and
execute Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement with HNTB Corporation, not to exceed
$925,000 for completion of architectural design, civil design, project management, and
construction related management services for the bid, award and construction of Phase 1 of
the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Project and extending the term of the agreement from
December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2010 and providing an amount not to exceed
$100,000 for additional services which may be approved as necessary by the Director of
Public Works for a total contract amount of$1,575,000.
Submitted by:
. Ra~~llff Vi {;L Ud
Director of Public Works
,/~thrL-
There AmbrosI SmIth
Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved for submission to the City Council:
~
DavId W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachments:
A - Diagram and Site Plan of Project Area
B - Detailed Description of Project Scope
C - Table Summary of Project Alternatives 1 - 4
10
{CJ.,-(O
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 06-174
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AMENDMENT
NO.2 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH HNTB CORPORATION FOR THE COMPLETION OF
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, CIVIL DESIGN, PROJECT MANAGEMENT, AND
CONSTRUCTION RELATED MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE STEVENS CREEK
CORRIDOR PARK PROJECT, PHASE I
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2006, City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-075 authorizing
the City Manager to negotiate and execute an initial agreement between the City of Cupertino
and HNTB Corporation, for design, project management, and construction management services
for Stevens Creek Corridor Park, not to exceed $400,000; and,
WHEREAS, on August .15, 2006, City Council adopted' Resolution No. 06-145
authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute Amendment No.1 to the agreement for
continued architectural design, civil design, project and construction management services, not to
exceed $100,000 and extending the term of the agreement from October of 2006 to December
31, 2006, and providing an amount not to exceed $50,000 for additional services which could be
approved as necessary by the Director of Public Works, for a total contract amount of $550,000;
and,
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2 to the agreement will allow the completion of
architectural design, civil design, project management, and construction related management
services for the bid, award and construction of Phase I of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park
Proj ect, extend the term of the agreement from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2010,
provide an additional amount of $975,000, and provide an additional amount of $50,000 for
additional services, which may be approved as necessary by the Director of Public Works, for a
total contract amount not to exceed $1,575,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute Amendment No.2 to the agreement
with HNTB Corporation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 17th day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
( l.{ -- if
on Master Plan
\.j ....-J
I '-Jl "d.,~ III U (YtJ ~1d.L. . ~t
~"~ \. " '.-'.n - lL.L
. .>--,< U >Iq - f[ldYJ., l -' '. =-- ~ .. " .J',~, _ 8
U -lJ.... 1\ -<...; ,"",, ~ . " "" c, ~Vl nt. 0 I . N
' '~_lf.,..I c.:J?dJ l..'~:.. '. '" . ~ -" ,. J - . ~ ..". . - '-:: ""'" 0/. 1 f oJ z..;;( CI J
. '..........,," '-..,........ '<~ '. " .."" .' u. .
-- !ilidIlJ~,P~ _L ..- "--~'T:J LC..~'~)-4; n~ ';\1,.. ,l:.=",;,. _' ".g" \ . F . -,.~ I
~.J \:. ~ ' ',.oJ . - .]lI}Y 'r-....;.; rn" 1ill n, u:\..F....,~, ""'" ""'. ('~ 'c ......" "'-"= , [2' " , 0(
~ J - .,:....-:;,.. II" - --=- ~ I...<rr" ,.... f. c."', '-"'+"': / ,_. . '. ". <".:' lJ' . . . 1'" 11: ~'. __c "',. .
' , " ""- l ' ~ ,.J . -., · . '.'" )1. ", r. , , , '"" " ,,' x
J:f)-' :: ~~Y~rt~..:.;~ gr.~" JQij~.Jmri"'-~1({s' \\'.:-.-=: ..; ~<i,J E~bt'., 1(" ~l,~~HlHf~T~ki~' ~U ":'~'" !
j2, III" ~M. I ..(L., \' I.~.<-.~ '" \'t" .1-"",- ~-.,- \.'>2 ' h', , ~ l . ill"t '':'~WXC::: \\ ~
'~J ~ I. , :::-;:-',:. ','. a,,' I \;-~... ~'--"'''-'''-'- ( )! ';:- . " ,".. ~ ~ I . ,,'. 'f- 'L, '!\.O-\ .... , ". "J os
j.. U'....... \..: J1" .. ~ -' ~ ~ '. .....::-- 'll,,-,.-:1" ~~. '_, ~'1t1 r l.'~~r1L . .. ..
