The URL can be used to link to this page

02-03-15 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA Tuesday, February 3, 2015 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber CITY COUNCIL 5:00 PM NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is hereby called for Tuesday, February 3, 2015, commencing at 5:00 p.m. in City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of the following subject matters. The regular meeting items will be heard at 6:45 p.m. in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. SPECIAL MEETING - 5:00 PM 10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Conference Room A CLOSED SESSION 1.Subject: Workers' Compensation Claim (Gov't Code Section 54956.95); Claimant: Tina Mao, Agency Claimed Against: City of Cupertino 2.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (d)(2) of Section 54956.9: One Case REGULAR MEETING - 6:45 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO 1 February 3, 2015City Council AGENDA This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. STUDY SESSION 1.Subject: Study session for the Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road Creek Corridor Master Plan (SCC Master Plan) and recommend alternatives to proceed with an Environmental Impact Analysis. (Re-noticed from January 21, 2015) Recommended Action: Conduct study session for the Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road Creek Corridor Master Plan and recommend alternatives to proceed with an Environmental Impact Analysis. Staff Report A - Option A B - Option B C - Option C D - Exist Condtions Site Map E - Order of Magnitude Costs F - Golf Course Draft Report G - Existing Transp. Conditions H - Demog. & Rec Trends I - Public Input Nov-Dec Summary J - P&R Commission Recommendations 15.01.08 CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 2.Subject: Approve the January 20 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes A - Draft Minutes 3.Subject: Approve the January 26 and 27 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes A - Draft Minutes January 26 B - Draft Minutes January 27 4.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 9, 2015 Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2 February 3, 2015City Council AGENDA Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 15-004 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending January 9, 2015 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 5.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 16, 2015 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 15-005 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending January 16, 2015 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 6.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 23, 2015 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 15-006 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending January 23, 2015 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 7.Subject: Approve exception to the 995 rule for one Temporary Employee with budget adjustment Recommended Action: Approve exception to the 995 rule for one Temporary Employee with budget adjustment of $52,390 resulting in increased appropriations for the City Manager and City Attorney budgets of $26,195 respectively Staff Report A - Personnel Code excerpt 8.Subject: Amend the Catastrophic Leave section of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Cupertino and the Operating Engineers Local No. 3 Union, AFL-CIO (OE3) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 15-007 amending the Catastrophic Leave section of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Cupertino and the Operating Engineers Local No. 3 Union, AFL-CIO (OE3) Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Side Letter to OE3 MOU 9.Subject: Re-advertise for two vacancies on the Technology, Information, and Communications Commission (TICC) with full terms ending January 2019 Recommended Action: Set an application deadline date of Friday, March 6 at 4:30 p.m. and schedule an interview date of Tuesday, March 17 beginning at 6:00 p.m. Staff Report A - Resolution No. 10-048 advisory commissions 10.Subject: Second Amendment to an Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the Gilbane Building Company for consultant services for construction Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO 3 February 3, 2015City Council AGENDA management on various projects Recommended Action: Approve a Second Amendment to an Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the Gilbane Building Company in the amount not to exceed $1,478,489.00 for an additional term of approximately 12 months, from the date of expiration of the First Amendment through March 31, 2016 Staff Report A - Draft Second Amendment to the Agreement B - Executed First Amendment to the Agreement 11.Subject: City Project, 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1, Project No. 2014-01 Recommended Action: Accept Project No. 2014-01 Staff Report A - 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1 Street List 12.Subject: City Project, 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2, Project No. 2014-04 Recommended Action: Accept Project No. 2014-04 Staff Report 13.Subject: City Project, 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3, Project No. 2014-05 Recommended Action: Accept Project No. 2014-05 Staff Report A - 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3 Street List SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 14.Subject: Second Reading of "Ordinance amending Chapter 2.36 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission" Recommended Action: Conduct the Second Reading and enact Ordinance No. 15-2127: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Section 2.36.303 Members-Vacancy or Removal, Section 2.36.070 Records Required, and Section 2.36.080 Powers and Functions, of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission" Staff Report A - Draft Ordinance Redlined B - Draft Ordinance Clean PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 15.Subject: Civic Center Master Plan Consultant Contracts (Continued from January 20) Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO 4 February 3, 2015City Council AGENDA Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute contracts for all remaining services necessary to complete work directed by the Council on October 21, 2014 Staff Report REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF ADJOURNMENT The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Page 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:115-0616 Name: Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/12/2015 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Workers' Compensation Claim (Gov't Code Section 54956.95); Claimant: Tina Mao, Agency Claimed Against: City of Cupertino Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject:Workers'CompensationClaim(Gov'tCodeSection54956.95);Claimant:TinaMao, Agency Claimed Against: City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™6 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0577 Name: Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:12/1/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (d) (2) of Section 54956.9: One Case Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject:ConferencewithLegalCounsel-Significantexposuretolitigationpursuantto subdivision (d)(2) of Section 54956.9: One Case CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™7 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0598 Name: Status:Type:Study Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:12/16/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Study session for the Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road Creek Corridor Master Plan (SCC Master Plan) and recommend alternatives to proceed with an Environmental Impact Analysis. (Re-noticed from January 21, 2015) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Option A B - Option B C - Option C D - Exist Condtions Site Map E - Order of Magnitude Costs F - Golf Course Draft Report G - Existing Transp. Conditions H - Demog. & Rec Trends I - Public Input Nov-Dec Summary J - P&R Commission Recommendations 15.01.08 Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject:StudysessionfortheStevensCreekBoulevardtoMcClellanRoadCreekCorridor MasterPlan(SCCMasterPlan)andrecommendalternativestoproceedwithanEnvironmental Impact Analysis. (Re-noticed from January 21, 2015) ConductstudysessionfortheStevensCreekBoulevardtoMcClellanRoadCreekCorridor Master Plan and recommend alternatives to proceed with an Environmental Impact Analysis. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™8 RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 3, 2015 Subject Study session for the Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road Creek Corridor Master Plan (SCC Master Plan) and recommend alternatives to proceed with an Environmental Impact Analysis. (Re-noticed from January 21, 2015). Recommended Action Conduct study session for the Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road Creek Corridor Master Plan and recommend alternatives to proceed with an Environmental Impact Analysis. Description The City launched a master planning project to look at the 65 public acres from Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road in Spring 2014 and hired MIG, a landscape architecture and public engagement firm, to lead the project. The Master Plan includes the areas of McClellan Ranch Preserve, McClellan Ranch West, Blackberry Farm Park, Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Stocklmeir Ranch, the Stevens Creek Trail and associated lands. The master plan does not address the four cities coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study. Discussion There have been several master planning/visioning projects throughout the years on various portions of this property starting with the 1993 McClellan Master Plan (MP) and concluding with the 2012 McClellan Ranch MP update. We are currently looking at this project in its entirety due to our changing demographics over the past 15 years, the recent acquisition of the residential property at 22050 Stevens Creek Blvd., and the needs of our aging infrastructure within the corridor. These include, but are not limited to, refurbishment of a 62 year old golf course and its failing irrigation system, aging pool equipment, barn stabilization needs, conditions of the Blue Pheasant, Simms and Stocklmeir buildings, and park access conditions. Among the goals of the master plan are:  Enhance Riparian habitat throughout the corridor 9  Provide for appropriate year-round park-related programming and uses in the corridor;  Restore buildings, land and infrastructure to protect the integrity of the assets;  Improve ingress/egress to the park;  Meet community needs given our changing demographics;  Enhance sustainability of our golf course property, and;  Invest our funds wisely while accommodating community goals. We are committed to creating a plan that aligns with local needs, preferences and priorities. As community input is integral to each phase of the SCC Master Plan, we have reached out to our community through 4 intercept events, focus group and stakeholder interviews, online questionnaires, two community events, social media notifications, a citywide mailing, and information on our website and in the Scene. MIG was tasked with proposing three alternatives for Council consideration. They are presented as: 1. Alternative A (highest intensity), 2. Alternative B (medium intensity), including a preferred alternative for the golf course from the National Golf Foundation (NGF), and 3. Alternative C (lowest intensity) – including a second alternative for the golf course from the NGF. All three alternatives were presented in detail at the Council study session on December 16, 2014. Due to time constraints, the Council received public testimony but deferred deliberation. On January 8, 2015, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the project and their recommendations are denoted in Attachment J. In addition, staff and Commission subcommittee met with representatives from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Acterra. These stakeholders supported a plan that is a modified version of Option C. The primary modifications include:  No new bridge from McClellan Ranch West to McClellan Ranch Preserve  No seasonal bridge to, nor trails within the “peninsula”  Reduce and minimize new trails: no new trails within McClellan Ranch meadow nor along creek bank at golf course  Avoid adding golf amenities at 22050 Stevens Creek Blvd. (i.e. residential parcel next to golf course that is now city-owned). Additional input included:  New bridge to Stocklmeir site, if needed: locate to minimize impacts to trees, habitat and wildlife; place it close to Stevens Creek Blvd. bridge 10  If golf course is reduced in size, request that freed up space be restored to habitat. Expand the greenbelt/restoration zone along the creek bank as a priority. If the golf course parking lot is expanded, then widen the creek side greenbelt/restoration zone for habitat  Blackberry Farm pool complex: keep pool modifications and improvements within existing footprint. MIG and staff will need direction from the Council as to the preferred alternative for purposes of impact evaluation in order to proceed with the Environmental Impact Analysis. The entire process, along with all associated reports, is estimated to take approximately 9 months to complete. The final SCC Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report are anticipated to be brought to Council in October 2015 for approval. Fiscal Impact No impact will result from this study session. ____________________________________ Prepared by: Carol A. Atwood, Director of Recreation & Community Services Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachment: A –Design Option A B- Design Option B C- Design Option C D-Existing Conditions Site Map E- Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate F- Golf Course Draft Report G- Existing Transportation Conditions H-Demographics and Recreation Trends Summary I- Public Input/November-December 2014 J-Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendations 01.08.15 11 CO M M U N I T Y GA R D E N S NA T U R E MU S E U M ME A D O W ME A D O W GA R D E N E R ’S SH E D BE E HI V E S OU T D O O R SK I L L S AR E A MU L T I -US E AR E A 4- H AR E A EN V I R O N M E N T A L ED U C A T I O N CE N T E R AD V E N T U R E PL A Y AR E A / OB S T A C L E CH A L L E N G E CO U R S E NA T U R E PL A Y AR E A EX P A N D E D CO M M U N I T Y GA R D E N S (3 5 SP A C E S ) EN H A N C E D CR E E K AC C E S S AR E A CR E E K AC C E S S AR E A P P P RA N C H HO U S E MI L K BA R N GR O U P PI C N I C AR E A GR E A T LA W N AR E A OR C H A R D LA N D S C A P E EV E N T S VE N U E ST A G I N G / ST O R A G E AR E A HO R S E S H O E PI T HO R S E S H O E PI T DE S T I N A T I O N PL A Y AR E A MA I N T E N A N C E BU I L D I N G AN D OP E R A T I O N S PA R K S AN D PU B L I C WO R K S MA I N T E N A N C E YA R D PO O L CO M P L E X ST A F F OF F I C E S CA F E MU L T I -US E SP O R T S F I E L D S AR R I V A L CO U R T PL A Z A BO C C E VO L L E Y B A L L BA R N PO L E BA R N TA N K HO U S E GL A D E CR E E K RE S T O R A T I O N P P P P P P P ST O C K L M E I R RA N C H Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H PR E S E R V E BL A C K B E R R Y FA R M PO O L BL A C K S M I T H SH O P EN H A N C E D RI P A R I A N AR E A EN H A N C E D RI P A R I A N AR E A Op t i o n A i s c o n s i d e r e d t h e h i g h e s t i n t e n s i t y d e s i g n a l t e r n a t i v e . A s c o m p a r e d t o t h e o t h e r t w o o p t i o n s , O p t i o n A i s d e s i g n e d t o e n c o u r a g e t h e h i g h e s t d e g r e e o f n e w vi s i t o r u s e a n d w o u l d r e q u i r e t h e m o s t e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t t o t h e s i t e . T h i s i s t h e o n l y o p t i o n t h a t r e c o m m e n d s r e m o v i n g t h e g ol f c o u r s e i n f a v o r o f a d d i n g t w o li g h t e d , m u l t i - p u r p o s e s p o r t s f i e l d s . O t h e r p a r k f e a t u r e s i n c l u d e e x p a n d e d v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s f r o m S t e v e n s C r e e k B l v d ; s p a c e s a n d a m e n i t i e s f o r l a r g e e v e n t s ; l a r g e , cu s t o m p o o l a n d w a t e r p l a y f a c i l i t i e s ; e x p a n d e d c o m m u n i t y g a r d e n s p a c e ; a v a r i e t y o f a c t i v e p l a y a n d e x e r c i s e e x p e r i e n c e s ; i n c r ea s e d p a r k i n g a r e a s ; a d d i t i o n a l b u i l t st r u c t u r e s , i n c l u d i n g a n e w m a i n t e n a n c e h e a d q u a r t e r s b u i l d i n g ; a n d a d d i t i o n a l h a b i t a t i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d c r e e k r e s t o r a t i o n ( a t n o r t h a n d s o u t h e n d s o f p a r k ) . S i t e am e n i t i e s s u c h a s r e s t r o o m s , b i k e p a r k i n g , p i c n i c t a b l e s , b e n c h e s , a n d w a s t e / r e c y c l i n g r e c e p t a c l e s w i l l b e l o c a t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e p a r k w h e r e v e r a p p r o p r i a t e . OR C H A R D G A R D E N P A R K : E n h a n c e h i s t o r i c o r c h a r d l a n d s c a p e t o c r e a t e a s e m i - f o r m a l ga r d e n p a r k t h a t r e s p o n d s t o t h e s i t e ’ s a g r i c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e a n d i s s u i t a b l e f o r re f l e c t i v e w a l k s , p i c n i c s , o u t d o o r g a t h e r i n g s , a n d w e d d i n g p h o t o o p p o r t u n i t i e s . SP E C I A L E V E N T S V E N U E : R e n o v a t e h o u s e f o r p u b l i c a c c e s s a n d u s e i n t e r i o r , e x t e r i o r pa t i o s , a n d s u r r o u n d i n g l a n d s c a p e f o r w e d d i n g s a n d s p e c i a l e v e n t s . I n c l u d e c a t e r i n g ki t c h e n a n d r e s t r o o m s . ST A G I N G / S T O R A G E A R E A : M a i n t a i n g a r a g e a n d o u t b u i l d i n g a s s t o r a g e a r e a f o r op e r a t i o n s a n d m a i n t e n a n c e a n d e v e n t s e q u i p m e n t a n d m a i n t a i n s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a a s ev e n t s t a g i n g s p a c e . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C U L A R C I R C U L A T I O N : E x i s t i n g S t e v e n s C r e e k T r a i l t r a v e r s e s th e r a n c h f r o m n o r t h t o s o u t h , a c c e s s e d f r o m t h r e e p o i n t s : S t e v e n s C r e e k B l v d t o t h e no r t h w e s t , t h e p r o p o s e d b r i d g e f r o m t h e R a n c h p a r k i n g l o t t o t h e n o r t h e a s t , a n d t h e ex i s t i n g b i k e / p e d e s t r i a n b r i d g e t o t h e s o u t h . T h e v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s b r i d g e f r o m t h e Ra n c h p a r k i n g a r e a i s l i m i t e d t o m a i n t e n a n c e a n d e v e n t s e r v i c e v e h i c l e s . R a n c h vi s i t o r s a n d e v e n t g u e s t s p a r k i n t h e l o t a n d w a l k o v e r t h e b r i d g e . S m a l l a c c e s s i b l e pa r k i n g a r e a s a r e p r o v i d e d a t b o t h b u i l d i n g s . GR O U P P I C N I C A R E A : E x i s t i n g p i c n i c s h e l t e r s w i t h b a r b e c u e s , p i c n i c t a b l e s , a n d ho r s e s h o e p i t s . SY C A M O R E G R O V E : I n t a c t g r o v e o f l a r g e , n a t i v e C a l i f o r n i a S y c a m o r e s . P o t e n t i a l ve g e t a t i o n e n h a n c e m e n t a r e a . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C L E C I R C U L A T I O N : E x i s t i n g b r i d g e f o r b i k e / p e d e s t r i a n a n d ma i n t e n a n c e v e h i c l e a c c e s s . S e r v e d b y p a r k i n g a r e a s a t s p o r t s f i e l d s a n d d e s t i n a t i o n pl a y a r e a . EN H A N C E D R I P A R I A N A R E A : R e s t o r e d r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t w i t h o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r w i l d l i f e vi e w i n g . GR E A T L A W N : F l e x i b l e g r e e n s p a c e f o r i n f o r m a l p l a y , c o m m u n i t y e v e n t s , a n d g a t h e r i n g s wi t h p i c n i c a r e a s a l o n g s h a d e d e d g e s . L a w n a r e a i s c o m p o s e d o f e c o l a w n m i x o r mo w a b l e m e a d o w g r a s s e s . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C U L A R C I R C U L A T I O N : A c c e s s f r o m t h e c r e e k t r a i l a l o n g t h e we s t e d g e , a n d f r o m t h e p a t h w a y a l o n g t h e m a i n e n t r a n c e d r i v e a l o n g t h e e a s t e d g e . Ve h i c l e s a p p r o a c h f r o m t h e m a i n s p i n e r o a d a n d a r e s e r v e d b y l i n e a r p a r k i n g l o t t o t h e ea s t . NA T U R A L A R E A : R i p a r i a n a r e a w i t h n a t u r e t r a i l s . O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r w i l d l i f e v i e w i n g a n d qu i e t r e f l e c t i o n . BI K E A N D P E D E S T R I A N C I R C U L A T I O N : W e s t s i d e o f t h e c r e e k a c c e s s i b l e b y s m a l l , e x i s t i n g br i d g e a t S c e n i c C i r c l e e n t r a n c e . ME A D O W : E n h a n c e d / r e s t o r e d m e a d o w h a b i t a t a r e a s o n n o r t h a n d w e s t s i d e s o f t h e si t e . O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r w i l d l i f e v i e w i n g , a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l e d u c a t i o n . EX P A N D E D C O M M U N I T Y G A R D E N : E x p a n d e d a n d e n h a n c e d c o m m u n i t y g a r d e n a r e a wi t h 4 0 + g a r d e n p l o t s , b e e h i v e y a r d , u p g r a d e d i r r i g a t i o n , v e g e t a b l e / h a n d w a s h i n g st a t i o n , p o s s i b l e p i c n i c a r e a , c o m p o s t i n g d e m o n s t r a t i o n a r e a , a n d n e w f e n c i n g . EN H A N C E D 4 - H F A C I L I T I E S : I m p r o v e 4 - H a r e a a n d a m e n i t i e s t o s u p p o r t e x p a n d e d pr o g r a m m i n g . OU T D O O R S K I L L S : S p a c e a n d a m e n i t i e s f o r l e a r n i n g a n d p r a c t i c i n g o u t d o o r s k i l l s , in c l u d i n g w i l d f o o d f o r a g i n g , s h e l t e r b u i l d i n g , w i l d l i f e t r a c k i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , w i l d e r n e s s fi r s t a i d , o r i e n t e e r i n g , k n o t t y i n g , a n d r o p e m a k i n g . BA R N : R e n o v a t e a n d a d d h i s t o r y , n a t u r e , a n d s c i e n c e - b a s e d i n t e r p r e t i v e e l e m e n t s . In d o o r s p a c e f o r e d u c a t i o n a l a n d s u m m e r p r o g r a m s a n d l i v e s t o c k a n d r a n c h p u r p o s e s . CR E E K A C C E S S : O p p o r t u n i t y t o a c c e s s e a s t s i d e o f c r e e k n e a r m e a d o w a n d p a r k i n g ar e a . EN V I R O N M E N T A L E D U C A T I O N C E N T E R A R E A : I m p r o v e c e n t r a l g a t h e r i n g a r e a s a d j a c e n t to b u i l d i n g s t o s u p p o r t o u t d o o r e d u c a t i o n , g r o u p v i s i t s , t e a c h i n g , a n d e v e n t s . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C L E C I R C U L A T I O N : I m p r o v e d p e d e s t r i a n t r a i l s a n d pa t h w a y s w i t h a c c e s s t o m e a d o w , c o m m u n i t y g a r d e n s , s t r u c t u r e s , a n d t h e g r e a t e r p a r k tr a i l s y s t e m . N e w b r i d g e c r o s s i n g p r o v i d e s i m p r o v e d a c c e s s b e t w e e n M c C l e l l a n R a n c h Pr e s e r v e a n d M c C l e l l a n R a n c h W e s t . I m p r o v e d p a r k i n g s u r f a c e s o c c u r w i t h i n e x i s t i n g fo o t p r i n t . A d d i t i o n a l p a r k i n g i n M c C l e l l a n R a n c h W e s t . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C U L A R C I R C U L A T I O N : P a t h a l o n g w e s t s i d e o f c r e e k a l l o w s ac c e s s i n t o M c C l e l l a n R a n c h W e s t . N e w b r i d g e c r o s s i n g p r o v i d e s i m p r o v e d r o u t e t o Mc C l e l l a n R a n c h P r e s e r v e . L a r g e p a r k i n g a r e a w i t h v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s a t i n t e r s e c t i o n wi t h C l u b h o u s e L a n e a n d b u s p u l l - t h r o u g h l o o p . EN H A N C E D R I P A R I A N A R E A : E n h a n c e d / r e s t o r e d w e t l a n d h a b i t a t a r e a . O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r wi l d l i f e v i e w i n g a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l e d u c a t i o n . BI K E A N D P E D E S T R I A N C I R C U L A T I O N : S e a s o n a l a c c e s s f r o m n e w f o o t p a t h a t S c e n i c Ci r c l e a n d f r o m a s m a l l , t e m p o r a r y f o o t b r i d g e f r o m M c C l e l l a n R a n c h . P e d e s t r i a n p a t h pr o v i d e s v i s u a l a c c e s s i n t o h a b i t a t a r e a . GRAND PARK ENTRY: Green space gateway to reflect park identity and character, with large shade trees, landscaping, identity and wayfinding signage, and visual access to the creek.STEVENS CREEK: Repair and restore north side of creek bank at proposed parking area. GLADE: A grassy meadow under the canopy of deciduous trees provides open, flexible green space available for everyday use or spillover events form the court sports.COURT SPORTS: Bocce ball and turf volleyball/badminton courts at the south end of the glade.TANK HOUSE: Exterior restoration of Nathan Hall Tank House with interpretive signage.PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, AND VEHICLE CIRCULATION: Access points for pedestrian and bike loop trails that serve the park—featuring trail maps and interpretive signage. For vehicles, the main park entrance road from Stevens Creek Blvd creates a north-south spine for circulation and is lined with large shade trees in the style of a country estate drive. Parking areas are provided on the east and west sides of the entrance road.DESTINATION POOL COMPLEX: Expanded and enhanced swimming and water play facilities with year-round programming, moved away from existing footprint. Includes lap swim, sloped entry pool, spray play elements, lifeguard tower, and ADA improvements, as well as pool house with dressing rooms, lockers, showers, and restrooms. Also includes staff office.INDOOR/OUTDOOR DINING: Café building with food service, eating area with picnic tables, open area, and space for temporary food truck service during events. STAFF OFFICES: Building space for offices, meetings, and trainings.PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, AND VEHICLE CIRCULATION: Area is accessible from bike/pedes-trian trail along the east edge, and bike/pedestrian pathway along the main spine road to the west. Vehicular circulation is accessible from the main spine road, with a parking area to the south.MULTI-USE SPORTSFIELDS: Two natural turf, multi-use, rectangular sportsfields suitable for practice and play. Lighted for evening use. Can also serve as large, open air event space for movies in the park, etc.ARRIVAL COURT: buffer between the two sportsfields with arrival court that including restrooms and storage at the west end, and a small picnic plaza at the east end.PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, AND VEHICLE CIRCULATION: Pedestrian and bike loop trail is located along the perimeter of the pool complex and sports fields. Large linear parking lot is located along western edge of fields and is accessible from main entrance road.MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND OPERATIONS: New maintenance building in location of existing retreat center. Includes vehicle bays with charging stations, equipment storage, and restrooms.PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION: Pedestrian and bike point of access for east side neighborhood users via separated path. Access road is for emergency, maintenance, and staff vehicles only.DESTINATION PLAY: Large, custom play area with features such as climbing sculptures, walls, and structures; and water and sand play.OUTDOOR DINING: Eating area with picnic tables and space for temporary food truck service during peak use times and events.MAINTENANCE YARD: Existing maintenance facilities are upgraded for use by Public Works and Parks staff. Improvements include new electrical cart storage area and restrooms. PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION: Pedestrian and bike access from bike/pedestrian trail along the west edge, and from walking path along central spine road to the east. Small parking area located to the east side of the play area off the central spine road.OBSTACLE CHALLENGE COURSE: A series of climbing, balancing, and teamwork elements, suitable for guided and unguided use by kids and adults.ADVENTURE PLAY: Area for self-directed play with opportunities to imagine, experiment, and create. Elements include water, mud, and sand, parts and tools for building and dismantling, climbing boulders and trees. Designed and supervised to create a safe space for risk-taking, limit-testing, and trial-and-error activities.NATURAL PLAY AREA: Custom designed play area for open-ended, sensory play, built with natural materials like sand, wood, and boulders. Opportunities to connect play and learning in a natural environment. BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: Pedestrian/bike access from perimeter loop trail. BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M W E S T WE S T S I D E P I C N I C A R E A CE N T R A L C R E E K C O R R I D O R RI P A R I A N P E N I N S U L A MC C L E L L A N R A N C H P R E S E R V E MC C L E L L A N R A N C H W E S T ST O C K L M E I R R A N C H STEVENS CREEK BLVD ENTRANCE BLACKBERRY FARM NORTH BLACKBERRY FARM CENTRAL SAN FERNANDO ENTRANCE BLACKBERRY FARM SOUTH EASTSIDE PARK AREA DE S I G N O P T I O N A TH E ME A D O W S PA R K V I L L A S RI D G E C R E S T MO N T A VI S T A LA S P A L M A S FA I R W A Y V I I S TE V E N S CREEK S T E V E N S C R EEK STE VEN S CREEK TRAIL ST E VEN S C REE K TR AIL MONTA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL DE E P CL I F F GO L F CO U R S E PALO VISTA RD SC E N IC C I R C L E LINDAVISTA PL C L U B H O U S E L N SCENIC CIRCLE S C E N I C B L V D SC E N I C B L VD MC CLELLA N RD MC C LE L LAN RD LI NDA VIS TA D R S A N F E R N A N D O A V E SAN FERNANDO AVE JA N IC E AVE BYRNECT GRANADA AVE HERMOSA AVE LOMITA AVE ALMADEN AVE ALCAZAR AVE DOLORES AVE CRESCENT RD MADRID RD CU P E R T I N O R D R AE LN VAL L E C IT O RD CARMEN RD SCENIC CT ST O C KL MEIR CT PA L M A V E D E A N C T JA N I C E AV E SCENIC BLVD BYRNE AVEBYRNE AVE PHAR LAP BYRNE AVE SA N F E R N A N D O C T PA R TH R EE D R SA NT A P A U L A A V E TRE SSLE R CT MIRA VISTA AVE SCENIC BLVD MIRA VISTA RD SCENIC CIRCLE M c C L E L L A N R D ST E V E N S C R E E K B L V D NPROJECT BOUNDARY BUILDING / STRUCTURE PARKING AREASPORTS / PLAY OPEN GREEN SPACE MEADOWAGRICULTURE / GARDEN(E) RIPARIAN VEGETATION / RESTORED NATIVE VEGETATION AREAS ENHANCED RIPARIAN OR HABITAT AREA CREEK(E) TRAIL PROPOSED TRAIL PAVED ROADSEASONAL TRAIL/BRIDGEP 0100’200’300’250’150’50’GATEWAY / ENTRY POINT (E) BRIDGE PROPOSED BRIDGE**pending SCVWD approval(E) ON-STREET BIKE ROUTE 12 COMMUNITY GARDENS NATURE MUSEUM MEADOW MEADOW GARDENER’S SHED BEE HIVES OUTDOOR SKILLS AREA MULTI-USE AREA 4-H AREA ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER ADVENTURE PLAY AREA / OBSTACLE CHALLENGE COURSE NATURE PLAY AREA EXPANDED COMMUNITY GARDENS (35 SPACES) ENHANCED CREEK ACCESS AREA CREEK ACCESS AREA P P P RANCH HOUSE MILK BARN GROUP PICNIC AREA GREAT LAWN AREA ORCHARD LANDSCAPE EVENTS VENUE STAGING/ STORAGE AREA HORSESHOE PIT HORSESHOE PIT DESTINATION PLAY AREA MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND OPERATIONS PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE YARD POOL COMPLEX STAFF OFFICES CAFE MULTI-USE SPORTSFIELDS ARRIVAL COURT PLAZA BOCCE VOLLEYBALL BARN POLE BARN TANK HOUSE GLADE CREEK RESTORATION P P P P P P P STOCKLMEIR RANCH McCLELLAN RANCH PRESERVE BLACKBERRY FARM POOL BLACKSMITH SHOP ENHANCED RIPARIAN AREA ENHANCED RIPARIAN AREA N PROJECT BOUNDARY BUILDING / STRUCTURE PARKING AREA SPORTS / PLAY OPEN GREEN SPACE MEADOW AGRICULTURE / GARDEN (E) RIPARIAN VEGETATION / RESTORED NATIVE VEGETATION AREAS ENHANCED RIPARIAN OR HABITAT AREA CREEK (E) TRAIL PROPOSED TRAIL PAVED ROAD SEASONAL TRAIL/BRIDGE P 0100’200’300’ 250’150’50’ GATEWAY / ENTRY POINT (E) BRIDGE PROPOSED BRIDGE* *pending SCVWD approval (E) ON-STREET BIKE ROUTE DESIGN OPTION A THE MEADOWS PARK VILLAS RIDGECREST MONTA VISTA LAS PALMAS FAIRWAY VII S T E V E N S C REEK S T E V E NS C R EEK STEVENS CRE E K T R A I L STEVEN S C REEK TRAIL MONTA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL DEEP CLIFF GOLF COURSE PA L O V I S T A R D SCENIC CIR C L E LIN D A VI ST A PL CLU B H O U SE L N SC E N I C C I R C L E SCEN IC BL V D SCE N I C B L VD MC CL E L L AN R D MC CLELLAN RD LI N D A VIS T A D R SAN F ERN AND O A V E SA N FE R N A N DO A V E JANI C E AVE BYRNE CT GRANADA AVE HE RMOSA AVE LOMITA AVE ALMADEN AVE ALCAZAR AVE DOLORES AVE CR E S C EN T R D MA D R I D R D CU P E R T I N O R D R A E L N VALLE CITO RD CA RM E N R D SC E NI C C T STOC K L MEIR CT PALM AVE DEAN CT JANICE AVE SC E N I C BL VD BY R N E A V E BY R N E A V E PH A R L A P BY R N E AVE SAN FERNANDO CT PAR THR E E D R SANTA PAULA AVE T R E S S L E R C T MIR A VI S TA A V E SC E N I C B L V D MI R A V I S T A R D SCE N IC C I R C L E M cCLE LL AN R D STEVENS CREEK BLVD 13 EX P A N D E D CO M M U N I T Y GA R D E N S EX P A N D E D CO MM U N I T Y GAR D E N S CO M M U N I T Y GA R D E N S ME A D O W NA T U R E PL A Y AR E A ME A D O W GA R D E N E R ’S SH E D 4- H AR E A OF F -RO A D CY C L I N G / BI K E SK I L L S AR E A SE A S O N A L NA T U R E DI S C O V E R Y AR E A P P P GR O U P PI C N I C AR E A FA R M I N G / PL A N T NU R S E R Y / BE E HI V E YA R D PR O G R A M M I N G / EV E N T SP A C E ST O R A G E SP A C E HO R S E S H O E PI T HO R S E S H O E PI T PO O L CO M P L E X BA R N PO L E BA R N TA N K HO U S E GO L F MA I N T E N A N C E BU I L D I N G CL U B H O U S E / ST A F F OF F I C E S P P P ST O C K L M E I R LE G A C Y FA R M 9- H O L E PA R 3 GO L F C O U R S E BL A C K B E R R Y FA R M PO O L Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H PR E S E R V E TR A I L H E A D KI O S K P P NA T U R E MU S E U M BL A C K S M I T H SH O P EN V I R O N M E N T A L ED U C A T I O N CE N T E R RA N C H HO U S E MI L K BA R N EN H A N C E D RI P A R I A N AR E A EN H A N C E D RI P A R I A N AR E A MU L T I -US E OU T D O O R ED U C A T I O N AR E A PA R K S AN D PU B L I C WO R K S MA I N T E N A N C E YA R D EN H A N C E D CR E E K AC C E S S AR E A CR E E K RE S T O R A T I O N NA T U R E PL A Y AR E A CR E E K AC C E S S AR E A (3 5 SP A C E S ) Op t i o n B i s c o n s i d e r e d t h e m e d i u m i n t e n s i t y d e s i g n a l t e r n a t i v e . A s c o m p a r e d t o t h e o t h e r t w o o p t i o n s , O p t i o n B i s d e s i g n e d t o e n c o u r a g e a m o d e r a t e d e g r e e o f n e w vi s i t o r u s e , a n d w o u l d r e q u i r e a m e d i u m d e g r e e o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t t o t h e s i t e . T h i s o p t i o n r e c o m m e n d s b u i l d i n g a n e w w i l d l i f e - f r i e n d l y p a r - t h r e e , n i n e - h o l e go l f c o u r s e a n d a n e x p a n d e d p o o l c o m p l e x w i t h a s h a r e d c l u b h o u s e . O t h e r p a r k e l e m e n t s i n c l u d e e x p a n d e d v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s a t S t e v en s C r e e k B l v d ; i n c r e a s e d pa r k i n g ; e x p a n d e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l u s e a n d e d u c a t i o n , e n v i r o n m e n t a l e d u c a t i o n , a n d s k i l l s b u i l d i n g ; a v a r i e t y o f a c t i v e p l a y a n d e x e r c i s e e x p e r i e n c e s ; an d a d d i t i o n a l h a b i t a t i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d c r e e k r e s t o r a t i o n ( a t n o r t h a n d s o u t h e n d s o f p a r k ) . S i t e a m e n i t i e s s u c h a s r e s t r o o m s , b i k e p a r k i n g , p i c n i c t a b l e s , be n c h e s , a n d w a s t e / r e c y c l i n g r e c e p t a c l e s w i l l b e l o c a t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e p a r k w h e r e v e r a p p r o p r i a t e . LE G A C Y A G R I C U L T U R E : M a i n t a i n h i s t o r i c o r c h a r d a n d g r o u n d s a s a c t i v e a n d e d u c a t i o n - al a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d . F o c u s o n h i s t o r i c a l a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y c o n s c i o u s f a r m i n g pr a c t i c e s . O p p o r t u n i t y t o w o r k w i t h s t u d e n t s a n d p a r t n e r s t o m a i n t a i n f r u i t s , v e g e t a - bl e s , h e r b s , a n d b e e h i v e y a r d . O p p o r t u n i t y t o h o s t c l a s s e s , e d u c a t i o n a l f i e l d t r i p s , a n d su m m e r c a m p p r o g r a m s . NA T I V E P L A N T A N D T R E E N U R S E R Y : E s t a b l i s h a g r e e n h o u s e a n d g r o w i n g a r e a f o r a na t i v e p l a n t s a n d t r e e s n u r s e r y t o a i d s u p p o r t l a n d s c a p e r e s t o r a t i o n e f f o r t s . PR O G R A M M I N G / E V E N T S P A C E : S t a b i l i z e h o u s e f o r p u b l i c a c c e s s a n d u s e e x t e r i o r p a t i o s an d s u r r o u n d i n g l a n d s c a p e f o r e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m m i n g , o u t d o o r c l a s s r o o m , a n d s m a l l ev e n t s / g a t h e r i n g s . M a i n t a i n g a r a g e , o u t b u i l d i n g , a n d s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a a s s t o r a g e a n d di s p l a y s p a c e f o r h i s t o r i c a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y f a r m e q u i p m e n t , l e g a c y f a r m e d u c a t i o n a l sp a c e , a n d f o r o p e r a t i o n s a n d m a i n t e n a n c e f u n c t i o n s a n d e q u i p m e n t . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C U L A R C I R C U L A T I O N : E x i s t i n g S t e v e n s C r e e k T r a i l t r a v e r s e s th e r a n c h f r o m n o r t h t o s o u t h , a c c e s s e d f r o m t h r e e p o i n t s : S t e v e n s C r e e k B l v d t o t h e no r t h w e s t , t h e p r o p o s e d b r i d g e f r o m t h e n e w T r a i l h e a d K i o s k p a r k i n g l o t t o t h e no r t h e a s t , a n d t h e e x i s t i n g b i k e / p e d e s t r i a n b r i d g e t o t h e s o u t h . T h e v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s br i d g e f r o m t h e T r a i l h e a d K i o s k p a r k i n g a r e a i s l i m i t e d t o m a i n t e n a n c e a n d e v e n t se r v i c e v e h i c l e s . R a n c h v i s i t o r s p a r k i n t h e l o t a n d w a l k o v e r t h e b r i d g e . S m a l l ac c e s s i b l e p a r k i n g a r e a s a r e p r o v i d e d a t b o t h b u i l d i n g s . GR O U P P I C N I C A R E A : E x i s t i n g p i c n i c s h e l t e r s w i t h b a r b e c u e s , p i c n i c t a b l e s , a n d ho r s e s h o e p i t s . SY C A M O R E G R O V E : I n t a c t g r o v e o f l a r g e , n a t i v e C a l i f o r n i a S y c a m o r e s . P o t e n t i a l ve g e t a t i o n e n h a n c e m e n t a r e a . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C L E C I R C U L A T I O N : E x i s t i n g b r i d g e f o r b i k e / p e d e s t r i a n an d m a i n t e n a n c e v e h i c l e a c c e s s . S e r v e d b y p a r k i n g a r e a s b y g o l f c o u r s e a n d p o o l . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C U L A R C I R C U L A T I O N : T h e a r r i v a l p l a z a a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e cl u b h o u s e a n d p o o l c o m p l e x i s a c c e s s i b l e v i a t r a i l t o t h e w e s t a n d b i k e / p e d e s t r i a n pa t h w a y a l o n g t h e m a i n s p i n e r o a d . L a r g e p e d e s t r i a n - f r i e n d l y p a r k i n g l o t d e s i g n e d a s a s e r i e s o f s m a l l e r p o d s s e r v e s t h e g o l f c o u r s e , p o o l c o m p l e x , a n d g r o u p p i c n i c a r e a an d a c t s a s a n c h o r f o r t h e m a i n s p i n e r o a d . A r o u n d a b o u t d r o p - o f f p o i n t a t t h e cl u b h o u s e p l a z a h o u s e s t h e g o l f c o u r s e ’ s w a t e r t o w e r . NA T U R A L A R E A : R i p a r i a n a r e a w i t h n a t u r e t r a i l s . O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r w i l d l i f e v i e w i n g a n d qu i e t r e f l e c t i o n . PE D E S T R I A N A N D B I K E C I R C U L A T I O N : T h e w e s t s i d e o f t h e c r e e k i s a c c e s s i b l e b y s m a l l , ex i s t i n g b r i d g e a t S c e n i c C i r c l e e n t r a n c e . ME A D O W : E n h a n c e d / r e s t o r e d m e a d o w h a b i t a t a r e a s o n n o r t h a n d w e s t s i d e s o f t h e s i t e . Op p o r t u n i t i e s f o r w i l d l i f e v i e w i n g a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l e d u c a t i o n . EN H A N C E D C O M M U N I T Y G A R D E N : I m p r o v e d c o m m u n i t y g a r d e n a r e a , i n c l u d i n g u p g r a d e d ir r i g a t i o n , v e g e t a b l e / h a n d w a s h i n g s t a t i o n , p i c n i c a r e a , c o m p o s t i n g d e m o n s t r a t i o n a r e a , an d n e w f e n c i n g . EN H A N C E D 4 - H F A C I L I T I E S : I m p r o v e 4 - H a r e a t o s u p p o r t e x p a n d e d p r o g r a m m i n g . BA R N : R e n o v a t e a n d a d d h i s t o r y , n a t u r e , a n d s c i e n c e - b a s e d i n t e r p r e t i v e e l e m e n t s . I n d o o r sp a c e f o r e d u c a t i o n a l a n d s u m m e r p r o g r a m s a n d l i v e s t o c k a n d r a n c h p u r p o s e s . EN V I R O N M E N T A L E D U C A T I O N C E N T E R A R E A : I m p r o v e c e n t r a l g a t h e r i n g a r e a s a d j a c e n t t o bu i l d i n g s t o s u p p o r t o u t d o o r e d u c a t i o n , g r o u p v i s i t s , t e a c h i n g , a n d e v e n t s . CR E E K A C C E S S : O p p o r t u n i t y t o a c c e s s e a s t s i d e o f c r e e k n e a r m e a d o w a n d p a r k i n g a r e a . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C U L A R C I R C U L A T I O N : I m p r o v e d p e d e s t r i a n t r a i l s a n d pa t h w a y s . N e w b r i d g e c r o s s i n g p r o v i d e s i m p r o v e d a c c e s s b e t w e e n M c C l e l l a n R a n c h Pr e s e r v e a n d M c C l e l l a n R a n c h W e s t . S e a s o n a l a c c e s s t o t h e h a b i t a t a r e a a c r o s s t h e cr e e k . I m p r o v e d p a r k i n g s u r f a c e s w i t h i n e x i s t i n g f o o t p r i n t . A d d i t i o n a l p a r k i n g i n Mc C l e l l a n R a n c h W e s t . NA T U R A L P L A Y A R E A : C u s t o m d e s i g n e d p l a y a r e a f o r o p e n - e n d e d , s e n s o r y p l a y , b u i l t wi t h n a t u r a l m a t e r i a l s l i k e s a n d , w o o d , a n d b o u l d e r s , a n d i n c o r p o r a t i n g l o o s e p a r t s a n d ru n n i n g w a t e r . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C U L A R C I R C U L A T I O N : P a t h a l o n g w e s t s i d e o f c r e e k a l l o w s ac c e s s i n t o M c C l e l l a n R a n c h W e s t . N e w b r i d g e c r o s s i n g p r o v i d e s i m p r o v e d r o u t e t o Mc C l e l l a n R a n c h P r e s e r v e . M i d - s i z e d p a r k i n g a r e a w i t h v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s a t i n t e r s e c t i o n wi t h C l u b h o u s e L a n e . SE A S O N A L N A T U R E D I S C O V E R Y A R E A : W o o d e d n a t u r a l a r e a w i t h o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r of f - t r a i l f r e e p l a y a n d s t r u c t u r e d o r u n s t r u c t u r e d h a n d s - o n l e a r n i n g . A c t i v i t i e s m a y in c l u d e t r e e c l i m b i n g , b a l a n c i n g o n l o g s , c o l l e c t i n g l e a v e s a n d a c o r n s , l o o k i n g u n d e r ro c k s , e t c . P o t e n t i a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l e d u c a t i o n a r e a i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h M c C l e l l a n R a n c h Pr e s e r v e . A d j a c e n t t o e n h a n c e d / r e s t o r e d r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t a r e a w i t h i m p r o v e d c r e e k ac c e s s p o i n t . O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r w i l d l i f e v i e w i n g a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l e d u c a t i o n . PE D E S T R I A N C I R C U L A T I O N : S e a s o n a l a c c e s s w i t h s m a l l , t e m p o r a r y f o o t b r i d g e . TRAILHEAD KIOSK: Small kiosk building with visitor’s information; trail maps; interpretation about Stevens Creek, park offerings, and natural/cultural history; restrooms; and an outdoor seating area.TANK HOUSE: Exterior restoration of Nathan Hall Tank House with interpretive signage.GOLF MAINTENANCE HEADQUARTERS: New maintenance building at park entrance area. PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, AND VEHICLE CIRCULATION: Access points to pedestrian and bike loop trails that serve the park—featuring trail maps, water spigots, and interpretive signage. For vehicles, the main park entrance road from Stevens Creek Blvd creates a north-south spine, lined with large shade trees in the style of a country estate drive. Parking areas provided just east of the entrance and at the Trailhead Kiosk west of the entrance.NEW 9-HOLE PAR 3 GOLF COURSE: A newly configured, 9-hole golf course with wildlife-friendly design and wildlife/water conscious maintenance plan. Smaller footprint and more family focused than the existing course. HABITAT FEATURE AT FORMER PONDS: Existing man-made ponds to be renovated and enhanced with native and/or wildlife-friendly vegetation for greater wildlife value and stormwater filtration.NEW IRRIGATION: New irrigation system including a water tower (located in the roundabout) is designed to reflect the identity and character of the park.PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, AND VEHICLE CIRCULATION: Pedestrian and bike loop trail along the perimeter of the golf course with shade trees and landscaped views. Vehicular access is via the main spine road and large parking lot areas are shared with the pool complex.CLUBHOUSE/STAFF OFFICES: Restaurant with indoor and outdoor dining areas, golf pro-shop, restrooms, offices for staff, break room, storage, and cart barn.PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, AND VEHICLE CIRCULATION: Pedestrian and bike point of access for east side neighborhood users via separated path. Vehicular access road is for emergency, maintenance, and staff vehicles only.EXPANDED POOL COMPLEX: New swim and water play facilities with expanded footprint. Include lap swim, sloped entry pool, splash pad/spray play area, and ADA improvements.INDOOR AND OUTDOOR EATING: Pool café has eating area with picnic tables, open area, and space for temporary food truck service during peak use times and events. Additional outdoor eating area is connected to clubhouse plaza.MAINTENANCE YARD: Existing maintenance yard is upgraded for use by Parks and Public Works staff. Improvements include new electrical cart storage area, restroom, etc. PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, AND VEHICLE CIRCULATION: Trail access provided along the west edge, and from bike/pedestrian pathway along the main spine road. Arrival plaza and parking in large lot are shared with clubhouse.OFF-ROAD CYCLING AREA: Built course of mountain bike skills-building challenges, appropriate for a range of skill levels, from toddlers on balance bikes to advanced adult cyclists.NATURAL PLAY AREA: Custom designed play area for open-ended, sensory play, built with natural materials like sand, wood, and boulders, and incorporating loose parts and running water. Opportunities to connect play and learning in a natural environment. BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: Pedestrian/bike access from perimeter loop trail. BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M W E S T WE S T S I D E P I C N I C A R E A CE N T R A L C R E E K C O R R I D O R RI P A R I A N P E N I N S U L A MC C L E L L A N R A N C H P R E S E R V E MC C L E L L A N R A N C H W E S T ST O C K L M E I R R A N C H STEVENS CREEK BLVD ENTRANCE BLACKBERRY FARM NORTH AND CENTRAL SAN FERNANDO ENTRANCE BLACKBERRY FARM SOUTH EASTSIDE PARK AREA DE S I G N O P T I O N B TH E ME A D O W S PA R K V I L L A S RI D G E C R E S T MO N T A VI S T A LA S P A L M A S FA I R W A Y V I I S TE V E N S CREEK S T E V E N S C R EEK STE VEN S CREEK TRAIL ST E VEN S C REE K TR AIL MONTA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL DE E P CL I F F GO L F CO U R S E PALO VISTA RD SC E N IC C I R C L E LINDAVISTA PL C L U B H O U S E L N SCENIC CIRCLE S C E N I C B L V D SC E N I C B L VD MC CLELLA N RD MC C LE L LAN RD LI NDA VIS TA D R S A N F E R N A N D O A V E SAN FERNANDO AVE JA N IC E AVE BYRNECT GRANADA AVE HERMOSA AVE LOMITA AVE ALMADEN AVE ALCAZAR AVE DOLORES AVE CRESCENT RD MADRID RD CU P E R T I N O R D R AE LN VAL L E C IT O RD CARMEN RD SCENIC CT ST O C KL MEIR CT PA L M A V E D E A N C T JA N I C E AV E SCENIC BLVD BYRNE AVEBYRNE AVE PHAR LAP BYRNE AVE SA N F E R N A N D O C T PA R TH R EE D R SA NT A P A U L A A V E TRE SSLE R CT MIRA VISTA AVE SCENIC BLVD MIRA VISTA RD SCENIC CIRCLE M c C L E L L A N R D ST E V E N S C R E E K B L V D NPROJECT BOUNDARY BUILDING / STRUCTURE PARKING AREASPORTS / PLAY OPEN GREEN SPACE MEADOWAGRICULTURE / GARDEN(E) RIPARIAN VEGETATION / RESTORED NATIVE VEGETATION AREAS ENHANCED RIPARIAN OR HABITAT AREA CREEK(E) TRAIL PROPOSED TRAIL PAVED ROADSEASONAL TRAIL/BRIDGEP 0100’200’300’250’150’50’GATEWAY / ENTRY POINT (E) BRIDGE PROPOSED BRIDGE**pending SCVWD approval(E) ON-STREET BIKE ROUTE 14 EXPANDED COMMUNITY GARDENS EXPANDED COMMUNITY GARDENS COMMUNITY GARDENS MEADOWNATURE PLAY AREA MEADOW GARDENER’S SHED 4-H AREA OFF-ROAD CYCLING/ BIKE SKILLS AREA SEASONAL NATURE DISCOVERY AREA P P P GROUP PICNIC AREA FARMING/ PLANT NURSERY/ BEE HIVE YARD PROGRAMMING/ EVENT SPACE STORAGE SPACE HORSESHOE PIT HORSESHOE PIT POOL COMPLEX BARN POLE BARN TANK HOUSE GOLF MAINTENANCE BUILDING CLUBHOUSE / STAFF OFFICES P P P STOCKLMEIR LEGACY FARM 9-HOLE PAR 3 GOLF COURSE BLACKBERRY FARM POOL McCLELLAN RANCH PRESERVE TRAILHEAD KIOSK P P NATURE MUSEUM BLACKSMITH SHOP ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER RANCH HOUSE MILK BARN ENHANCED RIPARIAN AREA ENHANCED RIPARIAN AREA MULTI-USE OUTDOOR EDUCATION AREA PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE YARD ENHANCED CREEK ACCESS AREA CREEK RESTORATION NATURE PLAY AREA CREEK ACCESS AREA (35 SPACES) N PROJECT BOUNDARY BUILDING / STRUCTURE PARKING AREA SPORTS / PLAY OPEN GREEN SPACE MEADOW AGRICULTURE / GARDEN (E) RIPARIAN VEGETATION / RESTORED NATIVE VEGETATION AREAS ENHANCED RIPARIAN OR HABITAT AREA CREEK (E) TRAIL PROPOSED TRAIL PAVED ROAD SEASONAL TRAIL/BRIDGE P 0100’200’300’ 250’150’50’ GATEWAY / ENTRY POINT (E) BRIDGE PROPOSED BRIDGE* *pending SCVWD approval (E) ON-STREET BIKE ROUTE DESIGN OPTION B THE MEADOWS PARK VILLAS RIDGECREST MONTA VISTA LAS PALMAS FAIRWAY VII S T E V E N S C REEK S T E V E NS C R EEK STEVENS CRE E K T R A I L STEVEN S C REEK TRAIL MONTA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL DEEP CLIFF GOLF COURSE PA L O V I S T A R D SCENIC CIR C L E LIN D A VI ST A PL CLU B H O U SE L N SC E N I C C I R C L E SCEN IC BL V D SCE N I C B L VD MC CL E L L AN R D MC CLELLAN RD LI N D A VIS T A D R SAN F ERN AND O A V E SA N FE R N A N DO A V E JANI C E AVE BYRNE CT GRANADA AVE HE RMOSA AVE LOMITA AVE ALMADEN AVE ALCAZAR AVE DOLORES AVE CR E S C EN T R D MA D R I D R D CU P E R T I N O R D R A E L N VALLE CITO RD CA RM E N R D SC E NI C C T STOC K L MEIR CT PALM AVE DEAN CT JANICE AVE SC E N I C BL VD BY R N E A V E BY R N E A V E PH A R L A P BY R N E AVE SAN FERNANDO CT PAR THR E E D R SANTA PAULA AVE T R E S S L E R C T MIR A VI S TA A V E SC E N I C B L V D MI R A V I S T A R D SCE N IC C I R C L E M cCLE LL AN R D STEVENS CREEK BLVD 15 GOLF COURSE LAYOUT DESIGN OPTION B Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan GOLF COURSE CONCEPT DESIGN OPTION B Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan For Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Option B: provide smaller Par 3 golf course, move entry south DRAFT 16 EN H A N C E D CR E E K AC C E S S AR E A CR E E K AC C E S S AR E A CO M M U N I T Y GA R D E N S ME A D O W NA T U R E PL A Y AR E A / NA T I V E PL A N T NU R S E R Y ME A D O W GA R D E N E R ’S SH E D 4- H AR E A BO C C E VO L L E Y B A L L EN H A N C E D RI P A R I A N AR E A P P GR O U P PI C N I C AR E A FA R M I N G / PL A N T NU R S E R Y / BE E YA R D HI S T O R I C RE S I D E N C E ST O R A G E SP A C E HO R S E S H O E PI T HO R S E S H O E PI T PO O L CO M P L E X NA T U R E PL A Y AR E A BA R N PO L E BA R N TA N K HO U S E CL U B H O U S E / RE S T A U R A N T GO L F MA I N T E N A N C E BU I L D I N G ST A F F OF F I C E S P P P P ST O C K L M E I R LE G A C Y FA R M BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M GO L F C O U R S E Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H PR E S E R V E P BL A C K B E R R Y FA R M PO O L NA T U R E MU S E U M BL A C K S M I T H SH O P EN V I R O N M E N T A L ED U C A T I O N CE N T E R RA N C H HO U S E MI L K BA R N OP E N LA W N AR E A MU L T I -US E OU T D O O R ED U C A T I O N AR E A PA R K S AN D PU B L I C WO R K S MA I N T E N A N C E YA R D BE E HI V E S CR E E K RE S T O R A T I O N GO L F AM E N I T I E S Op t i o n C i s c o n s i d e r e d t h e l o w e s t i n t e n s i t y d e s i g n a l t e r n a t i v e . A s c o m p a r e d t o t h e o t h e r t w o o p t i o n s , O p t i o n C i s d e s i g n e d t o e n c o u r a g e t h e l i g h t e s t d e g r e e o f n e w vi s i t o r u s e , a n d w o u l d r e q u i r e t h e l e a s t e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t t o t h e s i t e . T h i s o p t i o n r e c o m m e n d s t h a t f o o t p r i n t s f o r t h e g o l f c o u r s e a n d p o o l c o m p l e x g e n e r a l l y st a y t h e s a m e , w i t h i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d s o m e n e w f a c i l i t i e s . O t h e r p a r k f e a t u r e s i n c l u d e a n i m p r o v e d e n t r a n c e a t S a n F e r n a n d o A v e ; a v a r i e t y o f n a t u r a l p l a y op p o r t u n i t i e s ; a c t i v e a g r i c u l t u r a l u s e s ; f l e x i b l e o p e n s p a c e s f o r c o m m u n i t y g a t h e r i n g s a n d e v e n t s , a n d a d d i t i o n a l h a b i t a t i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d c r e e k r e s t o r a t i o n ( a t no r t h a n d s o u t h e n d s o f p a r k ) . S i t e a m e n i t i e s s u c h a s r e s t r o o m s , b i k e p a r k i n g , p i c n i c t a b l e s , b e n c h e s , a n d w a s t e / r e c y c l i n g r e c e p t a c l e s w i l l b e s i t e d t h r o u g h o u t th e p a r k w h e r e v e r a p p r o p r i a t e . LE G A C Y F A R M : M a i n t a i n h i s t o r i c o r c h a r d a n d g r o u n d s a s a c t i v e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d . Fo c u s o n h i s t o r i c a l a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y c o n s c i o u s f a r m i n g p r a c t i c e s . M a i n t a i n f r u i t s , ve g e t a b l e s , h e r b s , a n d p o s s i b l e b e e h i v e y a r d . O p p o r t u n i t y t o h o s t a p p r e n t i c e s h i p s a n d ed u c a t i o n a l f i e l d t r i p s . HI S T O R I C R E S I D E N C E : S t a b i l i z e h o u s e f o r p u b l i c v i e w i n g o n l y . U p d a t e a n d e n h a n c e ex t e r i o r a n d s u r r o u n d i n g p a t i o a n d y a r d s p a c e . ST O R A G E A R E A : M a i n t a i n g a r a g e a n d s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a a s s t o r a g e f o r h i s t o r i c a n d co n t e m p o r a r y f a r m a n d m a i n t e n a n c e e q u i p m e n t a n d l e g a c y f a r m e d u c a t i o n a l s p a c e . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C U L A R C I R C U L A T I O N : E x i s t i n g S t e v e n s C r e e k T r a i l tr a v e r s e s t h e r a n c h f r o m n o r t h t o s o u t h , a c c e s s e d f r o m t h r e e p o i n t s : S t e v e n s C r e e k Bl v d t o t h e n o r t h w e s t , t h e p r o p o s e d b r i d g e f r o m n o r t h e a s t a r e a , a n d t h e e x i s t i n g bi k e / p e d e s t r i a n b r i d g e t o t h e s o u t h . T h e v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s b r i d g e f r o m t h e n o r t h e a s t pa r k i n g a r e a i s l i m i t e d t o m a i n t e n a n c e a n d e v e n t s e r v i c e v e h i c l e s . R a n c h v i s i t o r s p a r k at l o t a n d w a l k o v e r t h e b r i d g e . S m a l l a c c e s s i b l e p a r k i n g a r e a s a r e p r o v i d e d a t b o t h bu i l d i n g s . GR O U P P I C N I C A R E A : E x i s t i n g p i c n i c s h e l t e r s w i t h b a r b e c u e s , p i c n i c t a b l e s , a n d ho r s e s h o e p i t s . SY C A M O R E G R O V E : I n t a c t g r o v e o f l a r g e , n a t i v e C a l i f o r n i a S y c a m o r e s . P o t e n t i a l ve g e t a t i o n e n h a n c e m e n t a r e a . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C L E C I R C U L A T I O N : E x i s t i n g b r i d g e f o r b i k e / p e d e s t r i a n a n d ma i n t e n a n c e v e h i c l e a c c e s s . S e r v e d b y a d j a c e n t p a r k i n g a r e a s s h a r e d w i t h g o l f c o u r s e an d p o o l c o m p l e x . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C U L A R C I R C U L A T I O N : P e d e s t r i a n a n d b i k e s a c c e s s a r e a vi a t r a i l t o t h e w e s t a n d b i k e / p e d p a t h w a y a l o n g t h e m a i n s p i n e r o a d . L a r g e p a r k i n g l o t lo c a t e d i n s a m e f o o t p r i n t a s e x i s t i n g , w i t h i m p r o v e d s u r f a c e s a n d l a n d s c a p e d e s i g n se r v i n g t h e g o l f c o u r s e a n d p o o l c o m p l e x . NA T U R A L A R E A : R i p a r i a n a r e a w i t h n a t u r e t r a i l s a n d o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r w i l d l i f e v i e w i n g an d q u i e t r e f l e c t i o n . BI K E A N D P E D E S T R I A N C I R C U L A T I O N : W e s t s i d e o f t h e c r e e k i s a c c e s s i b l e b y s m a l l , ex i s t i n g b r i d g e a t S c e n i c C i r c l e e n t r a n c e . ME A D O W : E n h a n c e d / r e s t o r e d m e a d o w h a b i t a t a r e a s o n n o r t h a n d w e s t s i d e s o f t h e s i t e . Op p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p i c n i c s , w i l d l i f e v i e w i n g , a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l e d u c a t i o n . EN H A N C E D C O M M U N I T Y G A R D E N : I m p r o v e d c o m m u n i t y g a r d e n a r e a , i n c l u d i n g b e e h i v e ya r d , u p g r a d e d i r r i g a t i o n , v e g e t a b l e / h a n d w a s h i n g s t a t i o n , p i c n i c a r e a , c o m p o s t i n g de m o n s t r a t i o n a r e a , a n d n e w f e n c i n g . EN H A N C E D 4 - H F A C I L I T I E S : I m p r o v e 4 - H a r e a a n d a m e n i t i e s t o s u p p o r t e x p a n d e d pr o g r a m m i n g . BA R N : R e n o v a t e a n d a d d h i s t o r y , n a t u r e , a n d s c i e n c e - b a s e d i n t e r p r e t i v e e l e m e n t s . I n d o o r sp a c e f o r e d u c a t i o n a l a n d s u m m e r p r o g r a m s a n d l i v e s t o c k a n d r a n c h p u r p o s e s . EN V I R O N M E N T A L E D U C A T I O N C E N T E R A R E A : I m p r o v e c e n t r a l g a t h e r i n g a r e a s a d j a c e n t t o bu i l d i n g s t o s u p p o r t o u t d o o r e d u c a t i o n , g r o u p v i s i t s , t e a c h i n g , a n d e v e n t s . CR E E K A C C E S S : O p p o r t u n i t y t o a c c e s s e a s t s i d e o f c r e e k n e a r m e a d o w a n d p a r k i n g a r e a . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C U L A R C I R C U L A T I O N : I m p r o v e d p e d e s t r i a n t r a i l s a n d pa t h w a y s w i t h a c c e s s t o m e a d o w , c o m m u n i t y g a r d e n s , s t r u c t u r e s , a n d t h e g r e a t e r p a r k tr a i l s y s t e m . N e w b r i d g e c r o s s i n g p r o v i d e s i m p r o v e d a c c e s s b e t w e e n M c C l e l l a n R a n c h Pr e s e r v e a n d M c C l e l l a n R a n c h W e s t . S e a s o n a l a c c e s s t o t h e h a b i t a t a r e a a c r o s s t h e cr e e k . I m p r o v e d p a r k i n g s u r f a c e s w i t h i n e x i s t i n g f o o t p r i n t . A d d i t i o n a l p a r k i n g i n Mc C l e l l a n R a n c h W e s t . NA T U R A L P L A Y A R E A : C u s t o m d e s i g n e d p l a y a r e a f o r o p e n - e n d e d , s e n s o r y p l a y , b u i l t wi t h n a t u r a l m a t e r i a l s l i k e s a n d , w o o d , a n d b o u l d e r s , a n d i n c o r p o r a t i n g l o o s e p a r t s an d r u n n i n g w a t e r . NA T I V E P L A N T A N D T R E E N U R S E R Y : E s t a b l i s h a g r e e n h o u s e a n d g r o w i n g a r e a f o r a na t i v e p l a n t s a n d t r e e s n u r s e r y t o a i d s u p p o r t l a n d s c a p e r e s t o r a t i o n e f f o r t s . C o u l d in c l u d e p i c n i c a r e a s . PE D E S T R I A N , B I K E , A N D V E H I C L E C I R C U L A T I O N : P a t h a l o n g w e s t s i d e o f c r e e k a l l o w s ac c e s s i n t o M c C l e l l a n R a n c h W e s t . N e w p o s s i b l e b r i d g e c r o s s i n g p r o v i d e s i m p r o v e d ro u t e t o M c C l e l l a n R a n c h P r e s e r v e . M i d - s i z e d p a r k i n g a r e a w i t h v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s a t in t e r s e c t i o n w i t h C l u b h o u s e L a n e . EN H A N C E D R I P A R I A N A R E A : E n h a n c e d / r e s t o r e d r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t a r e a w i t h i m p r o v e d cr e e k a c c e s s p o i n t . O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r w i l d l i f e v i e w i n g a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l e d u c a t i o n . BI K E A N D P E D E S T R I A N C I R C U L A T I O N : S e a s o n a l a c c e s s f r o m s m a l l , t e m p o r a r y f o o t b r i d g e ea s t o f M c C l e l l a n R a n c h . S e a s o n a l p e d e s t r i a n p a t h s p r o v i d e v i s u a l a c c e s s i n t o h a b i t a t ar e a . CLUBHOUSE/RESTAURANT: Replace existing building with new structure to include a restaurant with indoor and outdoor eating areas, golf pro-shop, restrooms, offices for staff, break room, storage, and cart barn.TANK HOUSE: Exterior restoration of Nathan Hall Tank House with interpretive signage.GOLF AMENITIES: Features such as a pitching/putting green or golf simulators are included to support the golf program on site.PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION: Access points to pedestrian and bike loop trails that serve the park—featuring trail maps and interpretive signage. Short park entrance road with parking lots to the east and west and a roundabout drop-off point, trees, and a low wall along Steven Creek Blvd.ENHANCED GOLF COURSE: Updated golf facilities with improved greens and more focus on practice space and teaching stations. HABITAT FEATURE AT FORMER PONDS: Existing man-made ponds to be renovated and enhanced with native and/or wildlife-friendly vegetation for greater wildlife value and stormwater filtration. Alternative option to upgrade existing feature with a new, recirculating freshwater pond system.ENHANCED UTILITIES: Strategic addition and refinement of utility systems, including irrigation.PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION: Pedestrian and bike loop trail along the west side of golf course with shade trees and landscaped views. Vehicular access via San Fernando Ave entrance road. Large parking lot areas are shared with the pool complex.GOLF MAINTENANCE BUILDING: Existing building for storage of maintenance vehicles and equipment. VEHICULAR CIRCULATION: Entrance road from San Fernando Ave moved north to provide a buffer between road and residences and to reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Main entrance road provides access to golf course and pool complex and leads to large parking area.ENHANCED POOL COMPLEX: New swim and water play facilities within same general footprint as existing pool complex. Includes lap swim, lifeguard station, ADA improvements, splash pad, as well as café, pool house with dressing rooms, lockers, showers, and restrooms. Also includes new staff office building to the east.MAINTENANCE YARD: Existing maintenance yard is upgraded for use by Parks and Public Works staff. Improvements include new electrical cart storage area and renovated restroom. PEDESTRIAN, BIKE, AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION: Pedestrian and bike trail access along the west edge and from bike/ped pathway along the entrance road. Vehicular parking in large lot that is shared with golf course.GREAT LAWN: Large, natural grassy area. Opportunity for informal play and community events and gatherings.COURT SPORTS: Existing bocce ball courts remain and a new turf volleyball court is provided. Volleyball court can also host badminton. BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: Pedestrian and bike access from perimeter loop trail. BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M W E S T WE S T S I D E P I C N I C A R E A CE N T R A L C R E E K C O R R I D O R RI P A R I A N P E N I N S U L A MC C L E L L A N R A N C H P R E S E R V E MC C L E L L A N R A N C H W E S T ST O C K L M E I R R A N C H STEVENS CREEK BLVD ENTRANCE BLACKBERRY FARM NORTH AND CENTRAL SAN FERNANDO ENTRANCE BLACKBERRY FARM SOUTH EASTSIDE PARK AREA DE S I G N O P T I O N C TH E ME A D O W S PA R K V I L L A S RI D G E C R E S T MO N T A VI S T A LA S P A L M A S FA I R W A Y V I I S TE V E N S CREEK S T E V E N S C R EEK STE VEN S CREEK TRAIL ST E VEN S C REE K TR AIL MONTA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL DE E P CL I F F GO L F CO U R S E PALO VISTA RD SC E N IC C I R C L E LINDAVISTA PL C L U B H O U S E L N SCENIC CIRCLE S C E N I C B L V D SC E N I C B L VD MC CLELLA N RD MC C LE L LAN RD LI NDA VIS TA D R S A N F E R N A N D O A V E SAN FERNANDO AVE JA N IC E AVE BYRNECT GRANADA AVE HERMOSA AVE LOMITA AVE ALMADEN AVE ALCAZAR AVE DOLORES AVE CRESCENT RD MADRID RD CU P E R T I N O R D R AE LN VAL L E C IT O RD CARMEN RD SCENIC CT ST O C KL MEIR CT PA L M A V E D E A N C T JA N I C E AV E SCENIC BLVD BYRNE AVEBYRNE AVE PHAR LAP BYRNE AVE SA N F E R N A N D O C T PA R TH R EE D R SA NT A P A U L A A V E TRE SSLE R CT MIRA VISTA AVE SCENIC BLVD MIRA VISTA RD SCENIC CIRCLE M c C L E L L A N R D ST E V E N S C R E E K B L V D NPROJECT BOUNDARY BUILDING / STRUCTURE PARKING AREASPORTS / PLAY OPEN GREEN SPACE MEADOWAGRICULTURE / GARDEN(E) RIPARIAN VEGETATION / RESTORED NATIVE VEGETATION AREAS ENHANCED RIPARIAN OR HABITAT AREA CREEK(E) TRAIL PROPOSED TRAIL PAVED ROADSEASONAL TRAIL/BRIDGEP 0100’200’300’250’150’50’GATEWAY / ENTRY POINT (E) BRIDGE PROPOSED BRIDGE**pending SCVWD approval(E) ON-STREET BIKE ROUTE 17 ENHANCED CREEK ACCESS AREA CREEK ACCESS AREA COMMUNITY GARDENS MEADOWNATURE PLAY AREA / NATIVE PLANT NURSERY MEADOW GARDENER’S SHED 4-H AREA BOCCE VOLLEYBALL ENHANCED RIPARIAN AREA P P GROUP PICNIC AREA FARMING/ PLANT NURSERY/ BEE YARD HISTORIC RESIDENCE STORAGE SPACE HORSESHOE PIT HORSESHOE PIT POOL COMPLEX NATURE PLAY AREA BARN POLE BARN TANK HOUSE CLUBHOUSE/ RESTAURANT GOLF MAINTENANCE BUILDING STAFF OFFICES PP P P STOCKLMEIR LEGACY FARM BLACKBERRY FARM GOLF COURSE McCLELLAN RANCH PRESERVE P BLACKBERRY FARM POOL NATURE MUSEUM BLACKSMITH SHOP ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER RANCH HOUSE MILK BARN OPEN LAWN AREA MULTI-USE OUTDOOR EDUCATION AREA PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE YARD BEE HIVES CREEK RESTORATION GOLF AMENITIES N PROJECT BOUNDARY BUILDING / STRUCTURE PARKING AREA SPORTS / PLAY OPEN GREEN SPACE MEADOW AGRICULTURE / GARDEN (E) RIPARIAN VEGETATION / RESTORED NATIVE VEGETATION AREAS ENHANCED RIPARIAN OR HABITAT AREA CREEK (E) TRAIL PROPOSED TRAIL PAVED ROAD SEASONAL TRAIL/BRIDGE P 0100’200’300’ 250’150’50’ GATEWAY / ENTRY POINT (E) BRIDGE PROPOSED BRIDGE* *pending SCVWD approval (E) ON-STREET BIKE ROUTE DESIGN OPTION C THE MEADOWS PARK VILLAS RIDGECREST MONTA VISTA LAS PALMAS FAIRWAY VII S T E V E N S C REEK S T E V E NS C R EEK STEVENS CRE E K T R A I L STEVEN S C REEK TRAIL MONTA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL DEEP CLIFF GOLF COURSE PA L O V I S T A R D SCENIC CIR C L E LIN D A VI ST A PL CLU B H O U SE L N SC E N I C C I R C L E SCEN IC BL V D SCE N I C B L VD MC CL E L L AN R D MC CLELLAN RD LI N D A VIS T A D R SAN F ERN AND O A V E SA N FE R N A N DO A V E JANI C E AVE BYRNE CT GRANADA AVE HE RMOSA AVE LOMITA AVE ALMADEN AVE ALCAZAR AVE DOLORES AVE CR E S C EN T R D MA D R I D R D CU P E R T I N O R D R A E L N VALLE CITO RD CA RM E N R D SC E NI C C T STOC K L MEIR CT PALM AVE DEAN CT JANICE AVE SC E N I C BL VD BY R N E A V E BY R N E A V E PH A R L A P BY R N E AVE SAN FERNANDO CT PAR THR E E D R SANTA PAULA AVE T R E S S L E R C T MIR A VI S TA A V E SC E N I C B L V D MI R A V I S T A R D SCE N IC C I R C L E M cCLE LL AN R D STEVENS CREEK BLVD 18 Option “C” GOLF COURSE CONCEPT DESIGN OPTION C Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan For Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Option C: enhance existing golf course DRAFT 19 N EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S TH E ME A D O W S PA R K V I L L A S RI D G E C R E S T MO N T A VI S T A LA S P A L M A S FA I R W A Y V I I VO L L E Y B A L L BO C C E OP E N LA W N CO M M U N I T Y GA R D E N S DR E S S I N G RO O M S PO O L PO O L RA N C H HO U S E MI L K BA R N TA N K HO U S E GA R D E N E R ’S SH E D BE E HI V E S TI C K E T KI O S K GR O U P PI C N I C AR E A ST O C K L M E I E R HO M E HO R S E S H O E PI T HO R S E S H O E PI T CA F E PL A Y AR E A MA I N T E N A N C E BL D G S GO L F MA I N T E N A N C E BL D G BA R N PO L E BA R N SI M M S HO U S E 4- H AR E A TA N K HO U S E GO L F PR O SH O P / BL U E PH E A S A N T RE S T A U R A N T ST A F F OF F I C E S NA T U R E MU S E U M BL A C K S M I T H SH O P EN V I R O N M E N T A L ED U C A T I O N CE N T E R BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M GO L F C O U R S E BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M PA R K Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H PR E S E R V E Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H WE S T M c C L E L L A N R D ST E V E N S C R E E K B L V D STEVENS CREEK STE V EN S C REEK STE VENS CREEK TRAIL STE VEN S C REEK TR AIL MO N T A VI S T A HI G H SC H O O L DE E P CL I F F GO L F CO U R S E PALO VISTA RD SC E N I C C I R C L E LINDA VISTA PL CL U B H O US E L N SCENIC CIRCLE S C E N I C B L V D SCE N I C B L V D MC CLEL L A N R D MC CLE L LA N RD LIN DA VISTA DR S A N F E R N A N D O A V E SAN FERNANDO AVE JA N I C E AV E BY R N E CT GR A N A D A AV E HE R M O S A AV E LO M I T A A V E AL M A D E N AV E AL C A Z A R AV E DO L O R E S AV E CRESCENT RD MADRID RD CUP E R T I N O R D RAE L N VA L L E C I T O R D CARMEN RD SCENIC C T STO C K L M E I R C T PA L M A V E DE A N C T JA N I C E A V E SCENIC BLVD BYRNE AVEBYRNE AVE PHAR LAP DR BYRNE AVE SA N F E R N A N D O C T PA R TH REE DR SA N T A P A U L A A V E TRESSLER CT MIRA VISTA AVE SCENIC BLVD MIRA VISTA RD SCENIC CIRCLE OR C H A R D ST O C K L M E I R RA N C H M c C L N R D LINN D A VISTA D R LANRD MCCLEL GGRANAD AVE AAVVVEE AN I M A L S H E D Ea s t - w e s t o r i e n t e d p o r t i o n of t h e P o l e B a r n . L i k e l y b u i l t by H X B a x t e r , 1 9 4 0 s . EN O C H P A R R I S H TA N K H O U S E Bu i l t a r o u n d 1 8 9 5 , m o v e d fr o m M e m o r i a l P a r k s i t e i n 19 7 7 4- H B U I L D I N G Li k e l y b u i l t b y H X B a x t e r , 19 4 0 s . LA R G E B A R N Li k e l y b u i l t b y H X B a x t e r , 19 4 0 s . SM A L L B A R N / G A R D E N E R ’ S SH E D ? SU N D I A L w / M I S S I N G Mc C L E L L A N M E M O R I A L PL A Q U E MI L K B A R N Li k e l y b u i l t b y H X B a x t e r , 19 4 0 s . RA N C H H O U S E Ol d e s t p a r t o f s t r u c t u r e m a y be 1 8 7 0 s h o m e o f W . Mc C l e l l a n BL A C K S M I T H B U I L D I N G Co n s t r u c t e d i n 1 9 6 4 b y C . Ba e r , m o v e d t o s i t e i n 1 9 7 7 ? DE A N Z A P L A Q U E PA L M A V E P A L M T R E E S Pl a n t e d b y J o h n D o y l e i n 18 8 0 s , f o r t h e e n t r a n c e t o La s P a l m a s W i n e r y ST O C K L M E I R O R C H A R D ST O C K L M E I R H O M E EL I S H A S T E V E N S E C L A M P U S VI T U S P L A Q U E NA T H A N H A L L TA N K H O U S E 0 1 0 0 ’ 2 0 0 ’ 2 5 0 ’ 1 5 0 ’ 5 0 ’ N LO C A L H I S T O R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PA R C E L S TR A I L CR E E K BU I L D I N G HI S T O R I C F E A T U R E NE I G H B O R H O O D SO U R C E S : PR O P O S E D H I S T O R I C A L S I G N S A L O N G S T E V E N S C R E E K , C U P E R T I N O HI S T O R I C A L S O C I E T Y A N D M U S E U M HI S T O R Y A L O N G S T E V E N S C R E E K T R A I L , C U P E R T I N O H I S T O R I C A L S O C I E T Y AN D M U S E U M Mc C L E L L A N H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V E H I S T O R I C S T R U C T U R E S A S S E S S M E N T TH E ME A D O W S PA R K V I L L A S RI D G E C R E S T MO N T A VI S T A LA S P A L M A S FA I R W A Y V I I VO L L E Y B A L L BO C C E OP E N LA W N CO M M U N I T Y GA R D E N S ST A F F OF F I C E S DR E S S I N G RO O M S PO O L PO O L RA N C H HO U S E MI L K BA R N TA N K HO U S E GA R D E N E R ’S SH E D BE E HI V E S TI C K E T KI O S K GR O U P PIC N I C AR E A ST O C K L M E I E R HO M E HO R S E S H O E PI T HO R S E S H O E PI T CA F E PL A Y AR E A MA I N T E N A N C E BL D G S GO L F MA I N T E N A N C E BL D G BA R N PO L E BA R N SI M M S HO U S E 4- H AR E A TA N K HO U S E GO L F PR O SH O P / BL U E PH E A S A N T RE S T A U R A N T NA T U R E MU S E U M BL A C K S M I T H SH O P EN V I R O N M E N T A L ED U C A T I O N CE N T E R BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M PA R K Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H WE S T BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M GO L F C O U R S E Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H PR E S E R V E M c C L E L L A N R D ST E V E N S C R E E K B L V D STEVENS CREEK STE V E N S C REEK STE V ENS CREEK TRAIL ST E VEN S C REEK TR AIL MO N T A VI S T A HI G H SC H O O L DE E P CL I F F GO L F CO U R S E PALO VISTA RD SC E N I C C I R C L E LINDA VISTA PL CL U B H O US E L N SCENIC CIRCLE S C E N I C B L V D SCE N I C B L V D MC CLE L L A N R D MC CLE L LA N RD LIN DA VIST A DR S A N F E R N A N D O A V E SAN FERNANDO AVE JA N I C E AVE BY R N E CT GR A N A D A AV E HE R M O S A AV E LO M I T A A V E AL M A D E N AV E AL C A Z A R AV E DO L O R E S AV E CRESCENT RD MADRID RD CU P E R T I N O R D RAE L N VA L L E C I T O R D CARMEN RD SCENIC C T STO C K L M E I R C T PA L M A V E DE A N C T JA N I C E A V E SCENIC BLVD BYRNE AVE BYRNE AVE PHAR LAP DR BYRNE AVE SA N F E R N A N D O C T PA R TH REE DR SA N T A P A U L A A V E TRESSLE R CT MIRA VISTA AVE SCENIC BLVD MIRA VISTA RD SCENIC CIRCLE OR C H A R D ST O C K L M E I R RA N C H 0 1 0 0 ’ 2 0 0 ’ 2 5 0 ’ 1 5 0 ’ 5 0 ’ N GE O L O G I C H A Z A R D S PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PA R C E L S TR A I L CR E E K BU I L D I N G LI Q U I F A C T I O N - I N U N D A T I O N SL O P E I N S T A B I L I T Y SO U R C E : C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 51 * * * * ** * * * * * TH E ME A D O W S PA R K V I L L A S RI D G E C R E S T MO N T A VI S T A LA S P A L M A S FA I R W A Y V I I VO L L E Y B A L L BO C C E OP E N LA W N CO M M U N I T Y GA R D E N S DR E S S I N G RO O M S PO O L PO O L RA N C H HO U S E MI L K BA R N TA N K HO U S E GA R D E N E R ’S SH E D BE E HI V E S TI C K E T KIO S K GR O U P PI C N I C AR E A ST O C K L M E I E R HO M E HO R S E S H O E PI T HO R S E S H O E PI T CA F E PL A Y AR E A MA I N T E N A N C E BL D G S GO L F MA I N T E N A N C E BL D G BA R N PO L E BA R N SI M M S HO U S E 4- H AR E A TA N K HO U S E GO L F PR O SH O P / BL U E PH E A S A N T RE S T A U R A N T ST A F F OF F I C E S NA T U R E MU S E U M BL A C K S M I T H SH O P EN V I R O N M E N T A L ED U C A T I O N CE N T E R BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M PA R K Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H WE S T BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M GO L F C O U R S E Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H PR E S E R V E M c C L E L L A N R D ST E V E N S C R E E K B L V D STEVENS CREEK STE VE N S C REEK ST E VE NS CREEK TRAIL STE VE N S CREEK TR AIL MO N T A VI S T A HI G H SC H O O L DE E P CL I F F GO L F CO U R S E PALO VISTA RD SC E N I C C I R C L E LINDA VISTA PL CLU B H O U S E L N SCENIC CIRCLE S C E N I C B L V D SC E N I C B L V D MC CLELL A N R D MC CLE L LA N RD LIN DA VISTA D R S A N F E R N A N D O A V E SAN FERNANDO AVE JA N I C E AVE BY R N E CT GR A N A D A AV E HE R M O S A AV E LO M I T A A V E AL M A D E N AV E AL C A Z A R AV E DO L O R E S AV E CRESCENT RD MADRID RD CUP E R T I N O R D RAE L N VA L L E C I T O R D CARMEN RD SCENIC C T STO C K L M E I R C T PA L M A V E DE A N C T JA N I C E A V E SCENIC BLVD BYRNE AVE BYRNE AVE PHAR LAP DR BYRNE AVE SA N F E R N A N D O C T PA R TH REE DR SA N T A P A U L A A V E TRESSLER CT MIRA VISTA AVE SCENIC BLVD MIRA VISTA RD SCENIC CIRCLE 0 1 0 0 ’ 2 0 0 ’ 2 5 0 ’ 1 5 0 ’ 5 0 ’ N CI R C U L A T I O N PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PA R C E L S TR A I L ON - S T R E E T B I K E R O U T E CR E E K BU I L D I N G NE I G H B O R H O O D PE D E S T R I A N E N T R A N C E VE H I C U L A R E N T R A N C E BU S S T O P PA R K I N G A R E A **51 P SO U R C E : C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O P P P P P OR C H A R D ST O C K L M E I R RA N C H TH E ME A D O W S PA R K V I L L A S RI D G E C R E S T MO N T A VI S T A LA S P A L M A S FA I R W A Y V I I VO L L E Y B A L L BO C C E OP E N LA W N CO M M U N I T Y GA R D E N S ST A F F OF F I C E S DR E S S I N G RO O M S PO O L PO O L NA T U R E MU S E U M RA N C H HO U S E MI L K BA R N TA N K HO U S E GA R D E N E R ’S SH E D BE E HI V E S TI C K E T KI O S K GR O U P PI C N I C AR E A ST O C K L M E I E R HO M E GO L F PR O SH O P / BL U E PH E A S A N T RE S T A U R A N T TA N K HO U S E HO R S E S H O E PIT HO R S E S H O E PI T CA F E PL A Y AR E A MA I N T E N A N C E BL D G S GO L F MA I N T E N A N C E BL D G BA R N PO L E BA R N SI M M S HO U S E 4- H AR E A BL A C K S M I T H SH O P EN V I R O N M E N T A L ED U C A T I O N CE N T E R OR C H A R D ST O C K L M E I R RA N C H BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M GO L F C O U R S E BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M PA R K Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H PR E S E R V E Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H WE S T BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M GO L F C O U R S E BL A C K B E R R Y F A R M PA R K Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H PR E S E R V E Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H WE S T M c C L E L L A N R D ST E V E N S C R E E K B L V D STEVENS CREEK STE V E N S C REEK STE V ENS CREEK TRAIL ST E VEN S C REE K TR AIL MO N T A VI S T A HI G H SC H O O L DE E P CL I F F GO L F CO U R S E PALO VISTA RD SC E N I C C I R C L E LINDAVISTA PL CLU B H O US E L N SCENIC CIRCLE S C E N I C B L V D SC E N I C B L V D MC CLELL A N R D MC CLE L LA N RD LIN DA VISTA D R S A N F E R N A N D O A V E SAN FERNANDO AVE JA N I C E AVE BY R N E CT GR A N A D A AV E HE R M O S A AV E LO M I T A A V E AL M A D E N AV E AL C A Z A R AV E DO L O R E S AV E CRESCENT RD MADRID RD CUP E R T I N O R D RAE L N VA L L E C I T O R D CARMEN RD SCENIC C T STO C K L M E I R C T PA L M A V E D E A N C T JA N I C E A V E SCENIC BLVD BYRNE AVE BYRNE AVE PHAR LAP DR BYRNE AVE SA N F E R N A N D O C T PA R TH REE DR SA N T A P A U L A A V E TRESSLE R CT MIRA VISTA AVE SCENIC BLVD MIRA VISTA RD SCENIC CIRCLE 0 1 0 0 ’ 2 0 0 ’ 2 5 0 ’ 1 5 0 ’ 5 0 ’ N TO P O G R A P H Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y 1’ C O N T O U R S PA R C E L S TR A I L ON - S T R E E T B I K E R O U T E CR E E K BU I L D I N G NE I G H B O R H O O D SO U R C E : C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O THE MEADOWS PARK VILLAS RIDGECRESTMONTAVISTA LA S P A L M A S FAIRWAY VIIVOLLEYBALLBOCCEOPEN LAWN COMMUNITY GARDENSSTAFF OFFICESDRESSING ROOMS POOL POOL NATURE MUSEUMBLACKSMITHSHOPRANCH HOUSEMILK BARN TANK HOUSEGARDENER’S SHEDBEEHIVESTICKETKIOSKGROUP PICNIC AREAORCHARDSTOCKLMEIER HOME GOLF PRO SHOP/BLUE PHEASANT RESTAURANT HORSESHOE PIT HORSESHOE PIT CAFE PLAY AREA MAINTENANCE BLDGSGOLFMAINTENANCE BLDG BARNPOLEBARN SI M M S HO U S E 4-H AREATANK HOUSE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTERBLACKBERRY FARM GOLF COURSESTOCKLMEIRRANCH BLACKBERRY FARM PARK McCLELLAN RANCH PRESERVE Mc C L E L L A N RA N C H WE S T McCLELLAN RDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD STEVENS CREEK STEVENS CREEK TRAILSTEVENS CREEK TRAIL MONTA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL DE E P CL I F F GO L F CO U R S E PALO VISTA RD SCENIC CIRCLE LINDAVISTA PL CLU B H O U S E L N SCENIC CIRCLESCENIC BLVD SCENIC BLVD MC CLEL L A N R D MC CLE L LA N RD LIN DA VIS T A DRSAN FERNANDO AVE SAN FERNANDO AVE JA N I C E AV E BYRNECT GRANADA AVE HERMOSA AVE LOMITA AVE ALMADEN AVE ALCAZAR AVE DOLORES AVECRESCENT RD MADRID RDCUPERTINO RD RAE L NVALLECITO RDCARMEN RD SCENIC CTSTOCKLMEIR CT PA L M A V E DEAN CT JA N I C E A V E SCENIC BLVD BYRNE AVEBYRNE AVEPHAR LAP DR BYRNE AVE SAN FERNANDO CT PAR THREE DR SA N T A P A U L A A V E T R E SS LE R CT MIRA VISTA AVE SCENIC BLVD MIRA VISTA RD SCENIC CIRCLE 0 1 0 0 ’ 2 0 0 ’ 2 5 0 ’ 1 5 0 ’ 5 0 ’ N EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PA R C E L S TR A I L ON - S T R E E T B I K E R O U T E CR E E K BU I L D I N G NE I G H B O R H O O D SO U R C E : C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 20 Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan | 1 ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS Notes on Costs This document presents order of magnitude capital and operations costs of each of the three options under consideration in the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan process, allowing comparison of the three options as well as comparison of the major elements in each. Following selection of a preferred alternative, the planning team will further refine these planning level estimates in tandem with the refinement and development of Master Plan recommendations and the CEQA document. Capital Costs Capital costs represent planning level budgetary estimates for construction. These costs are in 2014 dollars. These costs are comparative only, and do not include other City and project-related costs. No phasing or cost escalation factors are included. All three options include additional restoration of the creek and riparian areas. Operations Costs Operations costs are the additional costs per year (above current operations costs) for operations for additional staff or additional maintenance workload, also in 2014 dollars. Each alternative has different operational requirements. However, an expanded season for swimming and picnicking included in all options will require more staff support estimated to be: 1 FTE Administrative/Clerk 1 FTE Recreation Coordinator Cost Summary Option A: HIGH INTENSITY Option B: MEDIUM INTENSITY Option C: LOW INTENSITY Capital Costs $45,000,000 $32,000,000 $27,000,000 Annual Operations Costs $900,000 $675,000 $690,000 21 ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS 2 | December 2014 Costs by Option Option A: HIGH INTENSITY Element Capital Costs Operations Costs Notes Aquatic Center and Clubhouse $12,000,000 $250,000 Includes glade area in capital cost Operations costs based on doubling current costs to account for expanded use Sports Fields $4,450,000 $150,000 Includes 3000 sf maintenance building Operations includes field and lawn maintenance Stocklmeir Ranch Event Center $2,000,000 N/A Operations costs accounted for in Added Staffing New Entry Drive $900,000 N/A New entry drive Signal at Stevens Creek Blvd San Fernando Pedestrian Improvements NIC N/A Cost TBD Destination Play Area $5,000,000 $10,000 Includes Great Lawn construction Adventure Play Zone $1,300,000 $190,000 Capital includes adventure play, challenge course, nature play. Operations includes play leader staffing Community Garden Expansion $350,000 N/A Operations costs accounted for in Added Staffing McClellan Barn Restoration $1,000,000 N/A Full restoration (above CA Historic Building Code) Site Enhancement $2,500,000 N/A 10 acres at $250,000 per acre Operations assumes no cost change from current Wetlands/ Riparian Enhancement $250,000 N/A 3.5 acres at $70,000 per acre Parking $1,900,000 N/A Operations costs accounted for in Bridges, Restoration Bridges $2,000,000 N/A Two bridges over Stevens Creek Restoration $3,000,000 $75,000 Operations cost allows for 5 additional maintained acres at $15,000 per acre Added Staffing N/A $225,000 1 New Admin/Clerk 1 New Recreation Coordinator 20% Contingency $8,000,000 N/A Total $45,000,000 $900,000 22 ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan | 3 Option B: MEDIUM INTENSITY Element Capital Costs Operations Costs Notes 9-Hole Par 3 Golf Course $2,500,000 $120,000 Cost from NGF Study Clubhouse $2,000,000 N/A Operations costs accounted for in Added Staffing and assumes lessee at Clubhouse Stocklmeir Ranch Legacy Farm $600,000 N/A Operations costs depend on features and operations TBD New Entry Drive $900,000 N/A New entry drive Signal at Stevens Creek Blvd Expanded Pool Complex $8,000,000 $250,000 Operations costs based on doubling current costs to account for expanded use San Fernando Pedestrian Improvements NIC N/A Cost TBD Maintenance Yard $450,000 NA Renovation of existing maintenance yard Off-Road Bike Skills Course $1,100,000 $20,000 Includes Eastside nature play Operations allows for safety inspections McClellan Barn Restoration $1,000,000 N/A Full restoration (above CA Historic Building Code) McClellan Ranch West Nature Play $750,000 $10,000 Operations allows for playground safety inspection Community Garden Expansion $350,000 N/A Operations costs accounted for in Added Staffing Site Enhancement $1,750,000 N/A 7 acres at $250,000 per acre Operations assumes no cost change from current Wetlands/ Riparian Enhancement $350,000 N/A 5 acres at $70,000 per acre Parking $2,200,000 N/A Operations costs accounted for in Bridges, Restoration Bridges $2,000,000 N/A Two bridges over Stevens Creek Restoration $3,000,000 $50,000 Allows 5 additional maintained acres at $10,000 per acre Added Staffing N/A $225,000 1 New Admin/Clerk 1 New Recreation Coordinator 20% Contingency $5,000,000 N/A Total $32,000,000 $675,000 23 ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS 4 | December 2014 Option C: LOW INTENSITY Element Capital Costs Operations Costs Notes Enhanced Golf Course $2,300,000 $170,000 Cost from NGF Study Replacement Clubhouse $2,000,000 N/A Operations costs accounted for in Added Staffing and assumes lessee at Clubhouse Stocklmeir Ranch Legacy Farm $600,000 N/A Operations costs depend on features and operations TBD San Fernando Road Widening NIC N/A Widening of San Fernando for vehicles and pedestrians. Cost TBD Expanded Pool Complex $8,500,000 $260,000 Includes capital and operations for the adjacent small nature play area Maintenance Yard $450,000 NA Renovation of existing maintenance yard McClellan Barn Restoration $800,000 N/A Rehabilitation to CA Historic Building Code) McClellan Ranch West Nature Play & Tree Nursery $750,000 $10,000 Operations allows for playground safety inspection Nursery operation cost not included Wetlands/ Riparian Enhancement $140,000 N/A 2 acres at $70,000 per acre Parking $1,600,000 N/A Operations costs accounted for in Bridges, Restoration Bridges $2,000,000 N/A Two bridges over Stevens Creek Restoration $3,000,000 $25,000 Allows 5 additional maintained acres at $5,000 per acre Added Staffing N/A $225,000 1 New Admin/Clerk 1 New Recreation Coordinator 20% Contingency $4,500,000 N/A Total $27,000,000 $700,000 24 Review ofthe BlackberryFarmGolfCourse in Cupertino,California PreparedFor: CityofCupertino ParksandRecreation 10185NStellingRd Cupertino,CA95014 PreparedBy: 1150SouthU.S.HighwayOne,Suite401 Jupiter,FL33477 (561)744-6006 December2014 25 Review ofthe BlackberryFarmGolfCourse in Cupertino,California December2014 26 TableofContents EXECUTIVESUMMARY...........................................................................................................1 PurposeAndIntroduction....................................................................................................1 SummaryStatement...........................................................................................................1 StevensCreekCorridorMasterPlan–GolfOptions&Recommendation...........................3 OptionA.........................................................................................................................................3 OptionB.........................................................................................................................................4 Considerations...............................................................................................................................6 Recommendation..........................................................................................................................7 OperationalRecommendations...........................................................................................8 General..........................................................................................................................................8 Marketing.....................................................................................................................................10 Programming...............................................................................................................................12 FinancialAnalysis..............................................................................................................13 Results–StatusQuo“AsIs”Operation......................................................................................13 Results–Option‘A’.....................................................................................................................14 Results–Option‘B’.....................................................................................................................14 GOLFMARKETOVERVIEW....................................................................................................15 NationalTrends..................................................................................................................15 MarketFactorsThatMayAffectGolfDemand....................................................................17 DemographicsSummary.............................................................................................................17 LocalEconomy............................................................................................................................18 GolfMarketSupplyandDemandIndicators...............................................................................19 GolfSupplyFactors.....................................................................................................................20 BlackberryFarmGCGolfMarket.......................................................................................20 ComparableFacilitiesMap..........................................................................................................21 SignificantFindings.....................................................................................................................24 BLACKBERRYFARMGOLFCOURSEREVIEW....................................................................26 Facilities.............................................................................................................................27 History..........................................................................................................................................28 BluePheasantRestaurant(Clubhouse)......................................................................................28 PracticeFacilities.........................................................................................................................29 MaintenanceFacility....................................................................................................................29 On-CourseFacilities....................................................................................................................29 GolfCourseConditions...............................................................................................................29 Safety...........................................................................................................................................31 WaterUse....................................................................................................................................31 Maintenance................................................................................................................................32 SummaryofBlackberryFarmGolfCourseDeficiencies.............................................................32 Operations.........................................................................................................................32 On-SiteManagement..................................................................................................................32 27 ContractsinPlace.......................................................................................................................33 RecentOperatingResults...........................................................................................................35 GreenFees..................................................................................................................................38 Marketing&Programming...........................................................................................................39 StructureConsiderations.............................................................................................................39 STEVENSCREEKCORRIDORMASTERPLAN–GOLFCOURSEOPTIONS......................42 OptionA.............................................................................................................................42 OptionB.............................................................................................................................43 Considerations&Recommendation...................................................................................46 RevenueEnhancements.............................................................................................................46 CostEfficiencies..........................................................................................................................46 BalanceofLandUse...................................................................................................................46 EnvironmentalOrientation...........................................................................................................46 Buildings&PublicUses...............................................................................................................46 WaterSourceConversion(Assumptions)...................................................................................47 Recommendation........................................................................................................................48 FINANCIALPROJECTIONSFORBLACKBERRYFARMGOLFCOURSE............................50 StatusQuoOperation........................................................................................................50 Assumptions–RoundsandRevenues.......................................................................................50 Assumptions–Expenses............................................................................................................51 CashFlowStatement..................................................................................................................52 Results.........................................................................................................................................53 Option‘A’...........................................................................................................................53 Assumptions................................................................................................................................53 Results.........................................................................................................................................53 Option‘B’...........................................................................................................................54 Assumptions................................................................................................................................54 Results.........................................................................................................................................54 APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................55 AppendixA–BFGCRoundsPlayedRecentHistory..........................................................56 AppendixB-ScheduleofGolfCourseFees......................................................................58 AppendixC–ProbableCostEstimates&ConceptualPlans..............................................60 AppendixD–ProFormaOption‘A’...................................................................................66 AppendixE–ProFormaOption‘B’....................................................................................67 AppendixF–FootGolf.......................................................................................................68 28 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–1 ExecutiveSummary PURPOSEANDINTRODUCTION NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.(“NGFConsulting”or“NGF”)wasretainedbytheCity ofCupertino(“City”)topresentpotentiallyviableoptionsregardingtheCity’sDonBrownGolf Courseasset(commonlyknown,andreferredtointhisreport,asBlackberryFarmGolf Course).AsecondarygoaloftheengagementisforNGFtoevaluatethegolfcourseoperations withthegoalofimprovingitsactivitylevelsandoverallfinancialperformance.Thisconsulting engagementisbeingdoneaspartoftheoverallduediligencerelatedtotheStevensCreek CorridorMasterPlan.(TheCityofCupertinohasacquiredlandintheStevensCreekCorridor afterdecadesofeffort). NGFConsulting’sreviewincludedmeetingswithkeyCityandgolfcoursestaff,facility inspections,reviewofdata,marketresearch,andutilizationoftheNGFconsultants’experience andknowledgeofgolfindustrybestpractices.Theultimategoalofthisprojectistocreatea planforBlackberryFarmGolfCoursethatwillputthefacilityonapathtowardlong-term economicstabilityandsustainability.TheconsultingengagementwasmanagedbyEd Getherall,NGF’sSeniorDirectorofOperations,inconjunctionwithForrestRichardson,ASGCA, ownerandpresidentofForrestRichardson&Associates. ThisNGFreportdetailsourreviewoftheBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,including: Thephysicalconditionofthegolfcourseandkeyinfrastructure OptionsforimprovingthegolfcoursewithintheoverallStevensCreekRestoration Plan Analysisofoveralloperationsandrecentfinancialperformance ThemarketenvironmentinwhichBFGCoperates Potentialalternativeoperatingstructures ProjectedfinancialperformanceoftheBlackberryFarmGCunderseveralscenarios Summaryfindingsandrecommendations WeexpecttheresultsofthisNGFstudytobeusedbytheCityasaguideforthefutureofthe golfcourse,andtohelpconveytointerestedparties(e.g.,residentsofCupertino,CityCouncil, etc.)thattheCitywilloperatethegolffacilityinanefficientmanner,andidentifyhowmuchCity economicsupportmayberequiredgoingforward. SUMMARYSTATEMENT BlackberryFarmGolfCourseisavaluablecommunityassetfortheCityofCupertinothathas thepotentialtoappealtoawidevarietyofgolfers.However,thegolffacilityinitspresent conditionisnot“setupforsuccess”and,NGFbelieves,doesnotaccuratelyreflectthecaliberof acitythathasastellarreputationnationallyforitsstrongeconomyandhighqualityoflife. Thepoorconditionofthegolfcourse,resultingfromanaginginfrastructureandadeferralof capitalimprovementsovertheyears,hasmagnifiedtheeffectsoffactorssuchadeclininggolf marketandanagingclientele,resultinginsignificantfinancialdistressfortheGolfFund.Total 29 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–2 roundsplayedatBFGChaveplummetedoverthelastsixfiscalyears,decliningbyabout50% from49,194inFY09to24,594inFY14.Aswouldbeexpected,totalgreenfeerevenues, whichcomprisethevastmajorityoftotalfacilityrevenues,havealsofallensharplyoverthattime frame,frommorethan$623,000tounder$291,000,adeclineof53.4%.(Thesefiguresdonot includeconcessionpayments,whichtotaledabout$4,800inFY14). BasedonourreviewoftheBFGCoperationandthelocal/regionalgolfmarket,webelievethat managementisactiveintryingtoincreaseactivitybutisburdenedbytheconstraintspresented bythedeterioratinggolfcourse,andtherelativelylimitedconstituencyofalternativelengthgolf courses.BlackberryFarmGolfCourseinitscurrentstatesuffersfromanaginginfrastructure andmanyotherdeficienciesthatconstrainitsabilitytooperateefficientlyandgainsufficient roundsactivitytomakeitfinanciallyself-sustaining.Keydeficienciesinclude: Lackofteeflexibility(havingmoreyardagesfromwhichplayerscanopttoplayfrom) Poorturfconditions Greens(toosmallandlackquality) Treemanagement(treehealthandover-shadingofturfareas) Irrigationsystem(agingandinefficient) Watersourceandcost(frompotabletowellwater) Tightholecorridors(especiallyatNos.1and9) Lackofpracticeandnewplayerdevelopmentamenities Agingclubhouse(separated,non-integratedusesofgolfandrestaurant) LackofADAcompliance(pathsandaccess) ThisreportprovidesaroadmapthatNGFbelieveswillgreatlyimproveBFGC’spotentialto increasemarketabilityandstrengthenitsfinancialposition.However,itisquitepossiblethat marketfactorswillprecludethegolfcoursefrombreakingevenfinancially,evenafter recommendedfacilityandoperationalimprovementsareimplemented.Ifthatisthecase,we recommendtheCityconsiderthepublicpolicyimplicationsoffoldingthegolfcourseintothe GeneralFundandtreatingitlikethecommunityamenitythatitis–anactionthatweareseeing increasinglyinthemunicipalgolfworld. Thisexecutivesummaryispresentedtoprovidean“at-a-glance”summarizationofthefull review,detailingthemainfindingsandNGFrecommendationsfortheCitytoimproveits municipalgolfassetandoperation.Additionaldetailcanbefoundinthefullbodyofourreport anditsappendices. 30 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–3 STEVENSCREEKCORRIDORMASTERPLAN–GOLFOPTIONS& RECOMMENDATION NGFConsultingandForrestRichardson,ASGCAweretaskedwithstudyingthepotentialto improvethegolffacilityinoneoftwoapproaches;(a)torenovatethefacilityinitscurrent footprint,and(b)reconfigurethefacilityintoasmallerfootprint.Thealternativetocease operatingthegolffacilitywasnotapartofourscope,butfallstoworkMIGisconductingon behalfoftheCity. Insummary,therearethreealternativeswithregardtothegolfcourse: (a)Renovateusingthecurrentfootprint (b)Reconfigureontoasmallerfootprint (c)Convertthegolfcoursetoanalternativeuse Accordingly,wehavetitledourproposedalternativeplans“ConceptualPlanA”and“Conceptual PlanB”.Theseplansaresummarizedbelow(illustrationsandpreliminarycostestimatesarein AppendixC)andformthebasisofproformaanalysesandnarratives. OptionA ConceptualPlanSummary The‘OptionA’ConceptualPlancreatesslightadjustmentstotheroutingoftheexistinggolf course.ThesechangesoccuratHoleNos.1and9whereseparationiscurrentlyverytightand conflictsoccurbetweenplayontheholes.Additionally,HoleNo.9(existing)isverycloseto practiceareasandtheexistingparkinglot.Theadjustmentsovercometheseissuesandrender abetterrelationshipbetweenholesandtheclubhouse/parkingareas. Allothergolfholesarefullyrebuiltandrenovatedwithexpandedgreens,rebuiltsandbunkers andnewdrainagethroughout.TheseimprovementsarenotdepictedontheConceptualPlan “A”exhibit,butareaccountedforwithinthecorrespondingprobablecostestimate. Under‘OptionA’,theexistingclubhouse/proshopandparkingareretainedintheircurrent location.NGFConsultingrecommendssignificantrenovationorreplacementoftheagingpro shopandrestaurantstructure.Itisourunderstandingthatportionsoftheexistingbuildingare locatedwithinknownfloodplainsandthattherearesignificantdeferredmaintenanceissues throughoutthefacility. Theexistingmaintenancefacilityisretainedinitspresentlocationunder‘OptionA’.Aproposed irrigationwaterstoragetankislocatednearthisareaandisdepictedwithaconceptual elevation. Under‘OptionA’portionsofthecurrentturffootprintwouldbeconvertedtonativegrass. Biofiltrationbasins(lowlands)wouldbeprovidedinamannerthattakesadvantageofthearea ofabandonedpondsthatarelocatedtothewesternedgeofthegolfcourse.Thesewouldbere- plantedwithappropriatenativegrasses. 31 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–4 HallmarksofOptionAinclude: Fullyrebuiltgolfcourse PolesandnettingareretainedexceptthatalongHoleNo.9,whichcouldpotentially beremoved ShortergolfholesatHoleNos.1and9permitpracticeareaadditionsandoffer betterseparation Newirrigationsystemwithelevated“farm”storagetank Biofiltrationbasins(lowlandnativeareas)tocapturerunoff Shortgameandplayerdevelopmentareafornewgolfersandtraining Eight(8)hittingbaysforinstruction,fittingandpractice 1,430-yard,par-29course(slightlyshorterthanexisting) PlanOptionArepresentsarenovatedBlackberryFarmGolfCoursewithfullyre-builtfeatures andnewturf,drainageandirrigation.Theoptiondoes not freeupspaceforparkimprovements oranewparkentrydrive.Essentially,thegolfcourseretainsiscurrentfootprintwiththepro shop,restaurantandmaintenanceusesremainingintheircurrentlocations. AprobablecostestimatewaspreparedforOptionA.Thisestimateisjustover$2millionforgolf courseconstructionandanewirrigationsystem(includingthewaterstoragetank).Additional estimatesareshownforcontingencyandsoftcosts.Theprobablecostestimatedoes not includerazingorrenovationoftheexistinggolfbuilding.Thesecosts,whicharenotdetermined, requirefurtherstudyincontexttooverallprojectplanningandapproaches. OptionB ConceptualPlanSummary TheOption‘B’ConceptualPlantransformstheexistinggolfcourseintoashorterpar-3layout. Tightholewidthsareeliminatedandthefullyrebuiltgolfcourseisreconfiguredwithmodern safetyset-backsandappropriateseparationbetweenadjoininggolfholes. Theexistingclubhouse/proshopandmuchofcurrentHoleNos.1and9areremovedfromthe golffootprint.Anewproshopandgrillisshownontheconceptualplanintheareaofthe existingRetreatCenterBuilding.Themaintenancefacilityisproposedtoberelocatedwestofits presentlocation,neartoother“backofhouse”andparkmaintenanceareas. Option‘B’allowsforanewparkandgolfentrydriveextendingfromStevensCreekRoadtothe south,eliminatingparktrafficfromtheresidentialareastothesouth.Thealignmentforthenew entrystayseastoftheexistingtreedriplineborderingStevensCreek.Theentrydrivemaybe accommodatedwithnominaldisruptionofexistingparking,ormaycallforfullyreconfigured parking.Thisdetailistobedeterminedpendingfurtherstudyforthepark,poolandpublicuses westofthegolfcoursearea.TheplanwasdevelopedinconcertwithMIGaspartoftheoverall masterplanningandparkstudy. Abenefitofthereducedfootprintofthegolfcourse(approximately15acresreducedto12 acres)isthatadditionalareasaremadeavailableforfutureparkuses.Theseusesmayinclude parkingatthenortharea,immediatelysouthofStevensCreekBoulevard. 32 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–5 HallmarksofOptionBinclude: Fullyrebuiltgolfcourse Allgolfcoursepolesandnettingareeliminated(trailsidefencingremains) Shortergolfholeswithlesserrantballstooutsideareas Newirrigationsystemwithelevated“farm”storagetank Biofiltrationbasins(lowlandnativeareas)tocapturerunoff Shortgameandplayerdevelopmentareafornewgolfersandtraining Eight(8)hittingbaysforinstruction,fittingandpractice 1,035-yard,par-27course Returning“loops”allowingplayof3-,6-and9-holerounds Elevatedteesatfourholes Relocatedproshopandgrillprovideslongviewsacrossparkandgolfareas NewparkandgolfentryroadfromStevensCreekBoulevard Theaccompanyingplan(AppendixC)depictsdetailtoindicateuses,golfareasandthenew entrydrive.Abriefdescriptionofgolfholesisprovidedinthebodyofthereport. TheoverridinggoalindevelopingthereconfiguredBlackberryFarmGolfCoursewasto establishafunandenjoyablegolfexperience.Purposefully,bothtoreducethegolffootprint (conservingwateruse)andtoreduceroundtimes,thepar-3holelengthsareshort,yetvariable. Playerswillbeabletohitshotsrangingfrom175-yardstounder100-yards. Inadditionto9-holerounds,playmaybeofferedat3-holeand6-hole“loops”byusingvarious combinationsofholes.Forexample,theNo.6holereturnstotheproshopareaandmaybe playedasa6-holeloop.Othercombinationsare:1,2,9…7,8,3,4,5,6…and7,8,9. AprobablecostestimatewaspreparedforOption‘B’.Thisestimateisjustunder$2millionfor golfcourseconstructionandirrigation(includingthewaterstoragetank).Additionalestimates areshownforcontingencyandsoftcosts.Theprobablecostestimatedoes not includerazing theexistinggolfbuilding,norreconstructionofthegolfproshopandgrill.Thesecosts,which arenotdetermined,requirefurtherstudyincontexttotheoverallparkusesandpotentialthat thisbuildingmayserveasageneralCommunityBuildingwithonlyancillaryusesbythegolf facility. Theprobablecostestimate does accountforrelocationoftheexistinggolfmaintenance building.Theconceptualplanshowsthisstructurerelocatedtoamore“back-of-house”areaof thepark.NGFConsultingrecommendsthatconsiderationbemadetopotentiallyintegrateother parkmaintenancetothisrelocatedfacility,thusreducingoffsitetravelbyparkmaintenance equipmentandpersonnelwhonowstoreandgobackandforthtoremotemaintenance facilities. ConstructiondurationforbothOptions‘A’and‘B’isestimatedtoextendonefullyear,ideally fromMarchtoMarchofthefollowingcalendaryear.Constructiontimemaybeacceleratedby addingcosttotheprojectandfullysoddingturf(in-play)areas.NGFConsultingrecommends furtherstudytodeterminethebenefitsofanacceleratedscheduleandwhethermorecostwould resultinlessrevenuelossduringdowntime.Somegrow-incostshavebeenassumedinthe probablecostestimate,butitislikelythatadditionalcostsmayberequired.Thisbecomesa 33 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–6 matterofhowmuchgrow-inresponsibilityisassignedtothegolfcontractorvs.theCity’sgolf maintenancecontractor. Considerations Whenweighingtherelativemeritsofthetwoconceptualplans,NGFtookaccountofsomeof thefollowingkeyconsiderations. RevenueEnhancements AreaswhereNGFseesapotentialtoenhancerevenueinclude: NewPracticeAreas(toattractmoreuseandintroducenewplayerstogolf) ProvideTopQuality(greenssurfaces,turfconditions,etc.) Integratefoodandbeveragetogolfuses,andopenthesetopark-goers IntegrateFootGolfoverlaystobringnon-golferstothefacility CostEfficiencies AreaswhereNGFseesapotentialtoreduceorreprioritizecostsassociatedwiththegolf facilitiesinclude: ReduceManagedTurfFootprint(tosaveonwatercostandfocusmaintenance effort) WaterSourceConversion(tolowerwatercost) ReplaceAgingInfrastructure(toreduceannualcapitalcostsonemergencyrepairs) BalanceofLandUse InstudyinganddevelopingalternativesfortheCity,wehaveweighedthevalueofoperatinga 1,400-yard,par-29golfcoursevs.ashorter,allpar-3course.Whiletheremaytypicallybea differenceinattractionandusebetweenan“ExecutiveCourse”anda“Par-3”course,the existingcourseissoclosetobeingapar-3layout(andmaywellhavebeenwhenRobertMuir Gravesoriginallydesignedit)thatweseenomajordistinctioninattraction(orrevenue)between thesetwotypesoflayouts.Infact,anargumentforanall-par-3coursecouldbemadethatitis (1)moresuitableeventothecurrentlysmallacreage,(2)wouldbemoreopenandless congested,and(3)couldprovetobemorefunforawiderdiversityofgolfingabilities. However,inordertocomparethisapproach,wealsostudyandforecastfor“ConceptualPlan A”.Inthisoptionthecurrentfootprintispreserved,asarethelocationsforclubhouse,parking andmaintenance. EnvironmentalOrientation Bothoptionsprovidedorientthegolftoamorenaturalizedlandscape.Byconvertingtheold pondareastobiofiltrationbasins,andbyreducingturfthroughoutthecourselayout,lesswater isrequiredandmaintenancecanbeaimedatgreens,teesandplayableareasofturf.The additionalbenefitisamorepleasingaesthetic,andonethatcorrespondsbettertothenatural areasoftheStevensCreekvalley. Buildings&PublicUses Considerablethoughtwasgiventoreuseandconversionofexistingbuildingsandspaces.As evidentinbothplanoptions,certainusesareeitherpreservedinplaceorrelocated.Theseare describedinthesummariesforeachconceptualplan. 34 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–7 ExistingClubhouseandRestaurant:NGFConsultingdoesnotrecommendcontinueduseofthis structureinitspresentconditionandformat.In“ConceptualPlanA”,whileweshowthearea remaining,itisouropinionthatthebuildingmustbeentirelyrenovatedorrebuilt.Ideally,a replacement(orrenovation)wouldconverttheusestoamoreintegratedprogrammingwhere golferscantakeadvantageoffoodandbeverage,parkgoerscanfeelcomfortableinthespace, andtheneighborhoodwillalsowanttobeapartoftheoffering.Under“ConceptualPlanB”we showthisareaasfutureusefortheparkasexpandedparking. ExistingRetreatHouse:NGF,workingwithMIG,recommendsunder“ConceptualPlanB”that thissiteberepurposedtohouseasharedpublicgrillandclubhousewithmeetingspace.While nospecificplanispresented,aconceptualbuildingfootprintandsiteareaisshownon “ConceptualPlanB”.Wenotethatviewsandorientationofthissitearefarbetterthanthe presentclubhouse.Demolitionofthishouse,andreuseofthesite,requiresfurtherstudyand analysisbytheCity. ExistingMaintenanceFacility:NGFrecommendsthatthisbuildingberelocatedunder “ConceptualPlanB”.Inascertainingthefeasibilityforthiswecontactedtheoriginalbuilderwho providedbasebudgetsfornewsitework,relocationandfinishing(interiorandutilities.)An analysisinmoredetailshouldbemadetodeterminewhetherotherparkmaintenance operationsmaybeabletobeintegratedandsharedwithgolfmaintenance.Thismayprove efficientfortheCityandcouldsavecost. ParkAccess:Parkaccessviaanewentrydrivefromthenorthappearstobeamajor improvementthatcouldprovebeneficialtotheCity,itsparkusersandneighbors.Obviouslythis isaffordedonlyin“ConceptualPlanB”asthereisnoroomtoadequatelymanageaccesswhile keepingtheexistinggolffootprint. Parking:Parkingunder“ConceptualPlanA”isretainedinitscurrentlocationforgolfusesand whateverrestaurant/clubhouseconceptmaybedevelopedtoreplacewhatexistsnow.Under “ConceptualPlanB”weenvisiontransferringparkingfromexistingareastothesouthtothe areanowoccupiedbygolfandrestaurantparking.Newparkingintheareaoftheexisting parkingfortheBlackberryFarmpoolandpicnicareawouldalsobeaddedtothedegree necessary.Furtherstudyonthetransferandrequiredparkingneedsisrecommended. WaterSourceConversion(Assumptions) {Seebodyofreport} Recommendation OurworkinvolvedtimewithMIGtounderstandgoalsandobjectivesthathavecometothe surfaceastheCityandpublicaddresseslongtermusesandimprovementtotheentireStevens CreekCorridorarea.TheoutcomeofmeetingsandplanningsessionswithMIGyieldedseveral areasoffocusforourgolfcourseplanningwork.Specifically,werecommendtheCityseek: (i)SolutionstoprovideaccesstotheBlackberryFarmpicnicandpoolareas(potentiallyfrom thenorth,throughthegolfcourse)thatmayaugmentorreplacethecurrentaccessthrough residentialneighborhoodstothesouthandeast. (ii)Waystoremovethetallpolesandnettingthatdisruptviewsandtheaestheticofpark areas. (iii)WaystointegratethegolflandscapewiththatofStevenCreekandtheBlackberryFarm parkareasetting. 35 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–8 (iv)Opportunitiestohavegolfandparkamenitiessharedbetweenuses(suchasclubhouse, restaurant,etc.) (v)Preservationoftreedriplines,trailsandparkaccess. (vi)Freeingupanyavailableacreagefornon-golfusesthatcouldservethepark. Wehaveaddressedeachofthesepointsinproposed“ConceptualPlanB”,whereeachgoal hasbeenaccommodatedthroughreconfigurationofthegolfasset.