" '.- 'I - '0 .",', ,,- ". ., , --"'(" 1 ro: , _...., ---'- ~ "'. \...
. .- . , . '. , .~ -' ~ '" '. , ' . '. '. '., , .
~ '~~. [1~1 i"~"Dt( ..==-....::.....-- --.--..... ............-.')---- .(' ..".....; t, \ . ~ ~tt' . ~C \..41. '__,'~ 'j..., __ ",,>,,' " ~
.,,' 1 c ..; -.-r~_.... ~..,. --=, -- ,.,. . .:: '.' ," . '...' \' "'. ill,.>.., . 'f _....-. L. _ .
',' J ".' ..>~/! -'--"'1 j' '""...., . """"\ \ ~ ! ,'. 1 "..J. '.: 0 ~~ _ ~.'.., ~,). .
- ...~.... .".. - ......... ,,'.. " ,,,, . ~ ..--. .. '~) .r..... '.. "~'_'}-"" .
~- , . ...,.... '. ',.. '" -"~., -. I" "" ( .. . (
.L .... ., " ",'...... . ... " ','. "', '~'., __ ,_ '" "" ".. __,
,- .... , .... > --. .... -. \ . -.", "", .. . 0 ... ... :;.--
l._'../"""'~ ._.....u, ....'i\. /: ... j --..,r""-"":'"" \.-L.:....;,>-"=.--.-.-:1D~_i. .J ~ ~,. - r"'7'I.tl~.. '9,~:1.. " L)~~ ~
c',' ...- "~".,... '''', 1\ .-..' L. \'-'" -, .../. . ( ,.. (' 1, '~.
\ I __''''_C'':'~'''_' 'M-4J, .~___. "'.,. .' ". --'---~, . '--.___." '" _ ')" . , , . .. .'
.~ . --=', , , -. . f' "". -'" .. , ...,... '~'.\ -' ,"'. .. . '. . L,. .. . . . .
.1. ", ,'~ ~;::;..-:..:.~,_./ 1""~ '..-J'. I, I',.) .", . ., _.~" (,' / " L'ri '$.", ~~'").. I U\.:.. c;: (. ", e Q .... ~ ;.
'- ~--_.. '. '. . - '. --. . . , . -,' -- ~ ~ "..
.'" - -'. - - ~ ../ _. '. '. .- p - , " '. . " ",. . . ~ ;?-r-' ~ ..
~ "-', .. " "" ') I~.,.. "
..., '. .r,. ~:.., ' ".--, , ----,~./ '. . .in '. _ .-" . ~,,::;: ..:.. ~.. \' ,
.' -" {,-V", '~, '-"--'- · n '~", '" ~ '" '-=:::7 ':); ~.) " ~~~C\~ ~'
,- .. --......",. .....~".. , "', r,. '~r.. () , .. ....,.... .. I l\_.. I". ,-1".... .:.J.& '~I ~ ~~ . .' ... .\
". ..... '" / . ''''0 r ,.., . ~ . ~ -" "" . , ,,' ... , .
. '. , ""'.., .- . . v '. . , ,
! ~ "--"\ "\ . ..... ..... I" , .. ..," · '. ~. .... .,.. '. ,;: "f~ , '.,..... .' ..'\,~" ..... ."
' "" ~....,.. .~. .. '. - ., . .. ...... · ...., · '. -. 't'. - . '. __ .
.. -"':'. ~ .. ; ::::;".. '. ...':-;. "'. *->.,,~" ~O"._" " J. <'.....~,' ~1{~~~::l ~a';,;. '-'-, ~~.. .:. 0 e1"\ ..:l''''''~'' ,K
;;.-" . . .:; :~!!:', ," :\,..~ i ,\'< ,....' -'^ · "'-./ '.~\~ ~>j ~. _ "~:....' :~) ~~~, ~b l't-\);.
. , '. ..:,...: '.:. ".:; . ,"~..~ ':.. '/' &!It \- \, ~'\.,'. ~ v . i M . . . .
"'. '.. ",." -'," ., '.",," '.' \ "" - ?J;" ' iiIli!l... , . ,
~.,. : -: '~ ~ : ~ :-:-.. . - · . . ';:t/.:J 1 - ~. .. ..... ~. /':;"~ . · 2\" '~~ v' c; . . '. ~;;J;" ':::0 r:> ~,;..... ~ l ~
...." \. ,.' . -'J - .' iJ {J: L..! -. --.- , ,I / (\ ;{:'1.~~
. , -- - , · -" ,',r". w
l~. --'0 / "... '1'1 ~t J '-" . -"..' . -1.. 81 . .f'.':J.~ I t... 1i~' . . "
~. : - '. ~ , · ,~ j "" --" '-.,- '. . "~" '. .-, ~" .....,.,.1l'-d: .",' r....' ./ ~..... '- '~, "
'J ~C~~~: r P\\h-r '. ....-.,...::...~ . · ..' . > . ': hi: . Y/';J:..~ 0; -41 ~ (, (r"'" (...~.) ~~~~~ "1.:' ~ -=,' ',;
~' ~~"J '~~'.r , j,,,,,s--qjlol' ". :t 't) "--lJ-J ~v. 'i""". r, 'lIr~~,.
,-... " f, '.. ". '., . " 'f ,~, .. : u ,/ . . ".
' .~ --1/ ~ ~\ -- .,-.. . l~. .'IiJ(/i; .': " ~ [11: ,_ U C~. '1..J , . ". .. ,?Ii "', '.' ".
....r ,~ , '., ~ """ '. , \. , _.. _ r~ '. ..' ) } , . "'., . "-
~lfj~~~'rr V(-U' I[ [' r rf~ J. ~L- E1~-""''''~~~' m'-:'!!:': ~ ~. .' t . l:~_. { Ii;... ~'n" ;. ;b~ ~ .I, ~_ I ( j J !~ :i \ ~~ . ." /. " '\ \
V: ']/ ('.., .... I -... ,;..' / tj#.<. . .' , ~ If':~. _ '}['. ~ f. . O---'",~ '" f" ~~ \ _ \0/ '-i " .\
' . '~'. . -..... "" '.. ~ .. . - , '. . .~ .
. . , """. _.../ or.. - ".. . ,-. ....,. ,.., 0., .' '., . " ~. """".
. . -: , · ........... -. , -- . . ~". . " . "..m".. . " \ . C. . . ....;
. . '\~.-:..'- - .. -. .." ':', ~ ~.: ~ ':0 : r.. 'c~ ........}/.';...'" '. l, 1.~ S\Q 1, (. ----..........::. .~_ \ -,:. '/' ..Q ~. ,t:: ~ I
.- ;;- . '. \ V( .. ."...., . " _,. , ... '. '. ~ "" ",
· ~ . ) ,'" " r... \ .. '___. .. ""'1"'" '. r.", . "'_.. __ _..... .. '. '--- .'. '-,
j ~;i<;r-ITI'1l . t~. .>. (2:) <,) ,r:J\'-~~~ \~[#' (~. in' .JCJp I ~ \'-----;;-_ .*-~_.:___\ ..~)~, /'
::d.Jo I'~rsl( , R"'"'''' /.. '..h-r r ",' - '--.,,;..~- .. W' -'I . J j ~::::::"::''::-'_: }'If~ 'I. '.:J~
" ---, r-; r-, I.. __ ~. . '" .' , .. __ \ '_,,_ .. ., . '"
I ". '. ...n }, ~ .... .~ ( ......__. '../ '\, \ "'
'.. '... .' , "" ~'1rl.'" "'" .. , . '. ,
--. . ~ . ...." . -: . "'" ,;--, ." ". . '., ---
. 'L""""'-r-::t.'.,~......_~;o.:..! r J,I.,hJ~~~-' ~ !~... '.. Q; / ''H'''O 1-c:J~ ;-- \ \\ ....._.... .. .