“ConceptualPlanA”,which leavesthegolffootprintinitscurrentarea,addressesonlyafewpointsasthereisnoflexibility tofreeupspaceorallowfornewpointsofaccess.TheCityhasonlysomuchlandinthisrich openspacearea.NGFisverycomfortablerecommending“ConceptualPlanB”,whichdelivers areducedfootprintbyconvertingthecoursetoapar-3layoutandforegoingthetworelatively shortpar4holesofthecurrentlayout. Amongitemsthatrequirefurtherstudybeforeadefinitivecourseofactionischosen: RetreatHouse:Demolitionofthishouse,andreuseofthesite,requiresfurtherstudy andanalysisbytheCity. MaintenanceFacility:Amoredetailedanalysisshouldbemadetodetermine whetherotherparkmaintenanceoperationsmaybeabletobeintegratedandshared withgolfmaintenance. ParkAccess:PotentialimpactsoftheproposednewentrydrivefromStevensCreek Boulevard. Parking:Furtherstudyonthetransferandrequiredparkingneeds. OPERATIONALRECOMMENDATIONS Inadditiontomakingrecommendationsforthe“bigpicture”issueofhowtheBlackberryFarm GolfCoursefitswithintheoverallStevensCreekRestorationMasterPlan,NGFConsulting offersthefollowingoperationalrecommendationsthatmayimproveoperationsandrevenues. Theserecommendationsarebasedontheleadconsultant’sexperienceandexpertise,and stemfromarelativelylimitedreviewoftheoperationandfacilities.Recommendationsare segregatedintothreecategories:(1)General;(2)Marketing;(3)Programming.Wenotethat manyoftheserecommendations–especiallythoserelatedtothemarketingofthefacility –maybeapplicableonlyaftertheproductissignificantlyimprovedunderoneofthe recommendedrenovationoptions. General OperatingStructure {Inthebodyofthereport,NGFprovidesadiscussionofvariousoperatingstructurespopular withmunicipalgolfsystems}. DespitetherapidlydeterioratingfinancialpictureatBFGC,webelievethatthecurrentstructure withon-siteCitymanagementandprivatizedconcessionsisappropriate,atleastuntilany decisionsregardingthegolfcourseitselfaremade.Thecurrentmanagerhasmanyyearsof knowledgeofthepropertyandappearstobeheavilyinvestedinitssuccess.Basedonour reviewofthegolfmarket,theconstraintspresentedbythedeterioratinggolfcourse,andthe relativelylimitedconstituencyofalternativelength(i.e.,par3orexecutive)golfcourses,we 36 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–9 concludethatthedownturninroundsandrevenuesisduetomarketfactorsandaproductin seriousneedofupgrade.WebelievetheCityshouldwaittoseehowthefacilityperformsafter improvementsthatshouldgivenewmarketinginitiativestraction. Onthemaintenanceside,thecurrentcontractorseemstobemakingthemostofalessthan idealsituationwithrespecttocourseconditionsandinfrastructure,andthecurrentcontractcost seemshighlyreasonable.WedorecommendthattheCity,oncethecurrentcontractexpireson July1,2015,makeitapolicytohave5-yearcontractterms(withrenewaloptions)foreitherthe currentvendororanypotentialnewcontractor. BFGC,initscurrentconditionandwithrevenuesbarelyabove$300,000,isnotlikelytoattract largenationalmanagementvendors.Additionally,underanymanagementcompanystructure, webelieveitisquestionable,giventhemarketandphysicalconstraintsoftheproperty,that revenueincreaseswouldbesufficienttocoverwhatislikelytobeahigherexpensestructure, includingmanagementfee. Similarly,privatizingtheentireoperationbyfindingawillingandablelesseeishighlyunlikely duetothesameconstraints.Evenifaninterestedvendorwerefound,wedonotrecommend theCityspend$2.4millionormoreimprovingthefacilityandthenputtingtheassetatriskby handingitovertoaprivatecontractorthatmayfinditdifficulttomakealeasepaymenttothe Cityandsqueezeaprofitoutoftheoperation. CostAllocation ThoughitisdifficulttosayiftheCity’snew“CostAllocation”lineitemintheGolfFundbudgetis chargedatanappropriateamount,at$71,000+itrepresentedasignificant11%ofthegolf operationbudget(excludingnon-recurringchargeforfacilityimprovements)forFY15,andmore than23%ofactualFY14totalfacilityrevenues.Essentially,theamountofthechargeforany municipalityboilsdowntoapublicpolicydecisionbasedontwokeyfactors:1)Istheamountof thechargejustifiedbasedontheactualcostforotherdepartmentstoprovidetheseservices?2) Doeschargingthisamountresultinareducedoperatingbudget(thusperhapsweakeningthe facility’sabilitytocompeteeffectively)and/orprecludetheGolfFundfromfinancingnecessary capitalimprovements,thedeferralofwhichwilleventuallyleadtoaseriousdeteriorationofthe product?Eachmunicipalitymustanswerthesequestionsaccordingtotheirownpoliciesand objectives,aswellasthehealthoftheirGeneralFund. OperationsManual CityandgolfcoursestaffshouldcontinuetorefinethecurrentBFGCoperationsmanualtothe pointthatitevolvesintoaformal,writtenbusinessplan,withspecificgoals(andactivitiesto achievethegoals)laidoutindetaileachyearThepresenceofthistypeofwrittenbusinessplan isnotcommonatmunicipalgolfcoursesandistypicallyassociatedwithcorporatemanagement companiesandisakeyindicatorofsuccess.TheNGFviewsthisasapositivefortheoperation andastrongindicatorofpotentialsuccess. FeeStructure Thepresenceofaplethoraofdiscountarrangements(on-siteandthrough3rdpartyvendors) maketheoverallcomparisonofgreenfeesinthismarketdifficult,asthemajorityofteetimes aresoldatlessthan“rackrate.”However,NGFbelievesthat‘rack’greenfeesatBFGCare generallyappropriateinthecontextofthefeesforthemarketcomparable9Hexecutives,with regular9HweekdayandweekendratesslightlyhigherthanRanchodelPueblo,similarto SunkenGardens,andslightlylowerthanValleyGardens.ShouldtheCitygowiththeoptionto reimagineBFGCasapar3course,webelievethatgreenfeescanremainsimilar(assuming 37 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–10 similarmarketconditions)towhattheyarenowduetotheoverallincreasedqualityand attractivenessofthegolfcourse. Thoughthereareavarietyofmulti-playandannualplayprogramsavailableatBFGC,NGF recommendsthatmanagementconsideraloyalty/frequentplayerprogram.Thesehavebecome ubiquitousacrossthecountryandareaneasywaytoincreasefrequencyofplayamongsome customers.Therearemanyvarietiesoftheseprograms,butallinvolvealow-feeorno-fee membershipthatentitlestheholdertofeediscountsorallowthemtoaccumulatepointsthatcan laterbeappliedtowardpurchases. Food&Beverage BFGChasthepotentialforanexpandedgolf-centricfood&beverageoperationiftheCity shoulddecidetogowithrenovationOption‘B’,orrenovates/replacesthecurrentbuildingas recommendedinOption‘A’.Themostsuccessfulfoodandbeverageoperationsatpublicgolf coursesarethosethatoffersimple,quick,andinexpensiveservicethatisconvenienttothe roundofgolf,andisinalignmentwiththegolfoperation.(Thegolferisthelifebloodofthefacility anddoesn’tviewtheoperationsasbeingseparate;rather,itisallonelevelofservicetothem andultimatelyreflectsontheCity).Anewclubhousewouldlikelyinvolveathirdconcessionat thefacilityandwouldenhancemanagement’sabilitytooffercombinationdeals(e.g.,roundof golfpackagedwithfoodand/orbeverage). Technology–PointofSale(POS)andReservationSystem Itisveryimportantintoday’shyper-competitivegolfmarketsthatpublicgolfcoursesremainat theforefrontofmoderntechnologyincourseoperations.Theefficiencyofsoftwareforteetime reservations,operations/accountingreporting,retailpoint-of-purchasereporting,andoverall managementinformationsystemscanhelpimproveoverallperformance.(BGGCcurrentlylacks aPOSsystem,anditsteetimereservationsystemisacloud-basedserviceofferedbythird- partyteetimeproviderGolfNow). Withstaffproperlytrainedinallaspectsofsoftware,agoodPOSsystemhasthepotentialto helpBFCGmanagement: Createcustomerdatabasesforemailprograms Createandmanageamoderncustomerloyaltyprogram IntegratetheTee-TimeReservationSystemwithPOS Issueidentificationcardsand/orcapturegolfers’emailaddresses Developareportingsystemandmonitorkeymanagementbenchmarks Createaweb-basedmarketingpresencewith24-hourtee-timereservations Sellpre-paidgiftcardsandreservationcardsforpremiumaccessonline Increaseoperationalefficiencyandimproveinternalcontrol Enhancecustomerservice Emailcommunicationofpromotions,tournaments,andupdates Marketing IncreasedEmphasisonMarketingafterRenovation MostoftherecommendationsinthissectionwillbemoreapplicableiftheCitygoesaheadwith arenovation,oratleastmajorimprovements,forBFGC.Inthatcase,wewouldalso recommenda‘GrandReopening’eventforthefacility.Inconjunctionwiththeevent,theCity,at leastforthefirstyearafterreopening,shouldenhanceitsmarketingbudgetto$15,000orsoto 38 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–11 createamarketingcampaignaimedatincreasingawarenessofthenewBlackberryFarminthe regionalmarket.Developmentofahighqualitytri-foldonglossyheavystockpaperwouldmake anicemarketingpiecetoselectzipcodes. MarketingTheme WhileitisunderstandablethatmarketingeffortsforBFGCarecurrentlycenteredonoffering discountedrates,marketingeffortsshouldfocusonthequalityandvalueofthegolfexperience atBlackberryFarmGCproductafterthefacilityisrenovated.ThoughGrouponandproviders suchasGolfNowcanhelpfillteetimesthatwouldotherwisegounsold,itisimportantforgolf coursemanagersnottopredicateallmarketingeffortsondiscountingfees,especiallywhenit’s solelythroughthirdparties.Totheextentpossible,yieldmanagementshouldbepracticed internally(again,moremarketingbasedoncustomerinformationcapture). Internet TheBFGCwebsitehttp://blackberryfarmgolfcourse.com/index.htmlispoweredby“Golf Channel”andispartofthefacility’sagreementwithGolfNow.Itisabasic,functional(has currentfees,linktoGolfNowteetimebookingengine,signupforemailclub,golfcourse description,photos,etc.)websitethatwewouldexpecttoseeforanalternativelengthgolf courseatthisfeeandrevenuelevel.TheCityalsoincludesbasicinformationaboutthegolf courseintheRecreation&CommunityServicessection.NGFbelievesthatanimproved websitewouldbearequisiteofarenovatedfacility. Email Managementhasbuiltasmalldatabaseofregularcustomeremails,andhasaccesstothe GolfNowdatabaseofabout1,000addresses.Buildingtheproprietarydatabaseshouldbean ongoinggoalofmanagement(andwouldbemademucheasierwithaqualityPOSsystem)so marketingcampaignscanbefacilitated.Proshopstaffshouldaskeveryunknowncustomer whowalksthroughthedoorwhattheiremailaddressandzipcodeis,andfirst-timecustomers shouldbeidentifiedtotheextentpossible. SocialMedia Manygolfcoursesarenowactiveinusingvarioussocialmediaandother“modern”methodsto stayintouchwithcustomers.MuchoftheBFGCexistingcustomerbaseisolder,andthusnot activewiththingslikeFacebookandtexting.However,theyoungergenerationthatwillbean increasedtargetmarketifthegolfcourseisrenovatedisactiveinthesesocialmediaoutlets. Tournaments/Outings BFGCisnotconducivetohostingalargevolumeoftournaments,noriscurrentlyappealing enoughtoattractmanygroups.However,animprovedfacilityasrecommendedbyNGFwould beanidealenvironmentforsmalloutingsbylocalcorporations,civicgroups,charities,etc.Not onlyaretheseoutingsagoodrevenuesource,buttheyexposeafacilitytonewcustomers.This typeofsalesactivityrequiresdirectsales,including“face-to-face”meetings. HotelTie-Ins BlackberryFarmhasreceivedinquiriesfromlocalhotelsregardingreducedgreenfeesforhotel guests.NGFbelievesthatmanagementshouldinstituteaprogram(e.g.,throughconciergesor frontdeskstaff)withlocalhotelsthatmayincludegolfpackages(‘stay-and-play’),reduced rates,and/orsellingaprepaidblockofteetimes.Wealsorecommendcreatinganddistributing arackbrochure.Allofthiswillrequiresome“face-to-face”marketing,buttheeffortwould benefitthefacility. 39 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–12 TrackingResults Savvymarketersrealizeitisimportanttomonitortheeffectivenessoftheirmarketingcampaigns constantlytoidentifywhichcampaigns,specialsandprogramsareactuallyworkingandmake appropriateadjustments.BFGCstaffshouldattempttotracktheeffectivenessofallmarketing anddirectadvertising,asitdoingwithitsGrouponpromotions.Werecommendutilizingaformal logtotrackallincominginquiries,andusingcodestotrackallpromotionsandspecials. Programming PlayerDevelopment Newplayerdevelopment-especiallyastrongJuniorProgram-willbeoneofthecritical elementstothelong-termviabilityofBFGC,andthisshouldbeanaddedpointofemphasisif thefacilityisimprovedwithexpandedpracticeamenities(andperhapsa3-holeloopgolf course).Also,becauseoftoday’sdifficultclimateforgolfoperations,tappinglatentdemand amonggroupsthattraditionallyhaveshownrelativelylowgolfparticipation–suchaswomen andminorities–ismoreimportantthanever. Leagues/Clubs TheCityshouldpromotethecreationofnew,andexpansionofexisting,BFGCclubsand leagues,especiallyifthefacilityisrenovated.Weencouragethecoursetopostupcoming events,especiallytournaments.Wealsorecommendaddingapagetothewebsiteforleagues, includingleagueresults.Thisisnotonlyappealingtotheleagues,butmakesthecourseappear more“friendly”.Leagueplay,especiallyinamarketwithsuchasastrong,andyoung,presence ofyoungprofessionals(Appleseemsanaturaltarget),canbeanessentialcomplementto regularcustomersduringoff-peaktimessuchaslateafternoon. YoungAdultProgram OneofthemajorinitiativestogrowactivitythatNGFrecommendsisayoungadultprogram (e.g.,reducedratesforgolfersage18-29onweekdayafternoons).NationalNGFresearchhas shownthistobeakeydemographicingrowinggolfactivity. IncreasingFemaleParticipation Increasingparticipationamongwomenisveryimportant,notonlyforindividualgolfcoursesbut forthefutureofgolf.Weknowthat50%ofthepopulationisfemale,soprogramminggeared towardfemalesrepresentsamajor“industrybestpractice”thatNGFrecommendineverygolf coursereviewofoperations.Therearemanyreasonswhyfemalegolfparticipationislow,but themostcommonissuesrelatetogolfcoursedifficulty,retailselection,on-courseservices (restrooms,drinkingfountains),foodandbeverageselection,andcustomerservice. Programming,suchasleagues,andspecialevents(e.g.,“9andWine”)arealsokeytomaking thegolfcourseamoreinvitingandsocialplaceforwomen. RecentNGFstudiesrelatedtowomenandgolfdocumentedthatincreasedparticipationinthe femalesegmentisakeytoimprovinggolffacilityroundsandrevenueperformance.Wefound severalfacetsthatfemalegolfersconveyedtoourresearchersthatwerekeyintheir considerationofwhereandhowmuchtoparticipateingolf.NGFidentifiedseveralcommon characteristicsthatfemale-friendlygolffacilitiesexhibit,suchas: Golfcoursesthatarenottoooverlydifficult,andhaveamostforwardteeoflessthan 4,600yardswith,withno“forcedcarries”ofover60–80yards. Restrooms(cleanedseveraltimesaday)atleasteverysixholesonthegolfcourse; featuresanditemsshouldincludemirror,soap,lotion,sunscreen,Band-Aids,etc. Ballwashersontheforwardtees. 40 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–13 Atleastonefemaleinstructorandagolfstaffthattakesaconsistentapproachtoall playersregardlessofgender. Helpwithselectingequipmentandevenwomen-onlydemodaysand/orwomen-only customfittingdays. Theavailabilityofwomen’sclubrentalsets. Programsthatallowmoresocialand/orfamilyinvolvement. FootGolf Asnotedinthereport,arenovatedBFGCmaybeconducivetoaFootGolflayoutthatcould enhancefacilityrevenuesandbringnewcustomerstothefacility.Managementshouldtalkto otherlocaloperators,aswellasconsultwithrepresentativesoftheAmericanFootGolfLeague (AFGL)todiscusstheviability,includingprosandcons,oftheactivityatBFGC.(Pleasereferto AppendixFforamoredetaileddescriptionofFootGolf).Aswithmanyothergolfandrecreation activities,thekeytosuccessforaninitiativelikeFootGolfwillbethroughextensive programming,especiallycompetitiveleagues.TheBayAreahasademonstratedaffinityfor soccer,andFootGolfcouldbeapopularnewactivityforthegolfsystem. FINANCIALANALYSIS NGFpreparedsummarycashflowmodelsforthecontinuedoperationofBlackberryFarmGolf Courseunderthreescenarios:(1)“AsIs”withcurrentconfiguration,amenities,and“bandaid” approachtoimprovements(wehavenotassumedreplacementoftheirrigationsystem;ifthe systemisreplaced,watercostsavingswilllikelyresultandmoreroundsmayresultfrom improvedconditions);(2)AssumingimplementationofConceptualPlan‘A’;(3)Assumptionof implementationofConceptualPlan‘B’.Wealsoassumethecurrentoperatingstructureunder allthreescenariosandthatkeyNGFConsultingrecommendations(marketing,etc.)are implemented.Themodelsdonottakeintoaccountthenetfinancialeffectofthefacilitybeing closedforayear. Thefive-yearcashflowmodelswerepreparedinconsiderationofourreviewofcurrent operations,recenthistoricalperformance,analysisofthegolfmarket,andlocalandregional demographicandeconomicfactors(e.g.,expansionofAppleemployment).Themodelsare basedonasetofassumptionsthatmayormaynotbecomereality,butNGFbelievesthatthey representa“reasonable”estimateofperformanceforthisfacilitybasedonthefactorsdiscussed inthisreport.AssumptionsusedinthedevelopmentofNGF’scashflowmodels,aswellasthe modelsthemselves,arecontainedinthebodyandappendicesofthereport. Results–StatusQuo“AsIs”Operation TheresultsofNGFConsulting’spreliminarycashflowprojectionshowthatBlackberryFarm GolfCourse,withcurrentmarketpositioningandoperatingstructureandonlyminorfacility improvementsona“triage”basis,isprojectedtogenerateapproximately$358,000intotal operatingrevenuestotheCityinFY2015,fallingtoapproximately$287,000byFY2019. ConsideringallpreliminaryexpenseestimatespreparedbyNGFConsulting,netlossestothe City(exclusiveofcapitalimprovementcosts)willbeabout$260,000inFY15,growingtoabout $395,000byFY19.Thesedeficitscouldbesignificantlyhigherwithincreasesinthecostof waterand/orcostallocation. 41 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–14 Results–Option‘A’ TheresultsofNGFConsulting’spreliminarycashflowprojectionforBlackberryFarmGolf CourseunderrenovationOption‘A’(renovatedgolfcoursewithfullyre-builtfeatures;newturf, drainage,andirrigation;expandedpracticeamenities)showthecoursegenerating approximately$400,000intotaloperatingrevenuestotheCityinYear1post-renovation, increasingtoapproximately$487,000byYear5.Consideringpreliminaryexpenseestimates preparedbyNGF,netlossestotheCity(exclusiveofcapitalimprovementcosts)willbeabout $196,000inYear1,fallingtoabout$169,000byYear5.Thisresultreflectsandimprovementof morethan$226,000overthestatusquo‘AsIs’scenario,astheattritioninroundsandaverage rateisreversedduetoanimprovedproductandinfrastructure. Results–Option‘B’ TheresultsofNGFConsulting’spreliminarycashflowprojectionforBlackberryFarmGolf CourseunderrenovationOption‘B’(fullyrenovatedandreconfiguredPar3golfcoursewith addedflexibilitythrough3-holeand6-holeloops;expandedpracticeamenities;newentryroad andgolf-centricclubhouse)showthecoursegeneratingapproximately$412,000intotal operatingrevenuestotheCityinYear1post-renovation,increasingtoapproximately$540,000 byYear5.ConsideringpreliminaryexpenseestimatespreparedbyNGF,netlossestotheCity willbeabout$171,000inYear1,fallingtoabout$99,000byYear5.Thisresultreflectsand improvementofstabilizednetincomeofmorethan$296,000overthe‘AsIs’scenario,and $69,500overOption‘A’. 42 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–15 GolfMarketOverview Belowweprovideanoverviewofregionalandnationaltrendswithrespecttogolfandanoverviewof marketfactorsthathavethepotentialtoaffectgolfdemand,includingthearea’sdemographicsand keygolfmarketdemandandsupplyindicators.Inthesecondpartofthissectionweprovideareview ofBFGC’skeycompetitiveset.Therearemanyvariablesthathavethepotentialtoaffecttheactivity ofagolfcourse,includingregionalweathervariationsandunforeseenoccurrencessuchasasevere downturnintheeconomy. NATIONALTRENDS GolfparticipationintheU.S.hasgrownfrom3.5%ofthepopulationintheearly1960stoabout9% ofthepopulationtoday.NGFestimatesthatthenumberofgolfersfellin2013to24.7million(decline of2.4%from2012).Inthelongertermtrend,theindustryhasseenalossofsome4.7milliongolfers since2005.Thislossisduetobothadeclineinnewbeginnersandaprobleminretention–golfis losingmorepeoplethanitisgaininginnewbeginners.Forresearchpurposes,agolferisdefinedas apersonage6orabovewhoplaysatleastoneroundofgolfinagivenyear. Long-termParticipationTrend RoundsPlayed2012–2014–Themostinfluentialfactorinthegolfeconomyin2012wasthe5.7% increaseinroundsplayed,drivenbyextremelyfavorableweather.Theresultingincreaseof27 millionroundstookthenationaltotaltoabout490million.Wesawacommensuratelypoorweather yearin2013.Thiswaslikelytheprimarycontributingfactortoadropinroundsplayedto465.5 million–adecreaseofabout4.9%.Forthelongerterm,roundshavedeclinedbyapproximately 11%or55millionsince2003. WhiletheNationalroundsplayedin2012wereup5.7%from2011,thePacificregion’srounds playedonlysawaslightincreaseof1.6%.In2013thePacificregionfaredmuchbetterthantherest ofthecountryfinishingtheyearwithanincreaseof4.1%roundsfrom2012.Year-to-date(through September)2014roundsaredown1.7%nationallybut up 1.6%inthePacificregion. 43 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–16 NationalRoundsVolume %change(year-over-year) GolfIndustryOutlookfor2014 –Golf’srecoveryfromtherecessionof2008-2011hasbeenvery modesttodate.Theoutlookfor2014isformodestsalesgrowthingolfconsumerproductsand services,andgolfcourseequipmentandsupplies.Roundsplayedareexpectedtoremainflator moderatelybelow2013levels.Courseclosureswillcontinuetooutpaceopeningssignificantly, resultinginanotheryearofsupplycorrectionwithnegativenetgrowth. FacilityOpeningsandClosings-U.S.golfcourseopeningsremainathistoriclows,asNGF recordedonly14.0openingsin2013,comparedto157.5golfcourseclosures,measuredin18-hole equivalents(18HEQ).Asinrecentyears,closuresweredisproportionatelylowerpricedpublic facilities(68%oftotalclosures).AccordingtoNGFdata,sincethemarketcorrectioningolfcourse supplybeganin2006,therehasbeenacumulativenetreductionof644golfcourses(18HEQ), whichrepresentsacumulativesupplydecreaseofabout4%. FacilityNetChangeinSupply (18-holeequivalents) 44 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–17 MARKETFACTORSTHATMAYAFFECTGOLFDEMAND Inthefollowingtable,NGFConsultingsummarizesthepopulation,medianage,andmedian householdincometrendsforthelocalmarkets,SantaClaraCounty,SanJose-Sunnyvale-Santa ClaraCBSA,thestateofCalifornia,andthetotalU.S.NGFConsultinghasmadethefollowing observationsregardingthedemographicsofCupertinoandsurroundingareas: Thereareabout350,000peoplelivingwithinfivemilesofBlackberryFarmGolfCoursein 2013,~961,000withintenmiles,andnearly2millioninthe15-milemarketarea, indicatingaverydensepopulation.Populationgrowthratesinthesubjectmarkets graduallyincreasedoverthepasttwodecades,andareprojectedtosignificantlyoutpace stateandnationalgrowthratesthrough2019.The5-milemarketisexpectedtoadd another25,000netnewresidentsduringthattime. TheMedianHouseholdIncomeofBlackberryFarmGC’simmediatefive-miletradearea is$114,000,morethantwicethenationalfigureof$51,804.Themedianincomeforthe broader10-miletradeareais$99,000andthe15-milemarketisalsostrongat$92,000.In general,higherincomeresidentsaremorelikelytoparticipateingolf,andtheyplaymore frequentlythanlowerincomegolfers.InmarketssuchasgreaterSanFranciscoBay, medianincomesmustbeconsideredinthecontextoftherelativelyhighcostofliving. TheMedianAgesinthelocaltradeareaareslightlyhigherthanthenationalmedianage of37.5.Ingeneral,golfparticipationratesandfrequencyofplayincreasewithage (thoughbothdeclineamongtheelderly),makingrelativelyoldermarketsmoreattractive togolffacilityoperators,allotherfactorsbeingequal. ThepopulationofSantaClaraCountyisprojectedtogrowtoabouttwomillionby2019. TheAsianpopulationcontinuestoincreaseinthisarea.InthefivemiletradeareaAsian accountfornearly45%ofthepopulationandaccountfor32%intheSantaClaraCounty. Caucasianaccountfor47%ofthecountypopulation,AfricanAmericanaccountfor2.6% whileallothersaccountfor18.4%.Asianand,particularly,Caucasiangroupshave traditionallyhighgolfparticipationrates. DemographicsSummary BlackberryFarmGC 5mi10mi15mi Santa Clara County SanJose- Sunnyvale -Santa Clara CBSACaliforniaU.S. SummaryDemographics Population1990Census290,256797,5891,576,1451,496,700 1,533,393 29,724,503248,584,652 Population2000Census316,099858,9171,746,9191,682,590 1,735,824 33,871,650281,399,034 CAGR1990-2000 .86%0.74%1.03%1.18%1.25%1.31%1.25% Population2010Census333,360916,6231,821,0811,781,642 1,836,911 37,253,956308,745,538 CAGR2000-2010 0.53%0.65%0.42%0.57%0.57%0.96%0.93% PopulationProjected2014349,715960,8101,906,8761,868,099 1,924,138 38,563,102317,190,947 Population2019Projected375,2031,029,6952,038,6942,002,754 2,060,368 40,412,151329,562,705 CAGR2010-2018 1.49%1.46%1.42%1.47%1.45%1.02%0.82% MedianHH Income(2013Est.)$113,560$98,807$91,968$93,490 $92,657 $63,950$55,040 MedianAge (2013Estimate)39.438.237.237.2 37.2 36.037.8 CAGR=CompoundAnnualGrowthRate 45 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–18 LocalEconomy BelowisasummaryofsomeeconomicandqualityoflifefactorsintheCupertinoarea: CupertinoisanaffluentcityinSantaClaraCounty,California,directlywestofSanJose onthewesternedgeoftheSantaClaraValleywithportionsextendingintothefoothillsof theSantaCruzMountains.Cupertinois11.3squaremilesintotalarea,locatedatthe southernendoftheSanFranciscoBayandbordersSanJoseandSantaClaratothe east,Saratogatothesouth,SunnyvaleandLosAltostothenorth,andLoyolatothe northwest. Cupertinoisthe11thwealthiestcitywithapopulationover50,000intheUnitedStates, andForbesrankeditasoneofthemosteducatedsmalltowns. AccordingtoHomfacts.comCupertino’sunemploymentrateinAugust2014was3.5%, wellbelowCalifornia’srateof7.4%. Cupertinoisoneofmanycitiesthatclaimtobethe“heart”ofSiliconValley,asmany semi-conductorandcomputercompanieswerefoundedhereandinthesurrounding areas.ThoughCupertinoishometotheheadquartersofmanyhigh-techcompanies,very littlemanufacturingactuallytakesplaceinthecity.Thecity'slargeofficeparksare primarilydedicatedtomanagementanddesignfunctions. Cupertinoisperhapsmostfamousforbeinghometotheworldwideheadquartersfor AppleInc.,whichislocatednotfarfromBlackberryFarminamoderncomplexcircledby theInfiniteLoop. ConstructionisunderwayonApple’ssecondcampusbetweenInterstate280,NWolfe Rd,EHomesteadRdandalongTantauAve,onemileeastoftheoldcampus.Some factsaboutthe“spaceship”: Thefour-story,2.8millionsquarefootspaceshipbuildingwillput13,000 engineersanddesignersunderasingleroof.Applewillcreate7,400new“high- quality”jobsby2016,increasingitsemployeebaseby46percentto23,400. AccordingtoApple,Cupertino-basedemployeescollectivelyearned$2billionin basesalaryin2012.Uponthecompletionofthenewheadquarter,theemployee basesalaryincomeisexpectedtoexceed$2.9billionandthenumberofjobs supportedbyAppleinSantaClaraCountyisexpectedtogrowtoabout41,100. LocalBusinessrevenuesgeneratedbythenewheadquartersareexpectedtohit $8.6billionandtheconstructionalonewillcreate9,200constructionjobsover threeyears.ThenewHeadquarterswillgeneratea“one-time”revenueof approximately$38.1milliontotheCityofCupertinointheformofconstruction taxesandfees. OthercompaniesheadquarteredinCupertinoincludeTrendMicro,Cloud.com,Lab126, Packeteer,Chordiant,andSeagateTechnology.Over60high-techcompanieshave officesthere,includingIBM,OlivettiandOracle.Mostofthesehigh-techcompaniesare locatedonDeAnzaBoulevard,CaliMillPlaza,andBubbRoad.Inadditiontothetech companies,anothermajoremployerintheareaisPermanenteQuarry,anaggregate rockquarryandcementplantinthefoothillstothewestofCupertino. 46 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–19 GolfMarketSupplyandDemandIndicators ThebasicmeasuresofgolfdemandandsupplythatmayaffecttheperformanceofBlackberryFarm GolfCourseareoutlinedbelow.The GolfingHouseholdIndex isbasedonPredictedNumberof GolfingHouseholds,andcomparesgolfinghouseholdparticipationinaparticulargeographytothe nationalbaseindexof100.The RoundsIndex isbasedonPredictedNumberofRounds,and comparesthepropensityofroundsplayedperhouseholdinaparticulargeographytothenational averageroundsindexof100. Thepredictiveindicesforgolfinghouseholdsandroundsdemandedweredevelopedinorderto determinetherelativestrengthofaparticulargolfmarketareaincomparisontoothergolfmarkets andthenationasawhole.Thesepredictivedemandindiceshelpidentifywheregolfinghouseholds androundsactivityareconcentratedbycomparingvariousgeographieswithoneanotherandthe nationalaverage,whichis100.Forexample,ifanMSAhasaGolfingHouseholdIndexof120,that areaisestimatedtohave20percenthighergolfparticipationrateascomparedtotheU.S.average. And,ifanMSAhasaRoundsIndexof120,thatareaisestimatedtohave20percenthigher averageroundsperhouseholdascomparedtotheU.S.average. PredictedLocalGolfDemand Themethodologyfordeterminingtherelativestrengthofthesubjectmarketisbasedonongoing NGFresearchofAmericangolfparticipationhabits.TheNGFGolfDemandModelincludesthe criticalcombinationofageandincome,regionalseasonality,andavailablegolfcoursesupply,as wellasexistingandemergingdemographictrendsinaparticularmarketarea.Thismodelcanbe usedasabenchmarkforestimatingpotentialmarketstrengthinaparticulararea.Theresultsofthis surveyallowNGFtomakeaccuratepredictionsconcerningdemand,participation,andgolf spending. BlackberryFarmGC 5mi10mi15mi Santa Clara County SanJose- Sunnyvale- Santa Clara CBSACalifornia U.S. GolfDemandIndicators #ofGolfingHouseholds 20,57951,52389,08088,19290,4511,594,12017,483,010 ProjectedGolfingHouseholds (2018)22,96658,10399,82199,232101,7541,753,87318,901,970 EstimatedCourseRounds (in-marketsupply)221,464694,7731,058,1631,523,0741,690,60436,882,779431,309,400 GolfingHouseholdIndex 108989597 97 84 100 RoundsPlayedIndex 47544673 73 91 100 ThegolfdemandindicesforthelocalmarketsaroundBlackberryFarmGCindicategolf participationratesthatareslightlylesstoslightlyhigherthantheU.S.benchmark,while roundsplayedperhouseholdareabout±50%lowerthanthenationalbenchmark. However,becauseofthesheerdensityofthepopulation,roundsplayedper18holesof golfarehigherthanweobserveinmostmarkets. Thereareanestimated20,560golfinghouseholdswithinfivemilesofBFGC,withthe potentialtodemandmorethan221,000roundsofgolfannually.Inthe10-milemarket, thereareover52,000golfinghouseholds,demandingnearly700,000roundsofgolf annually. 47 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–20 Corporate/OrganizationalMarketDemand Asnoted,theCupertino/greaterSanJoseareaishometoalargenumberofmajorcorporateand publicemployers.Althoughpotentialcorporatedemandforpublicgolfroundsisdifficulttoquantify,it isclearthatBlackberryFarmGCmanagementshouldtargetthismarket,includingApple,Inc.and themanylocalcollegeanduniversityalumniorganizations,foroutingsandleagueplay.This corporate/organizationaltournamentplaycanaugmentthedailyfeeroundsexpectedfromthe primaryandsecondaryresidentmarkets,especiallyduringoffpeakperiods. VisitorGolfDemand Visitors(bothleisureandbusinesstravelers)tothegreaterSanJosehavethepotentialtoimpact demandatareagolfcourses.NGFresearchshowsthatroughlyone-thirdofallgolfersparticipatein theactivitywhiletraveling,playingaboutaroundofgolfforeverytwodaysoftravel.Thesevisiting golfers,especiallythosestayinginnearbyhotels,shouldbetargetedbyBlackberryFarm managementforstay-and-playpackages,etc. Thereare289hotelswithin15milesofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse;43ofthesearelocatedwithin justfivemilesofthecourse.TheclosesthotelstoBlackberryFarmGolfCourseincludeCypress Hotel(1.5miles),AloftCupertino(1.9miles),CourtyardSanJose-Cupertino(2.6),HiltonGardenInn Cupertino(2.6),WoodcrestHotel(3.1),andCorporateInnSunnyvale(3.3).ManagementtoldNGF thattheyhavefieldedinquiriesfromoneormoreofthesehotelsaboutofferingtheirguestsreduced greenfeerates. GolfSupplyFactors CurrentGolfCourseSupply Thereare15totalgolffacilities(subjectincluded),totaling234holes,withintenmilesof BlackberryFarmGolfCourse,including10thatarepublic(153holes).SantaClara Countyishometo33golffacilities,including21thatarepublicaccess. Household/Supplyratiosarederivedbydividingthenumberofhouseholdsbythe numberof18-holeequivalentgolfcoursesinagivenmarket.Thismeasureisusedasa benchmarktoestablishthelevelofsupport(households)thatisavailableforeach18 holesofgolfinthemarket.AHousehold/Supplyindexisderivedfromtheseratios(base nationalfigure=100).The15-milemarketaroundtheBlackberryFarmGChasmore thanthreetimesasmanyhouseholdsper18holesofgolf(bothtotalandpublic)than doesthenationoverall. TheNGFdatabaselistsnonewpublicgolfcoursescurrentlyunderconstructioninthe immediatemarketandtwenty-sevenholesinplanningwithintheSanJose-Sunnyvale- SantaClara,CACBSAmarket. BLACKBERRYFARMGCGOLFMARKET NGFidentifiedkeycompetitorsand/orcomparablesforBlackberryFarmGolfCourse.These facilitiesincludeone18-holeexecutivedailyfeecourse,five9-holeexecutiveandtwo9-holepar-3 shortcourses.Belowweprovidesummaryoperatinginformationforthesefacilities,aswellaskey findingsregardingthedynamicsshapingthelocalandregionalmarketsthatBlackberryFarm operatesin.Amapshowingtherelativelocationsofthesefacilitiesisshownbelow. 48 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–21 ComparableFacilitiesMap 49 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–22 BlackberryFarmGolfCourse–MarketComparables ThetablebelowshowssummaryinformationforBlackberryFarmGolfCourseandkeycomparables. Facility FTYPELocation Year Open Par FrontTee/ BackTee FootGolf Location Relativeto Blackberry FarmGC BlackberryFarmGolfCourse 9HExec-MU Cupertino 1962 29 1,544 - DeepCliffGolfCourse 18HExec-DFCupertino 1960603,358 0.8 Links9atLasPositas 9HPar3-MULivermore 201227882/1,113YES27 PruneridgeGolfClub 9HExec-DFSantaClara 1967311,769YES5.4 RanchoDelPuebloGolfCourse 9HExec-MUSanJose 200028/37/491,072/1,338YES11.6 SantaTeresaGolfClub(ShortCourse)9HPar-3-DFSanJose 196327922YES17 SunkenGardensMunicipalGolfCourse9HExec-MUSunnyvale 1955291,502 3.4 ValleyGardensGolfCourse 9HExec-DFScottsValley 1971361,785YES19.2 50 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–23 SummaryOperatingInformation–KeyCompetitors ThetablebelowshowssummaryfeeinformationforBlackberryFarmGolfCourseandkeycomparables.Feesrepresent9-hole walkingrates,unlessotherwisenoted. KeyCompetitors Facility FTYPE WD/WE 9-Hole Replay WD/WE WD/WE Senior WD/WE Junior CartFeesAnnual/Multi-PlayProgramDrivingRange BlackberryFarmGolfCourse*9HExec- MU $17/$19 $11/$13 $16/$19 $16/$16 $7 (Twocarts available forhndcp only) UnlimitedPlay Wkdaysonlyand EverydayPassesoffered Multi-playroundcardsoffered. 2artificialmats nettedhittingcage $1/$3 DeepCliffGolfCourse 18H Exec-DF $19/$23---$13 PremierClubMember($99.95) Receive$7offprimetimerates 11-stationnettedhittingarea, 35-yarddrivingrange;$3.50 Links9atLasPositas 9HExec- MU $18/$20$8/$10-$9/$12$10 $150for10rounds valid7daysaweek 30teestationsandaputting green PruneridgeGolfClub 9HExec- DF $22/$24$11/$12 $17/NA w/mbrshp $20 $12/$12 w/mbrshp $20 - VIPPassRegularPrice$3,199 NOW(Oct2014) $1,199Yearly;$349Monthly; $40DailyMondayorTuesday Covered,twotier,litfacility.VIP membersusegrassrange. Indoor&outdoorhigh-tech, stopmotionvideoinstruction. $5/$10/$14/$18 RanchoDelPuebloGolfCourse 9HExec- MU $13/$15$7/$7$10/NA$7/$8- 25stations;10,000sqftbent grassputtinggreen.LitFacility. $4/$6/$9:discountrangekey Pay$20for$25worthofballs Pay$40for$50worthofballs Pay$75for$100worthofballs SantaTeresaGolfClub (ShortCourse) 9HPar- 3-DF $13/$17$13/$17$13/$17$13/$17$14JrMbrshp$55+$5/$8rate 40TeeStations SunkenGardensMunicipalGolf Course 9HExec- MU $15/$19Free Offer$88 M-Thplay card Offer$88 M-Thplay card $10 10Play Card=$135 GolfDiscountCard=$88 UnlimitedplayM-THforSr,Jr anddisabledonly 18TeeStations;lighted ValleyGardensGolfCourse 9HExec- DF $20/$22$7.50/$10Wed.$16$16/$16- Monthly$130;Annual$925 w/additional$3rndsweekdays &$10rndsonweekends 12TeeStations *Cupertinoresidentsreceivea$2.00discountwithproperidentificationofresidency 51 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–24 SignificantFindings General BlackberryFarm’smostdirectcompetitorsinclude:DeepCliffGC,an18Hexecutive courseinCupertino;PruneridgeGolfClub(9HExec)inSantaClara;Ranchodel Pueblo(9HMuniExec)inSanJose;andSunkenGardens(9HMuniExec)in Sunnyvale.OtherregionalmarketcomparablesincludetheShortCourseatSanta TeresaGolfClub(9HPar3),theLinks9(9HPar3)atLasPositasinLivermore,and ValleyGardens(9HExec)inScottsValley. Otherpublicaccessfacilitieswithintenmilesthatare18Hregulationlengthtracks andcanbeconsideredonlysecondarycompetitorsinclude:GolfClubMoffetField andShorelineGolfLinksinMountainView;PaloAltoGolfCourse;SanJose MunicipalGolfCourse;SantaClaraGolf&TennisClub;andSunnyvaleGolfCourse. Par3andExecutivecourses–especiallythoseofthe9-holevariety-appeal primarilytocertainsegmentsofgolfers,includingbeginnersandseniors,aswellas thosethathaveconstraintswithrespecttodiscretionarytimeand/ormoney.These facilitiestendtohavedifficultygainingtractionamongothersegments,includingavid golfersandyoungergolfers. Roundsplayed AswasthecasewithnearlyeverygolfmarketNGFexaminednationally,average annualroundsplayedatmanyBayAreagolfcoursesdroppedby25%ormore betweenthelate1990s/2000andthemiddlepartofthe2000s.Therehavebeen intermittentyearsofrecoverysincethenbut,basedonoperatorinterviews,thelast fewyearshaveseensignificantroundsattrition.Belowwepresentsomerecent resultsfrommarketcomparablesidentifiedinthissection. SantaTeresa(shortcourse): Roundsdecreasedbyabout30%overthelastsixyears,fromabout38,000 in2009toaproject±27,000roundsin2014. Atanaveragegreenfeeperroundofabout$14,totalgreenfeerevenues havefallenbelow$400,000. DeepCliff: Roundsaredownbyabout25%fromtheirpeak(lowtomid70,000s)inthe earlypartofthe2000s.Managementreportsthat2009-10wasaparticularly badperiod,withsomerecoveryin2011-12,beforeroundsbegan aggressivelyfallingagainin2013.Roundsfor2014aredown14%overprior year,andarebudgetedtofallfurtherin2015. PartoftheproblematDeepCliffisthesevere75%cutbackinwater(they nowpurchasecitywaterandarenotequippedtopumpthevolumethey need);asaresult,onlygreensandsurroundshavebeenwateredsinceMay. RanchodelPueblo(cityofSanJose): Roundsdecreasedby16.5%overthelastfiveyears,from32,257inFY10to 26,929inFY14. Revenuesdeclinedonly3.3%,to$591,000. 52 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–25 Totaloperatingexpenses(excludescapitalimprovements)increasedby 14.5%toabout$788,000,resultinginanoperatinglossof$197,000, comparedto$77,000inFY10. Links9atLasPositas(cityofLivermore): Roundsandgreenfeerevenues–about20,000and$300,000,respectively– overthefirsttwoyearssincerenovationthattransformedthecoursefroman executivelayoutof2,034yardstoapar3of1,113yardsarevirtuallyidentical toresultsfromthelastcoupleofyearsofoperationasanexecutivelayout. SunkenGardens(cityofSunnyvale): Roundshavebeenremarkablysteadyoverthe5-yearperiodfromFY10 throughFY14,at±60,000eachofthefirstfouryears,beforedecliningto 52,000inFY14.However,FY14wastheonlyyearwhenreplayroundswere notfree(revenueswereactuallyhigheronthereducedrounds).Thefree replaypolicyhassincebeenreinstituted. AsanillustrationofjusthowfarmanyBayAreafacilitiesareoffoftheirpeak activitylevels,SunkenGardenshostedabout94,000roundsbackin1999. Atanaveragegreenfeeperroundofjustover$13,totalgreenfeerevenues wereabout$680,000inFY14. GreenFees Asweareobservingacrossthenation,fewerroundsinthegreaterBayAreamarket, arebeingsoldatrackrates.Thereisamyriadofwaysthatfeesarebeing discountedduringnon-peakdemandtimes.Inadditiontoeverydaydiscountsfor juniors,seniors,etc.,manyclubshaveloyalty/frequentplayerprogramsandactive internalyieldmanagementprogramsthatincludesendingoutspecialpromotionsto theiremaildatabases.Additionally,internetwholesalerssuchas GolfNow.com are playingalargerroleinmovingunsoldteetimesinthismarket. Asaresultoftheincreaseindiscounting,evenamonghigherpricedfacilities, averagegreenfeerevenueperroundisessentiallyflatorevendecliningforlower feefacilitiessuchasBlackberryFarm. NGFbelievesthat‘rack’greenfeesatBFGCaregenerallyappropriateinthecontext ofthefeesforthemarketcomparable9Hexecutives,withregular9Hweekdayand weekendratesslightlyhigherthanRanchodelPueblo,similartoSunkenGardens, andslightlylowerthanValleyGardens.ShouldtheCitygowiththeoptionto reimagineBFGCasapar3course,webelievethatgreenfeescanremainsimilar (assumingsimilarmarketconditions)towhattheyarenowduetotheoverall increasedqualityandattractivenessofthegolfcourse. 53 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–26 BlackberryFarmGolfCourseReview BlackberryFarmGolfCourseislocatedintheCityofCupertino,about2.6mileseastofApple, Inc.headquarters.Itisconvenientlylocated1mileeasttheintersectionofStateRoute85and Interstate280freeways.TheentrytotheparkinglotisoffofStevensCreekBoulevard.Though thelocationisadvantageousintermsofproximitytopotentialdemanddriversforgolf (residential,schools,corporate);however,trafficalongStevensCreekcanattimesbea detrimenttoeaseofaccesstothegolfcourse. 54 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–27 FACILITIES TheBlackberryFarmGCincludesa9-holeexecutivelengthgolfcourse,restaurant/proshop, andmaintenancefacility.Thefacilitydoesnothaveadrivingrange.The“clubhouse”isactually theBluePheasantrestaurant/nightclub,adatedbuildingthathousestheproshopand restroomsonthegroundfloor. TheNGFreviewofthesecomponents followsinthissection. 55 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–28 History TheBlackberryFarmGolfCourseoccupiesaportionofanoldfarm(160areas)settledby CaptainElishaStephensin1848.BlackberryFarm,until1991,wasoperatedasafamily-owned picnicfacilityfor37yearsandoverthreegenerations. In1991Cupertinoresidentspasseda25-yearbondmeasuretopurchasetheproperty.TheCity ofCupertinocommittedtooperatingBlackberryFarmasarevenue-generating,self-supporting parkfor25yearsuntil2016.Today,this33-acrerecreationalfacilityoffersacreeksidepark settingforfamilyandgrouppicnics,swimmingpools,andthe9-holegolfcourse.Amongthe goalsoftheparkareasaretoservetheneedsoforganizedgroupswishingtoreserveoutdoor picnicfacilitiesforspecialfunctions,andtoprovideprogrammeduses,includingthe9-hole BlackberryFarmGolfCourse,forthegeneralpublic. Thegolfcoursedatesto1962andwasdesignedbyRobertMuirGraves,aprominent California-basedgolfcoursearchitect.ItwasamongthefirstdesignsinGraves’careerandis listedasa“Par-3Course”inearlyaccountsbyGravesandotherresources.Itmaybethatholes werelengthenedovertheyearsinanattempttoachievelongeryardagesandanincreasedpar value. Twosetsofteesrangingfrom1,410yardsto1,544yards.Thetwoteepositionsallow golfersofdifferentskilllevelstoplayfromatotalgolfcourseyardagethatis comfortableforthem. Paris29,withsevenpar-3s,andtwopar-4s. TheUnitedStatesGolfAssociation(USGA)slopeandratingdatashowtherelative difficultyoftheBlackberryFarmGCfromthevarioustees,withaslopeof93anda ratingof57.0fromthebluetees,anda91slopeand57.4ratingfromtheRedtees. Sloperepresentsacourse’sdifficulty,comparedtothe“standard”USGASlopeRating of113. BluePheasantRestaurant(Clubhouse) TheclubhouseessentiallycomprisestheBluePheasantRestaurantthatoccupiestheupper floorareaofthebuilding.Arrivaltothisbuildingisnondescriptwithdatedsignage,landscaping anddetails.Thebuildinghasbeenremodeledinlimitedways,mostlywithpaintandtheaddition ofrequiredADArampsandappointments.Boththeexteriorandinteriorarereminiscentofa circa1970s-80sagingbuildingthathas“seenbetterdays.”Theparkinglot,recentlyresurfaced andconfigured,appearswelllitandadequatelyservestherestaurantandgolfuses. Thelowerlevelofthebuildinghousesthegolfproshop,storageandrestroomstoservegolfers. Ofimportantnoteisthatthelowerlevellieswithinadesignatedfloodplain.Thebuildinghas floodedinrecentyearsandthereisalonghistoryofitfloodingeversinceitwasoriginally constructed.ImprovementsinstalledbytheCityincludealowwallsystemthatservestodetour risingwaterwhensandbagsarestackedtocloseoffawalkwayareaatanopeninginthiswall system.Thishashelpedtoprotectthelowerlevelandreducedamagefromflooding. Adjacenttotheclubhouseareaisawatertowerthatwasrelocatedtoitspresentlocationfrom propertynorth,acrossStevensCreek.ThisstructureisownedbytheCity,butisnotcurrentlyin serviceorusedforanypurpose.Inessence,itisapieceofhistorythatgetslittleornoattention. NGFencouragestheCitytoexploreideaswithMIGtoseeiftheremaybeinterpretativeorother publicusesthatwouldbebeneficialtotheoverallBlackberryFarmarea. 56 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–29 PracticeFacilities AsidefromasmallpracticeputtinggreenbytheHoleNo.1,thereareonly“hittingcages”that maybeusedforinstructionandwarm-up.Thesestructuresarelooselyconfiguredand immediatelyadjacenttothegreenareafortheHoleNo.9.Qualitypracticeareasandamenities thatcouldattractnewplayersandthoseinterestedinlearninggolfareallbutabsent. MaintenanceFacility Themaintenancebuildingandyard,asnoted,arerelativelynewreplacementsforanoldgarage thathadstoredequipmentandservedasamaintenancefacility.Thenewbuildingismetal constructedandwellscreened.Therearesanitaryfacilities,washstationsandtypical appointmentsforamodernfacility.Theyard,whilesmall,isadequateforthelimitedequipment andmaterialsnecessarytocareforthesmallcourse.Storagebinsforsandandlandscape materialsareundersized,whichrequireddoublehandlingafterloadsofmaterialaredelivered. On-CourseFacilities Norestroomsarelocatedonthecourseitself.Therestroomslocatedinthemaintenance buildingwerecleverlyconfiguredtoservethepublicwhileplayinggolf. GolfCourseConditions ThissectionfocusesonthephysicalnatureoftheCity’sexistinggolfasset.Thephysical aspectsofagolffacilityshouldnotbeheldseparateduringanevaluationofaspectssuchas businessoperations,financesand/ormarketanalysis.Golffacilitiesareinherentlyaffectedby thephysicalconditionsandconfigurationincombinationwithinfluencesofthebusiness operation.Webelieveitisessentialthatthephysicalpropertiesofgolffacilitiesmustbelooked atwithaviewbeyondthatofwhichcurrentlyexists.Theviability,potentialandlongterm opportunityofthegolfassetshouldbeevaluatedalongwithcurrentconditionsandtrends, especiallythosethatmayhavepositiveinfluenceonoperations. Theintentofthissectionistoprovideabaselineofthecurrentconditionsandwhatmeasures arerequiredtoimprovethephysicalfacilityand/orbringituptoqualitystandards. ThemethodforevaluatingthegolfcourseinvolvedmultiplesitevisitsbyNGFsubcontractorand GolfCourseArchitectForrestRichardson,ASGCAonthreeseparateoccasions.Interviewswith keystaffchargedwithcaringforandoperatingthepropertieswereconducted.Additionaldata, bothprovidedbytheCityandsecuredindependently,wasusedtoascertainthegeneral maintenanceneedsandnecessaryimprovements.NGFConsultingalsoconsultedwithMIG, theCity’sconsultantaddressingmasterplanningoftheStevensCreekCorridor,whichincludes theBlackberryFarmGolfCourse. BothNGFandMr.Richardsonvisitedthefacilitytoevaluatethecourseandconditions.Mr. Richardson’sfocuswastoreviewthegolfcourseintermsofitscurrentconditionaswellas lookingtopotentialimprovements.Hisreviewalsoaddressesthefeasibilityofcertainplanning conceptsthattheconsultingteamhasbroughtforthtotheCity. ThisreportisintendedtoprovideabasisforfurtherstudyandpotentialactionbytheCity,as wellaspotentialintegrationtotheMIGplanningeffort.Thereportislimitedtothescopeof servicescontractedtoNGFConsulting.Accordingly,informationsuchasprobablecost estimatesandconceptualplanningmustbeviewedintheircontextandlimitations.Thescopeof servicesdidnotallowanin-depthstudyofoptionsbeyondthesummarizedfindingsand conceptualplansprovided.TheCityisadvisedthatfurtherstudy,detailedanalysis,specific 57 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–30 planningandcostanalysisshouldbeundertakenbeforefinalactionsaredetermined.This reportshouldbeusedtoformdecisionson“nextsteps”asimprovementsand/orchangesare consideredandshiftedfromplanningtoformalproject. Thefollowingsectionprovidesasummaryofcurrentcourseconditions,maintenancepractices andgeneraldeficiencies. Tees:Ingeneral,teesareinpoorshapeandarecrowned(i.e.,theyarenotlevel.)Turfsuffers fromover-shadingduetocloseproximityoftrees,andtreedensity(i.e.,overplantingoftrees.) Drainageappearsnon-existentwithnativesoilslikelyformingtheteesubgrades.Eventhough teeshavebeenrebuiltoccasionally,theextremelysmallsizescreateconstantwearandthey simplycannotkeepupwiththeuse.Teesalsodonotofferyardageflexibilitytothedegree necessarytoservegolfersofvaryingabilities.Therearefewteesandthosethatareinservice arenotlargeenough.Theyardagedifferencebetweenthebackteesandtheforwardteesis merely134yards,anaverageofjust15yardsperhole.Developingnewteesforshorterforward yardagesencouragesmorenewplayers,youngplayersandseniorplayers,andcanhavethe effectofpromotingmoreplayfromteeyardagesappropriatetoindividualskilllevel. FairwaysandRoughs:Turfqualityisaveragetopoorwithshadedareasbeingintheworst condition.Drainageislackingatpointswherenaturalgradesdonotconveywatertolowareas andthefewdrainsinstalledonthecourse.TurfisavarietyofBermudagrass,ryegrassand kikuyugrass.Somesmallpatchesoffescue-typeturfandheartybentgrass(likelyleftoverfrom originalgreensplanting)canbefoundhereandthere.Compoundingturfconditionsisthe antiquatedirrigationsystemthatdeliverspoorcoverageandinefficientirrigationpressure,andis aconstantsourceofleaksandbreaks. Greens:Greensareverysmallwithpoaannua,anacceptablegreens“turf”thatovertakes bentgrass,especiallyintheBayArearegion.Wherethegreensarenotinexcessshade,the surfacesareacceptable.Therearesignificantpatchesofpoorqualitywhichislikelytheresultof multiplefactors-irrigation,shade,ageandsize.Intermsofsize,thegreensareextremelysmall anddonothealfromday-to-daywhenthecourseisbusy.Greensforacourseofthislength (withmanyshortshotsplayedfromteesthatarehithighandcausedeeperballmarks)should beasmuchasthreetimes(3x)thesizeofthegreenspresentlymanaged.Greensarereported tobeoriginalandwerelikelybuiltonnativesoilswithonlyanominalvolumeofsandmixedto availablesoils.Consideringtheageandotherfactors,theconditionsare“good.”Theoverall qualityiswellbelowwhatcanbeattainedwithnew,replacedrootzonesandmoderndrainage systems.(Note:TheNo.3greenwasrebuiltinrecentyearsandis,asaresult,inbetter conditionthanothers.) Bunkers:Sandbunkers,ofwhichtherearenine(9)intotal,arewellpasttheirlifecycle.Sand hasbeenaddedtobunkersthroughouttheyears,whichamountstotheonlysignificantcare theyhavereceived.Addingsandcausesthefloorstoriseupandeventuallybecomeelevatedin relationshiptogreensurfaces.This“volcano”effectisnotonlyapooraesthetic,butitsendsa signalthatthecoursehasbeenneglected.Inmostclimatessandbunkersgetnewsand replacedevery2-3yearswithinfrastructure(drainageandsubgrades)renovatedevery7-10 years.Accordingtostafftherehasbeennoworktosandbunkers(exceptsandbeingadded withoccasionaledgingwork)sincethecoursewasoriginallybuiltinthe1960s. Ponds:Originally,thecoursehadanareaofpondsandastreamthatformedawaterfeature throughthecourse.Thesepondswerefilledwithamanualvalvefromthecreek.Pondswere takenoutofservicetoconservewaterandbecausetherewasconcernthattheywereleaking. Thepondsneverservedasareservoirforthegolfcourse,atleastnotinthepastseveral 58 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–31 decades.WhilenodetailedinspectionofpondswasmadebyNGF,visualinspectionshowssoil crackingandconditionsthattendtosupportpotentialleaksshouldtheyberefilledwithwater. Modernpondconstructionforsoiltypesinthisregionwouldgenerallycallforartificialliners suchasHDPEplasticsheetinglaidoverageotextilefabric.However,wedonotrecommend reconstructionoftheponds(i.e.,lining)aswefeelevaporationandresultingwatercostwould becounterproductive.Alternatively,werecommendconversionofthepondareastoapassive naturalizedlandscapethatcanservetheareawithbiofiltration (seebelow). IrrigationSystem:Noin-depthevaluationwasmadeoftheirrigationsystem.Ingeneral,the systemisoriginaltothec.1960scourseconstructionandhasbeenheldtogetherwithvarious patches,repairsandsomenewerequipment.Atypicalirrigationsysteminthisregionwilllast from18to25years.TheBlackberryFarmsystemhasnow(tried)tooutliveitsintendedlifecycle bynearlythree-fold.Thesystemis“hydraulic”controlled,amethodthatisnowsooldmostturf suppliersnolongerhavepersonnelwhohaveevenheardofsuchtechnology.Duringourvisits weobservedhand-wateringbythegroundscrewinordertoovercomethisless-than-desirable system.Thedownsideofsuchanoldersystemispoorcoverage(toomuchoverlapornot enough),leaks,breaksandtheconstantvigilancebystaffthattakestheirtimeandenergyaway fromareasandmaintenancethatthepubliccanseeandappreciatemore. CartPaths:Thefacilitymanageswithjusttwogolfcartsasmostgolfersprefertowalk.Where pathsarepresent(atjustafewlocations)theyarenarrowandnotconfiguredwell.Thereislittle compliancewithADAguidelinesintermsofcurbingoraccess. Trees:TreesformthelandscapethemeforBlackberryFarmGolfCourse.Asnoted,treesline allgolfholesexceptwherepolesandnettinghavebeeninstalledalongotherparkuses.Overall, treesaretooprevalentandcausetoomuchshadeforturftothriveandbehealthyforgolfuses. Whereshadeismostprevalent,turfdoesnotgrowatallandthegroundisbare.Wheretrees havebeencutdown,severalstumpsremain.Manytreesareroot-boundwithexposedroots interferingwithgolfers,maintenanceequipment,surfacedrainageandirrigation.Manytreesare notedtobeindecline.Thisconditionislikelyaresultofaging,regionalblight(s)and,insome areas,overcrowdingwheregroupsoftreesweresimplyplantedtoocloseinproximity. Safety Noformalsafetyanalysiswasconducted.However,itisobvious(andconfirmed)thattheNos.1 and9holesareconfiguredtooclosetogether.Conflictscanoccurbetweenplayontheseholes. Otherareashaveset-backissues,butnottothedegreeasevidentontheopeningandfinishing holes.Staffreportsnoclaimsorerrantballinjuries.NGF,indevelopingalternativeplans,has addressedtheissuenotedatHoleNos.1and9.IftheCityoptstoeitherfullyorpartially reconfigurethegolfcourse,separationbetweenholesandappropriateset-backsareessential tofutureoperationsoftheCity-ownedfacility. WaterUse Wateriscurrentlysuppliedfromthepotable(municipaldrinkingwater)system.Originallythe coursewassuppliedbywellwater.Thatwellisstillinplacebutnolongerusedfollowingpark workandacquisitionofthecoursebytheCity.(AdetailedreportwasprovidedtoNGFonthe testingofthewellandwasusedbyustoformestimatesofwateruseandcostforalternative plans.)Wesupportthereinstatementofthewellastheprimarysourceofirrigationwaterfor BlackberryFarmGolfCourse (seebelow). 59 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–32 Maintenance Maintenanceisoutsourcedtoaprivatevendor.Staffvariesfrom2to4dependingonseason andneeds.Thereistypicallyasupervisoronsiteatleast3-4daysperweek.Consideringthe aginginfrastructureandotherconditionsnoted,thegolfcourseiskepttidyandplayable.Itisnot likelythatbetterconditionscouldbeattainedwithoutsignificantinvestmentintheasset. SummaryofBlackberryFarmGolfCourseDeficiencies Insummary,theBlackberryFarmGolfCourseinitscurrentstatesuffersfromanaging infrastructureandmanyotherdeficienciesthatconstrainitsabilitytooperateefficientlyandgain sufficientroundsactivitytomakeitfinanciallyself-sustaining.Keydeficienciesinclude: Lackofteeflexibility(havingmoreyardagesfromwhichplayerscanopttoplayfrom) Turfconditions Greens(toosmallandlackquality) Treemanagement(treehealthandover-shadingofturfareas) Irrigationsystem(agingandinefficient) Watersourceandcost(frompotabletowellwater) Tightholecorridors(especiallyatNos.1and9) Lackofpracticeandnewplayerdevelopmentamenities Agingclubhouse(separated,non-integratedusesofgolfandrestaurant) LackofADAcompliance(pathsandaccess) OPERATIONS BlackberryFarmGCisaccountedforbytheCityofCupertinoasaself-sustainingEnterprise FundwithintheRecreation&CommunityServicesDepartment.Theenterprisefundstructure, whichisintendedtoensurefullcostrecoveryviauserfeesandalsoprovideaccounting transparencytothepublic,isverycommonformunicipalgolfsystems,bothintheStateof Californiaandnationwide.Asofautumn,theGolfFundhadapositivebalanceofabout $600,000,whichiscurrentlyearmarkedtopartiallyfundreplacementoftheirrigationsystem. OversightofthegolfprogramistheresponsibilityoftheSeniorRecreationSupervisor,who reportstotheDirectorofRecreationandCommunityServicesand,ultimately,theCityManager. One-fourthoftheSeniorRecreationSupervisor’ssalaryischargedtotheGolfFund.TheCity ManageranswertotheelectedCityCouncil,whichhasultimateauthorityoverpoliciessuchas feeschedulesatthegolffacility. On-SiteManagement BFGCismanagedon-sitebyaCity-employedRecreationCoordinator,whiletwoseparate privatecontractors(contractsduetoexpireonJune30,2015)areresponsibleforthegolfshop concessionandgolfcoursemaintenance.Inaddition,theCityleasesoutthe“clubhouse” building,whichcomprisestheBluePheasantRestaurant.Theassociatedrevenuesfromthe restaurantleasearenotincludedintheGolfEnterpriseFund. GolfShopConcessionandGolfLessons(JeffPiserchioGolfShop) GolfCourseMaintenanceAgreement(ProfessionalTurfManagementIncorporated) 60 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–33 Inadditiontothefull-timeRecreationCoordinator,whomanagesthefacility,thereare6part- timeworkersthatareCityemployees,butwithnobenefits.Theirpayrateisbetween$11and $13perhour. ContractsinPlace Asnotedearlier,BFGCismanagedon-sitebyaCityemployeeonsite,whiletwoseparate privatecontractors(contractsduetoexpireonJune30,2015)responsibleforthegolfshop concessionandgolfcoursemaintenance.Inaddition,theCityleasesoutthe“clubhouse” building,whichcomprisestheBluePheasantRestaurant.Theassociatedrevenuesarenot includedintheGolfEnterpriseFund. GolfShopConcessionandGolfLessons(JeffPiserchioGolfShop) GolfCourseMaintenanceAgreement(ProfessionalTurfManagementIncorporated) Asummaryofkeycontracttermsandvendorresponsibilitiesfollows: GolfProfessionalServices TheBlackberryFarmGolfCoursegolfshopandgolflessonsprofessionalservicesagreementis structuredasaconsultingcontractagreementwithJeffPiserchioGolfShop,andwasentered intoJuly1,2014.Theone-yearagreementexpiresonJune30,2015. Thekeyelementsofthegolfprofessionalservicesagreementinclude: CitypaysJeffPiserchoGolfShop abasicfeeof$45,000or$23.44perhournotto exceed$3,750permonth. JeffPiserchioGolfShoppaysthecity: 15%ofallgrossreceiptsderivedfromgolfmerchandise,golfdrivingcage andsnackconcessions 20%ofallreceiptsfromgolflessons Responsibilities –Exclusiverighttooperategolfshopconcessionandgolflessons services.ConcessionaireServicesinclude: Golfmerchandiseduties Drivingcageduties Snackduties Golflessonduties ProvidesupportandassisttheCitystaffwithcustomerserviceresponsibilities GolfMerchandiseDuties –OperatetheGolfShopandmanagethesale,pricing, andinventoryofgolfmerchandise;keepdailyaccountingofallproceedsgenerated fromthesaleofmerchandiseandforwardsuchaccountingonamonthlybasistothe City.Provideaseparatecashregisterforrecordingsales;andberesponsibleforall local,stateandfederaltaxeswithregardtothegolfmerchandise. GolfLessonsDuties –Providegolflessons.Lessonsshouldaddressindividuals andgroupsasneeded.AlllessonsshouldbetaughtonparwithPGAindustry standards. DrivingCageDuties –Operatethegolfdrivingcageforpublicpracticeand instruction;keepdailyaccountingforallproceedsandforwardsuchaccountingona monthlybasistotheCity;makeanyimprovementsormodificationstodrivingcage priortostartofworkandmaintainthecageinasafecondition. 61 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–34 SnackDuties –JeffPiserchioGolfShopshallprovideandsellpre-packagedfood andcannedbeverageitemsfortheconvenienceofthegolfingpublic.Itemsshallnot competewithfoodandcannedbeverageitemssoldattheBluePheasant Restaurant.Keepadailyaccountingofallproceedsandforwardsuchaccountings onamonthlybasistotheCity.Responsibleforalllocal,stateandfederaltaxeswith regardtothesnacksandbeverageitems. OtherConsultantServices –JeffPiserchioGolfShopagreestoprovidesupport andassisttheCitystaffwithcustomerserviceresponsibilities. GeneralResponsibilities includethefollowing: Insurance–JeffPiserchioGolfShopshallmustobtainandmaintainworkers comp,liabilityandautomotiveinsuranceoutlinedintheagreement. RecordkeepingandInspection–JeffPiserchioGolfShopshallmaintain completeandaccuraterecordswithrespecttosales,costs,expenses, receiptsandothersuchinformationrequiredbyCitythatrelatetothe performanceofservicesunderthisAgreement.JeffPiserchioGolfShopshall providethecityfreeaccesstobooksandrecordsandallowinspectionofall work,data,documents,proceedingsandactivitiesrelatedtotheagreement. MustdelivertotheCityastatementshowingthetotalamountsofmoney collectedfromservicesonorbeforethe25th ofeachmonth. Termination–TheCitymayterminatetheagreementforanyreasonbygivingthirty days’priorwrittennoticetoConsultant.Eachpartyshallpaytotheotherpartythat portionofcompensationspecifiedintheAgreementthatisearnedandunpaidprior totheeffectivedateoftermination. NGFfindsthatthegolfprofessionalservicesagreementcontainsmanyfeatures,characteristics, responsibilities,andoversightmechanismsthatarecommoningolfcourseconcession agreementswithmunicipalities. GolfCourseMaintenanceAgreement TheBFGCmaintenanceagreementisstructuredviaanindependentcontractoragreementwith ProfessionalTurfManagementIncorporated.TheoriginalagreementwasawardedonMarch 16,2010fora2yearterm.ThecontractbeganJuly1,2010endedJuly1,2012,andhasbeen extendedforthepastthreeyears,forapossible5yearstotalendingonJuly1,2015. Thekeyelementsofthegolfcoursemaintenanceagreementinclude: Compensation –TheCitypaidProfessionalTurfManagementIncorporated $173,820,or$14,485per(12)monthformaintenanceservices,plus$600annually or$50per(12)monthforsoilsamplecollectionandtesting.Oneyearextensionfor nomorethanatotaloffiveyearscontainsthesameprovisionsoftheoriginal contract.ThefifthyearofthefiveyearserviceagreementwasapprovedonJune26, 2014attheamountof$187,280. Misc.Agreement:MajorequipmentandmaterialmustbesuppliedbySierraPacific TurfSupply Maintenanceagreementsareperhapsthemostdifficultintermsofcomparingcontractprices duetotheintricaciesoftheindividualgolfcourseproperties,andsomevariationsin responsibilities.Theoverridingvariablethatcomesintoplayindeterminingcontractpriceisthe projectedcostoflabor.Afterthecostoflaborisprojected,therestofthebudgetisdetermined byputtingcertainvariablesandspecifications,includingacreage(determinedbyGPS technologywiththelargercompanies),costofgoodsandsupplies,andfrequencyofspecific maintenancetasksintoaformulathatcomputesthenon-laborcosts.Oncethecontractpriceis 62 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–35 agreedupon,languagewilloftenbeincludedthatcapsthecompany’sexposureonunexpected orextraordinaryrepaircosts,suchasthoserelatedtoirrigationandmaintenanceequipment(if municipalityowns).Typically,thecostofutilitiesremainswiththemunicipality,andsome companieswillalsorestrictarborcaretoremovingortrimminglowhangingbranches. RecentOperatingResults BFGCisoperatingasapublicgolfcourse,withthepredominanceofCityrevenuegenerated fromgolfgreenfees.Asummaryofrecentroundsplayedactivity,revenue,andexpenses providedbytheCityispresentedinthefollowingtable. 