ILIr..... , ""~ r;:"- ,. I '. .. ".'=" ~ n '- ~ 'i .../ . '. '. ", i ___ .
,,>, ""-" i.,>Ej '--"'. i"I'! ---'-'-- ~ -';::',' . ..' ~ " . ..' '. , \ " _ __ ~.. 1:.1
b '- i' . ! I. , ..- . .' "---' = ......... ("".' "'.b~.' ...... "'" /. / .....
~J->j~ J'-\ "_'P'i ~ ~Jt.Q~~) ~Il -v',",: CJ[=-9~J:t~..Jf~:;10.~J_J:== lj.'; I"", i ..( -. '" ,,(-':~_::..":' f] jJ "", '-',.>11/__ ' .. V.:-'
". --'" --, '. -. '. "'" .- ". , '\ "'... "" ( ,
"1' i ,... .' " ',-, , "''''-- ""-. ...._, '"..__ . '... _ J, .
.. '., "'. .. -. . 'f '-- ~,.. ~, ,.
:'J" '-. 1 · "" L::"t _...1:.. J--, - . ..:...--'...~, ;--'(J"l! """ ~ .j ,.' '..' __, ~ ,"',._
' , -", I......., .,~ ~- '.. ') ',,,". '''" 7..~' fr-;...., .,,. ". _, ... ,,"'''__'~ ....
- . r T, ''''' L. """, .. '-" '-"'., " "'" _ '" .' ( 'r
::"\ 11',-' J 1;...;v..:C. '. '. ~'" " . f:=-J~17 ~ '+fi t _~.\ ..1' ", .0-"""-,,, \:'=,'\'. ~ "'" ~ r 'J ;
~ I F~ II nr vr'- , D':1Hh Y ':~J _, "f" --,' R~J~..';ii2 /_ \..:;.., (> ) .' ~.
".i .... -.., . rJ I V ).. ". .--",,.c. \ ~f.
.., '. ". . .~ ... C"'_ , ''- . '( ,
\. - ~ '. r~Z..,
~~. ..~).
"1c:'Cc. - ". ,.,_
~-:.."j ji
~. . 'hl. ,
- r,oi/. ~ .~'.
, ..
" it---- ,'M.
o
~
H
~
:r:
n
ti
ra
d Resto
~
I
I
.
I
10
an
Park
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
or
II
t
<
rl9..ure 5. Stevens Creek Corrid
o
z
w
o
W
..J
..
<
f-
Z
w
~
I
u
<
l-
f-
<
ATTACHMENT B
STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK
PHASE I
SCOPE of WORK
The scope of work for Phase 1, covered by the adopted Master Plan, Restoration Plan,
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, all developed in accordance with the
requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), occurs in the three
major areas of Blackberry Farm, Reaches A and B of Stevens Creek; and McClellan
Ranch. The scope of work is described in moderate detail below.
Blackberry Farm:
The most extensive work in Phase I is within the 17 acres of Blackberry Farm. A
significant amount of demolition on either side of the creek is necessary to prepare for the
stream channel realignment, described in more detail below. The demolition will remove
many ofthe old and unnecessary items, some of which date back into the 1940s.
The demolition work specifically includes the removal of all the facilities in Pine Grove,
Walnut Court, Fallen Oak and the Horseshoe Bend picnic areas. Old electrical lines
suspended from trees, horseshoe pits, picnic tables, protective shelters, and barbeque pits
are just examples of the facilities that will be removed.
The contractor in Phase I will also remove many of the old utilities and dilapidated
structures in Oak Grove, Sycamore, and Hillside so they can be rebuilt to meet current
codes. These three areas will be upgraded and combined into the new 800-person group
picnic area referred to as the West Side picnic area. A new bridge will be constructed to
cross the creek just opposite the entry to the existing swimming pools. An entry control
point kiosk will be constructed on the east end of the bridge to enable park staff to control
access to both the pool and the group picnic area during the operational season.
The work in Phase I also includes improvements to the entry of the three existing pools,
with new paving, gentle slopes to meet disabled access requirements, and landscaping.
The existing fence around the pools will be expanded to include the lawn area adjacent to
the pools, enabling parents and pool users to have a much larger area to relax in either
sun or shade while using the pools. Personal food or food purchased from the snack
shack will be allowed inside the fenced pool area.
A pair of restrooms, currently used as auxiliary pool changing rooms next to the pool,
will be converted to restrooms to serve the new West Side picnic area as well as be
available for trail users and other members of the public who have come to enjoy the
park. The existing pool changing rooms and their integrated restrooms have been
determined to be large enough to accommodate the needs of all three pools without
modification.
Attachment B
1
{",\ - / J...
It was determined by staff that building a new trailhead parking lot with adjacent new
restrooms was an unnecessary expense, especially since it is operationally feasible for
park visitors to use the large existing parking lot and it's adjacent restrooms without
interference with the collection of picnic area and pool user fees. This operational
decision enables staff to continue using the Park Maintenance building and allows the
existing restrooms, south of the maintenance building, to remain in service with minor
roof and interior repairs.
Interestingly, staff has learned from one of the Nelson family members that the existing
restrooms south of the Park Maintenance building were originally part of a barn that is
thought to have been a stagecoach stop many years ago. Most of the barn was damaged
in the earthquake in 1989 and removed by the Nelsons, but the undamaged restrooms
were retained.
The Captain Stephens area, adjacent to the Tot Lot, will be reconfigured by the removal
of the dilapidated trellis and the addition of new landscaping. This site is thought to have
been the location of the original 1849 Ilisha Stephens homestead, according to Nelson
family members. If so, this may have also been the original home of the William Taylor
McClellan family before they purchased what is now McClellan Ranch from Ilisha
Stephens.
Phase I work also includes the demolition of the existing golf course maintenance
building and service yard and building a new maintenance facility just north ofthe
conference center and next to the golf course. The new facility will also have a restroom
that will be available for use by golfers.
Finally, the southerly portion of the new 2,900-foot long multi-use trail will begin at
Blackberry Farm, at the group picnic area kiosk and continue south, upstream, and
terminate at McClellan Road after passing behind the 4-H facilities and through
McClellan Ranch. The 8-foot wide trail will be paved with decomposed granite
compacted to meet disabled access requirements. Portions of it will bordered by a 3-foot
high split-rail fence to encourage the public to remain on the trail.
Creek Realignment and Restoration
The work in and along the creek, referred to as Reaches A and B, includes stream channel
realignment, non-native tree removal, native tree planting, stream diversion and low flow
crossing removal, stream bank restoration, fish habitat construction, upland plant
restoration.
Reach A includes the southerly portion of the creek, including Horseshoe Bend, where
several concrete structures were built in the early 1940s to divert water for industrial
purposes. These structures were modified over the years to divert water for irrigational,
recreational, and domestic purposes. The in-stream structures will be removed but the
City will retain the ability to draw water from the creek to fill and flush the ponds at the
golf course.
Attachment B
2
{ l\ -{ J
Reach B begins just below the existing Horseshoe Bend and extends downstream just
beyond the Westside picnic area. The channel in this Reach will be relocated to the east
ofthe existing channel, into what is now the parking lot of Blackberry Farm.