63 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–36 BlackberryGolfCourse ProfitandLoss FiscalYearJuly-June Actuals 2008-2009 Actuals 2009-2010 Actuals 2010-2011 Actuals 2011-2012 Actuals 2012-2013 Actuals 2013-2014 RoundsofGolf 49,194 42,985 33,751 31,567 29,893 24,594 PerRoundRevenues Green FeeRevenuePerRound $14.82 $12.91 $12.77 $12.50 $12.73 $11.77 RentalsperRound $0.41 $0.33 $0.45 $0.52 $0.59 $0.48 OperatingCostsPerRound $11.79 $10.64 $13.49 $14.59 $15.96 $23.12 Sources InvestmentEarnings $11,981 $3,764 $6,166 $914 $2,185 $763 Rentals $17,232 $14,289 $15,092 $16,358 $17,125 $11,861 GreenFees(2)$623,540 $554,502 $432,646 $394,711 $369,628 $290,609 Misc.$0 ($22)$59 ($14)$0 $0 TotalSources $652,753 $572,533 $453,963 $411,969 $388,938 $303,233 OperatingExpenses Personnel $123,997 $129,821 $136,393 $144,079 $143,450 $181,364 Materials&Supplies $13,081 $14,386 $18,474 $10,003 $13,191 $12,828 WaterUsage $82,425 $56,494 $61,102 $69,523 $50,960 $50,897 Services $273,277 $255,530 $240,158 $232,940 $233,492 $252,468 Other $3,085 $938 $938 $4,153 $22,242 $21,107 Newcostallocation(1)$52,337 SubtotalOperating $495,865 $457,169 $457,065 $460,698 $463,335 $571,001 Capital Outlays FacilityImprovements $0 $0 $5,770 $1,048 $0 $0 TotalExpenditures $495,865 $457,169 $462,835 $461,746 $463,335 $571,001 NetRevenue&Expenses $156,888 $115,364 ($8,872)($49,777)($74,397)($267,768) GeneralFundSubsidy $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $230,000 OperatingBalance $156,888 $115,364 $391,128 ($49,777)($74,397)($37,768) (1)ImplementedFY13/14 (2)City:Decreaseingreenfee revenuesrepresentboth economicdeclineandlowerplayduetothecreekrestoration projectadjacenttothe8thand9thholeduringtheperiodofsummer2013throughspring2014 64 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–37 TotalroundsplayedatBFGC(refertoAppendixA)haveplummetedoverthelastsix fiscalyears,decliningbyabout50%from49,194inFY09to24,594inFY14. Managementattributesmuchofthedeclinetotheoveralldeclininghealthofthelocal golfmarket,agingcourseinfrastructure,andattritioninoldercustomers,thoughthe decreasesinthelastcoupleofyearsarealsotiedtothecreekrestorationwork. Aswouldbeexpected,totalgreenfeerevenueshavealsofallensharplyoverthat timeframe,frommorethan$623,000tounder$291,000,adeclineof53.4%.Total revenuesfortheFY09throughFY14perioddecreasedfromabout$653,000tojust $303,000.(Thesefiguresdonotincludeconcessionpayments,whichtotaledabout $4,800inFY14). Greenfeerevenueperrounddeclinedbynearly$2betweenFY09andFY10,held steadyatabout±$12.75forfouryears,andthenfellagainbynearlya$1inFY14. Themostrecentdecreaseisattributabletotheneedtosellmoreroundsindiscount categories. Whileroundsplayedyear-over-yearareupabout25%inthefirstquarterofFY15, thepercentageofdiscountedroundscontinuestogrow,withmorethan30%oftotal roundsaccountedforbyGolfnowtradeandpaidrounds,plusGrouponroundsand otherdeals.Thishasfurthererodedgreenfeerevenueperround,whichwas$11.56 throughSeptember. Totalfull-feecashrounds(resident+non-resident)declinedfromabout52%oftotal playinFY09to42%ofplayinFY14.ThroughthefirstquarterofFY15,this percentagehasfallentolessthan36%,furtherindicationofincreaseduseof discounting. TotaloperatingexpenseactuallydeclinedatBFGCbymorethan$32,000between FY09andFY13,beforeincreasingbymorethan23%inFY14.Themainculprits wereanew“CostAllocation”chargeof$52,000,a26%increaseinPersonnelcosts resultingfroma25%allocationoftheRecreationSupervisor’ssalary/benefitstothe GolfFund,andanincreaseinServicesduetoanew“contingencies”lineitemthat wasnearly$32,000.Overall,Citypersonnelcostshaverisenby46%sinceFY09. Golfoperationsexpenseisbudgetedtoincreasebyabout$85,000inFY14, attributabletofurtherincreasesinpersonnelcosts,costallocationincreasingby morethan$19,000andnon-recurringfacilitiesimprovementexpenseof$37,000. Asaresultofdecreasingrevenuesandrisingexpenses(inFY14),totalCitynet incomeafterallexpenseshasfallenfromapositive$157,000inFY09toadeficitof about$268,000inFY14. 65 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–38 Likemanymunicipalitiesthatoperategolffacilities,theCityofCupertinohasaprogramfor assessingthegolfcourseforcertainservicesprovidedbyotherCitydepartments.‘Cost Allocation’wasfirstchargedtotheGolfFundinFY2012-13,when$52,000wascharged.This figureisbudgetedatmorethan$70,000forFY15,andrepresentsasignificant11%ofthegolf operationbudget(excludingnon-recurringchargeforfacilityimprovements),andmorethan 23%ofFY14facilityrevenues. Allocatedchargesareoftenapointofcontentionforthosemunicipalstaffchargedwithensuring thatgolfoperationsremaineconomicallyviable.Acommoncontentionisthattheamount chargedmaynotfullyrepresent"marketrate”fortheservicesrendered.ItisdifficultforNGFto appropriatelyestimatethe“truevalue”oftheseservicesduringourconsultingengagements,but wefindthattheamountsaretypicallyhigherthanwhataprivately-ownedgolfcoursewouldpay forcomparableservicessuchasfinancial,accounting,legal,custodial,IT,administration,etc. Ingeneral,theNGFrecommendsthattheservicesbechargedatarateascloseto“market”as canbeestablished.Thatistosaythatthegolfcourseshouldnotbechargedfortheseservices ataratethatwouldbehigherthanwouldhavetobepaidfortheservicesifacquiredthrough privatesourcesontheopenmarket. GreenFees Acompletescheduleofgolfcoursefeesisincludedin AppendixB.Greenfeesroseby$2per categoryforbothresidentsandnon-residentsonJuly1,2010.Therehavebeennosubsequent changestotheschedule.Residentweekday9-hole‘rack’greenfeesnowstandat$15,with weekendandholidayratesat$17.Correspondingreplayratesare$9and$11.Fornon- residents,feesare$2higher.Juniorsandseniorsreceive$1off,weekdaysonly. Golferscanalsogetdiscountedplaybypurchasingmulti-playpasses(incrementsof10,upto 50)andunlimitedplaypasses(5-dayand7-day),availableonbothanannualandsemi-annual basis.Anannualpassforaresidentcosts$1,175,whilenon-residentspay$1,315.For residents,assuminga$16averagedailygreenfee,thebreak-evenamountofroundsonthe annualpassis73.Laterinthecompetitivereviewsectionofthisreport,wewillputBFGCfees incontextofmarketcomparables. 66 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–39 Marketing&Programming TheCityspendsverylittlemarketingBlackberryFarmsGC,atleastinpartduetothecurrent qualityoftheproduct.Muchofthecurrentmarketingisfocusedonofferingdiscountedratesof playandfoodpurchases(25%offforgolfersinBluePheasant).Belowisasummaryofrecent marketinginitiatives: GolfNowonlineteetimes-YTDrevenueofabout$11,000throughlatesummer. Groupon–384dealsredeemed(62%)throughlatesummer,resultingin$13,400in revenue.Approximately33%werenewtoBFGC,whileanotherthirdwerecurrent customers.Thefacilityenjoyedaveryhigh99%“wouldrecommend”rating. PrintandDirectMailAdvertising: CupertinoRecreationandCommunityServicesDepartment–quarterly citywidedirectmailpiecetoresidentsfeaturedfullpageGrandRe-opening adthatincluded$2offcoupon. CupertinoRecreationandCommunityServicesInformationbooklet: o Fullpagelisting(includesrates,golflessonrates,contactinfo,basiccourseinfo. o 3Couponsoffered 25%offfoodatBluePheasant $26Oneadult&OneJunior-Cupertinoresidentrate $30OneAdult&oneJunior-Non-residentsrate 2014ValueBook: o Coupon:2for1GreenFees Club19Golf&TravelClub–Golfer’sEntertainmentGuide o Coupon:Two2for1roundson18holesorfour2for1roundson9holes Website–TheBFGCwebsitehttp://blackberryfarmgolfcourse.com/index.htmlis poweredby“GolfChannel”andispartofthefacility’sagreementwithGolfNow.Itisa basic,functional(haslinktoGolfNowteetimebookingengine,signupforemailclub, golfcoursedescription,photos,etc.)websitethatwewouldexpecttoseeforan alternativelengthgolfcourseatthisfeeandrevenuelevel.The“ProShop”linkis underconstructionatthiswriting.TheCityalsoincludesbasicinformationaboutthe golfcourseintheRecreation&CommunityServicessection. Email–Managementhasbuiltadatabaseofregularcustomeremails,andhas accesstotheGolfNowdatabaseofabout1,000addresses. ProgrammingatBFGCisconstrainedsomewhatduetothenatureofthegolfcourse andthelimitedpracticeamenities.However,PGAlessonsareavailablethroughJeff Piserchio.Additionally,thefacilitydoeshaveseveralsmallleaguesandclubs, includingtheBluePheasantHackersGolfLeague,theTuesdayNightHackers (open),theCupertinoSeniors,andtheSaratogaSeniors.BFGCalsoparticipatesin YouthonCourse,apopularandhighlysuccessfulNorthernCaliforniaGolf Associationprogramthatresultsinsubsidizedgolfforjuniors. StructureConsiderations AssumingtheCitycontinuestoownandrunBFGC,thereareseveraloptionstoconsider regardingoperatingstructure.Theexistingcompriseson-siteCitymanagement,withseparate concessionsfortheproshopandgolfcoursemaintenance.Belowwepresentasummaryof 67 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–40 somecommonmunicipalgolfoperatingstructures.Eachoftheseoptionshasadvantagesand disadvantages. Self-Operation:Cityself-operationwouldmeanthatALLemployeesandmanagers aredirectemployeesoftheCity.ThemainadvantageisthattheCityretainstotal controloverthefacilityanditsoperation,andwouldself-fundallneeded improvements(asitdoestoday).Thebiggestdisadvantageofthisstructureisthat employeeswouldbecomesubjecttoCitylaborpoliciesandbenefits.Giventhe highercostofbenefitstoCityemployees,theresultingpayrollwouldlikelydeepen operatingdeficitsatBlackberryFarm. ConcessionAgreementsorPersonalServicesContract:APersonalServices Contractisverysimilartothemanagementcontract(seebelow),withtheexception thatthevendorisanindividualasopposedtoacompany.Aconcessioncontractis similarandcanfunctionmorelikealeaseagreement.Inaddition,whileapersonal servicescontractisoftennarrowerinscope(oftencoveringonlysomeofgolf operations),itcanalsobecomprehensiveandincludeoperations,food&beverage, andmaintenance.Althoughapersonalservicescontractcouldbejustforthe servicesoftheindividual,thecontractcouldalsobestructuredtowherethe employeesoftheoperationbecomeemployeesofthecontractor.TheCitycurrently operateswithmultipleconcessionaires,butretainson-siteCitymanagement. Full-ServiceManagementContract:Aprofessionalgolfmanagementcompany operatesallaspectsofthegolfcourse.Thisstructurecancomeinseveralformsand includecombinationsofallareasofoperationasnotedwithconcessions.The greatestadvantageofthesearrangementsisshiftingtheoperationtoaqualified third-partywhowillcontroltheoperationandemployallstaffdirectly.Many managementcompanies,includingthelargenationalcompaniesthathavemany municipalcontracts,generallyimplementmarketing,training,agronomic,pricing,and purchasingprogramsthathaveproventrackrecords.Also,whentransitioningfrom anoperationthatisfullystaffedwithpublicemployees,thelaborcostsavingscanbe substantial. Thegreatestdisadvantageofthisoptionisthatoperationalriskremainswiththe municipality.Themunicipalityisresponsibleforpayingthemanagementfeetothe operatorprovidedalltermsoftheagreementarebeingmet,evenifthegolfcourse financialperformancedoesnotimprove.Thesecontractsworkbestwhentheyare incentive-based.Ideally,themunicipalitywillcreatean“alignmentofinterests”so thatifthemanagementcompanyisdoingwell,theCityisdoingwellandviceversa. OperatingLease:Thegolfcourse(s)couldbeleasedtoaprivategolfcompany(or individual),whowouldberesponsibleforalloperatingexpensesaswellascapital upkeep.Theleasecanbestructuredtoprovideanannualleasepaymenttothe municipality,andtheleasecouldbeestablishedtoincludecertainlessee requirements,includingcapitalinvestmentinfacilityimprovements,maintenance standardsand/orrestrictionsregardinggreenfees.Theadvantageofthisstructureis theremovaloftheCityfromtheday-to-dayoperationandtheshiftingofrisktothe operator. Thekeydisadvantageisthelossofcontrolintheoperationandthegrowingdifficulty infindingaqualifiedvendorwillingtoaccepttherisk,especiallywhenthereisa historyofnegativecashflowsand/orlarge-scalecapitalinvestmentisrequired.Other disadvantagesincludelimitationsonfinancing(probablynotcompatiblewith Municipalbonds),long-termcontracts,andmaintainingappropriatecontract compliance. 68 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–41 HybridContract:Ahybridcontractcombinessomeoftheadvantagesofalease withthoseofamanagementcontract.Theseareusuallyofshorterterm(5+/-years) thanaleaseandshouldincludeabroaderprogramofrevenuesharing(alsorisk sharing).Hybridcontractstypicallydonotincludelarge-scalecapitalimprovementon thepartofthevendor,butsomemanagementcompaniesmaybewillingtoinclude someofthecapitalimprovementrecommendationscontainedinthisreportin exchangeforalonger-termcontractandhighermanagementfees.Theadvantages anddisadvantagestothehybridcontractarebasicallythesameasthemanagement contract,exceptthatthearrangementisgenerallymoreflexibleandprovidesfora greatersharingofrevenuesandassumptionofriskbytheoperator. 69 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–42 StevensCreekCorridorMasterPlan–Golf CourseOptions InthissectionweprovideasummaryoftwoconceptualplanoptionspreparedbyNGFandForrest Richardson,ASGCAfortheBlackberryFarmsGolfCourse.Theseoptionswillbeconsideredaspart oftheoverallStevensCreekCorridorMasterPlanbeingpreparedbyMIG,Inc.Preliminarycost estimatesareincluded. NGFConsultingwastaskedwithstudyingthepotentialtoimprovethegolffacilityinoneoftwo approaches;(a)torenovatethefacilityinitscurrentfootprint,and(b)reconfigurethefacilityintoa smallerfootprint.Thealternativetoceaseoperatingthegolffacilitywasnotapartofourscope,but fallstoworkMIGisconductingonbehalfoftheCity. Insummary,therearethreealternativeswithregardtothegolfcourse: (a)Renovateusingthecurrentfootprint (b)Reconfigureontoasmallerfootprint (c)Convertthegolfcoursetoanalternativeuse Accordingly,wehavetitledourproposedalternativeplans“ConceptualPlanA”and“Conceptual PlanB”.Theseplansaresummarizedbelow(illustrationsandpreliminarycostestimatesarein AppendixC)andformthebasisofproformaanalysisandnarratives. OPTIONA ConceptualPlanSummary The‘OptionA’ConceptualPlancreatesslightadjustmentstotheroutingoftheexistinggolfcourse. ThesechangesoccuratHoleNos.1and9whereseparationiscurrentlyverytightandconflicts occurbetweenplayontheholes.Additionally,HoleNo.9(existing)isveryclosetopracticeareas andtheexistingparkinglot.Theadjustmentshelpovercometheseissuesandrenderabetter relationshipbetweenholesandtheclubhouse/parkingareas. Allothergolfholesarefullyrebuiltandrenovatedwithexpandedgreens,rebuiltsandbunkersand newdrainagethroughout.TheseimprovementsarenotdepictedontheConceptualPlan“A”exhibit, butareaccountedforwithinthecorrespondingprobablecostestimate. Under‘OptionA’,theexistingclubhouse/proshopandparkingareretainedintheircurrentlocation. NGFConsultingrecommendssignificantrenovationorreplacementoftheagingproshopand restaurantstructure.Itisourunderstandingthatportionsoftheexistingbuildingarelocatedwithin knownfloodplainsandthattherearesignificantdeferredmaintenanceissuesthroughoutthefacility. TheexistingmaintenancefacilityisretainedinitspresentlocationunderOptionA.Aproposed irrigationwaterstoragetankislocatednearthisareaandisdepictedwithaconceptualelevation. 70 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–43 UnderOption‘A’portionsofthecurrentturffootprintwouldbeconvertedtonativegrass.Bilfiltration basins(lowlands)wouldgenerallyfollowthecurrentareaofabandonedpondsthatarelocatedtothe westernedgeofthegolfcourse.Thesewouldbere-plantedwithappropriatenativegrasses. HallmarksofOptionAinclude: Fullyrebuiltgolfcourse PolesandnettingareretainedexceptthatalongHoleNo.9,whichpotentiallycouldbe removed ShortergolfholesatHoleNos.1and9permitpracticeareaadditionsandofferbetter separation Newirrigationsystemwithelevated“farm”storagetank Biofiltrationbasins(lowlandnativeareas)tocapturerunoff Shortgameandplayerdevelopmentareafornewgolfersandtraining Eight(8)hittingbaysforinstruction,fittingandpractice 1,430-yard,par-29course(slightlyshorterthanexisting) NGFConsultingenvisionsthatthelayoutmaybeappropriateforFootGolfuses.Holesforbothgolf andoffsetlargerholesforFootGolfmaybeaccommodatedonthecourse. PlanOptionArepresentsarenovatedBlackberryFarmGolfCoursewithfullyre-builtfeaturesand newturf,drainageandirrigation.Theoptiondoes not freeupspaceforparkimprovementsoranew parkentrydrive.Essentially,thegolfcourseretainsiscurrentfootprintwiththeproshop,restaurant andmaintenanceusesremaininggenerallyintheircurrentlocations. AprobablecostestimatewaspreparedforOptionA.Thisestimateisjustover$2millionforgolf courseconstructionandanewirrigationsystem(includingthewaterstoragetank).Additional estimatesareshownforcontingencyandsoftcosts.Theprobablecostestimatedoes not include razingorrenovationoftheexistinggolfbuilding.Thesecosts,whicharenotdetermined,require furtherstudyincontexttooverallprojectplanningandapproaches. ConstructiondurationforOptionAisestimatedtoextendonefullyear,ideallyfromMarchtoMarch ofthefollowingcalendaryear.Constructiontimemaybeacceleratedbyaddingcosttotheproject andfullysoddingturf(in-play)areas.NGFConsultingrecommendsfurtherstudytodeterminethe benefitsofanacceleratedscheduleandwhethermorecostwouldresultinlessrevenuelossduring downtime.Somegrow-incostshavebeenassumedintheprobablecostestimate,butitislikelythat additionalcostsmayberequired.Thisbecomesamatterofhowmuchgrow-inresponsibilityis assignedtothegolfcontractorvs.theCity’sgolfmaintenancecontractor. OPTIONB ConceptualPlanSummary TheOptionBConceptualPlantransformstheexistinggolfcourseintoashorterpar-3layout.Tight holewidthsareeliminatedandthefullyrebuiltgolfcourseisreconfiguredwithmodernsafetyset- backsandappropriateseparationbetweenadjoininggolfholes. Theexistingclubhouse/proshopandcurrentHoleNos.1and9areremovedfromthegolffootprint. AnewproshopandgrillisshownontheconceptualplanintheareaoftheexistingRetreatBuilding. 71 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–44 Iffeasible,weproposethemaintenancefacilityberelocatedwestofitspresentlocation,nearto other“backofhouse”andparkmaintenanceareas. OptionBallowsforanewparkandgolfentrydriveextendingfromStevensCreekRoadtothe south,eliminatingparktrafficfromtheresidentialareastothesouth.Thealignmentforthenewentry stayseastoftheexistingtreedriplineborderingStevensCreek.Theentrydrivemaybe accommodatedwithnominaldisruptionofexistingparking,ormaycallforfullyreconfiguredparking. Thisdetailistobedeterminedpendingfurtherstudyforthepark,poolandpublicuseswestofthe golfcoursearea.TheplanwasdevelopedinconcertwithMIGaspartoftheoverallmasterplanning andparkstudy. Abenefitofthereducedfootprintofthegolfcourse(approximately15acresreducedto12acres)is thatadditionalareasaremadeavailableforfutureparkuses.Theseusesmayincludeparkingatthe northarea,immediatelysouthofStevensCreekRoad. HallmarksofOptionBinclude: Fullyrebuiltgolfcourse Allgolfcoursepolesandnettingareeliminated(trailsidenettingremains) Shortergolfholeswithlesserrantballstooutsideareas Newirrigationsystemwithelevated“farm”storagetank Biofiltrationbasins(lowlandnativeareas)tocapturerunoff Shortgameandplayerdevelopmentareafornewgolfersandtraining Eight(8)hittingbaysforinstruction,fittingandpractice 1,035-yard,par-27course Returning“loops”allowingplayof3-,6-and9-holerounds Elevatedteesatfourholes Relocatedproshopandgrillprovideslongviewsacrossparkandgolfareas NewparkandgolfentryroadfromStevensCreekBoulevard NGFConsultingalsoenvisionstheshorterlayoutasbeingpotentiallybeingsufficientforFootGolf uses.HolesforbothgolfandoffsetlargerholesforFootGolfmaybeaccommodatedonthe reconfiguredgolfcourse,thoughthiswillhavetobestudiedfurther. Theaccompanyingplan(Option“B”ConceptualPlan)depictsdetailtoindicateuses,golfareasand thenewentrydrive.Abriefdescriptionofgolfholesisprovidedbelow: Hole1 …Elevatedteesbegintheroundwithanorth-facingview.Thegreenisalarge,doublegreen servingbothHoles1and9.Theconceptualplancallsfor“punchbowl”greenthatisdepressedwith surroundingmoundsforminga“bowl”contour. Hole2 …Theholeisashortshottoanislandgreensurroundedbythelowlandareatotheleftwith sandbunkersencirclingtheelevatedputtingsurface. Hole3 …Theteeshotisplayedamediumlengthtoaboomerangshapedgreenthatissetamongst maturetrees.ThegreenisaBiarritz-type,definedbyalowswaleextendingthroughthemidportion withhighertiersatthefrontandrear. 72 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–45 Hole4 …Theholeisastraightawayshottoabottleneckshapedgreen.Thealignmentisthesame asexistingHoleNo.2oftheoriginalcourse. Hole5 …TheteeshotisplayeduphilltothesamegreensiteasexistingHoleNo.2oftheoriginal course.Theuphillorientationcontraststotheotherholes,providinginterestanddiversityinshot typesandterrain. Hole6 …Roughlyaremakeoftheoriginalcourse’sHoleNo.3.Theholeflanksthesouthernedge ofthegolfcourse,playingalongtheupperslopewithviewstothenorthandwest. Hole7 …WithsharedteestoHoleNo.1,No.7playstoalargegreen.Shotscanrangefrom40 yardsto9yardsdependingonteeandholeplacement.Definingthisholearevariouspocketsand plateausatthegreen Hole8 …Thelongestoftheholes,theteesareslightlyelevatedandplayroughlytothesiteofthe originalNo4hole. Hole9 …PlayingacrossanativeareatothedoublegreensharedwithHoleNo.1,thefinishinghole ofthenineholesdefinedbyalargemoundtotheleft.Thisfeaturepartiallyhidesthegreensurface, makingapproachesinteresting. TheoverridinggoalindevelopingthereconfiguredBlackberryFarmGolfCoursewastoestablisha funandenjoyablegolfexperience.Purposefully,bothtoreducethegolffootprint(conservingwater use)andtoreduceroundtimes,thepar-3holelengthsareshort,yetvariable.Playerswillbeableto hitshotsrangingfrom175-yardstounder100-yards. Inadditionto9-holerounds,playmaybeofferedat3-holeand6-hole“loops”byusingvarious combinationsofholes.Forexample,theNo.6holereturnstotheproshopareaandmaybeplayed asa6-holeloop.Othercombinationsare:1,2,9…7,8,3,4,5,6…and7,8,9. AprobablecostestimatewaspreparedforOptionB.Thisestimateisjustunder$2millionforgolf courseconstructionandirrigation(includingthewaterstoragetank).Additionalestimatesareshown forcontingencyandsoftcosts.Theprobablecostestimatedoes not includerazingtheexistinggolf building,norreconstructionofthegolfproshopandgrill.Thesecosts,whicharenotdetermined, requirefurtherstudyincontexttotheoverallparkusesandpotentialthatthisbuildingmayserveas ageneralCommunityBuildingwithonlyancillaryusesbythegolffacility. Theprobablecostestimate does accountforrelocationoftheexistinggolfmaintenancebuilding. Theconceptualplanshowsthisstructurerelocatedtoamore“back-of-house”areaofthepark.NGF Consultingrecommendsthatconsiderationbemadetopotentiallyintegrateotherparkmaintenance tothisrelocatedfacility,thusreducingoffsitetravelbyparkmaintenanceequipmentandpersonnel whonowstoreandgobackandforthtoremotemaintenancefacilities. ConstructiondurationforOptionBisestimatedtoextendonefullyear,ideallyfromMarchtoMarch ofthefollowingcalendaryear.Constructiontimemaybeacceleratedbyaddingcosttotheproject andfullysoddingturf(in-play)areas.NGFConsultingrecommendsfurtherstudytodeterminethe benefitsofanacceleratedscheduleandwhethermorecostwouldresultinlessrevenuelossduring downtime.Somegrow-incostshavebeenassumedintheprobablecostestimate,butitislikelythat additionalcostsmayberequired.Thisbecomesamatterofhowmuchgrow-inresponsibilityis assignedtothegolfcontractorvs.theCity’sgolfmaintenancecontractor. 73 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–46 CONSIDERATIONS&RECOMMENDATION Whenweighingtherelativemeritsofthetwoconceptualplans,NGFtookaccountofsomeofthe followingkeyconsiderations. RevenueEnhancements AreaswhereNGFseesapotentialtoenhancerevenueinclude: NewPracticeAreas(toattractmoreuseandintroducenewplayerstogolf) ProvideTopQuality(greenssurfaces,turfconditions,etc.) Integratefoodandbeveragetogolfuses,andopenthesetopark-goers IntegrateFootGolfoverlaystobringnon-golferstothefacility CostEfficiencies AreaswhereNGFseesapotentialtoreduceorreprioritizecostsassociatedwiththegolffacilities include: ReduceManagedTurfFootprint(tosaveonwatercostandfocusmaintenanceeffort) WaterSourceConversion(tolowerwatercost) ReplaceAgingInfrastructure(toreduceannualcapitalcostsonemergencyrepairs) BalanceofLandUse InstudyinganddevelopingalternativesfortheCity,wehaveweighedthevalueofoperatinga 1,400-yard,par-29golfcoursevs.ashorter,allpar-3course.Whiletheremaytypicallybea differenceinattractionandusebetweenan“ExecutiveCourse”anda“Par-3”course,theexisting courseissoclosetobeingapar-3layout(andmaywellhavebeenwhenRobertMuirGraves originallydesignedit)thatweseenomajordistinctioninattraction(orrevenue)betweenthesetwo typesoflayouts.Infact,anargumentforanall-par-3coursecouldbemadethatitis(1)more suitableeventothecurrentlysmallacreage,(2)wouldbemoreopenandlesscongested,and(3) couldprovetobemorefunforawiderdiversityofgolfingabilities. However,inordertocomparethisapproach,wealsostudyandforecastfor“ConceptualPlanA”.In thisoptionthecurrentfootprintispreserved,asarethelocationsforclubhouse,parkingand maintenance. EnvironmentalOrientation Bothoptionsprovidedorientthegolftoamorenaturalizedlandscape.Byconvertingtheoldpond areastobiofiltrationbasins,andbyreducingturfthroughoutthecourselayout,lesswaterisrequired andmaintenancecanbeaimedatgreens,teesandplayableareasofturf.Theadditionalbenefitisa morepleasingaesthetic,andonethatcorrespondsbettertothenaturalareasoftheStevensCreek valley. Buildings&PublicUses Considerablethoughtwasgiventoreuseandconversionofexistingbuildingsandspaces.As evidentinbothplanoptions,certainusesareeitherpreservedinplaceorrelocated.Theseare describedinthesummariesforeachconceptualplan. 74 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–47 ExistingClubhouseandRestaurant:NGFConsultingdoesnotrecommendcontinueduseofthis structureinitspresentconditionandformat.In“ConceptualPlanA”,whileweshowthearea remaining,itisouropinionthatthebuildingmustbeentirelyrenovatedorrebuilt.Ideally,a replacement(orrenovation)wouldconverttheusestoamoreintegratedprogrammingwheregolfers cantakeadvantageoffoodandbeverage,parkgoerscanfeelcomfortableinthespace,andthe neighborhoodwillalsowanttobeapartoftheoffering.Under“ConceptualPlanB”weshowthis areaasfutureusefortheparkasexpandedparking. ExistingRetreatHouse:NGF,workingwithMIG,recommendsunder“ConceptualPlanB”thatthis siteberepurposedtohouseasharedpublicgrillandclubhousewithmeetingspace.Whileno specificplanispresented,aconceptualbuildingfootprintandsiteareaisshownon“Conceptual PlanB”.Wenotethatviewsandorientationofthissitearefarbetterthanthepresentclubhouse. Demolitionofthishouse,andreuseofthesite,requiresfurtherstudyandanalysisbytheCity. ExistingMaintenanceFacility:NGFrecommendsthatthisbuildingberelocatedunder“Conceptual PlanB”.Inascertainingthefeasibilityforthiswecontactedtheoriginalbuilderwhoprovidedbase budgetsfornewsitework,relocationandfinishing(interiorandutilities.)Ananalysisinmoredetail shouldbemadetodeterminewhetherotherparkmaintenanceoperationsmaybeabletobe integratedandsharedwithgolfmaintenance.ThismayproveefficientfortheCityandcouldsave cost. ParkAccess:Parkaccessviaanewentrydrivefromthenorthappearstobeamajorimprovement thatcouldprovebeneficialtotheCity,itsparkusersandneighbors.Obviouslythisisaffordedonlyin “ConceptualPlanB”asthereisnoroomtoadequatelymanageaccesswhilekeepingtheexisting golffootprint. Parking:Parkingunder“ConceptualPlanA”isretainedandthoughttobeadequateforgolfusesand apotentialrestaurant/clubhouseconceptthatmaybedevelopedtoreplacewhatexistsnow.Under “ConceptualPlanB”weenvisiontransferringparkingfromexistingareastothesouthtothearea nowoccupiedbygolfandrestaurantparking.Newparkingintheareaoftheexistingparkingforthe BlackberryFarmpoolandpicnicareawouldalsobeaddedtothedegreenecessary.Furtherstudy onthetransferandrequiredparkingneedsisrecommended. WaterSourceConversion(Assumptions) Inordertoprovideforecastsforwateruseandcost,Mr.RichardsonworkedwithRussellD.Mitchell &Associates,whichhaspreparedaschematicredesignoftheirrigationsystemforBlackberryFarm GC.Whilethisplanmaynolongerbepertinent(toalternativeplansofthisreport)wecandeduct waterusageandestimatereducedusagewithlessturfbeingirrigatedfrompreviouscalculationsby Mitchell. Currentwateruseisroughly35a.f.peryear(1a.f.=326,000gal.x35=11,410,000gal./yr.)aftera 20%reductionimposedontheCityin2014.Additionalreductionshavebeenself-imposed,bringing annualreductionstonearly30%ofpreviousyears.Roughly11milliongallonsarenowabaselinein termsofwateruseatthecurrentfacility. AccordingtothewellreportprovidedbytheCity,theexistingandavailablewellislikelytoproduce 166GPMor49,800gallonsduringa5-hourwateringwindow.Thewellwillproducemoreifthe wateringwindowisexpanded.Followingasimilarwaterusagecalculationthatwassetforthinthe report,areducedturffootprintundereitherconceptualplan(AorB)willrequirethefollowingstorage reservoirtomanagewateravailability: 75 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–48 ConceptualPlanA: Operationofthesystemtoirrigate7.5acresofturfwillrequireapproximately80,000gallonsper day.Therefore,toirrigatethecourseareservoircapableofholdingthedifference(80,000–49,800 =30,200gals.)willberequired.Ifthewateringwindowwereextendedto8hoursfromthe5hours listedinthereport,orifthewellwouldproduceagreaterflowthantheestimated166GPM,the storagereservoircouldbesmaller. Conclusion:Forplanningpurposes,webelievea30,000gallonstoragereservoirisrequiredto accommodatethisturffootprint.Actualsizetobeconfirmedviaadetaileddesignandanalysis. ConceptualPlanB: Operationofthesystemtoirrigate5.5acresofturfwillrequireapproximately70,000gallonsper day.Therefore,toirrigatethecourseareservoircapableofholdingthedifference(70,000–49,800 =20,200gals.)willberequired.Ifthewateringwindowwereextendedto8hoursfromthe5hours listedinthereport,orifthewellwouldproduceagreaterflowthan166GPM,thestoragereservoir couldbesmaller. Conclusion:Forplanningpurposes,webelievea20,000gallonstoragereservoirisrequiredto accommodatethisturffootprint.Actualsizetobeconfirmedviaadetaileddesignandanalysis. Note(1):NGFshowseithera20,000gallonor30,000gallonelevatedstoragetankintheconceptual plansandprovidesanestimatedcostforthistypeoftankreservoir.Duetoevaporation,potential leakingofwaterintotheStevensCreekaquifer,andissuesassociatedwithdraw-downofpond waterlevels,wedonotrecommendrefurbishmentofthepondsasuseforstoringwaterforirrigation. Note(2):Fallisagoodtimetohaveawellconsultantperformanewpumptest,butonlyto determinewhatmaximumGPMcouldbeobtained.Withdryyearsexperiencedrecently,thiswould beaprudentcourseofactionfortheCity.Wenotethatthe166GPMwasnotactuallypumped,but wascalculatedfromatestat50GPM.NGFrecommendstheCityundertakethisupdatedtestingin concertwithotherduediligenceofwellfees,verificationofwellreactivationcosts,securing authorizations,etc. Recommendation OurworkinvolvedtimewithMIGtounderstandgoalsandobjectivesthathavecometothesurface astheCityandpublicaddresseslongtermusesandimprovementtotheentireStevensCreek Corridorarea.TheoutcomeofmeetingsandplanningsessionswithMIGyieldedseveralareasof focusforourgolfcourseplanningwork.Specifically,werecommendtheCityseek: (i)SolutionstoprovideaccesstotheBlackberryFarmpicnicandpoolareas(potentiallyfromthe north,throughthegolfcourse)thatmayaugmentorreplacethecurrentaccessthroughresidential neighborhoodstothesouthandeast. (ii)Waystoremovethetallpolesandnettingthatdisruptviewsandtheaestheticofparkareas. (iii)WaystointegratethegolflandscapewiththatofStevenCreekandtheBlackberryFarmpark areasetting. (iv)Opportunitiestohavegolfandparkamenitiessharedbetweenuses(suchasclubhouse, restaurant,etc.) 76 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–49 (v)Preservationoftreedrip-lines,trailsandparkaccess. (vi)Freeingupanyavailableacreagefornon-golfusesthatcouldservethepark. Wehaveaddressedeachofthesepointsinproposed“ConceptualPlanB”,whereeachgoalhas beenaccommodatedthroughreconfigurationofthegolfasset.“ConceptualPlanA”,whichleaves thegolffootprintinitscurrentarea,addressesonlyafewpointsasthereisnoflexibilitytofreeup spaceorallowfornewpointsofaccess.TheCityhasonlysomuchlandinthisrichopenspace area.NGFisverycomfortablerecommending“ConceptualPlanB”,whichdeliversareduced footprintbyconvertingthecoursetoapar-3layoutandforegoingthetworelativelyshortpar4holes ofthecurrentlayout. Amongitemsthatrequirefurtherstudybeforeadefinitivecourseofactionischosen: RetreatHouse:Demolitionofthishouse,andreuseofthesite,requiresfurtherstudyand analysisbytheCity. MaintenanceFacility:Amoredetailedanalysisshouldbemadetodeterminewhether otherparkmaintenanceoperationsmaybeabletobeintegratedandsharedwithgolf maintenance. ParkAccess:PotentialimpactsoftheproposednewentrydrivefromStevensCreek Boulevard. Parking:Furtherstudyonthetransferandrequiredparkingneeds. 77 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–50 FinancialProjections forBlackberryFarmGolfCourse BelowwepresentsummarycashflowmodelsforthecontinuedoperationofBlackberryFarm GolfCourseunderthreescenarios:(1)“AsIs”withcurrentconfiguration,amenities,and“band aid”approachtoimprovements(wehavenotassumedreplacementoftheirrigationsystem;if thesystemisreplaced,watercostsavingswilllikelyresultandmoreroundsmayresultfrom improvedconditions);(2)AssumingimplementationofConceptualPlan‘A’;(3)Assumptionof implementationofConceptualPlan‘B’.Wealsoassumethecurrentoperatingstructureunder allthreescenariosandthatkeyNGFConsultingrecommendations(marketing,etc.)are implemented.Themodelsdonottakeintoaccountthenetfinancialeffectofthefacilitybeing closedforayear.Also,estimatesforpotentialFootGolfrevenuesarenotincludedunderany scenario,asfurtherstudyisrequiredtoseeifBFGCisagoodfitforthisuse. Thefive-yearcashflowmodelswerepreparedinconsiderationofourreviewofcurrent operations,recenthistoricalperformance,analysisofthegolfmarket,andlocalandregional demographicandeconomicfactors(e.g.,expansionofAppleemployment).Themodelsare basedonasetofassumptionsthatmayormaynotbecomereality,butNGFbelievesthatthey representa“reasonable”estimateofperformanceforthisfacilitybasedonthefactorsdiscussed inthisreport. FollowingarethegeneralassumptionsthathavebeenusedinthedevelopmentofNGF’scash flowmodelsfortheoperationofBlackberryFarmGolfCourseovertheFY2015throughFY 2019period.(Allfiguresareexpressedin2014dollars).ForOptions‘A’and‘B’,modelsare presentedasYear1throughYear5,toreflectthefirstfivefullyearsafterfacilityreopening. STATUSQUOOPERATION Assumptions–RoundsandRevenues RoundsplayedestimatesassumerecoveryinFY15toFY13levels,thenaslow declinethroughFY19toreflectthecontinuedagingoftheinfrastructureandfacility becomingevenlessmarketable. AveragegreenfeerevenueperroundisequaltofirstquarterFY15results.Thisper- roundaverageisassumedtofallby2%eachyeartoreflectthecontinuedneedto discountfeestoattractplay. Rentalrevenueperroundisbasedonrecentfour-yearaverageisheldsteadyat.51 perroundthroughoutthefiveyears. Grossproshopconcessionandgrosslessonrevenues,aswellascorresponding paymentstoCity,arebasedonactualFY14results.ThoughNGFrecommends replacingtheexistingBluePheasantbuildingwithanewgolf-centricbuilding,we haveassumedforpurposesofthisanalysisthattherestaurantwillconsidertoserve astheclubhouseduringthesubject5-yearperiod. ‘Other’revenuesreflectafive-yearaverageofinvestmentearnings+miscellaneous revenue.Theseareheldsteadythroughthefive-yearperiod. 78 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–51 Assumptions–Expenses Forthispreliminaryfinancialanalysis,we’vemadeestimatesforCityoperatingexpensesbased onrecentactualoperatingresultsforBlackberryFarm,currentbudget,NGFexperience,and continuationofcurrentcontractsandtermsinplace. FY15operatingexpensesgenerallymimictheFY15recommendedbudgetsupplied toNGF,withtheexceptionthatanon-recurringchargeof$37,000forfacility improvementswasexcluded. WatercostsinFY15areprojectedat$64,000,growingat5%annually.These increasesarenotintendedtoreflecttheactualincreasesthatmaybehandeddown bySanJoseWaterCompany. Costallocation,at$71,000,expenseisheldsteadythroughthe5-yearperiod.All otheroperatingexpensesareassumedtogrowat2.5%annually. Maintenanceandrepairexpensesinadditiontonormalmaintenancemaybe necessaryduringthecourseofoperatingahighqualitygolffacility.However,for purposesofthisanalysis,NGFhas not assumedacapitalimprovementset-aside fundforBlackberryFarmGolfCourse. 79 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–52 CashFlowStatement NGFConsultingutilizedthepreviouslymentionedassumptionstocreatethepreliminarysketch proformabelow.Eachcategoryofrevenuehasbeenlistedseparately,andallfigureshave beenroundedtothenearest$100forsimplicity. BlackberryFarmGolfCourse ProForma'AsIsOperation' FY2015-2019 FiscalYear 2014-2015 FiscalYear 2015-2016 FiscalYear 2016-2017 FiscalYear 2017-2018 FiscalYear 2018-2019 RoundsofGolf 29,00028,00027,00026,00025,000 GreenfeerevenueperRound11.5611.3311.1010.8810.66 RentalsperRound 0.510.510.510.510.51 GrossConc.Rev.perRound 0.590.590.590.590.59 GrossLessonRevenue 11,20011,20011,20011,20011,200 Revenues GreenFees 335,200317,200299,800282,900266,600 Rentals 14,80014,30013,80013,30012,800 ConcessionPaymenttoCity4,8004,7004,6004,5004,500 Other 2,8002,8002,8002,8002,800 TotalRevenues 357,600 339,000 321,000 303,500 286,700 OperatingExpenses Personnel 191,000195,800200,700205,700210,800 Materials&Supplies 11,00011,30011,60011,90012,200 WaterUsage 64,00067,20070,60074,10077,800 Services 240,000246,000252,200258,500265,000 Other 40,00041,00042,00043,10044,200 Costallocation 72,00072,00072,00072,00072,000 TotalOperatingExpenses 618,000 633,300 649,500 665,300 682,000 NetOperatingIncome (260,400)(294,300)(328,100)(361,800)(395,300) 80 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–53 Results TheresultsofNGFConsulting’spreliminarycashflowprojectionshowthatBlackberryFarm GolfCourse,withcurrentmarketpositioningandoperatingstructureandonlyminorfacility improvementsona“triage”basis,isprojectedtogenerateapproximately$358,000intotal operatingrevenuestotheCityinFY2015,fallingtoapproximately$287,000byFY2019. ConsideringallpreliminaryexpenseestimatespreparedbyNGFConsulting,netlossestothe City(exclusiveofcapitalimprovementcosts)willbeabout$260,000inFY15,growingtoabout $395,000byFY19.Thesedeficitscouldbesignificantlyhigherwithincreasesinthecostof waterand/orcostallocation. OPTION‘A’ Assumptions OptionArepresentsarenovatedgolfcoursewithfullyre-builtfeaturesandnewturf,drainage, andirrigation.Roundsplayedprojectionsreflecttheseimprovementsaswellasanimproved aestheticforthecourse.Onlythoseassumptionsthatdifferfromthe‘AsIs’basescenarioare listedbelow. RoundsplayedinYear1post-renovationareprojectedat30,000,growingto34,000 roundsatstabilization.ThisbringsroundsbacktothelevelachievedinFY11;NGF believesthisisaconservativeandrealistictarget. Averagegreenfeerevenueperroundalsorecoverstotheapproximate$12.50 achievedintheFY11throughFY13period,primarilyasaresultofreduced discounting.Thisper-roundaverageisassumedtoriseto$13forYear3andYear4, andto$13.50forYear5. Grosslessonrevenuesareincreasedto$20,000inYear1,reflectingimproved practiceamenities.Theserevenuesareprojectedtogrowat2.5%annually. DespitethereducedfootprintandmoreefficientgolfcourseunderbothOptionsA andB,weassumeanysavingswillbeappliedtowardahighermaintenance standard.Therefore,operatingexpensesareprojectedasthesameasthebase scenario.Theexceptioniswatercost,whichisreducedfromthecurrentbudgetof $64,000to$42,000toreflectapproximate10%savingsduetonewirrigationsystem, and25%reductioninusageduetomaintainableareadecliningfrom10acresto7.5 acres.Watercostisprojectedtogrowat5%annually. Results (CashflowstatementisinAppendixD) TheresultsofNGFConsulting’spreliminarycashflowprojectionforBlackberryFarmGolf CourseunderrenovationOption‘A’showthecoursegeneratingapproximately$400,000intotal operatingrevenuestotheCityinYear1post-renovation,increasingtoapproximately$487,000 byYear5.ConsideringpreliminaryexpenseestimatespreparedbyNGF,netlossestotheCity (exclusiveofcapitalimprovementcosts)willbeabout$196,000inYear1,fallingtoabout $169,000byYear5.Thisresultreflectsandimprovementofmorethan$226,000overthe statusquo‘AsIs’scenario,astheattritioninroundsandaveragerateisreversedduetoan improvedproductandinfrastructure. 81 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–54 OPTION‘B’ Assumptions Option‘B’representsafullyrenovatedandreconfiguredgolfcourse(nowPar3)withfullyre- builtfeaturesandnewturf,drainage,andirrigation.Roundsplayedprojectionsreflectthese improvementsaswellasanimprovedaestheticforthecourse.Thoughthecourseisnow shorter,itoffersafurtherreducedmaintainablefootprint,more‘roomtobreathe’andmore flexibility,withtheaddedappealof3-holeand6-holeloopsforbeginners,peoplelookingfora quickpracticeround,and/ortime-constrainedgolfers.Also,thecourseunderOption‘B’willnow bemuchmoresynergisticwithoverallparkuses(e.g.,picnicandpoolareas),encouraging cross-pollinationofpatrons.Finally,anewgolf-centricclubhouseshouldnotonlyboost concessionrevenues(includingperhapsanewdedicatedF&Bconcession),butalsotheoverall appealofthegolfcourse. RoundsplayedinYear1post-renovationareprojectedat33,000,growingto40,000 roundsatstabilization.Thisactivitylevelisstilllessthanthatachievedasrecentlyas FY10.NGFbelievesthisisaconservativeandrealistictarget,especiallygiventhat therewillalsobeanumberof3-and6-holeroundsplayed. Averagegreenfeerevenueperroundisreducedto$11.50,onedollarlessthan projectedforOptionAtoreflectsomesalesof3-and6-holerounds.Thisper-round averageisassumedtoriseto$12forYear3andYear4,andto$12.50forYear5. Grosslessonrevenuesareincreasedto$25,000inYear1,reflectingimproved practiceamenities.Theserevenuesareprojectedtogrowat2.5%annually. AnewlineitemforFood&BeverageConcessionRevenueisaddedtoreflectthe newclubhousebuilding.GrossF&Brevenuesareprojectedat$1.50perround, growingat5%annually.TheCityisassumedtoreceive10%ofgrossrevenuesasa concessionpayment. Operatingexpensesareprojectedasthesameasthebasescenario.Theexception iswatercost,whichisreducedfromthecurrentbudgetof$64,000to$29,000to reflectapproximate10%savingsduetonewirrigationsystem,and45%reductionin usageduetomaintainableareadecliningfrom10acresto5.5acres.Watercostis projectedtogrowat5%annually. Results (CashflowstatementisinAppendixE) TheresultsofNGFConsulting’spreliminarycashflowprojectionforBlackberryFarmGolf CourseunderrenovationOption‘B’showthecoursegeneratingapproximately$412,000intotal operatingrevenuestotheCityinYear1post-renovation,increasingtoapproximately$540,000 byYear5.ConsideringpreliminaryexpenseestimatespreparedbyNGF,netlossestotheCity willbeabout$171,000inYear1,fallingtoabout$99,000byYear5.Thisresultreflectsand improvementofstabilizednetincomeofmorethan$296,000overthe‘AsIs’scenario,and $69,500overOption‘A’. 82 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–55 Appendices AppendixA–BlackberryFarmGolfCourseRecentActivity AppendixB–ScheduleofGolfCourseFees AppendixC–ProbableCostEstimates&ConceptualSitePlans AppendixD–ProFormaOption‘A’ AppendixE–ProFormaOption‘B’ AppendixF–FootGolf 83 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–56 APPENDIXA–BFGCROUNDSPLAYEDRECENTHISTORY BlackberryFarmGolfCourse RevenueBreakdown FY2008/09 FY2009/10FY20010/11FY20011/12FY20012/131 FY20013/142 Rounds #ofrnds %of total #of rnds%oftotal #of rnds %of total #of rnds %of total #of rnds %of total #of rnds %of total ResidentCashRounds:7,87816.01%6,38614.86%4,38312.99%4,50214.26%4,22514.13%4,368 17.76% Non-ResidentCashRounds17,63935.86%15,47336.00%11,20133.19%10,72833.98%9,80832.81%5,992 24.36% AnnualRounds:5,60811.40%5,01911.68%3,87611.48%3,0939.80%2,2857.64%1,596 6.49% PassRounds6361.29%5761.34%4681.39%4811.52%3581.20%330 1.34% Buyonegetonediscountbook:4150.84%4170.97%4241.26%3201.01%2730.91%114 0.46% QuickPassRounds:14,76230.01%12,70129.55%11,91935.31%9,96931.58%8,42628.19%6,652 27.05% CouponRounds*:7921.61%5651.31%3521.04%2100.67%1510.51%167 0.68% Online:0.00%0.00%2,9569.89%3,809 15.49% YouthonCourseRounds:1,1862.41%1,3283.09%7622.26%6682.12%6252.09%687 2.79% TournamentRounds*:2780.57%5201.21%3661.08%6982.21%7472.50%581 2.36% DailyDeal/Yelp1/Groupon2 Rounds:0.00%8982.84%390.13%298 1.21% Totals:49,194 100.00%42,985 100.00%33,751 100.00%31,567 100.00%29,893 100.00%24,594 98.79% *IncludesResidentandNon-Residentrounds 84 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–57 BlackberryFarmGolfCourse 5yearroundscomparisonbymonth FY2008/09FY2009/10FY2010/11FY2011/12FY2012/13FY2013/14 PlayerTotalPlayerTotalPlayerTotal Player Total PlayerTotalPlayerTotal July 5,937 5,578 4,4313,8043,799 3,161 August 5,880 5,158 4,3743,6273,478 2,734 September4,754 4,450 3,4222,7933,018 1,791 October 4,130 3,776 2,9132,7592,314 1,710 November3,516 3,529 2,2111,8941,761 1,606 December2,583 2,153 1,4682,0531,275 1,208 January 3,035 1,932 2,0141,8251,506 1,641 February 2,049 2,171 1,8012,0861,907 1,200 March 3,240 2,961 1,7721,8082,337 1,880 April 4,118 3,056 3,0302,4422,657 2,087 May 5,047 4,053 3,1453,0642,895 2,577 June 4,905 4,168 3,1703,4122,946 2,999 Total 49,194 42,985 33,751 31,567 29,893 24,594 85 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–58 APPENDIXB-SCHEDULEOFGOLFCOURSEFEES BlackberryFarmGolfCourse RatesChart Priorto2010 ResidentsofCupertino: Adult SeniorsJuniors Weekday $13.00 $12.00 $12.00 Weekend/Holidays $15.00 $15.00 $12.00 Replays $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 Non-Residents: Adult SeniorsJuniors Weekday $15.00 $14.00 $14.00 Weekend/Holidays $17.00 $17.00 $14.00 Replays $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 RatesEffectiveJuly1,2010 ResidentsofCupertino: Adult SeniorsJuniors Weekday $15.00 $14.00 $14.00 Weekend/Holidays $17.00 $11.00 $11.00 Replays $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 Non-Residents: Adult SeniorsJuniors Weekday $17.00 $16.00 $16.00 Weekend/Holidays $19.00 $19.00 $16.00 Replays $13.00 $13.00 $13.00 86 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–59 BlackberryFarmGolfCourse RatesChart Multi-PlayPasses RatesEffectiveJuly1,2010 Weekday Senior Res. Weekday Adult Res. Weekday Senior NR Weekday Adult NR Weekend Res. Weekend NR Per Round #Plays Savings $14 $15 $16 $17 $17 $19 10 $1 $130 $140 $150 $160 $160 $180 20 $2 $240 $260 $280 $300 $300 $340 30 $3 $330 $360 $390 $420 $420 $480 40 $4 $400 $440 $480 $520 $520 $600 50 $5 $450 $500 $550 $600 $600 $700 SuperPasses Valid-7daysaweek Semi-Annual Annual Resident$595.00 Resident$1,175.00 Non-Resident$700.00 NonResident$1,315.00 WeekdayPasses GoodonWeekdaysOnly(NotvalidSat.,Sun.orHolidays) SemiAnnual Annual SeniorResident $520.00 $965.00 RegularResident $610.00 $1,040.00 SeniorNon-Resident$575.00 $1,135.00 RegularNon- Resident $645.00 $1,225.00 87 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–60 APPENDIXC–PROBABLECOSTESTIMATES&CONCEPTUALPLANS Option‘A’-ConceptualPlan {Note:ImagedoesnotcontainlatesttopoandwillbeupdatedforFinalReport}. 88 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–61 Option‘A’-ProbableCostEstimate 89 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–62 90 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–63 Option‘B’-ConceptualPlan {Note:ImagedoesnotcontainlatesttopoandwillbeupdatedforFinalReport}. 91 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–64 Option‘B’-ProbableCostEstimate 92 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–65 93 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–66 APPENDIXD–PROFORMAOPTION‘A’ BlackberryFarmGolfCourse ProFormaOption'A' Year1-Year5 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 RoundsofGolf 30,00032,00034,00034,00034,000 GreenfeerevenueperRound12.512.5131313.5 RentalsperRound 0.510.510.510.510.51 GrossConc.Rev.perRound0.590.590.590.590.59 GrossLessonRevenue 20,00020,50021,00021,50022,000 Revenues GreenFees 375,000400,000442,000442,000459,000 Rentals 15,30016,30017,30017,30017,300 ConcessionPaymenttoCity6,7006,9007,2007,3007,400 Other 2,8002,8002,8002,8002,800 TotalRevenues 399,800 426,000 469,300 469,400 486,500 OperatingExpenses Personnel 191,000195,800200,700205,700210,800 Materials&Supplies 11,00011,30011,60011,90012,200 WaterUsage 42,00044,10046,30048,60051,000 Services 240,000246,000252,200258,500265,000 Other 40,00041,00042,00043,10044,200 Costallocation 72,00072,00072,00072,00072,000 TotalOperatingExpenses 596,000 610,200 624,800 639,800 655,200 NetOperatingIncome (196,200)(184,200)(155,500)(170,400)(168,700) 94 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–67 APPENDIXE–PROFORMAOPTION‘B’ BlackberryFarmGolfCourse ProFormaOption'B' Year1-Year5 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 RoundsofGolf 32,00036,00039,00039,00039,000 GreenfeerevenueperRound 121212.512.513 RentalsperRound 0.510.510.510.510.51 GrossF&BConc.Rev.perRd.1.51.581.651.741.82 GrossProShopConc.Rev.perRd.0.590.620.650.680.72 GrossLessonRevenue 25,00025,60026,20026,90027,600 Revenues GreenFees 384,000432,000487,500487,500507,000 Rentals 16,30018,40019,90019,90019,900 F&BConc.PaymenttoCity4,8005,7006,4006,8007,100 ProConcessionPaymenttoCity7,8008,5009,0009,4009,700 Other 2,8002,8002,8002,8002,800 TotalRevenues 415,700 467,400 525,600 526,400 546,500 OperatingExpenses Personnel 191,000195,800200,700205,700210,800 Materials&Supplies 11,00011,30011,60011,90012,200 WaterUsage 29,00030,50032,00033,60035,300 Services 240,000246,000252,200258,500265,000 Other 40,00041,00042,00043,10044,200 Costallocation 72,00072,00072,00072,00072,000 TotalOperatingExpenses 583,000 596,600 610,500 624,800 639,500 NetOperatingIncome (167,300)(147,200)(104,400)(105,200)(99,200) 95 NationalGolfFoundationConsulting,Inc.–ReviewofBlackberryFarmGolfCourse,Cupertino,CA–68 APPENDIXF–FOOTGOLF FootGolfisacombinationofthepopularsportsofsoccerandgolf.Thegameisplayedwitha regulation#5soccerballatagolfcoursefacilityonshortenedholeswith21-inchdiametercups. Theruleslargelycorrespondtotherulesofgolf.FootGolfasagameisplayedthroughoutthe worldinmanydifferentforms.TheAmericanFootGolfLeague(AFGL)isorganizing tournamentsthroughoutthecountryworkingwithgolfcoursestobringFootGolftotheirclubsas anotheravenueforrevenueandtodevelopthegamefurther. FootGolfisgrowingrapidlyaroundtheU.S.andNGFisstartingtoseethisactivityasan excellentwaytoenhancerevenuesandcreatenewutilizationatgolfcoursesduringoffpeak periods.FootGolfcanalsobeanexcellentwaytointroducepeopletotraditionalgolf,asthetwo sportsarealmostidenticalinrulesandscoring.ThereisoftenmisunderstandingaboutFootGolf andgolfcourseoperatorsshouldknowthat: FootGolfismostpopularwithyoungadults(18-30),asopposedtochildren. AFootGolfcoursecouldco-existwithatraditionalgolffacilitywithoutanydirect interferencewiththetraditionalgolfholes. FootGolfholesarenotlocatedongolfcoursegreens,butrathermostlyofftotheside inroughsorgenerallyunder-usedspotsinfairways. TheFootGolfcourseand21-inchholescanalsobeusedfortraditionalgolf beginnerswhenFootGolfisnotbeingplayed. FootGolfersprefersmoothercourses,withflat“greens.”Theareaaroundthe21-inch FootGolfholesdoesnotneedtobecutshortor“green-like” FootGolferswillplaymuchfasterthantraditionalgolfers,usuallyaround5-7minutes perhole. ThetotalareaforFootGolfwillbemuchsmallerthantraditionalgolf.Agoodlength forFootGolfisaround3,000to3,500yards.Par-3holesarearound80yardsorless, Par-4holes120-190yardsandpar-5holesat220+yards. 96 160 W. Santa Clara Street | Suite 675 | San Jose, CA 95113 | (408) 278-1700 | Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com MEMORANDUM Date: December 9, 2014 To: Laurie Matthews, MIG From: Mollie Pelon and Ian Barnes, Fehr & Peers Subject: Existing Transportation Conditions for Cupertino Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan SJ14-1512 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the results of the Existing Conditions analysis for the proposed Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan. The project site is located in the City of Cupertino, California and is generally bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard, Byrne Avenue, Mira Vista Avenue and McClellan Road as shown in Figure 1. The purpose of this study is to establish the baseline and to describe the current transportation setting including potential issues and opportunities. It includes a discussion of existing automobile traffic, transit, bicycle and walking conditions around the project site. The data and results contained within this memorandum will be used for the Existing Conditions section of the transportation impact analysis. Project Description The Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan EIR will include an analysis of transportation in and around McClellan Ranch Preserve, Blackberry Farm Park, Blackberry Farm (Don Brown) Golf Course and the surrounding area based on the proposed changes to operations of these facilities as described in the Master Plan. This project site is composed of primarily recreational uses and is located in a residential neighborhood with multiple schools. Study Area Automobile traffic conditions were evaluated at three intersections located in the City of Cupertino near the project site. The three study intersections are: 1. Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course driveway/Stevens Creek Boulevard 2. Orange Avenue-Mann Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard 3. Byrne Avenue/McClellan Road 97 Ms. Laurie Matthews, MIG December 9, 2014 Page 2 of 13 Analysis Scenarios The operations of the study intersections were evaluated during the weekday morning (8:00 AM - 9:00 AM), school afternoon (2:45 PM – 3:45 PM) and commute afternoon (5:15 PM - 6:15 PM) peak hours during the school year for the Existing Conditions scenario. Analysis Methods Signalized Intersections The operations of roadway facilities are typically described with the term Level of Service. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, the best operating conditions, to LOS F, the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents “at-capacity” operations. When traffic volumes exceed the capacity, stop-and-go conditions result, and operations are designated as LOS F. Based on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (2009) the Transportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) was used to conduct the level of service calculations for the study intersections. “Control delay” includes the initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections is calculated using the Traffix traffic analysis software and correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1. Unsignalized Intersections Operations of the unsignalized study intersections (e.g., stop-sign controlled) were evaluated using the methods contained in Chapter 17 of the 2000 HCM and calculated using the Traffix analysis software. LOS for stop-sign controlled intersections are based on the average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. At two-way or side-street-stop controlled intersections, control delay is calculated for each movement, not for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. Intersection impacts are determined based on the computed control delay and LOS for the worst approach at the intersection. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. 98 Ms. Laurie Matthews, MIG December 9, 2014 Page 3 of 13 TABLE 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS USING AVERAGE CONTROL VEHICULAR DELAY Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0 B+ B B- Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 12.0 12.1 to 18.0 18.1 to 20.0 C+ C C- Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 23.0 23.1 to 32.0 32.1 to 35.0 D+ D D- Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.1 to 39.0 39.1 to 51.0 51.1 to 55.0 E+ E E- Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. 55.1 to 60.0 60.1 to 75.0 75.1 to 80.0 F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 Source: Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, VTA Congestion Management Program, June 2003; and Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. TABLE 2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle on Worst Approach (Seconds) A Little or no delays ≤ 10.0 B Short traffic delays 10.1 – 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 – 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 – 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 – 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. 99 Ms. Laurie Matthews, MIG December 9, 2014 Page 4 of 13 The remainder of this memorandum describes the existing transportation system serving the project site and the current operating conditions of the study intersections. EXISTING CONDITIONS This section describes the existing conditions of the roadway facilities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit service in the study area. The project site is located on the west edge of the City of Cupertino. It is primarily surrounded by residential uses including mostly single family residences as well as multiple schools. North of the project site is Stevens Creek Elementary School; Lincoln Elementary School and Monta Vista High school are located on McClellan Road east of the project site. Kennedy Middle School is also located east of the project site along Bubb Road. Existing Roadway Network State Route 85, Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard provide regional access to the project site. McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue via McClellan Road and via Orange Avenue/Granada Avenue provide local access to the project site. Descriptions of these roadways are presented below. Figure 1 shows the location of these facilities in relation to the project site. State Route 85 is a north-south freeway that runs from US 101 in Mountain View to US 101 in San Jose. The facility is located east of the project site and provides access to the project site via its interchange with Stevens Creek Boulevard. North of Stevens Creek Boulevard, State Route 85 carries about 124,000 vehicles per day. Foothill Boulevard is a north-south arterial roadway that runs between Interstate 280 and the southern city limits of Cupertino. South of the city limits, the roadway becomes Stevens Canyon Road. North of Interstate 280, the roadway becomes Foothill Expressway. The facility provides access to the site vita McClellan Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. North of Stevens Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard carries about 16,000 vehicles per day. Stevens Creek Boulevard is an east-west arterial roadway that runs from the Lehigh Quarry in the west to San Jose State University in the east (as San Carlos Street). The facility provides access to the project site via Orange Avenue, Granada Avenue and Byrne Avenue as well as the Phar Lap Drive/Golf Course parking lot. Near the project site, Stevens Creek Boulevard carries about 11,000 vehicles per day. Orange Avenue is a north-south local roadway that runs from Stevens Creek Boulevard in the north to McClellan Road in the south with a non-drivable break south of Granada Avenue. Its intersection with Stevens Creek Boulevard is located approximately 1,000 feet east of the project site. Orange Avenue carries about 1,500 vehicles per day at Stevens Creek Boulevard. Byrne Avenue is a north-south local roadway that runs from Stevens Creek Boulevard in the north (no connection) to McClellan Road in the south. This street borders the project site on the east side and provides access to San Fernando Avenue and Blackberry Farm. It also provides access to Monta Vista High School. Byrne Avenue carries about 650 vehicles per day near the project site. 100 Ms. Laurie Matthews, MIG December 9, 2014 Page 5 of 13 McClellan Road is an east-west minor collector roadway that runs from Foothill Boulevard in the west to De Anza Boulevard in the east. Vehicles accessing McClellan Ranch Preserve will do so using this roadway. McClellan Road carries about 4,000 vehicles per day near the McClellan Ranch driveway. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Discontinuous sidewalks approximately 7 feet wide are provided on north and south sides of McClellan Road beginning 200 feet west of Byrne Avenue and terminating on the south side of the road at Club House Lane. This corridor provides a pedestrian connection from the adjacent residential areas to McClellan Ranch Preserve. McClellan Ranch Preserve contains multiple paths including the Stevens Creek Trail. The sidewalk on the north side of McClellan Road continues along the perimeter of the McClellan Ranch, connecting to the east side of Mira Vista Road and terminating at Santa Paula Avenue. There is no sidewalk on the west side of Mira Vista Road. There is a neighborhood connection to the Stevens Creek Trail on Scenic Circle with a crosswalk. However, no sidewalks are provided in this residential area. Sidewalks are also provided on the north and south sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Along Stevens Creek Boulevard, crosswalks are located at both the Phar Lap Drive, Blackberry Farm Golf Course entrance and the Orange Avenue-Mann Drive entrance to the study area. The Phar Lap Drive/Golf Course entrance includes uncontrolled continental (piano key) crosswalks on the north and west sides of the intersection. At Orange Avenue-Mann Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard standard controlled crosswalks are included on the north, east and south sides of the intersection. The majority of the neighborhood on the east side of the study area does not include sidewalks, and there are no sidewalks at the entrance to Blackberry Farm Park. Byrne Avenue south of San Fernando Avenue includes discontinuous sidewalks on both the east and west sides of the street. Bicycle Facilities Bikeway planning and design in California typically rely on guidelines and design standards established by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design). There are three types of bikeway facilities noted in the Manual, as described below and shown on the accompanying figures. Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) provides a completely separate right-of-way and is designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow minimized. In general, bike paths serve corridors not served by streets and highways or where sufficient right- of-way exists to allow such facilities to be constructed away from the influence of parallel streets and vehicle conflicts. 101 Ms. Laurie Matthews, MIG December 9, 2014 Page 6 of 13 Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes) are lanes for bicyclists generally adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. These lanes have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bicycle lanes are generally five (5) to six (6) feet wide. Adjacent vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted. Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) are designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles, but have no separated bike right-of-way or lane striping. Bike routes serve either to: a) provide continuity to other bicycle facilities, or b) designate preferred routes through high demand corridors. 102 Ms. Laurie Matthews, MIG December 9, 2014 Page 7 of 13 Near the project site, Class II bicycle facilities are provided along the length of Stevens Creek Boulevard from Ridgeway Drive near Cupertino’s western city limits to Cupertino’s eastern city limits near Lawrence Expressway. Class II bicycle facilities are also provided along Foothill Boulevard, McClellan Road east of Byrne Avenue and Bubb Road near the project site. A Class I bicycle facility, Stevens Creek Trail, runs through the project site from Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road. A Class III bicycle facility exists on McClellan Road west of Byrne Avenue to Foothill Boulevard. With the exception of McClellan Road from Byrne Ave extending east, no bicycle facilities are provided in the residential area surrounding the project site, but the low traffic volume on neighborhood roadways invites bicycle use. Existing Transit Service The site is served by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus lines. The bus line that serves the project site is described in detail below and summarized in Table 2. TABLE 2 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE SUMMARY Route From1 To1 Distance to Nearest Stop2 Weekdays Weekends Operating Hours Peak Hour Headway3 (minutes) Peak Load Factor4 Operating Hours Headway3 (minutes) VTA 51 De Anza College Moffett Field/Ames Center 200 Feet 6:30 AM – 7:00 PM 60 0.40 N/A N/A Notes: 1. Route runs in both directions 2. Distance in miles from nearest stop to nearest park access point. 3. Headways are defined as the time interval between two transit vehicles traveling in the same direction over the same route. 4. Average peak load factor is the ratio of the average peak number of on-board passengers aboard during the peak period to supply of seats. Source: VTA website, July 2014. The nearest transit line is VTA bus Route 51, providing service to Mountain View and Los Altos. The nearest stop is at Phar Lap Drive and Stevens Creek Boulevard at the northern edge of the project site. Existing Intersection Volumes and Lane Configurations The existing traffic operations of the study intersections were evaluated for the highest one-hour volume during the weekday morning (6:30 AM to 9:30 AM), school dismissal afternoon (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM) and commute afternoon (4:00 PM to 7:00 PM) peak periods. Morning peak-hour intersection turning movement counts were conducted in May 2014. Afternoon peak-hour intersection turning movement counts were conducted in May 2014 (for the 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM 103 Ms. Laurie Matthews, MIG December 9, 2014 Page 8 of 13 period) and October 2014 (for the 2:00 PM to 7:00 PM period). Exhibit 1 below shows that the October 2014 afternoon counts indicate higher traffic volumes between 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM than the May 2014 afternoon counts. To be conservative, the October 2014 counts were used for the afternoon peak hour intersection analysis. Copies of the traffic counts are included in Attachment A. Figure 2 presents the existing AM and PM peak-hour turning movement volumes, lane configurations, and traffic control devices at the study intersections. Existing Intersection Levels of Service The results of the LOS analysis using the Traffix software program for Existing Conditions are shown below in Table 3. The results of the analysis show that all study intersections operate at acceptable levels during the AM and PM peak periods based on the peak hour LOS standard for the City of Cupertino. The City of Cupertino General Plan Circulation Element (2005) lists LOS D as the standard for intersections. The Traffix outputs are saved in Attachment B. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 Ve h i c l e s C o u n t e d a t A l l S t u d y I n t e r s e c t i o n s 15-Minute Period Beginning Exhibit 1 - Volume Comparison: May 2014 Counts versus October 2014 Counts May 2014 Counts October 2014 Counts 104 Ms. Laurie Matthews, MIG December 9, 2014 Page 9 of 13 TABLE 3 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection Peak Hour1 Intersection Control Delay2 LOS3 1 Stevens Creek Blvd/Phar Lap Drive AM AFT PM Side Street Stop Controlled 29.3 17.1 26.3 D C D 2 Stevens Creek Blvd/Mann Drive-Orange Avenue AM AFT PM Signalized 8.8 10.2 7.6 A B A 3 Byrne Ave/McClellan Road AM AFT PM Side Street Stop Controlled 11.0 11.2 11.0 B B B Notes: 1 AM = morning peak hour, AFT = afternoon (school) peak hour, PM = evening (commute) peak hour. 2 Average control delay presented in seconds per vehicle. Worst approach delay reported for side street stop controlled intersections. 3 LOS = Level of Service. LOS calculations conducted using the Traffix analysis software package, which applies the methodology described in the 2000 HCM. Bold indicates deficient intersection operations. Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2014. FIELD OBSERVATIONS Observations of traffic volumes, intersection queuing, stopping sight distance, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and general traffic flow in the study area were conducted in July and October 2014. Morning Peak Hour Field observations indicate that drop-off activity for Monta Vista High School and Lincoln Elementary school causes queues to form along McClellan Road from west of Byrne Avenue towards Bubb Road. The queues were observed to occasionally impact operations of the intersections of Byrne Avenue/McClellan Road. Crossing guards are present at the intersection of McClellan Road/Orange Avenue to protect pedestrian movements across the intersection. Heavy pedestrian flows were also observed along Orange Avenue; many pedestrians were walking in the roadway due to a lack of sidewalks. Queues along Stevens Creek Boulevard resulting from the State Route 85 interchange intersections would occasionally back up into the Orange Avenue- Mann Drive intersection. 105 Ms. Laurie Matthews, MIG December 9, 2014 Page 10 of 13 Afternoon (School) Peak Hour For the afternoon (school) peak hour, congestion was observed along McClellan Road along the school frontages. Crossing guards are present at the intersection of McClellan Road/Orange Drive to protect pedestrian movements across the intersection. Heavy pedestrian flows were also observed along Orange Avenue; many pedestrians were walking in the roadway due to a lack of sidewalks. Stevens Creek Boulevard was observed to be generally free flowing. Evening (Commute) Peak Hour In the evening peak hour, little congestion was observed along McClellan Road. Some congested was observed along Stevens Creek Boulevard at Orange Avenue-Mann Drive. Queues along eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard from the State Route 85 interchange also occasionally affected operations at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Orange Avenue-Mann Drive intersection. Sight Distance along Westbound McClellan Road Stopping sight distance is the clear sight distance a driver needs to be provided to stop before colliding with another vehicle or object. Due to a large tree and overgrown vegetation, the sight distance from the existing southbound driveway of McClellan Ranch looking east is approximately 130 feet. According to Google Earth, the elevation of McClellan Road at Tressler Court is approximately 380 feet; at the McClellan Ranch Preserve driveway, the elevation of McClellan Road is approximately 350 feet. The distance between Tressler Court and the McClellan Ranch Preserve driveway is approximately 750 feet. Therefore the average grade along westbound McClellan Road is approximately -4.27%. The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publication “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” 6th Edition (commonly known as the “Green Book”) provides the following equation for calculating stopping sight distance (SSD): 𝑆𝑆𝐷=1.47𝑉𝑡+𝑉230(𝑎32.2�±𝑔) Where: V = travel speed (speed limit = 25 mph) t = break reaction time (2.5 seconds, recommended assumption in the Green Book) a = deceleration rate (11.2 ft/s2, recommended assumption in the Green Book for deceleration on roadways with fair to good pavement surfaces) g = street grade in ft/ft (positive value indicates uphill slope) Field observations indicate that the pavement along McClellan Road from Tressler Court to Club House Lane is at least in fair condition, so the 11.2 ft/s2 deceleration rate assumption is reasonable. According to the Green Book, “[t]he friction available on most wet pavement surfaces and the capabilities of most vehicle braking systems can provide breaking friction that exceeds this rate,” referring to 11.2 ft/s2 and “[a]pproximately 90 percent of all drivers decelerate at rates great than 11.2 ft/s2.” 106 Ms. Laurie Matthews, MIG December 9, 2014 Page 11 of 13 Based on the conservative assumptions above, the calculated stopping sight distance for westbound McClellan Road approaching the McClellan Ranch Preserve driveway is approximately 160 feet. This is a design value, and the actual stopping distance would likely be less. However, opportunities to increase sight distance should be considered to improve visibility at this intersection. 107 |þ85 1 2 3 Ste v e n s C a n y o n R d Ca s t i n e A v e Stevens Creek Blvd Olive Ave Ma d e r a D r M a r y Ave McClellan Rd Palm Ave Festival Dr Cupertino Rd Im p e r i a l A v e C r e scent Rd Salem Ave Columbus Ave Lomita Ave VistaKnollBlvd Santa Teresa Dr S a n Fe r nando Ave Li n d a V i s t a D r St o k e s A v e OakleafPl Pu mpki n Dr Lomita Dr C anyonV ista Dr Granada Ave Hyannispo r t D r RanchoDeepCliffDr Al h a m b r a A v e University Way Milford Dr Presidio Dr Shattuck Dr Rosario Ave Hermosa Ave Creekline Dr S a n t a Cl a r a A v e Almaden Ave E m p ir e A v e Ca s s P l Santa Paula Ave Kendle S t Rucker Dr G l e n Pl Dolores Ave Holly Oak D r KesterDr Bahl S t S t o n y d a l e D r Woodbury Dr Edward Way Rumford Dr Carta Blanca S t Ad r i a n a A v e Ai n s w o r t h D r N F o o t h i l l B l v d Or a n g e A v e Mann Dr BubbRd By r n e A v e P e nin s u la A v e An n A r b o r A v e Janice Ave C restonDr Alp i n e D r Wilkinson Ave Ca r m e n R d S F o o t h i l l B l v d PharLap Dr ScenicBlvd N o v e m b e r D r S e p t e m b e r D r De m pster Ave C r a n b e r r y D r D eepCliffe D r Lily Ave Anson Ave Pa l o V i s t a R d RiversideDr H i l l c rest Rd Parkwood D r N o el A v e Mi r a V i s t a R d MontaVista HighSchool LincolnElementarySchool JFKMiddleSchool N: \ P r o j e c t s \ _ S J 1 4 _ P r o j e c t s \ S J 1 4 _ 1 5 1 2 _ C u p e r t i n o _ P a r k s _ M a s t e r _ P l a n \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ F i g 0 1 _ S t u d y A r e a . m x d Project Location and Study IntersectionsFigure 1 Project Area 1 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Phar Lap Drive - Golf Course Driveway2Stevens Creek Boulevard/Orange Avenue - Mann Drive3McClellan Road/Byrne Ave 108 |þ85Project Area MontaVista HighSchool LincolnElementarySchool JFK MiddleSchool McClellan Rd Alcazar Ave S t e v e n s C r e e k B l v d Olive Ave Palm Ave P e n in s u la A v e Mary Ave Cupertino Rd Im p e r i a l A v e C r e scent Rd Salem Ave Lomita Ave S a n Fernando Ave OakleafPl Lomita Dr Granada Ave Parkwood D r Hyannisport D r Al h a m b r a A v e E m p ir e A v e Grand Ave Presidio Dr N F o o t h i l l B l v d Hermosa Ave S a n t a Cla r a A v e Almaden Ave Ca s s P l Santa Paula Ave G l e n Pl Dolores Ave HollyOak Dr Ad r i a n a A v e Or a n g e A v e Ph a r L a p D r Ma n n D r B u b b R d By r n e A v e Janice Ave Ca r m e n R d S F o o t h i l l B l v d ScenicBlvd D e e p CliffeDr LindaVistaDr Pa l o V i s t a R d Lily Ave H i l l c rest Rd N o v e m b e r D r Mi r a V i s t a R d 1 2 3 edd d bd ac f ae gac f ae 40 [ 4 4 ] ( 2 3 ) 6 [ 1 2 ] ( 4 ) 91 [ 8 9 ] ( 4 7 ) 0 [ 3 ] ( 3 ) 0 [ 0 ] ( 0 ) 3 [ 1 0 ] ( 1 2 ) 22 [ 5 2 ] ( 1 9 ) 37 [ 4 2 ] ( 4 0 ) 27 [ 1 0 ] ( 1 3 ) 0 [ 1 ] ( 1 ) 27 ( 0 ) 8 [ 1 2 ] ( 2 ) 13 [ 1 6 ] ( 9 ) 92 [ 4 1 ] ( 1 0 2 ) 9 [10] (38) 411 [426] (875) 4 [4] (2) 2 [8] (10) 431 [426] (827) 25 [37] (106) 44 [34] (2) 97 [159] (234) 15 [30] (30) 847 [406] (437) 6 [4] (8) 31 [78] (72) 819 [388] (460) 33 [52] (73) 20 [63] (18) 215 [196] (177) !"$ !"$ èéëìí !"$ 3. McClellan Rd & Byrne Ave1. Stevens Creek Blvd & Phar Lap Dr2. Stevens Creek Blvd & Mann Dr/Orange Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Or a n g e A v e McClellan Rd By r n e A v e Stevens Creek Blvd Pr o j e c t D r i v e w a y N: \ P r o j e c t s \ _ S J 1 4 _ P r o j e c t s \ S J 1 4 _ 1 5 1 2 _ C u p e r t i n o _ P a r k s _ M a s t e r _ P l a n \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ F i g 0 2 _ E x _ P H T V . m x d Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations -Existing Conditions Figure 2 Peak Hour Traffic VolumeAM [AFT] (PM) Traffic Signal Stop Sign!"$ èéëìí Turn Lanea Study Intersection# Ma n n D r Ph a r L a p D r 109 ATTACHMENT A — TRAFFIC COUNT DATA 110 File Name: 1am final Site Code: 00000001 Start Date: 5/29/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles PHAR LAP DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound DRIVEWAY Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total06:30 AM 40127 1300031 00033 1140116 57 06:45 AM 00213 1410042 00000 0240024 69 Total 4 0 3 3 10 2 71 0 0 73 0 0 0 3 3 1 38 0 1 40 126 07:00 AM 10506 0690069 00011 0511052 128 07:15 AM 5010015 29710100 00033 012300123 241 07:30 AM 1006117 615000156 00033 0610162 238 07:45 AM 30508 317010174 00134 0571159 245 Total 19 0 26 1 46 11 486 2 0 499 0 0 1 10 11 0 292 2 2 296 852 08:00 AM 608216 217110174 00033 014532150 343 08:15 AM 406010 720010208 00011 1780079 298 08:30 AM 9010120 525110257 10056 2951098 381 08:45 AM 803213 122530229 20002 19351100 344 Total 27 0 27 5 59 15 847 6 0 868 3 0 0 9 12 4 411 9 3 427 1366 09:00 AM 904114 119220195 00011 3843090 300 09:15 AM 40509 213700139 10034 2720074 226 Grand Total 6306510138 31 1733 1001774 4012631 10897146927 2870 Apprch %45.7 0 47.1 7.2 1.7 97.7 0.60 12.9 03.2 83.9 1.1 96.8 1.50.6 Total %2.202.30.34.8 1.1 60.4 0.3061.8 0.1000.91.1 0.3 31.3 0.50.232.3 PHAR LAP DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound DRIVEWAY Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 10 06 16 61500156 0000 061061 233 07:45 AM 3058 3170 1 174 00 11 057158 241 08:00 AM 60 8 14 21711174 0000 0 1453148 336 08:15 AM 40610 7200 1 208 0000 1 78079 297 Total Volume 23 0 25 48 18 691 3 712 0 0 1 1 1 341 4 346 1107 % App. Total 47.9 0 52.1 2.5 97.1 0.4 0 0 100 0.3 98.6 1.2 PHF .575 .000 .781 .750 .643 .864 .750 .856 .000 .000 .250 .250 .250 .588 .333 .584 .824 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 111 File Name: 1am final Site Code: 00000001 Start Date: 5/29/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Bikes PHAR LAP DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound DRIVEWAY Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total06:30 AM 00000 01001 00000 01001 2 06:45 AM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 07:00 AM 00101 01001 00000 01001 3 07:15 AM 00000 00000 00000 0110011 11 07:30 AM 00101 01001 00000 03003 5 07:45 AM 00202 00000 00000 05005 7 Total 0 0 4 0 4 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 26 08:00 AM 00000 00000 00000 04004 4 08:15 AM 00000 00000 00000 03003 3 08:30 AM 00101 01001 00000 02002 4 08:45 AM 00000 00000 00000 01001 1 Total 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 12 09:00 AM 00000 00000 00000 01001 1 09:15 AM 00000 01001 00000 00000 1 Grand Total 00505 05005 00000 0320032 42 Apprch %001000 010000 0000 010000 Total %00 11.9 011.9 0 11.9 0011.9 00000 0 76.2 0076.2 PHAR LAP DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound DRIVEWAY Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 0000 0000 0000 0 11 0 11 11 07:30 AM 0011 0 1 0 1 0000 0303 5 07:45 AM 00 22 0000 0000 0505 7 08:00 AM 0000 0000 0000 0404 4 Total Volume 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 23 27 % App. Total 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .000 .375 .375 .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .523 .000 .523 .614 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 112 File Name: 1PM FINAL Site Code: 00000001 Start Date: 5/29/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles PHAR LAP DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound DRIVEWAY Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total04:00 PM 20507 7802089 21126 211532122 224 04:15 PM 20215 118810100 50106 313141139 250 04:30 PM 50229 5704079 30025 111160118 211 04:45 PM 20428 89230103 30104 015330156 271 Total 11 0 13 5 29 31 330 10 0 371 13 1 3 4 21 6 510 16 3 535 956 05:00 PM 10809 69420102 20035 412540133 249 05:15 PM 408012 1110100112 10427 315240159 290 05:30 PM 30609 811410123 21159 215280162 303 05:45 PM 30508 710600113 10012 015191161 284 Total 11 0 27 0 38 32 415 3 0 450 6 1 5 11 23 9 580 25 1 615 1126 06:00 PM 306110 911930131 00000 211540121 262 06:15 PM 30609 1011610127 30205 013660142 283 06:30 PM 30339 310730113 40307 112250128 257 06:45 PM 00415 310050108 30104 011841123 240 Total 9 0 19 5 33 25 442 12 0 479 10 0 6 0 16 3 491 19 1 514 1042 Grand Total 3105910100 88 1187 2501300 292141560 18 1581 6051664 3124 Apprch %3105910 6.8 91.3 1.90 48.3 3.3 23.3 25 1.1953.60.3 Total %101.90.33.2 2.8380.8041.6 0.90.10.40.51.9 0.6 50.6 1.90.253.3 PHAR LAP DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound DRIVEWAY Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 10 8 9 694 2 102 2 002 4 1254133 246 05:15 PM 4 08 12 11 1010112 10 45 3 152 4159 288 05:30 PM 3069 8 114 1 123 2 1 14 21528 162 298 05:45 PM 3058 71060113 1001 0151 9 160 282 Total Volume 11 0 27 38 32 415 3 450 6 1 5 12 9 580 25 614 1114 % App. Total 28.9 0 71.1 7.1 92.2 0.7 50 8.3 41.7 1.5 94.5 4.1 PHF .688 .000 .844 .792 .727 .910 .375 .915 .750 .250 .313 .600 .563 .954 .694 .948 .935 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 113 File Name: 1PM FINAL Site Code: 00000001 Start Date: 5/29/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Bikes PHAR LAP DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound DRIVEWAY Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total04:00 PM 00000 03003 00000 01001 4 04:15 PM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 04:30 PM 00000 01001 00000 00000 1 04:45 PM 00000 11103 00000 01001 4 Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 9 05:00 PM 00000 11002 01001 03003 6 05:15 PM 00000 11002 00000 00000 2 05:30 PM 00000 03003 00000 00000 3 05:45 PM 00000 01001 00000 01001 2 Total 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 4 13 06:00 PM 00000 01001 00000 02002 3 06:15 PM 00000 01001 00000 01001 2 06:30 PM 00101 00000 00000 01001 2 06:45 PM 00000 04004 00000 00000 4 Total 0 0 1 0 1 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 11 Grand Total 00101 3171021 01001 0100010 33 Apprch %001000 14.3 814.80 010000 010000 Total %00303 9.1 51.5 3063.6 03003 0 30.3 0030.3 PHAR LAP DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound DRIVEWAY Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 0000 1 1 13 0000 0101 4 05:00 PM 0000 1102 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 6 05:15 PM 0000 1102 0000 0000 2 05:30 PM 0000 0 3 03 0000 0000 3 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 3 6 1 10 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 4 15 % App. Total 0 0 0 30 60 10 0 100 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .500 .250 .833 .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .333 .000 .333 .625 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 114 File Name: 4PM FINAL Site Code: 00000004 Start Date: 10/1/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles PHAR LAP DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound DRIVEWAY Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total02:00 PM 805215 3665074 20215 0561158 152 02:15 PM 20114 3773083 20013 3804087 177 02:30 PM 40307 6872095 00011 011140115 218 02:45 PM 3011216 6862094 10001 112101123 234 Total 17 0 20 5 42 18 316 12 0 346 5 0 2 3 10 4 368 9 2 383 781 03:00 PM 31116 1010500115 00123 112161129 253 03:15 PM 206210 712010128 600612 110022105 255 03:30 PM 203510 79510103 302712 1842592 217 03:45 PM 00000 6883097 00134 314231149 250 Total 7 1 10 8 26 30 408 5 0 443 9 0 4 18 31 6 447 13 9 475 975 04:00 PM 00639 3754082 703111 310950117 219 04:15 PM 10719 13761090 20013 012960135 237 04:30 PM 30609 7803090 30317 316250170 276 04:45 PM 20316 4843091 10001 016973179 277 Total 6 0 22 5 33 27 315 11 0 353 13 0 6 3 22 6 569 23 3 601 1009 05:00 PM 504211 89340105 10034 021261219 339 05:15 PM 40116 118830102 20147 0211111223 338 05:30 PM 30609 811020120 30126 020271210 345 05:45 PM 41106 612120129 30014 123590245 384 Total 16 1 12 3 32 33 412 11 0 456 9 0 2 10 21 1 860 33 3 897 1406 06:00 PM 20316 511810124 40127 1227110239 376 06:15 PM 405312 410130108 10135 0230113244 369 06:30 PM 506011 611250123 30014 0208100218 356 06:45 PM 20428 108820100 700916 017348185 309 Total 13 0 18 6 37 25 419 11 0 455 15 0 2 15 32 1 838 36 11 886 1410 Grand Total 5928227170 133 1870 5002053 5101649116 18 3082 114283242 5581 Apprch %34.7 1.2 48.215.9 6.5 91.1 2.40 440 13.842.2 0.6 95.1 3.50.9 Total %1.101.50.53 2.4 33.5 0.9036.8 0.900.30.92.1 0.3 55.2 20.558.1 PHAR LAP DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound DRIVEWAY Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 03:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 02:30 PM 02:30 PM 4 037 687 2 95 0000 01114115 217 02:45 PM 30 1114 686294 1001 1121 0122 231 03:00 PM 3 1 15 10 1050115 00 1 1 1121 6128 249 03:15 PM 2068 7 120 1 128 6 00 6 11002103 245 Total Volume 12 1 21 34 29 398 5 432 7 0 1 8 3 453 12 468 942 % App. Total 35.3 2.9 61.8 6.7 92.1 1.2 87.5 0 12.5 0.6 96.8 2.6 PHF .750 .250 .477 .607 .725 .829 .625 .844 .292 .000 .250 .333 .750 .936 .500 .914 .946 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 115 File Name: 4PM FINAL Site Code: 00000004 Start Date: 10/1/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Bikes PHAR LAP DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound DRIVEWAY Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total02:00 PM 00000 00000 00000 01001 1 02:15 PM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 02:30 PM 00000 00000 00000 01001 1 02:45 PM 00000 00000 00000 01001 1 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 03:00 PM 00000 11002 00000 01001 3 03:15 PM 00000 18009 00000 00000 9 03:30 PM 00000 02002 00000 00000 2 03:45 PM 00000 05005 00000 01001 6 Total 0 0 0 0 0 2 16 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 20 04:00 PM 00000 00000 00000 01001 1 04:15 PM 00000 01001 00000 00000 1 04:30 PM 00000 02002 00000 01001 3 04:45 PM 00000 00000 00000 01001 1 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 6 05:00 PM 00000 04004 00000 00000 4 05:15 PM 00000 01001 00000 02002 3 05:30 PM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 05:45 PM 10001 00000 01001 00000 2 Total 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 9 06:00 PM 00000 02002 00000 01001 3 06:15 PM 00000 03003 00000 00000 3 06:30 PM 00000 10001 00000 02002 3 06:45 PM 00000 03003 00000 00000 3 Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 12 Grand Total 10001 3320035 01001 0130013 50 Apprch %100000 8.6 91.4 00 010000 010000 Total %20002 6640070 02002 0260026 PHAR LAP DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound DRIVEWAY Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 03:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 03:00 PM 03:00 PM 0000 1 102 0000 0 1 0 1 3 03:15 PM 0000 1 8 0 9 0000 0000 9 03:30 PM 0000 0202 0000 0000 2 03:45 PM 0000 0505 0000 0101 6 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 2 16 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 20 % App. Total 0 0 0 11.1 88.9 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .556 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 116 File Name: 2AM FINAL Site Code: 00000002 Start Date: 5/29/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles MANN DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound ORANGE AVE Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total06:30 AM 00617 0292031 902213 0160016 67 06:45 AM 00213 1402043 50117 1240025 78 Total 0 0 8 2 10 1 69 4 0 74 14 0 3 3 20 1 40 0 0 41 145 07:00 AM 13307 1618171 1107220 12380050 148 07:15 AM 01710027 07815295 35130268 637300136 326 07:30 AM 1115017 712423136 33527166 11580069 288 07:45 AM 6018125 617063185 2205229 2590061 300 Total 8 21 46 1 76 14 433 31 9 487 101 6 69 7 183 88 228 0 0 316 1062 08:00 AM 0127028 1315940176 23011034 1015300163 401 08:15 AM 0521329 4206104224 29418253 9790088 394 08:30 AM 4321028 6248110265 2524031 310500108 432 08:45 AM 4423031 820680222 1407021 3942099 373 Total 8 13 92 3 116 31 819 33 4 887 91 6 40 2 139 25 431 2 0 458 1600 09:00 AM 2121024 2196100208 2108029 4851090 351 09:15 AM 2318023 7129160152 18111030 1791081 286 Grand Total 20381856249 55 1646 94131808 2451313112401 11986340986 3444 Apprch %8 15.374.3 2.4 3915.20.7 61.1 3.2 32.7 3 12.187.5 0.40 Total %0.61.15.40.27.2 1.6 47.8 2.70.452.5 7.10.43.80.311.6 3.5 25.1 0.1028.6 MANN DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound ORANGE AVE Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 111517 71242133 3352765 11 58069 284 07:45 AM 6 01824 61706182 220527 259061 294 08:00 AM 01 2728 13 1594176 2301134 10 153 0 163 401 08:15 AM 0 5 2126 4 20610220 2941851 979088 385 Total Volume 7 7 81 95 30 659 22 711 107 9 61 177 32 349 0 381 1364 % App. Total 7.4 7.4 85.3 4.2 92.7 3.1 60.5 5.1 34.5 8.4 91.6 0 PHF .292 .350 .750 .848 .577 .800 .550 .808 .811 .450 .565 .681 .727 .570 .000 .584 .850 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 117 File Name: 2AM FINAL Site Code: 00000002 Start Date: 5/29/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Bikes MANN DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound ORANGE AVE Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total06:30 AM 00000 01001 00000 01001 2 06:45 AM 00000 00000 01001 02002 3 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 5 07:00 AM 00101 02002 00000 11002 5 07:15 AM 08008 00101 00000 61007 16 07:30 AM 00000 01001 10102 12003 6 07:45 AM 04004 00000 00000 53008 12 Total 0 12 1 0 13 0 3 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 2 13 7 0 0 20 39 08:00 AM 02002 00000 00000 13004 6 08:15 AM 02002 01001 00000 03003 6 08:30 AM 00000 00000 00000 02002 2 08:45 AM 00000 00000 00000 01001 1 Total 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 10 15 09:00 AM 00000 00000 00000 10001 1 09:15 AM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 Grand Total 0161017 05106 11103 15190034 60 Apprch %0 94.1 5.90 0 83.316.7 0 33.333.333.3 0 44.155.9 00 Total %0 26.7 1.7028.3 08.31.7010 1.71.71.705 25 31.7 0056.7 MANN DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound ORANGE AVE Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 0 8 0 8 00 11 0000 6 107 16 07:30 AM 0000 0 1 01 1 0 12 1203 6 07:45 AM 0404 0000 0000 5 3 0 8 12 08:00 AM 0202 0000 0000 1304 6 Total Volume 0 14 0 14 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 13 9 0 22 40 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 50 50 50 0 50 59.1 40.9 0 PHF .000 .438 .000 .438 .000 .250 .250 .500 .250 .000 .250 .250 .542 .750 .000 .688 .625 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 118 File Name: 2PM FINAL Site Code: 00000002 Start Date: 5/29/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles MANN DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound ORANGE AVE Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total04:00 PM 2013015 138780108 804012 411800122 257 04:15 PM 0118221 889125114 1303218 613110138 291 04:30 PM 1214118 97712199 1334020 611120119 256 04:45 PM 208414 1295176130 737421 514430152 317 Total 5 3 53 7 68 42 348 49 12 451 41 6 18 6 71 21 504 6 0 531 1121 05:00 PM 1118323 12103101126 816318 713120140 307 05:15 PM 3119225 17114191151 1624022 513930147 345 05:30 PM 0134136 1111983141 619016 515430162 355 05:45 PM 4321028 19114134150 417214 315550163 355 Total 8 6 92 6 112 59 450 50 9 568 34 5 26 5 70 20 579 13 0 612 1362 06:00 PM 1015319 17121260164 807015 712120130 328 06:15 PM 1211216 18122241165 606416 612320131 328 06:30 PM 218112 18116201155 813012 1612040140 319 06:45 PM 029112 11105155136 633214 1411320129 291 Total 4 5 43 7 59 64 464 85 7 620 28 4 19 6 57 43 477 10 0 530 1266 Grand Total 171418820239 165 1262 184281639 103156317198 84 1560 2901673 3749 Apprch %7.15.9 78.7 8.4 10.1 77 11.2 1.7 527.6 31.8 8.6 5 93.2 1.70 Total %0.50.450.56.4 4.4 33.7 4.90.743.7 2.70.41.70.55.3 2.2 41.6 0.8044.6 MANN DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound ORANGE AVE Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 111820 1210310125 81615 7 1312140 300 05:15 PM 311923 17114 19150 162 4 22 51393147 342 05:30 PM 01 3435 11 119 8138 61 9 16 51543162 351 05:45 PM 43 2128 19 11413146 41712 3 1555163 349 Total Volume 8 6 92 106 59 450 50 559 34 5 26 65 20 579 13 612 1342 % App. Total 7.5 5.7 86.8 10.6 80.5 8.9 52.3 7.7 40 3.3 94.6 2.1 PHF .500 .500 .676 .757 .776 .945 .658 .932 .531 .625 .722 .739 .714 .934 .650 .939 .956 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 119 File Name: 2PM FINAL Site Code: 00000002 Start Date: 5/29/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Bikes MANN DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound ORANGE AVE Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total04:00 PM 00000 01001 11103 01001 5 04:15 PM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 04:30 PM 00000 01001 10001 00000 2 04:45 PM 00000 01001 00000 01001 2 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 1 0 4 0 2 0 0 2 9 05:00 PM 00000 00000 00000 02002 2 05:15 PM 01001 10001 00202 10001 5 05:30 PM 00000 03003 01001 00000 4 05:45 PM 00000 01001 00000 01001 2 Total 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 5 0 1 2 0 3 1 3 0 0 4 13 06:00 PM 00000 01001 10001 11002 4 06:15 PM 00000 01001 00000 00000 1 06:30 PM 00000 01001 00000 01001 2 06:45 PM 00000 04004 00000 00000 4 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 11 Grand Total 01001 1140015 32308 27009 33 Apprch %010000 6.7 93.3 00 37.5 25 37.5 0 22.277.8 00 Total %03003 3 42.4 0045.5 9.16.19.1024.2 6.1 21.2 0027.3 MANN DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound ORANGE AVE Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 0000 0101 0000 0101 2 05:00 PM 0000 0000 0000 0 2 0 2 2 05:15 PM 0 1 0 1 1 001 00 22 1 001 5 05:30 PM 0000 0 3 0 3 0 1 01 0000 4 Total Volume 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 5 0 1 2 3 1 3 0 4 13 % App. Total 0 100 0 20 80 0 0 33.3 66.7 25 75 0 PHF .000 .250 .000 .250 .250 .333 .000 .417 .000 .250 .250 .375 .250 .375 .000 .500 .650 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 120 File Name: 3PM FINAL Site Code: 00000003 Start Date: 10/1/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles MANN DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound ORANGE AVE Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total02:00 PM 10708 4656075 627015 4560060 158 02:15 PM 2015118 679151101 603110 4742080 209 02:30 PM 0211114 1196141122 1112115 110400105 256 02:45 PM 339217 1389160118 734014 613320141 290 Total 6 5 42 4 57 34 329 51 2 416 30 6 16 2 54 15 367 4 0 386 913 03:00 PM 1910020 11109212143 30113145 1810420124 332 03:15 PM 4214626 201002412156 40623271 1010130114 367 03:30 PM 428721 890177122 1224119 3881092 254 03:45 PM 3014017 89192110 719320 812630137 284 Total 12 13 46 13 84 47 390 71 23 531 89 10 49 7 155 39 419 9 0 467 1237 04:00 PM 2013318 9764392 815115 111410116 241 04:15 PM 0014014 1384111109 808016 812910138 277 04:30 PM 1116119 1186123112 1013014 615920167 312 04:45 PM 1322026 118663106 1026220 516720174 326 Total 4 4 65 4 77 44 332 33 10 419 36 4 22 3 65 20 569 6 0 595 1156 05:00 PM 2026129 11101224138 925016 1218130196 379 05:15 PM 0627033 21108165150 1413321 2819930230 434 05:30 PM 1131235 17114213155 1528126 1719930219 435 05:45 PM 1024126 22123153163 1206119 3420440242 450 Total 4 7 108 4 123 71 446 74 15 606 50 5 22 5 82 91 783 13 0 887 1698 06:00 PM 0220123 13115209157 616417 2722500252 449 06:15 PM 1116119 16102195142 702110 1420920225 396 06:30 PM 0024125 20109254158 11112226 2818420214 423 06:45 PM 0114116 1197162126 806519 718230192 353 Total 1 4 74 4 83 60 423 80 20 583 32 2 26 12 72 76 800 7 0 883 1621 Grand Total 273333529424 256 1920 309702555 2372713529428 241 2938 3903218 6625 Apprch %6.47.8796.8 10 75.112.1 2.7 55.4 6.3 31.5 6.8 7.5 91.3 1.20 Total %0.40.55.10.46.4 3.9294.71.138.6 3.60.420.46.5 3.6 44.3 0.6048.6 MANN DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound ORANGE AVE Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 03:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 02:30 PM 02:30 PM 021113 119614121 111214 11040105 253 02:45 PM 33915 138916118 73414 6 133 2 141 288 03:00 PM 1 9 10 20 11 109 21141 3011344 18 1042124 329 03:15 PM 4 2 14 20 20 100 24144 4062369 10101 3 114 347 Total Volume 8 16 44 68 55 394 75 524 88 11 42 141 35 442 7 484 1217 % App. Total 11.8 23.5 64.7 10.5 75.2 14.3 62.4 7.8 29.8 7.2 91.3 1.4 PHF .500 .444 .786 .850 .688 .904 .781 .910 .550 .458 .457 .511 .486 .831 .583 .858 .877 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 121 File Name: 3PM FINAL Site Code: 00000003 Start Date: 10/1/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Bikes MANN DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound ORANGE AVE Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total02:00 PM 00000 00000 00000 02002 2 02:15 PM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 02:30 PM 00000 00000 00000 02002 2 02:45 PM 00000 00000 02103 00000 3 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 4 0 0 4 7 03:00 PM 01001 02002 0102012 01001 16 03:15 PM 10001 01001 145010 00000 12 03:30 PM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 03:45 PM 00000 01001 01405 00000 6 Total 1 1 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 1 15 11 0 27 0 1 0 0 1 34 04:00 PM 00000 00000 01001 00000 1 04:15 PM 00000 00000 00101 00000 1 04:30 PM 00000 11002 00202 00000 4 04:45 PM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 05:00 PM 00000 03104 10102 00000 6 05:15 PM 00000 00000 01001 02002 3 05:30 PM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 05:45 PM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4 1 1 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 2 9 06:00 PM 00000 01001 00000 00000 1 06:15 PM 00000 03003 01102 00000 5 06:30 PM 01001 00000 00000 01001 2 06:45 PM 01001 02002 00000 00000 3 Total 0 2 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 6 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 11 Grand Total 13004 1141016 22017039 08008 67 Apprch %257500 6.2 87.5 6.20 5.1 51.343.6 0 010000 Total %1.54.5006 1.5 20.9 1.5023.9 3 29.925.4 058.2 0 11.9 0011.9 MANN DR Southbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Westbound ORANGE AVE Northbound STEVENS CREEK BLVD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 03:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 03:00 PM 03:00 PM 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 10 2 12 0 1 0 1 16 03:15 PM 1 001 0101 1 4 5 10 0000 12 03:30 PM 0000 0000 0000 0000 0 03:45 PM 0000 0101 0145 0000 6 Total Volume 1 1 0 2 0 4 0 4 1 15 11 27 0 1 0 1 34 % App. Total 50 50 0 0 100 0 3.7 55.6 40.7 0 100 0 PHF .250 .250 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .500 .250 .375 .550 .563 .000 .250 .000 .250 .531 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 122 File Name: 3AM FINAL Site Code: 00000003 Start Date: 5/29/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles BYRNE AVE Southbound MC CLELLAN RD Westbound Northbound MC CLELLAN RD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total06:30 AM 00033 01001 00000 05005 9 06:45 AM 00134 06006 00000 06309 19 Total 0 0 1 6 7 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3 0 14 28 07:00 AM 608216 5410248 00000 0142016 80 07:15 AM 220101547 16100063179 00000 03711048 274 07:30 AM 3015220 174701074 00000 0376043 137 07:45 AM 506112 2270433 00000 0139022 67 Total 36 0 39 20 95 40 215 0 79 334 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 28 0 129 558 08:00 AM 9011323 5540362 00000 02112033 118 08:15 AM 4016323 9730587 00000 03222054 164 08:30 AM 604515 4370748 00000 0294033 96 08:45 AM 3061120 25101568 00000 0156021 109 Total 22 0 37 22 81 20 215 0 30 265 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 44 0 141 487 09:00 AM 402511 2310639 00000 0264030 80 09:15 AM 607013 4310136 00000 0253028 77 Grand Total 6808653207 664990116681 00000 0260820342 1230 Apprch %32.9 0 41.525.6 9.7 73.3 017 0000 076240 Total %5.5074.316.8 5.4 40.6 09.455.4 00000 0 21.1 6.7027.8 BYRNE AVE Southbound MC CLELLAN RD Westbound Northbound MC CLELLAN RD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 09:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 22 010 32 16 100 0 116 0000 0 37 11 48 196 07:30 AM 30 15 18 17 47064 0000 037643 125 07:45 AM 50611 227029 0000 013922 62 08:00 AM 901120 554059 0000 021 12 33 112 Total Volume 39 0 42 81 40 228 0 268 0 0 0 0 0 108 38 146 495 % App. Total 48.1 0 51.9 14.9 85.1 0 0 0 0 0 74 26 PHF .443 .000 .700 .633 .588 .570 .000 .578 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .730 .792 .760 .631 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 123 File Name: 3AM FINAL Site Code: 00000003 Start Date: 5/29/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Bikes BYRNE AVE Southbound MC CLELLAN RD Westbound Northbound MC CLELLAN RD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total06:30 AM 00000 04004 00000 00000 4 06:45 AM 00000 00000 00000 03003 3 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 7 07:00 AM 10102 00000 00000 02002 4 07:15 AM 00000 01001 00000 05005 6 07:30 AM 00000 02002 00000 02103 5 07:45 AM 00101 00000 00000 01001 2 Total 1 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 11 17 08:00 AM 00707 00000 00000 04004 11 08:15 AM 20103 00000 00000 04004 7 08:30 AM 00000 02002 00000 01001 3 08:45 AM 00000 12003 00000 01001 4 Total 2 0 8 0 10 1 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 25 09:00 AM 00000 00000 00000 04004 4 09:15 AM 00000 05005 00000 01001 6 Grand Total 3010013 1160017 00000 0281029 59 Apprch %23.1 0 76.9 0 5.9 94.1 00 0000 0 96.6 3.40 Total %5.10 16.9 022 1.7 27.1 0028.8 00000 0 47.5 1.7049.2 BYRNE AVE Southbound MC CLELLAN RD Westbound Northbound MC CLELLAN RD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 09:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 0000 0 2 0 2 0000 02 1 3 5 07:45 AM 0011 0000 0000 0101 2 08:00 AM 00 77 0000 0000 0 4 0 4 11 08:15 AM 2 013 0000 0000 0404 7 Total Volume 2 0 9 11 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 12 25 % App. Total 18.2 0 81.8 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 91.7 8.3 PHF .250 .000 .321 .393 .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .688 .250 .750 .568 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 124 File Name: 3PM FINAL Site Code: 00000003 Start Date: 5/29/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles BYRNE AVE Southbound MC CLELLAN RD Westbound Northbound MC CLELLAN RD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total04:00 PM 30429 1240227 00000 0383041 77 04:15 PM 20529 5420552 00000 0221023 84 04:30 PM 906015 2320236 00000 0364040 91 04:45 PM 303410 8430657 00000 0352037 104 Total 17 0 18 8 43 16 141 0 15 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 10 0 141 356 05:00 PM 308112 7360144 00000 0373040 96 05:15 PM 20619 3480152 00000 0461047 108 05:30 PM 40206 6510057 00000 0373040 103 05:45 PM 40307 7380045 00000 0450045 97 Total 13 0 19 2 34 23 173 0 2 198 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 7 0 172 404 06:00 PM 407112 4350443 00000 0351036 91 06:15 PM 706013 5371043 00000 0522054 110 06:30 PM 6010420 3500457 00000 0691070 147 06:45 PM 6012018 8370550 00000 0732075 143 Total 23 0 35 5 63 20 159 1 13 193 0 0 0 0 0 0 229 6 0 235 491 Grand Total 5307215140 59473130563 00000 0525230548 1251 Apprch %37.9 0 51.410.7 10.5 840.25.3 0000 0 95.8 4.20 Total %4.205.81.211.2 4.7 37.8 0.12.445 00000 0421.8043.8 BYRNE AVE Southbound MC CLELLAN RD Westbound Northbound MC CLELLAN RD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 06:00 PM 06:00 PM 40711 435039 0000 035136 86 06:15 PM 7 0613 537 1 43 0000 052 2 54 110 06:30 PM 601016 3 50 0 53 0000 069170 139 06:45 PM 60 1218 8 37045 0000 0 73 2 75 138 Total Volume 23 0 35 58 20 159 1 180 0 0 0 0 0 229 6 235 473 % App. Total 39.7 0 60.3 11.1 88.3 0.6 0 0 0 0 97.4 2.6 PHF .821 .000 .729 .806 .625 .795 .250 .849 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .784 .750 .783 .851 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 125 File Name: 3PM FINAL Site Code: 00000003 Start Date: 5/29/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Bikes BYRNE AVE Southbound MC CLELLAN RD Westbound Northbound MC CLELLAN RD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total04:00 PM 00000 10001 00000 01001 2 04:15 PM 00000 02002 00000 04004 6 04:30 PM 00000 00000 00000 01001 1 04:45 PM 00000 12003 00000 00000 3 Total 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 12 05:00 PM 00000 02002 00000 00000 2 05:15 PM 10001 01001 00000 02002 4 05:30 PM 00000 01001 00000 0111012 13 05:45 PM 00000 05005 00000 02002 7 Total 1 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 16 26 06:00 PM 00000 01001 00000 01001 2 06:15 PM 00000 00000 00000 02002 2 06:30 PM 00000 02002 00000 02002 4 06:45 PM 00000 04004 00000 01001 5 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 13 Grand Total 10001 2200022 00000 0271028 51 Apprch %100000 9.1 90.9 00 0000 0 96.4 3.60 Total %20002 3.9 39.2 0043.1 00000 0 52.9 2054.9 BYRNE AVE Southbound MC CLELLAN RD Westbound Northbound MC CLELLAN RD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 0000 0202 0000 0000 2 05:15 PM 1 00 1 0101 0000 0202 4 05:30 PM 0000 0101 0000 0 11112 13 05:45 PM 0000 0 5 0 5 0000 0202 7 Total Volume 1 0 0 1 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 16 26 % App. Total 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 93.8 6.2 PHF .250 .000 .000 .250 .000 .450 .000 .450 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .341 .250 .333 .500 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 126 File Name: 2PM FINAL Site Code: 00000002 Start Date: 10/1/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles BYRNE AVE Southbound MCCLELLAN RD Westbound Northbound MCCLELLAN RD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total02:00 PM 703111 2250128 00000 0221023 62 02:15 PM 10304 2220024 00000 0292031 59 02:30 PM 803516 1200324 00000 0214025 65 02:45 PM 1006420 92002958 00000 0457052 130 Total 26 0 15 10 51 14 87 0 33 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 14 0 131 316 03:00 PM 190122152 20470119186 00000 04520065 303 03:15 PM 180161145 2881026135 00000 0345039 219 03:30 PM 508720 64801569 00000 0352037 126 03:45 PM 407011 5280336 00000 0403043 90 Total 46 0 43 39 128 59 204 0 163 426 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 30 0 184 738 04:00 PM 20338 3310337 00000 0260026 71 04:15 PM 40509 6300339 00000 0314237 85 04:30 PM 604212 6370750 00000 0321033 95 04:45 PM 308011 4350342 00000 0446050 103 Total 15 0 20 5 40 19 133 0 16 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 11 2 146 354 05:00 PM 1006117 6430655 00000 0525057 129 05:15 PM 8014022 9410252 00000 0640064 138 05:30 PM 409215 4420147 00000 0581059 121 05:45 PM 2010214 4550160 00000 0540054 128 Total 24 0 39 5 68 23 181 0 10 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 228 6 0 234 516 06:00 PM 507113 1390242 00000 0581059 114 06:15 PM 505010 4390346 00000 0602062 118 06:30 PM 406515 8440557 00000 0542056 128 06:45 PM 604212 7330141 00000 0411042 95 Total 20 0 22 8 50 20 155 0 11 186 0 0 0 0 0 0 213 6 0 219 455 Grand Total 131013967337 13576002331128 00000 0845672914 2379 Apprch %38.9 0 41.219.9 12 67.4 0 20.7 0000 0 92.5 7.30.2 Total %5.505.82.814.2 5.7 31.9 09.847.4 00000 0 35.5 2.80.138.4 BYRNE AVE Southbound MCCLELLAN RD Westbound Northbound MCCLELLAN RD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 03:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 02:45 PM 02:45 PM 100616 920029 0000 0 45 752 97 03:00 PM 19 01231 2047067 0000 045 2065 163 03:15 PM 180 1634 2881 0 109 0000 034539 182 03:30 PM 50813 648054 0000 035237 104 Total Volume 52 0 42 94 63 196 0 259 0 0 0 0 0 159 34 193 546 % App. Total 55.3 0 44.7 24.3 75.7 0 0 0 0 0 82.4 17.6 PHF .684 .000 .656 .691 .563 .605 .000 .594 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .883 .425 .742 .750 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 127 File Name: 2PM FINAL Site Code: 00000002 Start Date: 10/1/2014 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Bikes BYRNE AVE Southbound MCCLELLAN RD Westbound Northbound MCCLELLAN RD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total02:00 PM 00000 00000 00000 02002 2 02:15 PM 00000 00000 00000 01001 1 02:30 PM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 02:45 PM 00000 00000 00000 01001 1 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 4 03:00 PM 00000 14005 00000 01001 6 03:15 PM 00000 02002 00000 02002 4 03:30 PM 00000 01001 00000 00000 1 03:45 PM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 11 04:00 PM 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 04:15 PM 00000 01001 00000 02002 3 04:30 PM 00000 03003 00000 00000 3 04:45 PM 00000 03003 00000 01001 4 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 10 05:00 PM 00000 01001 00000 03003 4 05:15 PM 00000 07007 00000 03003 10 05:30 PM 00000 03003 00000 02002 5 05:45 PM 00000 01001 00000 03003 4 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 23 06:00 PM 00101 03003 00000 01001 5 06:15 PM 00000 12003 00000 01001 4 06:30 PM 10001 01001 00000 00000 2 06:45 PM 00101 00000 00000 00000 1 Total 1 0 2 0 3 1 6 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 12 Grand Total 10203 2320034 00000 0230023 60 Apprch %33.3 0 66.7 0 5.9 94.1 00 0000 010000 Total %1.703.305 3.3 53.3 0056.7 00000 0 38.3 0038.3 BYRNE AVE Southbound MCCLELLAN RD Westbound Northbound MCCLELLAN RD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 03:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 02:45 PM 02:45 PM 0000 0000 0000 0101 1 03:00 PM 0000 14 0 5 0000 0101 6 03:15 PM 0000 0202 0000 0 2 0 2 4 03:30 PM 0000 0101 0000 0000 1 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 12 % App. Total 0 0 0 12.5 87.5 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .438 .000 .400 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .500 Traffic Data Service Campbell, CA (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com 128 ATTACHMENT B — TRAFFIX LOS WORKSHEETS 129 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 1-1 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan EIR SJ14-1512 Fehr & Peers Summary Scenario Comparison Report (With Average Critical Delay) Existing Conditions Volumes Existing AM (May 2014) Existing School PM (October 2014) Existing Commute PM (October 2014) Avg Avg Avg Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) #1 Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course/Stevens Creek Boulevard D 1.3 0.194 1.3 C 0.9 0.078 0.9 D 1.0 0.101 1.0 #2 Orange Avenue-Mann Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard A 8.8 0.546 8.8 B+ 10.2 0.362 12.3 A 7.6 0.620 8.5 #3 Byrne Avenue/McClellan Road B 2.3 0.063 2.3 B 2.4 0.076 2.4 B 1.4 0.068 1.4 130 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-1 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan EIR SJ14-1512 Fehr & Peers Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM - May 2014 Intersection #1: Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course/Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 27 0 27 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 9 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 1 15 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 411 0 Critical V/C: 0.194 1 847 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.3 0 4 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.3 1 6 LOS: D Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Final Vol: 0 0 3 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:8-9AM Base Vol: 0 0 3 27 0 27 9 411 4 6 847 15 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 3 27 0 27 9 411 4 6 847 15 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 3 27 0 27 9 411 4 6 847 15 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 3 27 0 27 9 411 4 6 847 15 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 3 27 0 27 9 411 4 6 847 15 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 413 1292 1292 847 862 xxxx xxxxx 415 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 643 141 165 365 789 xxxx xxxxx 1155 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 643 139 162 365 789 xxxx xxxxx 1155 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.07 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 10.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.6 xxxx xxxxx 8.1 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * B * * * A * * A * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 201 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.0 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 29.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * D * * * * * * * ApproachDel: 10.6 29.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B D * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course/Stevens Creek Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met 131 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-2 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 0 0 3 27 0 27 9 411 4 6 847 15 ApproachDel: 10.6 29.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=3] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=1349] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.4] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=54] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=1349] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course/Stevens Creek Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 0 0 3 27 0 27 9 411 4 6 847 15 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 1292 Minor Approach Volume: 54 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 197 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 132 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-3 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan EIR SJ14-1512 Fehr & Peers Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing School PM - October 2014 Intersection #1: Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course/Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 10 1 21 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 10 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 1 30 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 426 0 Critical V/C: 0.078 1 406 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.9 0 4 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.9 1 4 LOS: C Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Final Vol: 3 0 10 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 0 10 21 1 10 10 426 4 4 406 30 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 0 10 21 1 10 10 426 4 4 406 30 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 0 10 21 1 10 10 426 4 4 406 30 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 3 0 10 21 1 10 10 426 4 4 406 30 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 3 0 10 21 1 10 10 426 4 4 406 30 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 883 892 428 867 864 406 436 xxxx xxxxx 430 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 269 283 631 275 294 649 1134 xxxx xxxxx 1140 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 261 280 631 268 291 649 1134 xxxx xxxxx 1140 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.2 xxxx xxxxx 8.2 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * A * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 476 xxxxx xxxx 330 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 12.8 xxxxx xxxxx 17.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B * * C * * * * * * * ApproachDel: 12.8 17.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B C * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course/Stevens Creek Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met 133 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-4 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 3 0 10 21 1 10 10 426 4 4 406 30 ApproachDel: 12.8 17.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=13] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=925] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=32] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=925] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course/Stevens Creek Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 3 0 10 21 1 10 10 426 4 4 406 30 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 880 Minor Approach Volume: 32 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 329 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 134 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-5 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan EIR SJ14-1512 Fehr & Peers Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Commute PM - October 2014 Intersection #1: Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course/Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 13 1 11 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 38 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 1 30 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 875 0 Critical V/C: 0.101 1 437 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.0 0 2 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.0 1 8 LOS: D Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Final Vol: 3 0 12 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course Stevens Creek Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:5:15-6:15p Base Vol: 3 0 12 11 1 13 38 875 2 8 437 30 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 0 12 11 1 13 38 875 2 8 437 30 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 0 12 11 1 13 38 875 2 8 437 30 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 3 0 12 11 1 13 38 875 2 8 437 30 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 3 0 12 11 1 13 38 875 2 8 437 30 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1427 1435 876 1411 1406 437 467 xxxx xxxxx 877 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 114 135 351 117 140 624 1105 xxxx xxxxx 779 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 107 129 351 109 134 624 1105 xxxx xxxxx 779 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.03 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.4 xxxx xxxxx 9.7 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * A * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 241 xxxxx xxxx 194 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 20.9 xxxxx xxxxx 26.