McClellan Ranch
The work in Phase I at McClellan Ranch includes the relocation of the 4-H animal pens
to allow the new trail to arc up the hill behind the facilities and still maintain disabled
access slope requirements. Fences will be constructed to enable the trail users to observe
the 4-H animal pens but also keep them at a safe distance.
Phase I work also includes the construction 'of a new 1,500-square foot Environmental
Classroom, in which staff will be able to adequately conduct their on-going nature
awareness program. The structure will be built with environmentally sensitive materials
to the fullest extent possible within the project budget.
A new bus stop will be constructed on the west side ofthe creek on McClellan Road to
enable a more orderly and safer drop off and pick up of school children attending the
nature programs.
Finally, the Phase I scope includes the demolition of the Blacksmith shop and the
relocation of its contents to a more protected location. The Blacksmith shop is currently
located within the drip ring of a very old heritage oak, and somewhat in danger of being
severely damaged if one of the oak's limbs were to break and fall. Further, the location
ofthe shop, directly under the tree and enclosed by other landscaping around the back,
inhibits the draw necessary to enable the forge to work properly. Finally, the roof ofthe
shop has deteriorated to point that repair is impractical. The blacksmith forge and tools
will be relocated to another structure for protection until future restoration is deemed
appropriate.
Attachment B
3
IL< ~[ l(
A TT ACHMENT C - PROJECT EXECUTION AL TERNA TIVES
STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK
-
,s:::
I
Alt. Description Complete Cost/(Short) Comments
Postpone Project Spring 2007 $5,000,000 in Partial reopening in Spring
1 Indefinitely to construction, 2007 - Reevaluate Project and
Maintenance Project in Fall 2007 opportunity funding based on 50% PS&E
FY 07 -08 and lost costs Staff: NOT
RECOMMENDED
Basic Phase I Project- April 2008 $11,169,000 Ambitious, Risky and will
2 begin in spring 2007 "force fit" the project into an
($5,860,000) earlier than prudent schedule
with limited city staff resources
Staff: NOT
RECOMMENDED
Basic Phase I Project- April 2009 $11,198,000 More measured and orderly
3 Bid and Award late schedule to ensure most
2007 or early 2008 - ($5,889,000) effective and successful
Begin March 2008 outcome. Cost escalation offset
by reduced need for contract
PM staff.
Staff RECOMMENDS this
Alternative
Combine both Phase I April 2010 Unknown, Uncertainties and cost
4 and Phase II (Stevens could exceed prohibitive at this time..
Creek Blvd by $15,000,000 Staff: NOT
Stocklemeir Orchard) RECOMMENDED
~
EXHIBITS
BEGIN
HERE
-..J
Ne.wa.eeK.
_ eX~~TtN~ C.~e.K
~z:
He. W c.l<.eeK.
_ eXl~TtN6 C.~e.K
>z
EXHIBITS
BEGIN
HERE
y< \, () cI {t f{vl lof 7/01:
1
t .~
~,~....
:c
111",,'
to
~''''~
[L~
? 0(( C ~\I C t-E'tZK
Date ABOUT OUR CITY MONEY - a concise history...
4/1990 Sports Center purchased against desire of Cupertino residents for $7.9M.
Costly repairs followed by a 2003 remodel at a cost of about $2.4M.
11/1990 Voters approve 2.4% utility tax to purchase Blackberry Farm for eventual
OPEN SPACE and Creekside Park for Recreational Use. Bond to be $2SM.
1993 $36.6M bond is funded (more than $10M more than voters expected)
2000 V oters approve $22 million library if there will be no new taxes
2002 New tax: 2.4% utility tax extended by 15 years to help pay for library
2004 Library needs $1.2M in donations for furniture, fixtures, and equipment
2006 Total bond debt at $SlM (with only $14M orif.!.inal principal paid off)
5/2006 Sources of funding for the Stevens Creek Corridor Project...
Planning Commission told source of funding is GRANTS.
Now source of funding is about $10M from our City's General Fund.