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * C * * D * * * * * * * ApproachDel: 20.9 26.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: C D * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course/Stevens Creek Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met 135 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-6 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 3 0 12 11 1 13 38 875 2 8 437 30 ApproachDel: 20.9 26.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=15] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=1430] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=25] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=1430] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 800 for intersection with four or more approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Phar Lap Drive-Golf Course/Stevens Creek Boulevard ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 3 0 12 11 1 13 38 875 2 8 437 30 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 1390 Minor Approach Volume: 25 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 171 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 136 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-7 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan EIR SJ14-1512 Fehr & Peers Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM - May 2014 Intersection #2: Orange Avenue-Mann Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal=Permit/Rights=Include Final Vol: 8 13 92 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 2 1 Cycle Time (sec): 90 1 31 0 Loss Time (sec): 6 0 431 0 Critical V/C: 0.546 1 819*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.8 0 25 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 8.8 1 33 LOS: A Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Final Vol: 40 6*** 91 Signal=Permit/Rights=Include Street Name: Orange Avenue-Mann Drive Stevens Creek Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 40 6 91 92 13 8 2 431 25 33 819 31 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 40 6 91 92 13 8 2 431 25 33 819 31 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 40 6 91 92 13 8 2 431 25 33 819 31 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 40 6 91 92 13 8 2 431 25 33 819 31 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 6 91 92 13 8 2 431 25 33 819 31 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 40 6 91 92 13 8 2 431 25 33 819 31 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.29 0.04 0.67 0.81 0.12 0.07 1.00 0.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 511 77 1162 1425 201 124 1750 1701 99 1750 1900 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.02 0.43 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 71.1 71.1 71.1 71.1 71.1 71.1 Volume/Cap: 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.02 0.55 0.02 Delay/Veh: 38.3 38.3 38.3 36.6 36.6 36.6 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.0 3.9 2.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 38.3 38.3 38.3 36.6 36.6 36.6 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.0 3.9 2.0 LOS by Move: D+ D+ D+ D+ D+ D+ A A A A A A HCM2k95thQ: 9 9 9 7 7 7 0 8 8 0 16 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 137 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-8 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan EIR SJ14-1512 Fehr & Peers Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing School PM - October 2014 Intersection #2: Orange Avenue-Mann Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal=Permit/Rights=Include Final Vol: 12 16 41 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 8 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 1 52 0 Loss Time (sec): 6 0 426*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.362 1 388 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 12.3 0 37 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 10.2 1 78 LOS: B+ Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Final Vol: 44 12*** 89 Signal=Permit/Rights=Include Street Name: Orange Avenue-Mann Drive Stevens Creek Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 44 12 89 41 16 12 8 426 37 78 388 52 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 44 12 89 41 16 12 8 426 37 78 388 52 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 44 12 89 41 16 12 8 426 37 78 388 52 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 44 12 89 41 16 12 8 426 37 78 388 52 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 12 89 41 16 12 8 426 37 78 388 52 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 44 12 89 41 16 12 8 426 37 78 388 52 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.30 0.08 0.62 0.60 0.23 0.17 1.00 0.92 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 531 145 1074 1040 406 304 1750 1656 144 1750 1900 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.20 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 71.1 71.1 71.1 71.1 71.1 71.1 Volume/Cap: 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.01 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.29 0.04 Delay/Veh: 33.0 33.0 33.0 31.1 31.1 31.1 4.2 5.8 5.8 4.4 5.4 4.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 33.0 33.0 33.0 31.1 31.1 31.1 4.2 5.8 5.8 4.4 5.4 4.3 LOS by Move: C- C- C- C C C A A A A A A HCM2k95thQ: 8 8 8 4 4 4 0 11 11 2 9 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 138 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-9 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan EIR SJ14-1512 Fehr & Peers Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Commute PM - October 2014 Intersection #2: Orange Avenue-Mann Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal=Permit/Rights=Include Final Vol: 2 9*** 102 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 10 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 1 73 0 Loss Time (sec): 6 0 827*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.620 1 460 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.5 0 106 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 7.6 1 72 LOS: A Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Final Vol: 23 4 47 Signal=Permit/Rights=Include Street Name: Orange Avenue-Mann Drive Stevens Creek Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 23 4 47 102 9 2 10 827 106 72 460 73 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 23 4 47 102 9 2 10 827 106 72 460 73 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 23 4 47 102 9 2 10 827 106 72 460 73 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 23 4 47 102 9 2 10 827 106 72 460 73 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 23 4 47 102 9 2 10 827 106 72 460 73 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 23 4 47 102 9 2 10 827 106 72 460 73 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.31 0.05 0.64 0.90 0.08 0.02 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 544 95 1111 1580 139 31 1750 1595 205 1750 1900 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.52 0.52 0.04 0.24 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.6 Volume/Cap: 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.05 0.29 0.05 Delay/Veh: 43.4 43.4 43.4 49.3 49.3 49.3 1.4 3.6 3.6 1.4 1.9 1.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 43.4 43.4 43.4 49.3 49.3 49.3 1.4 3.6 3.6 1.4 1.9 1.4 LOS by Move: D D D D D D A A A A A A HCM2k95thQ: 6 6 6 9 9 9 0 20 20 1 6 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 139 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-10 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan EIR SJ14-1512 Fehr & Peers Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM - May 2014 Intersection #3: Byrne Avenue/McClellan Road Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 22 0 37 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 44 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 20 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 97 1! Critical V/C: 0.063 0 215 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 2.3 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 2.3 0 0 LOS: B Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol: 0 0 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Byrne Avneue McClellan Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:8-9 Base Vol: 0 0 0 37 0 22 44 97 0 0 215 20 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 37 0 22 44 97 0 0 215 20 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 37 0 22 44 97 0 0 215 20 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 37 0 22 44 97 0 0 215 20 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 37 0 22 44 97 0 0 215 20 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 410 410 225 235 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 602 534 819 1344 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 586 517 819 1344 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 656 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 11.0 xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * B * A * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 11.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * B * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Byrne Avenue/McClellan Road ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met 140 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-11 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 37 0 22 44 97 0 0 215 20 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 11.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=59] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=435] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Byrne Avenue/McClellan Road ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 37 0 22 44 97 0 0 215 20 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 376 Minor Approach Volume: 59 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 480 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 141 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-12 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan EIR SJ14-1512 Fehr & Peers Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing School PM - October 2014 Intersection #3: Byrne Avenue/McClellan Road Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 52 0 42 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 34 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 63 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 159 1! Critical V/C: 0.076 0 196 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 2.4 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 2.4 0 0 LOS: B Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol: 0 0 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Byrne Avneue McClellan Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 42 0 52 34 159 0 0 196 63 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 42 0 52 34 159 0 0 196 63 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 42 0 52 34 159 0 0 196 63 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 42 0 52 34 159 0 0 196 63 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 42 0 52 34 159 0 0 196 63 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 455 455 228 259 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 567 505 817 1317 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 556 491 817 1317 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 675 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.5 xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 11.2 xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * B * A * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 11.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * B * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Byrne Avenue/McClellan Road ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met 142 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-13 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 42 0 52 34 159 0 0 196 63 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 11.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=94] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=546] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Byrne Avenue/McClellan Road ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 42 0 52 34 159 0 0 196 63 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 452 Minor Approach Volume: 94 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 431 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 143 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-14 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan EIR SJ14-1512 Fehr & Peers Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Commute PM - October 2014 Intersection #3: Byrne Avenue/McClellan Road Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol: 19 0 40 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 2 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 18 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 234 1! Critical V/C: 0.068 0 177 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.4 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.4 0 0 LOS: B Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol: 0 0 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Byrne Avneue McClellan Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 40 0 19 2 234 0 0 177 18 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 40 0 19 2 234 0 0 177 18 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 40 0 19 2 234 0 0 177 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 40 0 19 2 234 0 0 177 18 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 40 0 19 2 234 0 0 177 18 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 424 424 186 195 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 591 525 861 1390 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 590 524 861 1390 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 657 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 11.0 xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * B * A * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 11.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * B * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Byrne Avenue/McClellan Road ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met 144 COMPARE Fri Oct 17 15:43:25 2014 Page 3-15 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 40 0 19 2 234 0 0 177 18 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 11.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=59] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=490] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Byrne Avenue/McClellan Road ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 40 0 19 2 234 0 0 177 18 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 431 Minor Approach Volume: 59 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 444 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 145 Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan | 1 DEMOGRAPHIC & RECREATION TRENDS Introduction The Demographics and Recreation Trends Analysis helps inform decision-making processes in terms of understanding changes in user preference of spaces, facilities and recreation pursuits over time. Populations are dynamic: people move in and out of a community, people who stay in a community age, and people are born and die every day. Demographic shifts can result in changes in consumer preferences, including for recreation. This document presents a population profile for Cupertino, covering population projections, income, employment, household composition, ethnicity, and age; and findings on recreation trends related to demographics. Additional recreation trends that affect facility planning and design will be addressed in a subsequent work product. Cupertino’s Population Profile The following sections detail demographic characteristics and trends in Cupertino, including how the city has changed and grown in recent years, which will inform the subsequent project needs analysis. Demographic data were compiled from the 2010 U.S. Census Decennial Census and 2008-2012 American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS publishes estimates of demographic conditions for geographies the size of Cupertino based on statistical sampling conducted continuously over a three-year period. While these data cannot represent conditions at a specific point in time, as in the previous decennial censuses, they are updated on an annual basis and offer a valuable means to compare characteristics across geographies. Estimated future changes in population, households, and employment were based on projections provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). To the extent that data are available, information is presented for Cupertino along with comparative information for Santa Clara County and the nine-county Bay Area. The base year of the demographic analysis is 2010 to facilitate comparisons and for consistency with ABAG forecasts. Population Between 2000 and 2010, the rate of population and household growth in Cupertino surpassed the growth rate in surrounding areas. As shown in Table 1, Cupertino had a population of 58,302 residents and 20,181 households in 2010. These figures represent a 15 percent increase in population and an 11 percent increase in households since 2000, significantly higher than the rate of growth in Santa Clara County (six percent increase in population; seven percent increase in households) and the Bay Area (five percent increase in population; six percent increase in households). A portion of this population growth can be attributed to the City’s annexation of 168 acres of land between 2000 and 2008. Cupertino’s 146 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS 2 | December 2014 annexation of Garden Gate, Monta Vista, and scattered County “islands” added 1,600 new residents. After removing the population increases from these annexations, the City of Cupertino experienced a 12 percent increase in its population during the previous decade. Overall, the state of California’s population grew at a similar rate to Cupertino, with an overall increase of 10 percent. For 2013, the population of Cupertino is estimated to be 60,189. According to Department of Finance figures, the population was 59,946 as of January 1, 2014. Table 1: Population and Household Trends, 2000-2010 2000 2010 Percent Change 2000-2010 Cupertino Population 50,546 58,302 15.3% Households 18,204 20,181 10.9% Santa Clara County Population 1,682,585 1,781,642 5.9% Households 565,863 604,204 6.8% Bay Area (a) Population 6,783,760 7,150,739 5.4% Households 2,466,019 2,608,023 5.8% California Population 33,871,648 37,253,956 (b) 10.0% Households 11,502,870 12,577,498 (b) 9.3% Notes: (a) The nine-county Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties. (b) Average household size and household type figures from American Community Survey (ACS), 2007-2011. Sources: U.S. Census 2000 & 2010; BAE, 2013. Household Composition Households in Cupertino tend to about the same size as Santa Clara County, but slightly larger than average for the Bay Area as a whole. In 2010, the average household size was approximately 2.9 persons in Santa Clara County and in the overall State of California, as shown in Table 2. Cupertino has an average of 2.83 persons per household, slightly lower than the county and state averages. According to data from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Cupertino has a larger proportion of family households and households with children than Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. Family households accounted for more than three-quarters of all Cupertino households (approximately 78 percent) in 2010, compared to 71 percent of households in Santa Clara County and 65 percent of households in the Bay Area. Close to half of all family households in Cupertino (46 percent) included children under the age of 18, compared to approximately one third in Santa Clara County (35 percent) and the Bay Area (30 percent). The large and growing number of households with children in Cupertino is due largely to the highly rated school districts that serve the city. 147 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan | 3 Household characteristics suggest recent demographic shifts in Cupertino, leading to larger household sizes, more families, and more households with children. The average household size in Cupertino increased from 2.75 persons in 2000 to 2.83 persons in 2010, while the average household size was essentially unchanged in the Bay Area. The proportion of family households and households with children also increased between 2000 and 2010 in Cupertino while changing only slightly in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. Table 2: Household Composition, 2000-2010 2000 2010 Percent Change 2000-2010 Cupertino Household Size 2.75 2.83 2.9% Santa Clara County Household Size 2.92 2.89 -1.0% Bay Area (a) Household Size 2.69 2.69 0% California Household Size 2.87 2.91 1.4% Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2007-2011 Age Distribution Census data, as summarized by ABAG, indicates that Cupertino residents have a slightly higher median age than residents in the region, and the city has a significantly different distribution of age cohorts. In 2010, the median age in Cupertino was 39.9, compared to 36.2 in Santa Clara County. Looking at the age cohorts, as shown in Table 3, Cupertino has a high proportion of children under 18 (28 percent of the population in 2010, compared to 24 percent in the county and 22 percent in the region) and adults in the 35 to 64 years-of-age cohort (46 percent of the population in 2010, compared to 41 percent in the county and 42 percent in the region). Conversely, the city has a lower proportion of adults in the 18 to 34 years-of-age cohort, which accounted for only 14 percent of the population in Cupertino and 24 percent of the population in the county. These data demonstrate that Cupertino is primarily populated by families with children and that young adults do not comprise a large portion of the population, though there is a significant adult and middle-aged population. 148 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS 4 | December 2014 Table 3: Age Distribution, 2000-2010 Age Cohort City of Cupertino Santa Clara County 2000 2010 2000 2010 Under 15 22.4% 22.5% 20.9% 20.2% 15 to 17 4.3% 5.1% 3.9% 3.9% 18 to 20 2.5% 2.8% 3.9% 3.8% 21 to 24 2.7% 2.8% 5.4% 5.1% 25 to 34 12.1% 8.6% 17.8% 15.1% 35 to 44 21.0% 18.2% 17.6% 15.6% 45 to 54 15.4% 17.3% 13.0% 14.8% 55 to 64 8.7% 10.2% 8.0% 10.4% 65 to 74 5.8% 6.2% 5.2% 6.0% 75 to 84 3.8% 4.0% 3.3% 3.5% 85 + 1.4% 2.2% 1.1% 1.5% Median Age 37.9 39.9 34.0 36.2 Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013 Ethnicity Cupertino differs markedly from the county and region with respect to the racial and ethnic breakdown of the population. In 2010, almost two thirds (63 percent) of the population of Cupertino was of Asian descent, while approximately one third of the population of Santa Clara County and one quarter of the population of the Bay Area consisted of individuals of Asian descent. In all three geographies, data from 2010 demonstrate a significant increase in the Asian population compared to 2000; however, the difference is especially notable in Cupertino, where the Asian population grew by nearly 20 percent between 2000 and 2010. Compared to the county and region, Cupertino had a smaller share of individuals from all other racial and ethnic groups in 2010. The city’s share of individuals of Hispanic origin (four percent of the population) is particularly small relative to Santa Clara County (27 percent of the population) and the region (24 percent of the population). A sizeable portion of the population is foreign-born, which attributes to the ethnic heterogeneity of the City. According to the ACS survey, over 29,000 residents of the City were foreign-born, almost half of the population. Of the foreign-born population, 83% are of Asian descent. This immigrant population is highly-educated and high-earning, with 33% of the population being college-educated, and nearly half (47.5 percent) having obtained a post-graduate or professional degree. Approximately 91 percent of the population speaks a language other than English, and 34 percent reports that they speak English “less than very well.” Typically, these foreign-born residents gravitate towards jobs in either manufacturing or professional jobs in scientific, technical, or management positions, with more than three- quarters (76.4 percent) earning over $75,000 per year. 149 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan | 5 Table 4: Cupertino Ethnicity, 2000-2010 Census 2000 Census 2010 Percent change in City Population 2000-2010 Ethnicity Total Percent Total Percent White 25,342 50.1% 18,270 31.3% -27.9% Black or African American 347 0.7% 344 0.6% -0.9% American Indian and Alaska Native 101 0.2.% 117 0.2% 15.8% Asian 22,462 44.4% 36,895 63.3% 64.3% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 67 0.1% 54 0.1% -19.4% Some other race 639 1.3% 670 1.1% 4.9% Two or more races 1,588 3.1% 1,952 3.6% 22.9% Total 50,546 100% 58,302 100% 15.3% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 2,010 4.0% 2,113 3.6% 5.1% Total Not Hispanic or Latino 48,536 96% 56,189 96.4% 15.8% Sources: U.S. Census 2000 & 2010, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Household Income Households in Cupertino earn significantly higher annual incomes than households in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. ABAG data indicates that the median annual household income in Cupertino was over $124,825, approximately $36,700 higher than the median household income in Santa Clara County ($89,064). Income disparity between Cupertino and the region was most substantial in the high income categories. Approximately 62 percent of all households in Cupertino had an annual income of $100,000 or more, while only 45 percent of households in Santa Clara County and 39 percent of households in the Bay Area had an annual income of $100,000 or more. 150 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS 6 | December 2014 Table 5a: Household Income Distribution, 2011 Household Income City of Cupertino Santa Clara County Bay Area (a) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than $24,999 1,844 9.1% 79,057 13.2% 404,254 15.7% $25,000 to $49,999 1,933 9.6% 90,027 15.0% 440,575 17.1% $50,000 to $74,999 1,965 9.7% 84,596 14.1% 403,087 15.6% $75,000 to $99,999 1,874 9.3% 75,974 12.7% 324,123 12.6% $100,000 or more 12,560 62.3% 269,998 45.0% 1,005,441 39.0% Total 20,176 100% 599,652 100% 2,577,480 100% Median Household Income $124,825 $89,064 (b) Per Capita Income $51,965 $40,698 (b) Notes: (a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. (b) Median income data cannot be calculated from the ACS for Bay Area. Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013. Table 5b: Households by Income Category, 2010 Income Category (% of County AMI) City of Cupertino Santa Clara County Households Percent Households Percent Extremely Low (30% or less) 1,485 7.6% 75,395 12.6% Very Low (31 to 50%) 1,320 6.7% 61,830 10.4% Low (51 to 80%) 1,260 6.4% 56,325 9.4% Moderate or Above (over 80%) 15,515 79.2% 403,195 67.6% Total 19,580 100% 596,745 100% Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), based on American Community Survey (ACS), 2006-2010. According to the 2008-2012 ACS estimate, Cupertino residents’ high level of educational attainment correlates positively with a high degree of professional occupations concentrated in management, business, science, and arts as compared with Santa Clara County or the Bay Area. As a result of the higher percentage of management, business, science, and arts occupations, the median earnings of those working in Cupertino (as opposed to those living in Cupertino) is $81,000, again higher than Santa Clara County overall. Despite enjoying a comparatively higher median household and earning income than the rest of the county and region, 4.2 percent of individuals are living below the poverty level according to the ACS estimate for 2008-2012. 151 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan | 7 Local Employment Opportunities Since 2000, there has been a net increase of over 1,200 jobs held by Cupertino residents, for a total of 25,200 employed residents in 2011. As shown in Table 6, the number of jobs held by Cupertino residents grew by 5.2 percent between 2000 and 2011. The City of Cupertino job growth percentage was far greater than the growth experienced by Santa Clara County as a whole at 0.8 percent between 2000 and 2011. Despite this overall growth, most industry sectors experienced a decline in the number of jobs available. Between 2000 and 2011, the largest job losses in employment occurred in the manufacturing and retail trade sectors. These decreases were offset by growth in the professional, scientific, management, technology, administrative, and waste management services industry, which added 1,748 jobs, and the educational, health, and social services industry, which added 1,144 jobs. Even with the recent changes to employment sectors during the previous decade, manufacturing remains the largest job sector for residents of both Cupertino and Santa Clara County. As of 2011, manufacturing jobs comprise 28.1 percent of all jobs held by Cupertino residents and 19.6 percent of jobs held by residents of Santa Clara County overall. The manufacturing sector includes the production of computer, electronic, and communication equipment, with such major employers as Apple and Hewlett- Packard. The largest employers in the City include: Apple (whose worldwide headquarters is situated in Cupertino), the Cupertino Union School District, the Foothill-De Anza Community College District, the Fremont Union High School District, and Seagate Technology. With the 2008-2012 collapse of the financial and credit markets and the worldwide recession, Cupertino and the broader Silicon Valley region lost some of the gains in key sectors that were achieved between 2003 and 2007. The impacts of the economic downturn, although serious, were somewhat localized to particular sectors and industries such as construction, manufacturing, and retail/wholesale trade. Fortunately for Cupertino, high-tech employment did not decline at the same rate as the rest of the economy, and long-term prospects for this sector remain strong. 152 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS 8 | December 2014 Table 6: Jobs by Sector, 2000-2011 Industry Sector Cupertino Santa Clara County 2000 2011 2000 2011 Jobs % Total Jobs % Total % Change Jobs % Total Jobs % Total % Change Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 76 0.3% 36 0.1% -52.6% 4,364 0.5% 4,425 0.5% 1.4% Construction 642 2.7% 420 1.7% -34.6% 42,232 5.0% 47,005 5.5% 11.3% Manufacturing 7,952 33.2% 7,077 28.1% -11.0% 231,784 27.5% 167,034 19.6% -27.9% Wholesale trade 628 2.6% 545 2.2% -13.2% 25,515 3.0% 20,252 2.4% -20.6% Retail trade 2,056 8.6% 1,540 6.1% -25.1% 83,369 9.9% 81,918 9.6% -1.7% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 383 1.6% 425 1.7% 11.0% 23,546 2.8% 23,578 2.8% 0.1% Information 1,462 6.1% 1,370 5.4% -6.3% 39,098 4.6% 32,627 3.8% -16.6% Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 1,246 5.2% 1,368 5.4% 9.8% 38,715 4.6% 44,015 5.2% 13.7% Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services 4,667 19.5% 6,415 25.5% 37.5% 131,015 15.5% 152,960 18.0% 16.7% Educational, health, and social services 3,063 12.8% 4,207 16.7% 37.3% 123,890 14.7% 157,349 18.5% 27.0% Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 832 3.5% 734 2.9% -11.8% 49,186 5.8% 60,638 7.1% 23.3% Other services (except public administration) 590 2.5% 715 2.8% 21.2% 29,987 3.6% 36,330 4.3% 21.2% Public administration 362 1.5% 351 1.4% -3.0% 21,211 2.5% 22,421 2.6% 5.7% Total 23,959 100% 25,203 100% 5.2% 843,912 100% 850,552 100% 0.8% Sources: ACS, 2007-2011; BAE, 2013. 153 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan | 9 Unemployment According to unemployment data provided by the State of California Employment Development Department, as of February 2014, the City of Cupertino had an unemployment rate of approximately 3.9 percent. The unemployment rate for the City was less than that of the County as a whole (6.1 percent). Since 2008, the unemployment rate has remained stable in both the City and the County, which had unemployment rates of 3.8 percent and 6.0 percent, respectively, at that time. Modes to Work for People 16 and Over The ACS estimates that residents’ average about 24 minutes for their daily commute. Over 24,000 residents commute to work, with most (88 percent) utilizing a car, truck, or van as their mode of transport. Most of these drivers (76 percent) drove alone, while 11.6 percent carpooled. At 2 percent, public transportation usage is relatively low compared to the county (3.3 percent) and the greater Bay Area (10 percent). Among the modes of public transportation, buses are the most widely utilized (1 percent), while walking and biking, (2.1 and 0.9 percent respectively) comprise remaining commuters. About 5.7 percent of the population works from home or telecommutes. Table 7 outlines the means of transportation trends for the City. The City is serviced by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which provides bus, light rail, and shuttle service for a multitude of routes and connections to transit regional transit hubs throughout Santa Clara County. Caltrain provides regional rail services in proximity to the City of Cupertino. Major transit freeways and highways include US Route 101, Interstate 280, and CA State Routes 85 and 82. The VTA has accommodated rush hour traffic through the creation of Silicon Valley Express Lanes, on the SR 237/I-880. The VTA also has a comprehensive Bicycle Program that serves residents of Santa Clara County. In the City of Cupertino, and throughout the county, bike lanes, bike parking, and bike and transit centers have been created to improve bicyclist and transit safety. 154 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS 10 | December 2014 Table 7: Means of Transportation to Work City of Cupertino Santa Clara County Transportation Mode Totals Percent Households Percent Car/truck/or van 21,762 88% 714,507 10.4% Drove alone 18,888 76% 630,618 76% Carpooled 2,874 11.6% 83,889 10.2% Public Transportation 511 2% 26,876 3.3% Bus or trolley bus 292 1% 17,663 2.2% Streetcar or trolley car 0 0% 1,431 0.2% Subway or elevated 17 0.07% 1,357 0.2% Railroad 202 0.8% 6,412 0.8% Ferryboat 0 0% 13 0% Taxicab 0 0% 345 0% Motorcycle 128 0.5% 2,386 0.3% Bicycle 232 .9% 11,777 1.4% Walked 529 2.1% 18,011 2.2% Other means 176 0.7% 9,653 1.2% Worked at home 1,403 5.7% 37,267 4.5% Total 24,741 100% 820,822 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder, 2008-2010 data American Communities Survey, ABAG Population Projections Table 8 presents population, household, and job growth projections for Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the nine-county Bay Area region between 2010 and 2040. The figures represent the analysis conducted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) using 2010 Census data and a variety of local sources. Cupertino’s population is expected to grow by 12,898 residents—from 58,302 in 2010 to 71,200 in 2040. This translates into an increase of 22 percent over 30 years. ABAG projects both Santa Clara County and the ABAG region to experience much larger growth (36 percent and 31 percent over 30 years, respectively). Specifically, communities with lower housing costs have been experiencing influxes of residents in search of comparative affordable housing. As a community with high costs of housing, Cupertino has not experienced an influx of residents. Instead, Cupertino’s job growth is expected to continue to outpace population and household growth in Cupertino between 2010 and 2020, compounding the “jobs rich" nature of the City, resulting in a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.40 by 2020 (up from 1.29 in 2010) but mirroring the regional average of 1.40. Furthermore, job growth is projected to level off after 2020 to a comparable pace with population and household growth. Similar trends are also projected for the County and the ABAG region as a whole. 155 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan | 11 Table 8: Population, Household, and Job Projections, 2010-2040 Percent Change 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010- 2020 2020- 2030 2030- 2040 City of Cupertino Population 58,302 62,100 66,300 71,200 6.5% 6.8% 7.4% Households 20,181 21,460 22,750 24,040 6.3% 6.0% 5.7% Jobs 26,090 29,960 31,220 33,110 14.8% 4.2% 6.1% Santa Clara County Population 1,781,642 1,977,900 2,188,500 2,423,500 11.0% 10.6% 10.7% Households 604,204 675,670 747,070 818,400 11.8% 10.6% 9.5% Jobs 926,270 1,091,270 1,147,020 1,229,520 17.8% 5.1% 7.2% Bay Area (a) Population 6,432,288 7,011,700 7,660,700 8,394,700 9.0% 9.3% 9.6% Households 2,350,186 2,560,480 2,776,640 2,992,990 8.9% 8.4% 7.8% Jobs 3,040,110 3,579,600 3,775,080 4,060,160 17.7% 5.5% 7.6% Notes: (a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013. Recreation Trends As noted, the demographic composition of a community can have an impact on recreation, including use patterns and preferences. Cupertino’s park system was built to serve a population that was mostly white, middle class, and residing in single family homes. Today, Cupertino’s population profile is different, though it is still a community that attracts families with children. While single family homes remain a significant portion of the housing available, other multi-family options are more available. In addition, the employment population has grown significantly. This section reviews recreation trends, at the national, state, regional and local levels. National Trends and Issues Each of the national trends highlighted below has implications for parks and recreation service providers, and is seen at the regional and local levels.  Connecting Kids with Nature. Across the country there has been a movement to connect kids with nature and the outdoors. This movement is in response to data about the decreased time kids are spending in the outdoors compared to previous generations. In particular, the book Nature Deficit Disorder by Richard Louv spurred a national dialogue on this topic. According to the California Outdoor Recreation Plan (CORP), by 2008 children between the age of 8 and 18 years were spending an average of nearly 6.5 hours per day with electronic media. That average is likely higher now. A growing body of research confirms that spending time in nature 156 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS 12 | December 2014 benefits children. Children who directly experience the natural world are intellectually, emotionally, socially, spiritually and physically healthier.  The “Mainstreaming” of Outdoor Recreation. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, a record number of Americans — 142.6 million — participated in at least one outdoor activity and collectively and went on 12.1 billion outdoor outings in 2013. The popularity of outdoor recreation did not wane, despite the recent economic downturn, as retail sales of sporting goods products (equipment, footwear, clothing, and recreational transport) still represented consumer expenditures of over $37.7 billion nationally in 2009. Not surprisingly, the Baby Boomer generation (people aged 42-60) and the millennial generation (age 30 and younger) are the largest segments driving this new outdoor lifestyle trend. Typical activities include: camping, hiking, biking, boating, swimming, fishing, and wildlife viewing. Today, the active outdoor lifestyle has gone mainstream, and is characterized by an emphasis on wellness and quality time with family and friends. To meet this new and changing demand, people are looking for ways to be outdoors in an urban area. Due to time demands of family and jobs, convenience and accessibility are critical, especially in urban environment. The opportunity and challenge before parks and recreation professionals is to provide meaningful outdoor activity in urbanized environments. Recreation-Oriented Development is the new term for the alignment of parks, recreation and open space to drive new investment in both urban and suburban communities and focus development in established communities.  An Emphasis on Health and Wellness. Our nation is facing a health and wellness crisis on many levels. People are more sedentary, resulting in high levels of obesity and diseases such as diabetes. At the same time, they are struggling with ever‐increasing health care costs. The health care sector itself has begun to look at prevention as a way to increase health and reduce costs. More studies are being done on the built environment and its impact on activity levels. Physical and mental recreation are both equally important and two critical factors need to be considered in the provision of outdoor recreation: (1) the need for flexibility in recreation programs, and (2) the need to provide opportunities for stress release. The benefits of outdoor recreation are multitudinous, as outdoor activities promote wellness, social interaction, and a connection to the outdoors. A report for the Outdoor Resources Review Group outlined the positive impact outdoor recreation has on health, both as an alleviator of stress and as a means to combat obesity and similar health concerns. For children specifically, outdoor activities at an early age can cultivate an interest and connection with the outdoors that can last a lifetime. This is especially important with the omnipresence of handheld devices and computers that are increasingly prevalent in younger generations. Outdoor environments such as parks and open spaces also promote social interaction, adding intrinsic value to communities and environments.  Technology. Technology offers parks and recreation providers new opportunities as well as new challenges. Technology can simultaneously provide a mass communication tool while improving affordability, accessibility, and efficiency of community facilities and services. Opportunities for tech‐aided recreation are growing while a countertrend for techno‐free parks and environments also is emerging. 157 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan | 13 Technology is adopted and embraced differently by different population groups. In a highly educated, high income, and tech savvy community like Cupertino, there are higher expectations around technology and communications. The populations between the ages of 18 and 44 in particular are technologically-fluent, have come of age during a rapid digital expansion, and will likely integrate technology into recreational endeavors. In addition to mobile internet access, low-cost hardware such as Global Positioning System (GPS), wearable fitness trackers and rugged video cameras have emerged as important technology in outdoor recreation. These widely available technologies are adding an additional layer to the park users’ experience, allowing recording of routes, physical achievement and video which for personal enjoyment or sharing with others. Portable, rugged cameras (both on mobile phones and special purpose such as GoPro video cameras) are often used to record the exploits and explorations of outdoor enthusiasts directly from their point of view. These cameras record directly to digital formats that can be shared online. GPS enabled devices allow for recording trip information and advanced orienteering or geocaching. A key challenge is the rapid change in technology, which happens at a pace faster than many public parks agencies are accustomed to. State and Regional Trends and Issues  A Diverse State. According to a park and recreation trend report prepared by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR), the population of California will approach 50 million by 2040, representing 12 percent of the nation’s population. The population will be amongst the most diverse in the nation, attributing to 36 percent of the U.S. Asian population, 31 percent of the U.S. Hispanic and Latino population, as well as 23% of the mixed-ethnic population. Furthermore, it will continue to the lead the nation in the number of foreign-born people living in the state. The youngest population, California’s K-12 demographic, will be amongst the most culturally diverse population in the world. With technology a central facet in their lives from birth.  Baby Boomers. Mirroring the national trend of an aging population, the senior population in California is expected to double by 2020. According to the same CDPR report, older populations will be “drawn to conservation and heritage causes, adding much-needed capacity to California’s citizen-steward ranks.” City of Cupertino Trends and Issues  General Plan Guidance. Nurturing an interest in parks, recreation, and open spaces reinforces the goals and policies set forth by the City’s General Plan, which iterates the importance of “building community by bringing people together in common gathering places and tying neighborhoods together through connecting trails.”  Income Disparity. Despite having a relatively high median household income level, Cupertino has a population of residents who are below the poverty line. This population accounts for 4 percent of Cupertino residents. 158 DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS 14 | December 2014  Employment Population. Cupertino has a significant employment population, dominated by high tech jobs. The high tech industry is known for providing recreation and entertainment amenities as part of the workplace environment, such as ping pong tables, basketball courts, and social gathering spaces, as a means of attracting and keeping talent. Nonetheless, there may be recreation needs, and this population may be using public parks and facilities. Master Planning Implications This report is intended to provide a deeper understanding of who Cupertino is serving today and who the City will be serving in the future, to inform the citywide needs assessment now under development as well as the design program for the Stevens Creek Corridor. 159 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DECEMBER 2014 INTRODUCTION An online survey was conducted to measure community interest and preferences for three proposed alternatives for Stevens Creek Corridor. The open house provided the public with an opportunity to examine and comment on options for park designs, the golf course, Stocklmeir Ranch, community gardens, play areas and pools. Participants also had the opportunity to provide further comments regarding the alternatives and individual elements contained within the alternatives. The questionnaire was linked to the project website and made available to the public for one month between November 6 and December 4, 2014, and gathered 349 responses. Where percentages are provided below, they refer to the total number of participants who responded to that particular question.1 PARK DESIGN OPTIONS Participants were asked questions regarding three proposed design alternatives for Stevens Creek Corridor. When asked which design was their favorite, slightly more than one-third of all participants chose Option C. This was more than the combined number of participants who chose Option A or Option B. For each alternative, additional questions were asked to provide feedback on why a particular option was preferred. A summary of feedback received for each option follows. 1 Where participants were able to choose more than one response, percentages may not equal 100%. 160 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 2 A comparison of the responses for each of the three options is highlighted in the following figure: Option A A total of 13% of participants identified Option A as their favorite design. Why is this design your favorite option? A B C I like the intensity of development in that option. 16% 50% 28% I like the park facilities and activities offered in that option. 87% 66% 35% Other responses included:  good support for the community garden  engages more people  love the volleyball area  more family friendly  most democratic and community-oriented What are your favorite features for this option? Responses included:  obstacle challenge course  better use of the existing golf course space for recreational activities  greater variety of recreational activities  expanded destination pool for year-round use  destination play area  adventure play area  expanded McClellan Ranch  Golf Course does not meet the future needs of the changing demographics in Cupertino, should be removed to reflect the needs of the next-generation  lap swimming  climbing structures and adventure course  more attractions for the youth 161 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 3  Blackberry Golf Course is not environmentally friendly; so much water is used every day to get the grass green, and it is unnecessary with Deep Cliff Golf Course  fresh and new  multi-use sports fields  no single feature stands out, per se, but the variety of features in Option A best reflect the wide - but changing - demographics of Cupertino residents and what they will want or need in coming years  survival skills  walkways connecting McClellan Ranch to Blackberry Farm to Stevens Creek Blvd. Option B A total of 13% of participants identified Option B as their favorite design. Why is this design your favorite option? A B C I like the intensity of development in that option. 16% 50% 28% I like the park facilities and activities offered in that option. 87% 66% 35% Other responses included:  keep trees on golf course  keep existing golf course  golf course opened up for wider audience  no sports fields with lights  expanded community gardens  pasture land has inhospitable weeds and thistle, put good topsoil to better use with low impact use  multi-use sports fields are too much  Option A will generate excess traffic  pool facility is ok  Option B but with no golf course What are your favorite features for this option? Responses included:  removing the Blue Pheasant and putting in a more suitable facility to serve the families of Cupertino  love the adventure/nature unstructured play areas for children  new McClellan Rd. entry point and parking  nature and off-road bike play areas  new entrance off of Stevens Creek Blvd.  possible wedding venue (house-as-kitchen) of Option A  enhanced pool facilities  natural play areas  bike skills area 162 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 4  medium density development a good compromise  Golf Course improvements  keeping characteristics of the existing site but making improvements with less intense development than Option A, but a quite a bit more improvement over Option C  improvements to the 4-H area (would like to see the bees included as in Option C)  improved access from Stevens Creek Blvd. without moving the pool  seasonal bridge/trail that runs on the west side of the creek, making a nice loop hike from McClellan Ranch  least amount of development, most open space/wooded areas of the three options 163 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 5 Option C A total of 37% of participants identified Option C as their favorite design. Why is this design your favorite option? A B C I like the intensity of development in that option. 16% 50% 28% I like the park facilities and activities offered in that option. 87% 66% 35% Other responses included:  it doesn't disrupt the beauty of the park  most consistent with original vision for this corridor  leave the golf course, fix it  put money into fixing McClellan Ranch such as better trails, community garden etc.  take care of what is there now before doing anything else  retain the Blue Pheasant  it is a lovely park in its current form, pause to determine how the community reacts to it  least invasive to the wildlife in this corridor yet it still enhances the area  keep the golf course  limit the number of people and traffic in Oak Hill Porch area  the low intensity option is best for our community.  no vehicle access from Stevens Creek Blvd.  would like to see facility improvements focused on the already developed areas  would like increased habitat restoration throughout corridor  would like community gardens and nature play areas in other parts of town  FULL restoration of Stocklmeir  wait several years to see how new trail and environmental education center impacts visitor numbers before adding more development  this option has the least development and changes, from existing park  this option is the least offensive and there was no option to choose none of them, open space is extremely precious and you are replacing it  we have enough traffic burden on Stevens Creek Blvd.  we need more green area for the increasing residents, not less What are your favorite features for this option? Responses included:  creek and native plant restoration in areas that were not restored by Phase 1 & 2, particularly McClellan Ranch Preserve 164 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 6  continuation of Stocklmeir orchard, use of land for farm and garden educational opportunities  restoration of historic buildings in McClellan Ranch  seasonal wetlands created in golf course, restoration and repair of golf course  community gardens need new fencing and plumbing  no picnicking - McClellan Ranch is a nature preserve, not a park, Blackberry Farm has a picnic area  change the area close to the Deep Cliff golf course into more of a park/natural area, with some overflow parking  there are already enough trails/footpaths in the park  current level of development best but with attention to historic Stocklmeir House and McClellan Ranch Barn  delighted by the restoration of the stream and ongoing native plant restoration and would like to see this expanded  care of already restored areas is a priority so Bermuda grass and other invasives don't take over again  picnic pavilion by Blackberry Farm area for year round use, provide shade in summer and protection from rain in winter  trail to McClellan from Scenic Circle on west side of the creek  improving existing facilities, like the McClellan Ranch barn  maintaining how the overall corridor felt many years ago  habitat restoration in the options, would like to see more of it in McClellan Ranch West and other less-used parts of the park  turning the Stocklmeir property into an educational- environmentally sustainable facility  support keeping the golf course  add "foot golf" to attract younger users as well  important to have facilities for all ages, and retired people are among those who love golf, it balances out the entire plan from a recreational standpoint  prefer emphasis on the more natural and historical aspects of Stevens Creek Corridor  do not agree that every opportunity of space has to be "development" or a "most used" scenario  believe Cupertino's development plan should actively preserve open space, especially in the environmentally sensitive corridor of Stevens Creek  strongly favor retention of the golf course in essentially its present form and footprint (pitch & putt / Option B would be a downgrade in desirability)  favor minimal additional development throughout the corridor  this is a unique area that can't be duplicated elsewhere in Cupertino, sports fields and other developed play areas (Option A) already exist in many city parks and other 165 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 7 areas of Cupertino; no need to eliminate the unique amenities that already exist here in this large tract (e.g., golf course, natural open space) in order to just add facilities (sports fields, developed play areas) that are available in many neighborhoods throughout the city  retain the Blackberry Farm Golf Course in close to its current form  keep the changes as small as possible  Option A to turn the course into playing fields is too focused on a very limited age group.  Option B for a pitch & putt would be the worst use as it would just be a place for practice  lower costs and good use of existing facilities  minimal development  native plant and tree nursery, added trails, meadow restoration  this option seems to enhance access with minimum disruption of the natural beauty  new entrance to Blackberry Farm Park on Stevens Creek Blvd.  revamping the golf course  keep the Blue Pheasant, it is a land mark and has nice dinning  new irrigation system for the park and least environmental impact  Option A overhauls facilities not interested in using  sports fields would require a lot of maintenance  preserve remains protected  doesn’t include the north-south spine road.  limited access helps maintain the semi-rural feel of the area  Stevens Creek Corridor should remain a local Cupertino jewel, rather than make massive changes that drive lots of bay area traffic to the area for soccer games and other similar activities  the natural and wildlife areas are preserved more completely 166 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 8 TOP CHOICES FOR PARK ELEMENTS Participants were given different options for three specific park elements in the three alternatives – Golf Course, Stocklmeir Ranch and Community Garden – and asked to select their top choice for each, even if their preferred option for one of the elements was not included in their favorite overall option. Golf Course Half of the participants chose “repair and enhance the existing golf course” as their top choice. That was followed by “build a new par 3, 9 hole, family style golf course” and “remove the golf course and build multi- use sports fields and sports courts.” 167 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 9 Stocklmeir Ranch Nearly two-thirds of the participants chose “legacy farm with agricultural uses” as their top choice. That was followed by “special event venue with orchard garden park.” Community Garden Participants responded somewhat evenly to all three options. It is important to note that “reconfiguring the existing garden,” which had the highest percentage of responses, can be accomplished alongside “establishing new community gardens elsewhere in Cupertino,” which received the next highest percentage of responses. 168 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 10 Play Participants were shown six images for Play Options and asked to select their two favorite options for each. Nature Play was the most popular option chosen, followed by Challenge Course, Outdoor Skills, Adventure Play, Bike Skills and Destination Play. Option Image Count Percentage Nature Play 94 47% Challenge Course 50 25% Outdoor Skills 36 18% Adventure Play 33 16% 169 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 11 Option Image Count Percentage Bike Skills 24 12% Destination Play 17 8% Pool Participants were shown four images for Pool Options and asked to select their two favorite options for each. The Lap Pool was the most popular option chosen, followed by Sloped Entry Pool, Spray Play and Therapy Pool. Option Image Count Percentage Lap Pool 91 46% Sloped Entry Pool 68 34% 170 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 12 Spray Play 58 29% Therapy Pool 35 18% 171 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 13 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES Participants were given an opportunity to provide additional comments about the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan options. Over 150 open-ended, individual responses were collected. These responses were coded in order to investigate trends and potential areas where participants might have concerns. Since many of the responses touched on multiple aspects of the Master Plan options, 351 total comments were coded. A total of 21 categories emerged from the data, and these were further summarized into six broad categories:  Participants who preferred no changes to the Stevens Creek Corridor, for reasons such as cost and environmental maintenance,  Participants who preferred only minimal changes to the Stevens Creek Corridor, for reasons such as a desire to merely upgrade existing facilities to environmental maintenance,  Participants who addressed overall concerns with proposals for the Stevens Creek Corridor, for reasons such as lack of access, costs of upgrades, the impact of additional lighting and recreation facilities, safety and transit/parking/traffic concerns,  Participants who were quite unhappy with proposals for the Stevens Creek Corridor, for reasons such as a desire to start by fixing existing problems, dissatisfaction with all the proposals and those who felt like the public participation process was pointless or duplicative of previous efforts,  Participants who provided a range of suggestions for improvement to both the Stevens Creek Corridor and the Master Plan, such as expanding or improving trails, moving recreation opportunities to East Cupertino and reducing the built environment in the Stevens Creek Corridor, and  Participants who expressed overall satisfaction with the ideas and progress presented in the online open house. The following table and figure describe the prevalence of responses in each of the six categories: Preference for no changes Preference for minimal changes Expressions of overall concerns Displeasure with all proposals Suggestions Overall satisfaction 96 71 56 33 81 14 172 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 14 173 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 15 APPENDIX A Actual Responses The complete set of open-ended responses is presented below. None have been edited for spelling, grammar, or content but personal identifying information (name, address, telephone, email) has been removed. These are the comments coded into the six categories previously described.  Perhaps my previous comments should have been here. I am hugely encouraged by the studies and option presented. Well done. Not too keen on the ball field idea; and do we really need more trails around the golfing area? Seems like the new trail is enough? I hope you will make any new trails water permeable - new SC trail in Stocklmeir was presented to be crushed granite, but it didn't end up that way. Crushed granite is much easier on the feet.  I just want to say that the Stevens Creek Corridor needs to be tended to carefully. Please do not include items that do not work with a wildlife area. Let us leave a small footprint in this special area.  Reduce the golf course area and put more community garden plots there or simply convert the golf course to the additional wooded area.  Parcourse please. Also allow volleyball at lighted sport fields.  I did not choose any of the options. I believe the city should stop building out this area and maintain its current status as a golf course and nature area. Use the money for shuttle buses, crossing guards, and more security. Traffic is a major issue in this area without more people coming. Stevens Creek Blvd is still difficult to cross even with the new crosswalk. Crime, especially, home burglaries have increased in this neighborhood. Fix the current problems before spending money on enhancements that are not necessary or wanted.  No changes please  No changes  I have concerns regarding the extension of the Stevens Creek Trail through Cupertino. The new 2014 Stevens Creek Corridor maps depict that the Stevens Creek Trail will eventually cross over Stevens Creek Blvd and continue down Pharlap Dr. During the 2012 Sunnyvale Feasibility Study process there was discussion regarding running the Cupertino section of Stevens Creek Trail down Pharlap Dr. and then building a structure to get up to the Barranca/Maxine neighborhood. Through one of three one mile stretches, on streets in either Sunnyvale or Los Altos, to reach the Mt. View portion of the trail at Sleeper. The Cupertino SCT extension should instead utilize its, 2006 and 2011 Bike Transportation Plans, that city council unanimously approved to improve and upgrading existing infrastructure. One example of this would be the usage of Mary Ave in Sunnyvale to the fifteen million dollar Don Burnett bicycle pedestrian bridge (paid for by VTA, Cupertino and Sunnyvale funding) to Mary Ave in Cupertino, bike lane upgrades and routes to reach the Stevens Creek Corridor safely. The SCT usage at Shoreline on weekends can be upwards of 1000 bikers and pedestrians, more on FOSCT fundraiser days. If the SCT runs from Shoreline to McClellan Ranch through small isolated neighborhoods with hundreds of driveways and on narrow streets, it will bring increased neighborhood traffic due to bike commuters, bike enthusiasts groups, families biking and walking and runners. Thus increasing the possibility of car and bike/pedestrian interactions and accidents. Thank you, [name removed]  No changes. 174 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 16  No need for additional pool. Would like expanded season for existing pool. The community garden could be expanded. Ideally, an additional garden and pool on the opposite side of town would eliminate traffic problems in the Stevens Creek corridor. Would like to see the golf course and club house updated and remodeled to include a nice restaurant. Construction of any new buildings should be architecturally similar to the buildings near the pool. A big NO for any sports complex/soccer field!!!  As a Cupertino resident with a child, I really like the recreation options presented in Plan A. I am a golfer, but do think it's a waste of money to redo Blackberry Farm golf course, especially given California's drought conditions right now and the number of golf courses available in the local area. However, I live VERY close by the Stevens Creek entrance. I would like to see how traffic would be managed with Plan A and how parking would be regulated in the Oakdell Ranch neighborhood. I also do NOT want the Stevens Creek trail coming through Phar Lap Drive.  Please find a way to keep the golf facilities in their current or enhanced form.  Without a cost basis, there is no way to determine which plan is best. However, money has already been allocated for the renovation of the golf course, so that option would seem to have the least financial cost of all of the plans. How is this financed? Is it through tax revenue or ballot initiative? If it is through tax revenue, how about lowering taxes that we are already paying rather than taking on an additional burden? Would the decision of which plan to go with be a ballot initiative or is it solely up to the city council? Once plan a, b, or c is approved, is there any consideration of the maintenance costs? The swimming pool alone is a huge investment, especially if you are talking about being open 365 days a year, which would be the purpose of a lap pool. Besides the maintenance issues, there needs to be a consideration of the number of additional employees required to run the various facilities that are recommended. Bottom line-PLAN C-minimum change and cost  None of the options are acceptable on their own. If someone in the City is pushing their own agenda then it needs to be made public. If the City is merely following the recommendations of MIG, then it appears MIG is pushing their own agenda, perhaps to financially benefit in some manner? Your failure to have a public meeting where individuals can publicly express their opinion looks bad. Seems you don't want to hear what the people really have to say because they might not say what YOU want to hear... which leads back to someone having a hidden agenda... :(  Don't add artificial things to the natural settings  I think it is important to have access from Stevens Creek to avoid access through the neighborhood.  I don't like the new parking access from McClellan. The road is so steep and narrow there and there are lots of kids who bike along the road to go to and from school. More traffic there makes that street much more dangerous. Definitely do NOT like the soccer fields or the recreation areas that look like an amusement park. It's such a beautiful natural space; let's not take that away from Cupertino.  Please stop this project, and complete the existing plan with no additional development.  More community gardens (here or elsewhere in city) only if city hires full-time staff to manage program.  Please protect and support the wildlife in the park! As it is, it's paradise for suburban nature lovers. If anything, we need more habitat restoration, rather than the development of sports fields or new 175 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 17 trails. We need nature education, rather than large weddings. I would love to see the development of another alternative that addresses these issues. Thank you.  I am disappointed that we do not have a "none of the above" option. Any of the proposed alternatives would cause harm to the creek ecosystem and the wildlife. Please start over.  I have been talking with my neighbors at the Meadows, particularly the young families. Almost everyone said that they love the park just the way it is. It is a quiet trail, gets kids to school on bikes, gives residents a great place to walk/jog. Several neighbors were shocked to hear that the city wants to spend more money to bring more activities to the parks. They feel that our city parks have the ball fields, the Sports Center has courts, and De Anza has the pool used by swim teams, as do the high schools. By the way, the Meadows neighbors would like to see that the maintenance along our common fence line is taken care of. The dead trees are still in front of the Stocklmeir house and the ivy has not been taken off the oak trees along our fence line. A lot of money has been spent on the two parks and they are great! I would agree to money being spent to use the Stocklmeir house in some way, use the new house next to the parking lot, survey a use for the Simms property but adding a lot of new amenities is not called for at this time. I'd like to see more walkers, etc, using the trail to justify the need for more!  Q1: Option None. Pool: only the existing one  Thank you for soliciting input. All 3 options are tastefully done. This is a rare property which can continue to provide a window into what this piece of the valley was like many years ago... I'm hoping this can be preserved  Pool: What is wrong with existing pool? It just got a face lift that must have cost money. I am really fed up with being invited to air my opinion when decisions have already been made that I know nothing about - We voted to keep Blackberry Farm as is and we are still paying for it! Whose ideas was it to delete golf course and put in bocce ball? Do it at Memorial Park - We already have a problem with cars parking on Phar Lap. Can you imagine how many people would try to park there in order to use the new facilities being proposed? Who came up with options A+B - it certainly wasn't me - did you ask people who live around the area? What has happened about trail coming from S’vale to Cupertino? I attended meeting last year and I've heard nothing since!  Q1: Option D No Development. Q2 Golf Course: Remove Golf course and restore habitat, add hiking trails. The open house was very inadequate in soliciting feedback and opinions. Questions/concerns were cut off. This was pointless.  These all take funding and personnel that are NOT being provided for McClellan Ranch. It is in poor shape. Why try to do more when McClellan needs help?  It's pretty obvious someone in the city has a hidden agenda. Maybe the desire to pad their resume while looking for a city manager job. Treating the community like fools is damning. We investigate! Seriously? This is a joke, right? No Q&A? Politics!! Bad for Cupertino especially if it's made public.  Q2 Community Garden: No change to existing garden. Play: No new activity. Pool: No expansion of existing pool. I am amazed at the amnesia implied by this study. A decade ago, Cupertino had a massive community-wide visioning process (conveniently not mentioned by this presentation). The decision reached was that this corridor should emphasize nature and environment, and that automobile visits should be minimized. Now we have this study, the premise of which is that this corridor is available for any and all recreational activities. I totally disagree! This study is misguided, and the staff person who commissioned it should be called before the city council to explain this waste of money. 176 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 18  I want an entrance from Steven Creek with parking. I live in East Cupertino. Very hard to get to Blackberry Farm or McClellan Ranch on a school day.  Q2 Stocklmeir Ranch: Both take money for maintenance. You can't just build it and then walk away. We have seen the sad results of neglect! Play/Pool: None because seasonal in use if not indoors. See front and please keep the Blue Pheasant! It provides a safe fun dance venue for this valley and thus serves a community that goes beyond Cupertino. Please have a heart on this. Our daughter and her husband and their two children live with us and all the play choices don't address safety bathrooms or gated areas for the toddler group. We also care for another grandchild during the week.  Would like the plan to preserve the natural landscape and wildlife. Do not turn it into a big city park. There are fewer areas that nature can be accessed easily.  Q2 Community Garden: (Also checked "Establish new community gardens somewhere else in Cupertino". Q2 Pool: Lap Pool open to residence only. No changes to park. Enjoy wildlife and nature as is! More people drives away the natural aspects of the rare site that we have in Cupertino.  Q1: Do not want any more use of the corridor at this time - no lights, no fields. Q2 Community Garden: put additional gardens on other side of town. Existing pool at Blackberry is underutilized. Another pool on the other side of town would be desirable  Q1: No action at this time. Q2 Golf Course: No change to the existing golf course. Q2 Play: No on this project. None on this project. Pool: None on this project. I hike the park as is. The changes that have been made should have a few year to be experience before we can make plan for any new project on this sight.  Q1: None of the above. Q2: Golf Course: Or no action. Stocklmeir Ranch: No. Play: None. Why no option for no action? Cost? Where is the cost discussion. Larger scope needed to view the entire community"  Q1: None of the above, No change except fix the sp. Q2 Community Garden: Maybe on "Establish new community gardens somewhere else in Cupertino". Play: Open Space, golf course as it is. I like what we agreed upon 7 years ago. Adopt what we agreed upon 7 years ago.  Wouldn't mind seeing a small special event venue. Absolutely would like to see historical interpretive signage along the trail and near historic sites. Preservation and utilization of historic sights would be ideal especially with an educational component.  Play: skateboard park. Add individual picnic areas to Blackberry Farm. Please make sure the Stevens Creek Trail project is integrated with this one. Option A is WAY too radical.  Q1: No action at this time.  Please keep as natural as possible - not too many signs  SCC should retain its natural - as per original rather than becoming overly fragmented and intentionally developed which would detract from much need focus on a nature/holistic experience. Over development would be serious detraction from the SCC unique contribution to an already over developed community. Natural no instruments focus < low intensity  Please do not remove the golf course in favor of a multiuse sport complex....we already support these activities but need more diverse activities and the green belt of a golf course continues to support the community. I feel that there are many options for soccer and other sports in the community but less for golf and other natural activities. We don't need more of the same. 177 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 19  NONE - NO ACTION AT ALL!  NONE - NO ACTION AT ALL!  Q1: Leave as is. Q2 Golf Course: N/A Leave as is. Stocklmeir Ranch: N/A. Play: None of the above, None. Pool: None  Q2 Golf Course: Any chance of Deep Cliff G.C. becoming available? If so, would the city buy it? Community Garden: allow feral cats to control the rodent population.  Q1: Option D - SCCP Phase 3 - restoration of creek and riparian plant communities at McClellan Ranch Preserve - east and wet. Restoration and repair of ranch buildings. Q2 Golf Course: seasonal wetlands, replace over time with native plants. Community Gardens: eliminates wildlife habitat, violates MRP mission. Put garden plots in other areas of city. Play: None appropriate for wildlife corridor. Pool: Do not increase footprint of current pools. Q3: Prioritize restoration of McClelland Ranch creek and riparian plant communities. 2nd priority restore and repair historic buildings.  Q1: no development or very minimal, more minimal than option C. Q2: Community Garden: expand creek restoration efforts. Pool: none of the above. no additional pools. Q3: Building sports facilities with lighting will not only be disruptive to nearby residents, it will harm the well-being of over 130 bird, mammal, amphibian and reptile species documented by scientists within McClellan Ranch Park. Numerous studies have shown light pollution to be harmful to wildlife. This is a wildlife preserve and the wildlife need to be considered in the park design.  Q1: I really don't like any of them as a whole. This is a wildlife corridor!!! Q3: We need to keep the wildlife that live in this corridor at the top of the list. They deserve our utmost attention.  Q2 Play: Nature education and play areas. Q3: No playing fields requiring night lights. More loop trails with benches and meditation areas here and there.  Q2 Community Garden: Also checked "Establish new community gardens somewhere else in Cupertino". Q3: I would love to have this redesign to mesh well with a new Stevens Creek Corridor Trail.  Plan A with retaining Blue Pheasant  Q1: Intensity=attract people. No action south of Blackberry for people. Keep McClellan Reserve as a natural space. Q2 Stocklmeir Ranch: Maintain the Historical elements that made this "The Valley of Hearts Delight". Play: Minimal impact to the natural environment. Q3: Keep the development and active recreation in Blackberry. Preserve nature and minimize human footprint in McClellan.  Q2 Golf Course: Rough turf. Q3: Road off of Stevens Creek Blvd. is essential (tree lined). Stevens Creek blvd. entrance should be a "destination" with a youth-oriented restaurant (scrape the Blue Pheasant). "Walls" of redwood trees on borders next to homes that encroach visually into the corridor.  Q2 Community Garden: and smaller sized plots. Play: small. Q3: The golf course could be removed, but please no sports fields. The McClellan garden plots should be halved.  Prefer uses that do not attract large groups/crowds. Preserve "nature" feel of the park - retain some natural, undeveloped areas. 4H and community gardens provide worthwhile community uses.  Q2 Play: Nature. Pool: No change. Q3: There are few places where you can do recreational swim. There already are lap lanes at BBF. Keep unstructured play. There's a big pool at DeAnza. Golf - as 178 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 20 courses disappear, BBF golf will be one of the few games in town. Golf could become more popular again and BBF golf be one of the few remaining. We need a wildlife corridor!!! NO NIGHT LIGHTS  How are these projects to be funded?  Q1: NONE. Q3: This whole exercise is probably a complete waste of time. We went through this several years ago and NOTHING HAPPENED and THERE WAS NO FEEDBACK  please start a true public process that would allow none of the above  The golf course needs improving/updating! More people/children would play. Social activity for adults.  Q1: (illegible) Option - Leave as is! Q3: Leave as is!  Q1: No action. Q3: We need to know more about the Stevens Creek trail impact. the community needs to know about what is available already before new plans developed.  Q2 Pool: Keep existing pool. Q3: This project needs to be coordinated with the Stevens Creek Trail (6 Cities) projects  Stevens Creek entrance? operating calendar for lap/masters swim  Q1: No action thank you, leave it alone. Q2 Golf Course: or remove the golf course and build habitat for deer. Play: none thank you, we use it for birding. Pool: none thank you. Q3: Please stop this process. Leave the area natural.  Year round swimming option would be great for local community.  Q2: SAVE $ DO NOTHING :)  Q2 Golf: "enhance" What is the meaning of the word. Q3: I don't need any of the above.  Trail is fantastic! What plans exist to extend the trail north and south?  I love to run and would really appreciate more loop trails and eventually a connection to the Stevens Creek Trail @ Mountain View. Thank you! I would also like the lap pool with year round access.  Please do not reduce the size of our golf courrse. Not enough time to review or think about options.  My favorite things about the Option A is the challenge course, destination play, and spray play. Option A is in my opinion the best Option!!!  No budget? No funding? No detail plans? Is not this more about the direction we want to move in, instead of a detailed choice?  Q1: Old people hate change but they'll also be dead soon (naturally. This is NOT a threat). People like me will be left behind. I'm only 18! Q2 Golf: Excuse me? What is a "family" golf course? No families golf. Only rich white men do, and frankly, golfing is not a sport. Sports require physical strain. What is strenuous about sitting in the back of a tiny go cart and being driven around? Play: Combine these please (challenge course and outdoor skills). Pool: I choose this one twice (sloped entry pool). Wow there are a lot of white people in Cupertino. Where do they hide? Old people (like the guy next to me) are no fun. 179 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 21  Don't do anything.  Loop hiking trails through some of the hilly areas would be lovely. Volleyball that we can use after a rainstorm would be great. We always have to postpone games/practice b/c of rain on the field. I don't care about the deer; there a ton of deer in my neighborhood, too many. I want a lap pool! I would totally use that!  Q2 Golf: don't change. Q3: Keep minimal impact to neighborhood. Why did a lot of picture choices have so much fencing?  I would like to see involvement of community groups like the Historical Society, Quota, and Rotary.  Q1: As Is, Less is more! Q2 Stocklmeir Ranch: Restore habitat, plant native trees, etc. Community Garden: also establish new community gardens somewhere else in Cupertino. Play: fine as is. Pool: Fine as is. Q3: One of the best/special things about the area now are the wonderful (restored) natural areas. We don't have parks like that anywhere else in Cupertino, so we should preserve and enhance this unique aspect. Put new playgrounds, pools, etc. somewhere else.  Q1: Option D - No changes! Already too many man-made things - I'd like things removed. Q2 Golf Course: Eliminate golf and remove hideous chainlink fence/tunnel that's over the corridor. Stocklmeir Ranch: Leave it alone - leave as is. Community Garden: return existing garden let area go back to natural meadow - for deer. Play: None of these! Q3: Repeating here: I'd like to see fewer man made things - ie. eliminate golf and return to nature - no paths or anything.  Definitely need more accessible pools for fitness. Need to keep our wildlife habitats and open spaces.  Would LOVE to see a trail that goes from this new area (SC corridor), through McClellan, through Linda Vista Park and then all the way to the reservoir (with access to Stevens Creek & Fremont Preserve). This way we would be able to hike / bike from Stevens Creek Blvd all the way to the county parks. Please implement such trail ASAP; it's such a good idea....  Let's keep this place serene. Cupertino is an amazing city because it's a great mixture of residential, business, and natural landscape! Let's keep it that way!  Should take advantage of already new enhance  Having lived in the Santa Clara Valley for over 35 years, and being an avid outdoors recreation person, I am extremely disgusted with the length of time it takes to get anything accomplished. The Stevens Creek Trail is a perfect example, as is the length of time this project has been going on. Finish this completely in less than one year. Do it.  I bought my house in Monta Vista (not Cupertino at that time) and moved in May 15, 1974. I was a married man, aged 35, working as a nuclear physicist at the Lockheed Palo Alto Research Labs in the Stanford Industrial Park, since 1962. As a young man who was physically active my wife and I decided to take up the game of golf, since BBF Golf Course was right down Stevens Creek Blvd from our house. However, there were no organized beginners golf leagues at BBFGC at that time, so I and the new owners of the Blue Pheasant Restaurant, and a few others decided to form a beginners golf league for men and woman. The Blue Pheasant Hackers Golf League officially started in 1975, playing at BBFGC every Tuesday afternoon, tee times from 3:30PM to 6:00PM, starting first week in April through middle of October. Next year 2015 may be our 40th continuous year, depending on your decision to keep or not keep our beloved golf course. In the 1980's and early 1990's The BP Hackers Golf League, when I was president, had around 100 members. I had to restrict membership, in order to get off all the golfers during our allotted tee times. True, as our membership aged, members moved away, and demographics and Monta Vista/Cupertino changed, The BP Hackers 180 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 22 Golf Club saw declining membership. I am the last original club member still playing every Tuesday during the league dates, and a few of us even play all winter, every Tuesday. Anyway, I just thought you planners of the future recreational facilities in the City of Cupertino should be aware of some of the history associated with our little nine-hole golf course at Blackberry Farm. It's a good facility people. It could be the home course for the next generation of young Cupertino golfers, if you would embrace it, and enhance it, as my generation tried to do in the past. I have talked to many professional golfers that have played BBFGC, and all (including a young Tiger Woods) have told me, "That's a very challenging, narrow little course, with a tough Par 29." Even the pros liked playing it, because it was good for developing their short game. So, I would vote for your Plan C or any plan for the future of Blackberry Farm Golf Course, that would retain the character of old Monta Vista with its little nine, Par 29. [name, contact information removed]  You guys did an excellent job on the newly expanded and current Stevens Creek Corridor Trail, keep up the good work! Thanks!  Removing the golf course would be a big mistake. Adding a potential high density recreation area would compromise the serenity of the area. If the golf course must be closed, then it would be best to return the area to a natural green belt. Besides isn't this area a flood plan?  You are spending a LOT of money to fix what is not broken.  Thank you for being innovative and designing a future Cupertino that is better for all residents  There already exist a number of sports field locations in Cupertino but the Stevens Creek corridor provides a unique opportunity to incorporate different activities and different development. Although there are obvious benefits to a vehicle access point from Stevens Creek Blvd, devoting a significant amount of space to a north-south spine road takes away from better options for use. In option C it does not make sense to provide a trail on the east side of the creek through the golf course. There is already a trail on the opposite side and a new trail would simply take away from the golf course.  Please don't dumb down the golf course to make it more "family friendly”! Also, is there any possibility of adding an off leash area for dogs within the park?  Keep it as a nature park not amusement city!  I repeat here my firm opposition to high, or even medium, intensity development in this corridor. Most of the staff-proposed development elements are out-of-place in this corridor and should more properly be considered for other locations, if they are needed at all. There seems to be very little justification presented for why most of the development elements included in the three alternatives are needed. What is the overall background situation and the resulting strategy being proposed/pursued? Also, I would be interested to see/hear cost and schedule estimates for completion of each of the three alternatives.  We don't think the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan options are necessary or cost-effective. Why spend tax dollars needlessly? The majority of Cupertino residents are older people who will not use these "upgraded" facilities and do not wish to pay for them. Please bring some common sense back to city government.  Put a community garden at the Quinlan center and restore a orchard on this property. I was living in Cupertino when the Quinlan Center was built and the city put in sod rather than drought tolerate landscaping. I pointed out to Don Brown who was the City Manager at the time that sod takes water and we were in a drought that year. Don stated that the City is staying at the water usage limit. 181 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 23 It would have been better leadership for the City to not put in sod and demonstrate to residents that City Management is leading the way to better water and land use. I suggest that we add another community garden in Cupertino and locate it at the Quinlan Center.  Great idea. Looking forward to seeing similar initiatives in the East side of Cupertino which is lacking in recreational facilities.  The northern section with the golf course is a relatively unspoiled area, filled with native plants and wild critters. Have you seen the hawks? Please leave it as undeveloped as possible but give more consideration to golf programs for seniors and juniors. Perhaps improvements to the patio (trees are gone), the entrance and the teaching area could be considered.  Again, McClellan Ranch is designated, and should remain, a nature preserve. The community gardens and 4H were included in the original property grant. Otherwise, the preserve should only be restored to its natural sustainable condition. Park-like activities can take place in BlackBerry Farm.  The neighboring residents enjoy the peace and quiet of the existing layout. Can you imagine having sports leagues playing on lighted fields almost every hour of the day and evening? It is easier to find an athletic field than it is to find a classic nine-hole golf course where you can take your grand kids. Golf promotes family values and is a lifelong recreational activity. Please save Blackberry Farm Golf Course and its mix of par 4 and par 3 holes. Thank you.  I like the idea of green house nursery for native plants in plan C. I can students learning and participating in habitat preservation program.  Please leave the Stevens Creek Corridor as is. It is perfect now, let's keep it that way.  Adamantly against a sports complex replacing the golf course and vehicle access from Stevens Creek. Preserve the beauty and unique integration with people and nature that the MV area provides.  No more junk in the corridor. We don't want or need a lot if junk or a major metropolis in the corridor.  Reduce car parking spaces and improve bike and pedestrian access to the facility from adjacent neighborhoods.  Scrape the Blue Pheasant, and build a restaurant that would cater to active young people - huge deck for morning coffee and outdoor dining; music late into the evening. At least two wedding venues near the Stocklmeir house (one venue could be a multipurpose)  Cupertino has many other parks that could benefit from the proposed development ideas, but the Stevens Creek Corridor is quite simply the wrong place. Keep the Stevens Creek Corridor natural, do not fragment and degrade it with new trails, parking, roads, and new sport and recreation facilities.  The Santa Clara Valley was once a beautiful, natural valley. Please leave the creek as it is for the last remaining bits of wildlife left. Riparian environments are critical and should remain untarnished for posterity. Don't ruin it. Just say no to the developers.  I like the balance of nature and recreation now, and would like to finally see NO construction in the park for some time. 182 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 24  There is sufficient developed areas within and surrounding Cupertino already. We need more natural outdoor areas, for walking in peace and quite and enjoying nature. Why is there not an additional option to leave the area in its present state for both residents and wildlife?  No new roads, no new trails, no new bridges over the Stevens Creek. Plan and devote the park & Rec resources on already approve plans and bring them to completion. Allow us the residents to enjoy and observe their impact on dwindling wildlife habitat before we can look at ANY new proposal for recreation & development.  less development in corridor is better as we are overdeveloped already  I'm flexible, and appreciate the work it took so far - thank you! I'm flexible, and appreciate the work it took so far - thank you! But there are two items that I dislike intensely: the daytime/nighttime athletic fields, plus the wedding/special events venue. Too much traffic, too many people. I'm afraid these would change the character of the park.  I don't see why one swimming pool can't accommodate many different uses (lap swimming, play, therapeutic uses). Schedule for different users at different hours. I chose none of the play options because they seem inappropriate for the corridor. I think adventure play, nature play and the other options can go in other more developed parks. Get rid of stupid artificial ponds at Memorial Park. Replace with natural habitat parks or something else. The old wooden town that was there in the past could be replaced and would be a much used adventure play structure. As population grows we will need the corridor as a quiet open space for hiking, dog walks, picnicking, family nature activities, etc. If the area is more developed for active sports and more is shoe-horned into this land, the wildlife and atmosphere that now make the area so pleasant and delightful will be destroyed. Save the money that would go into this development and set it aside to buy more open space if and when it becomes available.  In my opinion the plan that replaces the golf course with sports fields is too much development for that part of Cupertino. The fields call for lights, which would be too bright in a residential area. Also, having the Stocklmeir property expanded to include event space like weddings is just too much development. I am concerned that the intersection of Phar Lap and Stevens Creek would become much more dangerous with the increase in traffic. In addition, having playing fields draws a lot of people who are from outside the areas. I appreciate all the options you have offered. I still think Option B is the best mix of preservation and development.  Retaining the most natural open space with minimal impacts offers important open space to people as well as the wild birds and animals that depend on these areas for habitat. In an increasingly developed society, it is especially to have accessible open for people to enjoy as well.  I would really like to see an option which focuses on completing and improving what we already have. I think Cupertino is fortunate to have a natural and peaceful place such as the Stevens Creek Corridor areas that work to protect wildlife. It seems unfortunate that all the plans are for increased development.  For me the critical aspect of this development is the long-term provision of a bicycle commute corridor all the way from McClellan road to northern section of the Stevens Creek Trail. Ideally it would be good to have some form of separation between bicycles and pedestrian traffic, as this is a critical artery for commuting to the high-tech areas around Sunnyvale / Mountain View. Over the past few years, I have been seeing increasing bicycle traffic on the northern part of Stevens Creek trail, and I believe that in the long term we need to plan for traffic separation. Thanks you for all your great work - I have not responded to the specific questions about the park, as I'm only an occasional (but grateful) user! 183 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 25  Can't wait for the new environmental center to be completed! This area is fabulous for connecting people with nature- must carefully balance bringing in more visitors and maintaining natural/undisturbed areas.  We have the opportunity to protect the natural setting of the creek corridor for one of the important natural creeks in Santa Clara County. Please do not add sports field, more development, etc. Please provide a plan to keep a natural setting for the creek and for the wildlife of this area. Thank you.  The community should not support these projects because it will destroy habitat that is utilized by wildlife. The community does not need more development for recreational activities.  Focus on completing and improving what we already have. No new roads and trails; no new sport and recreation features; no new bridges over the creek. Protect wildlife. Keep the Stevens Creek Corridor safe, peaceful, and natural  One big negative comment for all plans: it's a mistake to put McClellan Ranch West parking lot entrance at the blind curve of McClellan Road (accidents waiting to happen with fast/unseen downhill traffic).  I prefer any option that entails the least environmental impact. The lesser the amount of concrete used, the better.  Re: Golf course. Existing course is in harmony with adjacent natural areas. Landscape it with native plants, leave it as is, with water saving irrigation. Re: Kids play areas, kids go to the creek, and play with existing sticks, playing in dry leaves. Leave nature areas as it is. Re: Pools. The pools were just renovated! Adapt them for lap swimming and kid play, both! Save your money, wait for the golf course across from McClellan to sell, then develop that as more parkland.  Am most concerned that a long-time golf course will be gone...hopefully the community will support the golf course and keep it with improvements. It has been enjoyed by many from Cupertino and outlying cities for many, many years and is a gem!  What's the difference between nature play, adventure play, challenge play, and destination play? Can't kids just figure out how to enjoy the trails, pools, the farm animals and the bit of grass playing field that's there now?  All three plans mention enhancements to the 4-H area. I have lots of ideas for this space. What is the best way to submit them for consideration? [name, contact info removed]  I would like to see a more extensive survey where we can provide input for each of the areas of the corridor. I did not fill out parts of this questionnaire because I did not know the context in which my opinion mattered. Would it be nice to see nature playgrounds in Cupertino? Sure, but the playground I know of near Blackberry Farm is quite sufficient (and in fact, rather new). Also, how would traffic be affected by these changes? What are your estimated costs? Environmental groups have expressed concerns with these plans--how have you addressed those issues?  I chose NO Nature Play or any options which increase park usage density. Increased traffic of any kind will drive away the wildlife. The existing Golf course has proven very compatible usage with existing wildlife for 50 years. Though converting one swimming pool to lap swim may help a bit, De Anza College & our High Schools combined have plenty existing unused pool capacity to satisfy all Lap Swimming needs, PLUS enough unused playing field capacity to satisfy those needs with addition of field lights to extend usage. ANY Further development which will increase pedestrian & wheeled traffic in Steven's Creek Corridor WILL scare away existing wildlife crucial to current school nature programs taught there which can only be taught there: since all other city parks are developed, 184 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 26 they drive out wildlife. The Least Change and Traffic is best to both keep and encourage more wildlife.  Thank you for work completed on the Stevens Creek trail and corridor Stocklmeir through McClellan Ranch, as well as improvements in Blackberry Farm over the last 10 years. It is a good community accomplishment and asset. I believe Cupertino as a community is already impacted by development in many areas resulting in higher density businesses, housing and traffic. I do not care for overdevelopment of private home lots; maximizing with largest possible homes in "single-family" neighborhoods. Thus, I believe an important component of future "development" and an opportunity in Cupertino is a conservation and naturalized area maintained and promoted in the Stevens Creek corridor. This goes hand in hand with low-impact, conservative development. Of special concern to me, and which I've not heard as a point of discussion, is the very tentative survival of natural steelhead trout in Stevens Creek. Although, it's possible the remnant creek no longer offers sustainable habitat for these native fishes, I would like see programs at McClellan Ranch as a "preserve" to be developed as a regional focal point for such a conservation effort. Thank you.  The Stevens Creek riparian corridor is our jewel. Our emphasis should first be on doing no additional harm by further fragmenting the corridor and adding facilities.  Enhance the golf for seniors and juniors. Provide more shade around golf course wait area.  I don't understand why the city wants to take this wonderful nature preserve and turn it into an urbanized recreational area. We need to find other sites in the city for sports fields!  I couldn't even vote for any of these. I really wish you would leave the area as it is. Isn't there someplace else you could waste all that money? Don't spend money to destroy the very little open space we have left. Please. Development like this is not easily reversed. These plans will have long- reaching consequences. In a county that prides itself on being "green", your plans sure seem off the mark.  Option C is the best option allowing the continuation of existing open space and the golf course. Also, the Sims property should not be converted into a hard surface parking lot. It should be left as open space to compliment McClellan Ranch Park. Blackberry Farm is the only truly nature open space in Cupertino and should be left as is with minor improvements. To add sports courts and specific play areas other than the existing children’s play ground would distract from the ultimate goal of keeping the park as a nature preserve. This is important for our current and future citizens of Cupertino to have a place that is reminiscent of a natural environment for all to enjoy. Thank You.  Why isn't Alternative D under consideration?  How come none of the pictures were of a person alone surrounded by nature -- why only various flavors of development? The city should look at the economics of operating the golf course, and if it seems the benefit does not justify the cost, consider allowing it to revert to a more natural environment. This should be a place for enriching the soul by contact with nature, not a place for developed recreational activities that could be done in any park.  Don't build new facilities and features in the name of recreational use; invest in the access and appreciation of the natural environment and preserving and appreciating its natural state.  The options provided here do not reflect my own desires for leaving this as is. This belongs to a survey like; 1. have you stopped weekly beatings of your wife? 2. Have you stopped daily beatings of your wife? 3. Have you stopped occasionally beating your wife? You must answer one. 185 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 27  IT IS A BEAUTIFUL NATURAL PARK NOW. YOU WANT TO DESTROY IT ? LEAVE IT AS IT IS. WHO AM I ? I'M A FORTY-PLUS YEARS RESIDENT OF CUPERTINO. I WALK FOR ENJOYMENT FOUR TO FIVE TIMES EACH WEEK.  I would like to see the golf course converted to a nature preserve with native plants and oak trees. I do not wish to see the city spend additional money renovating the golf course especially since there has been a steady decline in the number of golfers using it. I do not want the city to throw good money after bad. IF there must be a golf course, then it must be redesigned to meet highest sustainability standards compatible with wildlife habitat. I am completely opposed to the plan to reorient the golf course and build a driveway from Stevens Creek to the pool complex. I do not want to see any part of the preserve paved over - that land will be lost to wildlife forever. I am also strongly opposed to the loop path into the riparian peninsula area. Leave wildlife ALONE! I am neutral to the idea of a nature play area by the Simms property provided it is designed with a small footprint compatible with a preserve. As I have stated before, I do not wish to turn the preserve into a park. The city has plenty of neighborhood parks to meet those needs. There is no need to expand the Community Garden - just use what we have efficiently...maybe reduce plot size to accommodate more users.  The Stevens Creek Trail should include bicycle traffic. The original plan was for bike access on the trail from the beginning. All other Stevens Creek Trail sections have bike access, the Cupertino section should not be the exception. There is no acceptable reason to exclude cyclists from the trail.  I favor a multi-use pool development at the existing site in Blackberry Farm. Please maintain the relaxed atmosphere throughout the corridor, and if anything make it more so.  This park is very nice now but could use some improvements. The pool and new irrigation on the course are my top desires.  Keep the area for wildlife, nature experiences, picnicking, and reflection with a touch of swimming and golf.  I am a long time Cupertino resident and I just hear about this today, when comments are do. The city needs to do a better job of letting folks know this is going on.  Please DON'T expand the community gardens. Subdivide plots (they are huge) if necessary, but more important, put community gardens on the east side of Cupertino, especially near where the denser housing is and will be. Please DON'T add new "features" (even "nature play") to McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve.  Please DON'T add uses that significantly increase parking requirements. If more parking is needed, put it at the Stevens Creek Blvd. entrance. Possibly add some unpaved overflow parking for McClellan Ranch in McClellan Ranch West. The best entrance there is the current one, with the best sight lines for crossing McClellan Road. Please consider the Audubon Society's Option D, except I do like access to the "peninsula". Please add NEITHER trail nor road between creek and golf course. Changing the nature of the golf course is okay, but sports fields are totally out of place. Avoid new permanent bridges over the creek.  Sorry, I already did this once, but I want to add: Thanks very much for the paved Stevens Creek Trail through McClellan Ranch, but please pave no other trails there.  STRONGLY oppose a new driveway thru the golf course. We should not be building more roads along the creek bank. It also may create queuing problems we do not currently have for vehicles that exit onto Byrne Ave. Getting out onto Stevens Creek Blvd. will be difficult with all the cross traffic 186 ONLINE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY PAGE 28 there. If a signal is added then cars will back up on the new driveway along the creek. There are also wildlife impacts. I would support the short option B golf course if it is run from the north end like the current golf course and there is no driveway through the golf course. That should have been an option. Stocklmeir would be OK as option a or b or c. Consider fixing the house and front yard for rentals and events AND operating the rest of the site as a legacy farm. At McClellan Ranch West, keep the parking lot minimal, use the site mostly for habitat and environmental education. A native plant nursery would be fine. At the pool area at Blackberry Farm, like the spray play idea plus a lap pool. Definitely keep it open year round! This was not an option but I would also very much support converting the golf course to habitat and open space with a trail through it.  I think it's a good idea to build multi-use sports facilities that can be used by more of the community. The golf course is a lot of space that very few people use.  Please keep the Stevens Creek / Blackberry Farm wild and open. The City of Cupertino has many great tradition lawn and playground parks but only one park like Stevens Creek. I walk this park 4 times a week and enjoy seeing the deer, hawks, rabbit and of course squirrel. Please consider low or no development. Thanks, [name removed]  No plan is good plan for now  We have more than enough parks, what we need it more open spaces to promote biological diversity in the area.  Hate option c, it is completely inappropriate near the creek. Option B idea of a smaller shorter golf course would be okay, but the new road from Stevens Creek Blvd is unacceptable, it does not belong in the creek corridor. The smaller golf course would be fine if you still run it from the current parking and access at Stevens Creek Blvd. A new restaurant that serves golfer a and pro shop would also be fine if it stays near the current Blue Pheasant vicinity. Option C is the best because the current features are working well, just fix all the old and historic structures for continued use. Please focus on prioritizing wildlife habitat, the wildlife cannot go anywhere else but playgrounds, fields, community gardens can all go somewhere else. Do not add new things even trails anywhere that will impact wildlife. Would like to have the maximum habitat restoration possible. The creek and it's wildlife is a fantastic and irreplaceable resource.  This Natural Wildlife park needs NO more structured play areas; they belong in other parks. Redeveloping and modernizing the existing swimming pools and their snack bar, dressing & restroom facilities for YEAR ROUND USE while staying WITHIN Their EXISTING Footprint is sorely needed, along with partnering with High School & De Anza College existing pools to offer more lap swimming before school & work days begin, and any after school/work times and on weekends when these other pools and are unused. Similarly, working with all local schools to extend use of their currently not fully utilized playing fields with lighting until 8PM: should solve any shortage of playing fields. 187 Parks & Recreation Commission Recommendations Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Meeting Date: 01/8/15 Page 1 LOCATION COMMISSIONER Paulsen COMMISSIONER Fung COMMISSIONER Tambe COMMISSIONER Wilson Stocklmeir Property Stocklmeir buildings and garden Support “low key” house restoration with history aspect with associated meeting venue Support “low key “house restoration with history aspect with associated meeting venue Support events center with catering kitchen Support events center with catering kitchen Legacy Farm Support Support Support Support Bridge Support pedestrian and light vehicle bridge Oppose new bridge if event center is located by golf course Support new bridge if event center in Stocklmeir. Support improving current access with larger buffer between pedestrian/cars Support pedestrian and light vehicle bridge Blesch creek area restoration Support Support Support Support Blesch parking lot Support meadow style/permeable parking Support meadow style/permeable parking Support meadow style/permeable parking Support meadow style/permeable parking Blackberry Farm and Golf Course Spine road from Stevens Creek Blvd. to BBF Opposed Opposed Opposed Opposed Grand entrance Support Support Support Support Blue Pheasant Support replacing Blue Pheasant with new restaurant /event center at north end of golf course. Support new clubhouse at north end of course if golf course remains. Support replacing Blue Pheasant with new restaurant / event center at north end of golf course. Support new clubhouse at north end of course if golf course remains. Support replacing Blue Pheasant with new restaurant /event center at north end of golf course. Support new clubhouse at north end of course if golf course remains. Support replacing Blue Pheasant with new restaurant/ event center at north end of golf course. Support new clubhouse at north end of course if golf course remains. 188 Parks & Recreation Commission Recommendations Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Meeting Date: 01/8/15 Page 2 LOCATION COMMISSIONER Paulsen COMMISSIONER Fung COMMISSIONER Tambe COMMISSIONER Wilson Golf Course Support restoration to meadow as first choice if golf course cannot be sustainable. If golf course remains, support smaller golf course with clause to return to meadow if golf course is ever closed. Explore partnership with Deep Cliff. Support well activation. Support Option B (smaller footprint) without road and with entry at north end of course. Convert remaining area to conventional park. Support well activation. Support deferring decision until viability of city partnership with Deep Cliff can be explored. Support restoration to meadow as first choice. If golf course remains, support minimal size and impact course. Support well activation. Support Option B (smaller footprint) with entry at other end but without road. Support well activation. BBF Pool Complex Support possibility of moving pool to Memorial Park. Support fixing pump equipment. Support removal of slide. Support splash pad. Support lap and therapy pools if no better place in city. Support fixing pump equipment. Support removal of slide. Support splash pad. Support lap and therapy pools. Support fixing pump equipment. Support removing slide. Support splash pad. Support lap and therapy pool. Support fixing pump equipment. Support removing slide. Support splash pad. Maintenance building Support improvements Support improvements. Suggest building single multi-purpose utility building/occupy same footprint of current buildings and covered area Support improvements Support improvements Parking lot Support returning to natural meadow. Support providing electric vehicle charging stations. Support providing electric vehicle charging stations. Support providing electric vehicle charging stations. Support providing electric vehicle charging stations. 