6/2006 Public learns BBF businesses lost $117K in 2005 (yet expected $361K profit).
90% non-resident corporate event business probably loses about $300K.
BBF Enterprise Fund (where profits are held) is negative $302K (what is it now?).
7/2006 Phase 1 Stevens Creek Corridor estimate of $SM soars to $12M.
to now Reconstruction of Blackberry Farm business estimate of $.SM soars to $2M
2006 Cost of Mary Avenue Footbridge estimated in 2001 at $6.6M. Estimated in
5/2005 $8.75M and now soars to over $loM. Plus other CIPS around $4M.
Thoughts * Budget predictions have been optimistic.
* We should wait and see how Mary Avenue Footbridge and CIPs do.
* When will the true costs of Phase 1 AND Phase 2 be known?
* We must know Phase 2 costs before starting Phase 1.
* Budget requires CIP to have projected maintenance costs
(we already have too much deferred maintenance and safety issues to address)
* The public should be able to see the budget line items.
* Due to delays, time is now available for Planning Commission to review.
* Can we find a better use for our tax dollars? What debt will we be left with?
III
: BLAOKBEFtCO
GOLF,'"
:,5'. ;<. .
~.:.':,
,1""1
[
_J
-,"
..'r+
o
~~~,
~_".J)
..........-- :
.\
S?~ CA.'rn tN\
n ~+jv~
EX H I B i [ ! r"~UND BALANCE TRENDS CC/IO-\i-Of.p
lievY\ 11: I~
,---~ . ~ o\strlb\lted b'lJ
.' ",'
, .-
~ '-.. . . .~! CC\.f61 A--\:(..Uoo
Five Year Forecast (in thousands)
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
GENERAL FUND
Beginning BaHmce at July 1 $ 15,993 $ 20,377 $ 19,348 $ 18,906 $ 17,359 $ 16,713
Operating Activity:
Estimated Operating Revenues 35,339 36,867 38,387 38,974 40,517 41,588
Use of Other Reserves/carryover 65 (l,000) 0 0 0 0
Use of Public Access Reserve 50 50 50 50 50 50
Estimated Operating Expenditures (26,982) (29,981) (32,397) (33,871) (35,141) (36,789)
Net Operating Activity 8,472 5,936 6,040 5,153 5,426 4,849
Debt Service (3,548) (3,535) (3,538) (3,534) (3,536) (3,532)
Net Operating Activity after debt 4,924 2,401 2,502 1,619 1,890 1,317
Transfers Out to Other Funds:
MIS Fund (220) ( 137) (220) (220) (220) (220)
Retiree Medical - GASB #34 (1,763) (1,1\21) (l,882) (1,946) (2,013) (2,082)
Equipment Fund 0 0 (50) (50) (50) (50)
Net Income for CIP Projects/Reserves 2,941 443 350 (597) (393) (1,035)
One Time Revenues:
Enterprise Funds (Sports Center/Rec Prog) 303 0 0 0 0 0
Sale of Property 2,423 1,750 0 0 0 0
Park Dedication 657 0 0 0 0 0
Resource Recovery/RDA Payback 500 500 500 0 597 0
Income for CIP Projects/Reserves 6,824 2,693 850 (597) 204 (1,035)
Proposed CIP Projects:
Capital Projects (430) (2,672) (500) (200) 0 (75)
Mary Ave Bicycle Footbridge (755) (250) 0 0 0 0
Transportation Projects & Operations (1,255) (800) (792) (750) (850) (860)
(2,440) (3,722) (1,292) (950) (850) (935)
Ending Balance June 30 20,377 19,348 18,906 17,359 16,713 14,743
Reserve: Poliey
Capital Improvement Projects $5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
PERS Reserve 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Undesignated 4,377 3,348 2,906 1,359 713 (1,257)
Economic Uncertainty I 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Economic Uncertainty II 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
$16,000 20,377 19,348 18,906 17,359 16,713 14,743