189 Parks & Recreation Commission Recommendations Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Meeting Date: 01/8/15 Page 3 LOCATION COMMISSIONER Paulsen COMMISSIONER Fung COMMISSIONER Tambe COMMISSIONER Wilson Playground Support providing nature play elsewhere Neutral about leaving as is. Support leaving playground as is. Support providing nature play elsewhere. Neutral about leaving as is. Support replacing providing nature play elsewhere. Neutral about leaving as is. Nature Play/Adventure Play Already here add to other parks in city Already here add to other parks in city Already here add to other parks in city Already here add to other parks in city Riparian Peninsula/Central Creek corridor Peninsula Leave as is, no seasonal bridge Leave as is, no seasonal bridge Support seasonal bridge Leave as is, no seasonal bridge Volleyball/bocce courts Support removal and replace with lawn Support removal and replace with lawn Support removal and replace with lawn Support removal and replace with lawn Lawn area Support replacement with native grasses Support leaving as is. Neutral on replacement with native grasses, not high priority Support leaving as is. Neutral on replacement with native grasses, not high priority Support leaving as is. Neutral on replacement with native grasses, not high priority Meadow owned by Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. Support leaving as is Support leaving as is Support leaving as is Support leaving as is McClellan Ranch Preserve – includes McClellan Ranch West McClellan Ranch Creek restoration Support Support Support Support Community Gardens Oppose expansion into meadow. Support restructuring to allow for more plots. Support gardens in other areas of city. Oppose expansion into meadow. Support restructuring to allow for more plots. Support gardens in other areas of city. Oppose expansion into meadow. Support restructuring to allow for more plots. Support gardens in other areas of city. Oppose expansion into meadow. Support restructuring to allow for more plots. Support gardens in other areas of city. Barn Support restoration of building to meet minimum requirements Support restoration of building to meet minimum requirements Support restoration of building Support restoration of building to meet minimum requirements 190 Parks & Recreation Commission Recommendations Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Meeting Date: 01/8/15 Page 4 Support re-examining intended use of barn. LOCATION COMMISSIONER Paulsen COMMISSIONER Fung COMMISSIONER Tambe COMMISSIONER Wilson New bridge from McClellan Ranch to McClellan Ranch West Oppose new bridge Oppose new bridge Oppose new bridge Oppose new bridge McClellan Ranch West Support meadow tree grove parking lot. Explore native plant area or educational purpose Support meadow tree grove parking lot. Explore native plant area or educational purpose. Suggest hydroponic/aquaculture facility w/education elements if not conflicted w/current preserve activities Support meadow tree grove parking lot, remainder to be natural/ native Support meadow tree grove parking lot. Explore native plant area , or educational purpose MRW parking Support meadow style parking. Support entrance at Clubhouse Lane Support meadow style parking. Support entrance at Clubhouse Lane Support meadow style parking. Support entrance at Clubhouse Lane Support meadow style parking. Support entrance at Clubhouse Lane Simms house Support removal of Simms house Support removal of Simms house. Suggest using part of the area as meadow tree grove parking lot at later time. Support removal of Simms house Support removal of Simms house Improved creek access area (2) Support Support Support Support 191 Parks & Recreation Commission Recommendations Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Meeting Date: 01/8/15 Page 5 LOCATION COMMISSIONER Paulsen COMMISSIONER Fung COMMISSIONER Tambe COMMISSIONER Wilson Trails Trails** Oppose trails in peninsula and along west side of creek (in riparian areas) Support minimal new trails (no trails at peninsula) Oppose any paved trails Supports path at McClellan Ranch West to Scenic Circle. Supports new paths non-paved Support “smart” trails, non-paved ** Staff to meet with Audubon Society to identify possible mutually agreeable trail locations. 192 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0442 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/17/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Approve the January 20 City Council minutes Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Minutes Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject: Approve the January 20 City Council minutes Approve the minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™193 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 20, 2015 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Rod Sinks called the Regular City Council meeting to order in Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Rod Sinks, Vice Mayor Barry Chang, and Council members Darcy Paul, Savita Vaidhyanathan, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: None. CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS - None POSTPONEMENTS Subject: Cancel the Adjourned Special Meeting scheduled for January 21 regarding Council deliberation and to provide staff direction on the Study Session for Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road Creek Corridor Master Plan and recommended alternatives to proceed with an EIR and direct staff to re-notice the meeting for February 3 at 6:45 p.m. Wong moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to cancel the Adjourned Special Meeting scheduled for January 21 regarding Council deliberation and to provide staff direction on the Study Session for Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road Creek Corridor Master Plan and recommended alternatives to proceed with an EIR and direct staff to re-notice the meeting for February 3 at 6:45 p.m. The motion carried unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Written communications for this item included an excerpt from Items of Interest (weekly updates given by staff to City Council) dated 12/4/14 regarding Sports Center Equipment Upgrades. 194 City Council Minutes January 20, 2015 Fari Aberg, Volunteer Coordinator for the Cupertino Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) invited residents to sign up to become a volunteer. She also noted some upcoming educational training opportunities and invited Council and residents to participate. Assistant Sheriff Ken Binder introduced Captain Rick Sung as Cupertino’s new Chief of Police. Nai Hsueh, Santa Clara Valley Water District Board Director for District 5 urged Council to contact her or her staff with any water issue. Ari Strod distributed a document showing pictures of sports equipment at other sports centers. He expressed displeasure regarding the installation of new TV monitors on the equipment which blocks his view to the outside. Jon Willey talked about high density development and distributed a document showing pictures of recent developments in Cupertino and Sunnyvale, including a computer generation of what 2 million square feet of development would look like at Vallco. Irwin Jacobson asked to be removed from the weed abatement list since he had nothing to abate. He also expressed concern over County staff being allowed to trespass on his property. Note: Weed Abatement is Item Number 16 on the agenda and Mr. Jacobson’s comments will be included in the minutes for that item. Liang Fang Chao urged Council to approve a Citywide Park Master Plan before approving any other master plan. She noted that with an increase in population, nine acres of parkland would be required by 2023. Irene Steves speaking on behalf of the Santa Clara County Audubon Society urged Council to select an alternative for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan that would continue to provide safe recreation in park and also enhance and restore the natural ecosystems in the park to the largest extent possible. CONSENT CALENDAR Wong moved and Chang seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented except for item numbers 1 and 12, which were pulled for discussion. Paul and Vaidhyanathan noted they would abstain from voting on item number 1 and Wong amended his motion to include their abstention. Ayes: Sinks, Chang, Paul, Vaidhyanathan, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: Paul and Vaidhyanathan abstained from voting on item number 1. Absent: None. Recused: None. 195 City Council Minutes January 20, 2015 1. Subject: Approve the November 18 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes Darrel Lum talked about issues with the legibility of certain packet attachments online and noted it looked like the documents had been redacted. City Clerk Grace Schmidt said she would follow-up with Dr. Lum and the vendor to resolve the issues. Wong moved and Chang seconded to approve the November 18 minutes. The motion carried with Paul and Vaidhyanathan abstaining. 2. Subject: Approve the December 2 Special and Regular City Council minutes and the December 3 Regular Adjourned City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes 3. Subject: Approve the December 16 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes 4. Subject: Approve the December 17 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes 5. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending December 19, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 15-002 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending December 19, 2014 6. Subject: Waive the advisory body attendance requirement provision and reinstate Russell Leong to the Fine Arts Commission. (Continued from December 16, 2014) Recommended Action: Waive the advisory body attendance requirement provision and reinstate Russell Leong to the Fine Arts Commission 7. Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Ramen Mania, 19541 Richwood Drive Recommended Action: Recommend approval for Alcoholic Beverage License for Ramen Mania, 19541 Richwood Drive 8. Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Lazy Dog Restaurant, 19359 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action: Recommend approval of Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Lazy Dog Restaurant, 19359 Stevens Creek Boulevard 196 City Council Minutes January 20, 2015 9. Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Marukai Market, 19750 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action: Recommend approval of Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Marukai Market, 19750 Stevens Creek Boulevard 10. Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Shanghai Garden Restaurant, 20956 Homestead Road Recommended Action: Recommend approval of Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Shanghai Garden Restaurant, 20956 Homestead Road 11. Subject: Budget amendment for the General Plan project Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council 1. Authorize a budget amendment to the General Plan project and 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute contracts not to exceed the total approved budgeted amount 12. Subject: Civic Center Master Plan consultant contracts Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute contracts for all remaining services necessary to complete work directed by the Council on October 21, 2014 Liang Fang Chao urged Council to approve a Citywide Park Master Plan based on the Community Vision 2040 policy before spending money on other master plans in order to have enough funds to purchase parkland for future housing development. Director of Public Works Timm Borden and City Attorney Carol Korade noted that this was a procedural item to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute contracts for all remaining services necessary to complete work directed by the Council on October 21, 2014 and that Council would vote later on approving an actual Civic Center Master Plan. Wong moved to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute contracts for all remaining services necessary to complete work directed by the Council on October 21, 2014. After further Council discussion, Wong withdrew his motion. Wong moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to postpone this item to February 3. The motion carried unanimously. 13. Subject: City Project, 2013 STP Overlay Project, Project No. 2013-04 Recommended Action: Accept Project No. 2013-04 197 City Council Minutes January 20, 2015 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 14. Subject: Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan to achieve state recommended greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals outlined in Assembly Bill 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and associated Environmental Review (Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for 2040 General Plan) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 15-001 for the Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) (Attachment A, Exhibit 1 and 2) Written communications for this item included Appendix C of the Climate Action Plan and a staff PowerPoint presentation. Assistant to the City Manager Erin Cooke reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation and answered questions from Council. Mayor Sinks opened the public hearing. There we no speakers and Mayor Sinks closed the public hearing. Wong moved and Paul seconded to adopt Resolution No. 15-001 for the Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) (Attachment A, Exhibit 1 and 2). The motion carried unanimously. Council recessed from 8:40 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. 15. Subject: Appeal of a Planning Commission approval of a personal wireless service facility at Cupertino High School (Continued from December 16, 2014) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission’s August 26, 2014 approval Description: Application No(s): DIR-2014-27, EXC-2014-06; Applicant(s): NSA Wireless/Verizon Wireless (Fremont Union High School District); Appellant(s): Muzhou Shao, Huijing Cao, Luwen Lin; Location: 10100 Finch Ave; Appeal of a Planning Commission approval to allow the construction of a personal wireless service facility consisting of six panel antennas mounted on an existing sports field light pole and a base equipment station located in a sports field building and an emergency generator located in a fenced area on a concrete pad at a high school (Cupertino High School); Height Exception to allow the installation of six panel 198 City Council Minutes January 20, 2015 antennas of a proposed personal wireless service facility at a height of 74’, 6” or less on an existing sports field light pole at a high school Written communications for this item included various emails to Council; a packet from Mackenzie & Albritton LLP; a supplemental staff report; and a staff PowerPoint presentation. Associate Planner Colin Jung reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation and answered questions from Council. Rajat Mathur from Hammett & Edison, Inc., RF Engineering for Wireless and Broadcast, answered questions from Council. Appellants Muzhou Shao, Huijing Cao, and Luwen Lin presented their appeal to Council. Jim Heard, attorney representing Verizon introduced other people from Verizon who could answer any questions. He talked about why Council should approve the cell tower, issues raised by the appeal, and issues raised by federal law. He answered questions from Council. Mayor Sinks opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke regarding the appeal: Feng Ye Peter Friedland from Cupertino Technology, Information, and Communications Commission (TICC) Rod Livingood from TICC Wengnang Wang Yu Hong Maolin Long Council recessed from 10:37 p.m. to 10:44 p.m. Arthur Lu Jinyuan Qiao Felix Lin Ruby Lin Bingfeng Cheng Pamela Nobel from Verizon answered questions from Council Yanping Zhao 199 City Council Minutes January 20, 2015 Yuke Liu Christina Shao Sean Shao Mayor Sinks closed the public hearing. Council asked additional questions and deliberated. Wong moved and Sinks seconded to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission’s August 26, 2014 approval of a personal wireless service facility at Cupertino High School. The motion carried with Chang voting no. ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 16. Subject: Order the abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions of Ordinance No. 724 and Resolution No. 14-223 Recommended Action: Note objections and adopt the Resolution No. 15-003 ordering abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) City Clerk Grace Schmidt reviewed the staff report. As noted under Oral Communications, Irwin Jacobson asked to be removed from the weed abatement list since he had nothing to abate. He also expressed concern over County staff being allowed to trespass on his property. County Weed Abatement Coordinator Moe Kumre further explained the inspection process and addressed Mr. Jacobson’s concerns. Wong moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 14-223 ordering the abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) noting the one objection from Mr. Jacobsen. The motion carried unanimously. 17. Subject: Ordinance amending Chapter 2.36 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission Recommended Action: Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 15-2127: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Section 2.36.303 Members-Vacancy or Removal, Section 2.36.070 Records Required, and Section 2.36.080 Powers and Functions, of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission" 200 City Council Minutes January 20, 2015 Director of Recreation and Community Services Carol Atwood reviewed the staff report. Wong moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to read Ordinance No. 15-2127 by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Sinks, Chang, Paul, Vaidhyanathan, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 18. Subject: Present Construction Project Update Report Recommended Action: Receive Project Update Report Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation. Director of Public Works Timm Borden gave the Construction Project Update Report via a PowerPoint presentation. Council received the presentation. City Manager David Brandt noted that there would be a public workshop on the General Plan Amendment (GPA) on February 4 at Community Hall beginning at 6:30 p.m. He also reminded staff and Council that there would be mandatory workplace violence training on January 21 beginning at 9:45 a.m. in Community Hall. Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. Council asked staff to reach out to Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) regarding the express lane proposal and when the environmental review document would be certified. ADJOURNMENT At 12:48 a.m. on Wednesday, January 21, Mayor Sinks adjourned the meeting to Monday, January 26 beginning at 5:30 p.m. for Commission Interviews, Cupertino City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue. 201 City Council Minutes January 20, 2015 _______________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet. Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99 and are available at your convenience at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, and then click Archived Webcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. 202 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0512 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:10/28/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Approve the January 26 and 27 City Council minutes Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Minutes January 26 B - Draft Minutes January 27 Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject: Approve the January 26 and 27 City Council minutes Approve the minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™203 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Monday, January 26, 2015 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING At 5:30 p.m. Mayor Rod Sinks called the Special City Council meeting to order in City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Rod Sinks, Vice Mayor Barry Chang, and Council members Darcy Paul, Savita Vaidhyanathan (7:00 p.m.), and Gilbert Wong. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS Written Communications for this item included a resident email to Council. 1. Subject: Interview applicants for commissions with terms expiring: Technology, Information, and Communications, Housing, Planning, and Parks and Recreation Recommended Action: Conduct interviews and make appointments The City Council interviewed applicants for the Technology, Information, and Communications Commission and re-appointed Rod Livingood to a full term ending January 2019. Wong moved and Paul seconded to direct staff to re-advertise the additional two full terms ending January 2019. The motion carried unanimously. The City Council interviewed for the Housing Commission applicants and re- appointed Rajeev Raman to a full term ending January 2019. The City Council interviewed applicants for the Planning Commission and re- 204 City Council Minutes January 26, 2015 appointed Don Sun and appointed Geoffrey Paulsen to full terms ending January 2019. The City Council interviewed applicants for the Parks and Recreation Commission and re-appointed David Fung and appointed Carol Stanek to full terms ending January 2019 and Helene Davis to a partial term ending January 2016. ADJOURNMENT At 9:47 p.m. Mayor Sinks adjourned the meeting. _______________________________ Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk 205 CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 27, 2015 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING At 5:03 p.m. Mayor Rod Sinks called the Special City Council meeting to order in City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Rod Sinks, Vice Mayor Barry Chang, and Council members Darcy Paul, Savita Vaidhyanathan, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS 1. Subject: Interview applicants for commissions with terms expiring: Bicycle Pedestrian, Library, and Fine Arts Recommended Action: Conduct interviews and make appointments The City Council interviewed applicants for the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and re- appointed Sean Lyn and appointed Erik Lindskog and Gary Jones to full terms ending January 2019. The City Council interviewed applicants for the Library Commission and re-appointed Rose Grymes-Friedland and appointed Gopal Kumarappan to full terms ending January 2019. The City Council interviewed applicants for the Fine Arts Commission and re-appointed Michael Sanchez and appointed Priya Jayachandran to full terms ending January 2019. ADJOURNMENT At 8:47 p.m. Mayor Sinks adjourned the meeting. _______________________________ Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk 206 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:115-0642 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/26/2015 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 9, 2015 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 9, 2015 AdoptResolutionNo.15-004acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingJanuary9, 2015 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™207 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING January 9, 2015 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “A”. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of February, 2015, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ _________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Rod Sinks, Mayor, City of Cupertino 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:115-0644 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/27/2015 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 16, 2015 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 16, 2015 AdoptResolutionNo.15-005acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingJanuary16, 2015 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™224 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING January 16, 2015 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “A”. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of February, 2015, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ _________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Rod Sinks, Mayor, City of Cupertino 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:115-0645 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/27/2015 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 23, 2015 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 23, 2015 AdoptResolutionNo.15-006acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingJanuary23, 2015 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™241 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING January 23, 2015 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “A”. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of February, 2015, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Rod Sinks, Mayor, City of Cupertino 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:115-0638 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/26/2015 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Approve exception to the 995 rule for one Temporary Employee with budget adjustment Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Personnel Code excerpt Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject:Approveexceptiontothe995ruleforoneTemporaryEmployeewithbudget adjustment Approveexceptiontothe995ruleforoneTemporaryEmployeewithbudgetadjustmentof $52,390resultinginincreasedappropriationsfortheCityManagerandCityAttorneybudgets of $26,195 respectively CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™254 1 CITY ATTORNEY CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 3, 2015 Subject Approve exception to the 995 rule for one Temporary Employee. Recommended Action 1. Approve an exception to the 995 rule for one Temporary Employee. 2. Approve a budget adjustment of $52,390 resulting in increased appropriations for the City Manager and City Attorney budgets of $26,195 respectively. Discussion Per Cupertino’s Administrative Rules and Regulations of the Personnel Code, Temporary Employees (Attachment A) —defined as employees “appointed on an ‘as needed’ basis for work which is anticipated to be of a temporary or intermittent nature either on a full-time or part-time basis”—may not work more than 995 hours in a fiscal year, unless they are terminated and reinstated after a 13 week break in service. This is also known as the “995 rule.” This rule was put in place to limit the City’s costs related to retirement and other benefits. Per the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), if a part-time employee exceeds 1000 hours of service in a fiscal year, the part-time employee becomes a CalPERS eligible member and the City and Employee must begin contributing toward their retirement. Once an employee becomes a CalPERS member, they are always a member, meaning that every time this part-time employee works for the City, the City would be required to contribute towards their retirement. In addition, with passage of the Affordable Care Act it is likely that temporary employees working 30 or more hours per week will also be eligible to receive medical benefits, adding another layer of cost for temporary employees. Given the additional costs associated with having an employee exceed the 995 rule, the City has strictly enforced this policy. Supervisors who have failed to comply with the 255 2 policy have been disciplined in the past. Past practice dictates that any exception to this policy must be approved by the City Council prior to the employee exceeding the 995 max given the fiscal implications. The City Attorney and City Manager’s Office are requesting an exception to the 995 rule for Temporary Employee Louis Sarmiento, classified as an Assistant to the City Manager. Louis is close to reaching the 995 max. The request for extension is for 5 months of additional full-time work through June 30, 2015. Both offices are requesting that an exception be granted so that Louis can continue to work with the City Manager and City Attorney’s Office on special projects. The departments will split the additional hours allocated 50/50. Louis is expected to work on the following projects and tasks: - Review and update the provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code to ensure compliance with California and Federal codes, rules, and regulations and best practices, - Revise City contract templates, which would make contract creation and the process of entering into contractual relationships more efficient and reduce risk to the City, - Update administrative policies and procedures for compliance with California and Federal law and requirements, and - Track, analyze and review litigation and legislation for applicability to Cupertino and advise City departments. Explanation These projects require institutional knowledge, including a familiarity with existing codes, policies and procedures. These, and ancillary projects, also require the ability to understand distinctions between legal requirements and policy goals, and an understanding of interdepartmental operations. There is a City need for continuity and completion of these projects. An interruption in work, seeking outside counsel, hiring new staff, or orientating another staff member without Louis’ experience and institutional knowledge would hinder progress and be costly to the City. Louis has worked on these projects, has experience in the City Attorney’s Office, City Manager’s Office, and other public entities, and is an attorney. 256 3 Fiscal Impact The City’s total costs for Louis’ employment year to date are $45,163. Louis will be classified as a Deputy City Attorney at Step 2, resulting in additional salary and benefit costs of $52,389. For a total fiscal year cost of $97,552 as illustrated below: Salary and Benefit Categories Rate ATCM/DCA First 995 Hours (Step 1 of Asst To CM) 840 Hours ( thru 6/30/15) (Step 2 of Dep City Attny) Total Costs for FY2014-15 Salary $46.32/$49.84 $43,955 $41,866 $85,821 Benefits Medicare 1.45% $637 $668 $1,305 PARS $571 0 $571 Retirement 23.539% 0 $9,855 $9,855 TOTAL COSTS $45,163 $52,389 $97,552 Both the City Attorney and City Manager’s Office are requesting a budget adjustment of $26,195 for a total of $52,389 in increased costs to the general fund to cover the increased costs. Prepared by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services and Carol Korade, City Attorney Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Administrative Rules and Regulations of the Personnel Code excerpt 257 258 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:115-0632 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/23/2015 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Amend the Catastrophic Leave section of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Cupertino and the Operating Engineers Local No. 3 Union, AFL-CIO (OE3) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Side Letter to OE3 MOU Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject:AmendtheCatastrophicLeavesectionoftheMemorandumofUnderstanding betweentheCityofCupertinoandtheOperatingEngineersLocalNo.3Union,AFL-CIO (OE3) AdoptResolutionNo.15-007amendingtheCatastrophicLeavesectionoftheMemorandumof UnderstandingbetweentheCityofCupertinoandtheOperatingEngineersLocalNo.3Union, AFL-CIO (OE3) CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™259 S ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3227 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 3, 2015 Subject Amend the Catastrophic Leave section of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Cupertino and the Operating Engineers Local No. 3 Union, AFL-CIO (OE3) Recommended Action Adopt Draft Resolution amending the Catastrophic Leave section of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Cupertino and the Operating Engineers Local No. 3 Union, AFL-CIO (OE3). Description The City currently has identified one modification to the OE3 MOU to change the eligibility requirements for Catastrophic Leave for OE3 members. Discussion The City’s Catastrophic Leave program allows active employees to donate unused vacation and compensating time off hours to a catastrophic leave bank. The bank is available to employees facing a serious illness that have exhausted their leave hours. All requests are evaluated by the City’s Catastrophic Leave Committee made up of active employees and requires medical verification. In 2013, City staff met with bargaining groups to negotiate a change to the City’s Catastrophic Leave policy that would allow employees still on probation to access the program. The change was made in the City’s Administrative Rules and Regulations and subsequently in the MOU between the City and the Cupertino Employees’ Association (CEA). The MOU between the City and OE3, however, was not amended to reflect the agreed upon change. The current discrepancy means that CEA and Unrepresented probationary employees are eligible to apply for Catastrophic Leave hours but OE3 employees on probation are not. Staff recommends correcting this oversight and making the policy consistent for all benefited employees. We have discussed this change with OE3 and they concur with the proposed amendment. Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact is anticipated. 260 ___________________________________ Prepared by: Jaqui Guzmán, Acting Human Resources Manager Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Draft Resolution B - Side Letter to OE3 MOU (Re: Section 14.12 - Catastrophic Leave) 261 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING SIDE LETTER NO. 1 AMENDING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND THE OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL NO. 3 UNION, AFL-CIO WHEREAS, a meeting has been held over a proposal concerning eligibility for the City’s catastrophic leave policy between representatives of the City of Cupertino and of the Operating Engineers Local No. 3 Union, AFL-CIO; and WHEREAS, the agreement mutually obtained through these meetings has been recorded in a Side Letter to the Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by both parties, which has been submitted to the City Council for approval, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby adopts Side Letter No. 1 to the Memorandum of Understanding for the period of July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2016, between the City of Cupertino and the Operating Engineers Local No. 3 Union, AFL-CIO attached and incorporated as Attachment B. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of February 2015, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Rod Sinks, Mayor, City of Cupertino Grace Schmidt, City Clerk 262 Attachment A SIDE LETTER NO. 1 AMENDING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF CUPERTINO AND OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3, AFL-CIO The City of Cupertino (“City”) and the Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (“OE3”) are parties to a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with a term ending June 30, 2016. Catastrophic Leave The City’s Catastrophic Leave program allows active employees to donate unused vacation and compensating time off hours to a catastrophic leave bank. The bank is available to employees facing a serious illness that have exhausted their leave hours. All requests are evaluated by the City’s Catastrophic Leave Committee made up of active employees. In 2013, the City met and conferred with Bill Pope and the OE3 shop stewards on a policy change to the Catastrophic Leave policy. The labor/management team verbally agreed to allow employees still on probation to access the program. The change was made in the City’s Administrative Rules and Regulations and the MOU between the City and the Cupertino Employees’ Association (CEA). Inadvertently, however, the change was never documented in writing or changed in the OE3 MOU. This discrepancy means that Unrepresented and CEA probationary employees are eligible to apply for Catastrophic Leave hours but OE3 probationary employees are not. City has discussed correcting this oversight with the OE3 negotiating team to make the policy consistent for all benefited employees. Both parties agree to allow all benefited employees to be eligible to apply for Catastrophic Leave benefits. Attached is a redlined excerpt of the OE3 MOU - Section 14.12: Catastrophic Leave which shows the proposed change (Exhibit A). This side letter agreement shall be effective retroactive to 12:01 a.m. January 1, 2015. OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL CITY OF CUPERTINO UNION No. 3 Mary Blanco David Brandt Ty Bloomquist Jaqui Guzmán Mike Loomis City Attorney, approved as to Form John Hodgers Jason Fauth 263 Attachment A Exhibit A Redlined excerpt of Operating Engineers Local No. 3 Union, AFL-CIO Memorandum of Understanding 14.12 Catastrophic Leave The City's catastrophic leave committee will establish a definition of catastrophic or life- threatening illness. This committee will evaluate each individual case when it is submitted to qualify to receive financial assistance. The only limitation is that the employee must be the one facing the illness. The committee has the right to ask the applicant to submit further documentation from the treating physician to determine the applicant’s eligibility for catastrophic leave hours. Vacation hours and compensatory time off (CTO) hours are the only leave of absence credits which may be donated in any pay period. A leave of absence transfer drive will be held whenever necessary to provide for a minimum catastrophic leave bank balance of 40 hours. Upon retirement or resignation, an employee can contribute up to 10 hours of sick leave provided that the employee has a minimum of 320 hours of sick leave, which has previously become vested. All benefited employees who have passed initial probation with the City will be eligible to receive assistance. An employee does not have to be a contributor to be eligible. An employee or their representative must complete a prescribed application form together with supporting medical documentation to the Personnel Officer when applying for funds. A recipient must have used all of their available leave hours before he/she is eligible. The maximum amount is two months (LTD becomes available at this time). 264 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:115-0648 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/28/2015 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Re-advertise for two vacancies on the Technology, Information, and Communications Commission (TICC) with full terms ending January 2019 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Resolution No. 10-048 advisory commissions Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject:Re-advertisefortwovacanciesontheTechnology,Information,andCommunications Commission (TICC) with full terms ending January 2019 SetanapplicationdeadlinedateofFriday,March6at4:30p.m.andscheduleaninterviewdate of Tuesday, March 17 beginning at 6:00 p.m. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™265 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 3, 2015 Subject Re-advertise for two vacancies on the Technology, Information, and Communications Commission (TICC) with full terms ending January 2019. Recommended Action Set an application deadline date of Friday, March 6 at 4:30 p.m. and schedule an interview date of Tuesday, March 17 beginning at 6:00 p.m. Discussion Council conducted TICC interviews for annual vacancies on Monday, January 26 for 3 full terms ending January 2019. Incumbent Rod Livingood was appointed to fill one of those vacancies. Council wished to re-advertise the additional vacancies to receive a wider selection of applicants. Cupertino Resolution No. 10-048 states that:  Posting for unscheduled vacancies shall be posted no earlier than 20 days before nor later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs, and at least 10 working days before appointment.  If a vacancy occurs for an unexpired term and interviews for appointment to that advisory body have been conducted within the previous ninety days, the unexpired term may be filled from those applications following the required posting of the vacancy. The vacancies would be posted on January 28 which meets the 10 working days requirement. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Resolution No. 10-048 266 RESOLUTION NO. 10-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 07-129 AND AMENDING THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RULES GOVERNING RECRUITMENT, ATTENDANCE, APPOINTMENTS, AND VACANCIES ON CITY ADVISORY BODIES TO CHANGE THE MANDATORY WAITING PERIOD TO TWO YEARS BEFORE COMMISSIONERS CAN APPLY FOR THE SAME COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino wishes to establish uniform terms and conditions of office for advisory commissions; and WHEREAS, there are within the City of Cupertino many citizens with talent, expertise and experience who wish to serve the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is important to provide these citizens the opportunity to contribute to their community; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino rescinds Resolution No.02-064 and establishes the following rules governing recruitment, appointment and reappointment to City of Cupertino Advisory bodies. A. RECRUITMENT 1. Two months before regular terms expire, or immediately following receipt of a resignation, the City Clerk distributes the vacancy notice as follows: • The Cupertino Scene • The Cupertino Courier • The World Journal • The Cupertino City Channel • City Hall bulletin board • The City Clerk’s Office • The Cupertino Library • The Cupertino Chamber of Commerce • Cupertino City Web site • Other organizations as appropriate with respect to the openings • All persons with applications on file for that particular commission 2. Two months before regular terms expire, the City Clerk’s Office also mails the vacancy notice to the following individuals: • Students and graduates of Cupertino Emergency Response Training • Students or graduates of Leadership Cupertino • Neighborhood Block Leaders 267 Resolution No. 10-048 Page 2 • Individuals who have signed up for notification at the Cupertino Town Hall meetings. 3. All vacancy notices and posting shall be done in accordance with the provisions of the Maddy Act, California Government Code 54970. Specifically, vacancy notices shall be posted for a minimum of 10 days. 4. Applications will be retained for a maximum of one year after Council review. After that time, applicants shall submit a new application if they wish to remain on the list for consideration. 5. Those persons with applications on file within one year of Council review are advised of the vacancy by the City Clerk and may activate that application. Upon receipt of the vacancy notice, the applicant must contact the City Clerk’s Office and ask that the application be reactivated. 6. An applicant may file for a maximum of two commissions at any one application period. 7. A member of an advisory body, having completed two consecutive terms, must wait two years after the term would have normally ended before being eligible to apply for the same commission or committee. 8. Application forms will be available in the City Clerk’s Office and will be mailed upon request with information about the opening(s). Application forms will also be available on the City’s Web site. 9. No application shall be accepted after the deadline. 10. When the final deadline has passed, the City Clerk’s Office will mail applicants the date, time and location of the interviews along with sample questions to consider. 11. The City Clerk’s Office will copy the applicants’ written material for Council members. The written material will also be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office. 12. An applicant who is unable to attend the interview may submit a five-minute video presentation in advance of the interview meeting. The tape will be reviewed at the meeting. The video will be made by City staff at the applicant’s request upon the approval of the City Clerk. The City will fund these costs. 268 Resolution No. 10-048 Page 3 B. INTERVIEWS AND APPOINTMENTS 1. When Council meets to conduct interviews, it is a public meeting subject to the Brown Act and therefore open to the public. The candidates will be asked by the City Clerk (either in person or by written instructions left in the waiting area) to remain seated in the waiting area until they are called in for the interview. Candidates will also be asked to return to the waiting area until the announcement of the vote, or to go home and contact the City Clerk’s Office the next day regarding the results. However, all applicants and members of the public have the option of remaining in the room for any or all of the meeting. 2. The order in which interviews are scheduled to take place will be determined by a drawing of names. The City Clerk will do this in advance. 3. Interviews are informal and usually last 5-8 minutes. Council members are looking for: • Familiarity with the subject • Decision-making ability • Commitment to the position for which they have applied 4. Appointments will be made following a vote in public. Ballots will be distributed, and Council members will vote and sign the ballots. The City Clerk will announce the votes. 5. All appointees will be provided with a Certificate of Appointment. C. UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES AND ATTENDANCE 1. If a vacancy occurs for an unexpired term and interviews for appointment to that advisory body have been conducted within the previous ninety days, the unexpired term may be filled from those applications following the required posting of the vacancy. 2. The notice of unscheduled vacancy shall be posted no earlier than 20 days before nor later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs, and at least 10 working days before appointment. The notice of unscheduled vacancy must be posted in the Office of the City Clerk, at the City Hall bulletin board, at the Cupertino Library, and in other places designated by the City Clerk. 3. A member shall be considered removed from an advisory body under the following conditions. • A member misses more than three consecutive meetings • A member misses more than 25% of the advisory body’s meetings in a calendar year 269 Resolution No. 10-048 Page 4 4. It is the responsibility of the advisory body’s staff liaison to notify the City Clerk of a member’s attendance record to allow sufficient time to send a warning notice if the member has missed three consecutive meetings or 25% of the meetings, and to send a termination notice if the member has missed more three consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the meetings in a calendar year. 5. A member who has been removed from an advisory body for inadequate attendance may request a waiver of this provision by submitting a letter to the City Council setting forth the reason for the absences and confirming future availability. D. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Term limit restrictions listed in this resolution do not apply to temporary appointments for unexpired terms. 2. All provisions of this resolution shall apply unless otherwise decided by the City Council on a case-by-case basis. 3. In the event that any provision of this resolution conflicts with the provisions of any other ordinance or resolution governing a particular advisory body, the provisions governing that advisory body shall prevail. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 16th day of March, 2010, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: Wang, Wong, Chang, Mahoney, Santoro NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Kimberly Smith /s/ Kris Wang _____________________ ______________________ City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 270 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0548 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:11/18/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Second Amendment to an Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the Gilbane Building Company for consultant services for construction management on various projects Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Second Amendment to the Agreement B - Executed First Amendment to the Agreement Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject:SecondAmendmenttoanAgreementbetweentheCityofCupertinoandtheGilbane Building Company for consultant services for construction management on various projects ApproveaSecondAmendmenttoanAgreementbetweentheCityofCupertinoandthe GilbaneBuildingCompanyintheamountnottoexceed$1,478,489.00foranadditionaltermof approximately12months,fromthedateofexpirationoftheFirstAmendmentthroughMarch 31, 2016 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™271 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 3, 2015 Subject Second Amendment to an Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the Gilbane Building Company for consultant services for construction management on various projects. Recommended Action Approve a Second Amendment to an Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the Gilbane Building Company increasing the contract compensation by $344,489 for a total amount not to exceed $1,478,489.00 and for an additional term of approximately 12 months, from the date of expiration of the First Amendment through March 31, 2016. Description In July 2013 Council approved an agreement with Gilbane Building Company (Gilbane) to provide construction management (CM) services for multiple capital improvement projects for an amount not to exceed $1,134,000. The term of the agreement ends on March 31, 2015. As of this time, Gilbane has provided CM services for six projects that are either complete or under construction. Another two projects are included in the current agreement to be started. The term of the contract must be extended to complete the project work currently underway and the remaining two projects that are yet to start construction. Aside from extending the contract for the current projects included in the agreement, staff recommends adding seven more projects that are planned to start and complete construction within the next year. Background In accordance with City practices, staffing for the City is maintained at a lean level. The City relies on external resources to augment the city staff when needed. The capital improvement program has increased in the number of active projects, exceeding the capability of internal staff to cover all aspects of project management. 272 The CIP for fiscal years 2012/13 and 2013/14 included numerous projects that were funded for design and construction and the FY 2014/15 CIP budget added more projects. A couple of the projects have been completed and several of the projects have progressed to the construction stage or will within the next year. Anticipating the need for these services, staff completed a qualifications-based consultant selection process in February 2013. In response to a Request for Qualifications, the City received seven Statements of Qualification from firms within the Bay Area, which were evaluated for relevant skills and experience. The three top- ranked firms were invited to interview. Based on the interviews, the Gilbane Building Company was selected to provide the construction management services based on relevant experience, depth and breadth of skills, accessibility of the firm, and knowledge of the local construction market. Under the authority of the Director of Public Works, an advance agreement with Gilbane was approved and executed in May 2013, in order to provide the pre- construction services needed for the Stevens Creek Corridor & Park-Phase 2 and the Environmental Education Center & Blacksmith Shop Relocation projects. In July 2013 Council approved the first amendment to this agreement to provide CM services for multiple projects. To date, the firm has provided CM services for six projects that are either complete or under construction. Staff has found Gilbane to be very competent, thorough, and responsive in providing the needed services to the City, and that as such they are providing value to the citizens. The term of the current amended agreement ends on March 31, 2015. Two of the projects have not started construction. Discussion Construction management services continue on several of the projects authorized under the current agreement. Therefore the term of the current agreement must be extended in order for Gilbane to complete the services anticipated under the agreement and for the City to have the needed expertise to oversee the construction contracts. Staff recommends continuing to engage Gilbane to provide CM services for multiple projects over the next fourteen months, including to add seven more projects to the agreement that are anticipated to start and complete construction within that timeframe. All of the projects proposed to be added to the agreement are currently funded in FY 2014/15. The budgeted funds for all of these capital projects include allocations for construction management, so no additional funding is required for additional compensation for Gilbane. Using a single firm to provide this needed service for multiple projects is efficient. Staff has negotiated an amendment to the current agreement that adds seven projects to the scope of services. Under this proposed amended agreement, CM services for most of 273 the capital construction projects funded by the CIP budget in fiscal years 2012/13, 2013/14, and 2014/15 would be performed by Gilbane. Under the proposed Second Amendment of the Agreement, the consultant will perform the day-to-day contract management for the projects listed below:  Stevens Creek Corridor & Park-Phase 2 – Project Completed  Dog Park – Project Completed  Environmental Education Center & Blacksmith Shop Relocation (including Outdoor Gathering Shelter, McClellan Ranch Park Restroom & Access Upgrades, Solar PV System) – Project under Construction  Service Center Solar Project – Project under Construction  Sport Center Project: Retaining Wall Replacement – Project under Construction  Quinlan Community Center Interior Upgrades – Project under Construction  Sports Center Project: West Side Court Improvements  Monta Vista Storm Drain New Projects  Portal Park – Collins Sch. Cricket Pitch/Batting Cage Replacement  Wilson Park – Bleacher Shade & Ball Protection Fence Project  Wilson Park – Building & Landscape Improvement  Monta Vista Rec. Ctr. – Pre-School Play Area Improvements  McClellan Ranch – Pedestrian, Parking, Landscape Improvements  Senior Ctr. – Exercise Room Wood Floor Replacement  Bubb Rd. Storm Drain Improvements Staff has included an Additional Services amount so that the scope of services may be adjusted on a project-by-project basis in response to actual project conditions. Subject to Council approval of the Second Amendment to an Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the Gilbane Building Company, the term of the agreement will be extended by twelve months to March 31, 2016, and the maximum compensation will be increased by $344,489 to $1,478,489. Sustainability Impact Not applicable Fiscal Impact No appropriation is required for this action. Subject to Council approval of this second amendment of an agreement between the City and Gilbane, the requisite funds will be encumbered from each CIP project budget. The Additional Services amount will only be encumbered when there is a need for more services and a project fund is determined. _____________________________________ 274 Prepared by: Katy Jensen, Capital Improvement Program Manager Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Department Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Draft Second Amendment to the Agreement B – Executed First Amendment to the Agreement 275 Page 1 of 3 Second Amendment to Gilbane Building Company Agreement SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ON VARIOUS PROJECTS This Second Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Gilbane Building Company, for reference dated February 4, 2015, is by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter ʺCITYʺ) and Gilbane Building Company, a California corporation whose address is 1798 Technology Drive, Suite 120, San Jose, Ca 95110, (hereinafter “CONSULTANT OR CM”), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On May 20, 2013, an agreement was entered into by and between CITY and Gilbane Building Company (hereinafter ʺAgreementʺ). B. On July 17, 2013, the CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into a First Amendment to this Agreement (hereafter, the Agreement and the First Amendment are collectively referred to as the “Agreement”). C. CITY and Gilbane Building Company desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as follows: 1. Paragraph 1. Term of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date this Agreement was first executed and shall terminate on March 31, 2016 unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. Paragraph 4. Compensation to CONSULTANT of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: The maximum compensation to be paid to under this agreement shall not exceed ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE DOLLARS ($ 1,478,489). The rate of payment is set out in Exhibit C, titled “Compensation”, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY a detailed statement of the work performed for compensation during the term of this Agreement. CONSULTANT may submit monthly invoices for interim progress ATTACHMENT A 276 Page 2 of 3 Second Amendment to Gilbane Building Company Agreement payments during the course of each phase, clearly stating at a minimum the total Contract amount, amount paid to date, percent complete and amount due. 3. The following exhibits to the agreement are amended and replaced to read as shown in the attachments to this amendment: Exhibit A Revised ‐ Scope of Services Exhibit B Revised ‐ Schedule of Performance Exhibit C Revised– Compensation Exhibit C – 1 Revised– Consultant Hourly Rates for Additional Services 4. CONSULTANT agrees to comply with all applicable requirements described in Exhibit D, attached and incorporated by reference. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. 277 Page 3 of 3 Second Amendment to Gilbane Building Company Agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed. Gilbane Building Company CITY OF CUPERTINO A Municipal Corporation By By ____________________________ City Manager, David Brandt Title Date____________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ___________________________ City Attorney, Carol Korade ATTEST: By _____________________________ City Clerk, Grace Schmidt Total Contract Amount: $ 1,478,489 (2nd Amendment Amount $344,489) 278 EXHIBIT A - REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT (CM) shall perform professional construction management services as detailed in the following sections related to various construction projects in Cupertino. SECTION 1. GENERAL A. General PROJECT Description: The PROJECT involves providing pre-construction, bid phase, construction phase and post construction phase contract management services. Services may include but are not limited to utility coordination; constructability/bid ability review of the plans and specifications; cost analysis; and other pre-construction work, bid phase, construction phase and post construction phase services on various CITY construction projects. The projects include: 1) Stevens Creek Corridor Park & Restoration – Phase 2, 2) McClellan Ranch Environmental Education Center and Blacksmith Shop Relocation, 3) Mary Avenue Dog Park, 4) Monta Vista Storm Drain, 5).Quinlan Center Interior Upgrade, 6A) Sports Center Projects: Retaining Wall Repair, 6B) Sports Center Project: West Side Court Improvements, 7) Annual Pavement Maintenance Program Phase 1, 8) Annual Pavement Maintenance Program Phase 2, 9) Service Center Solar Project, 10) Portal Park – Collins Sch. Cricket Pitch/Batting Cage Replacement, 11) Wilson Park – Bleacher Shade & Ball Protection Fence Project, 12) Wilson Park – Building & Landscape Improvements, 13) Monta Vista Rec. Ctr. – Pre- School Play Area Improvements, 14) McClellan Ranch – Pedestrian, Parking, Landscape Improvements, 15) Senior Ctr. – Exercise Room Wood Floor Replacement, 16) Bubb Rd. Storm Drain Improvements. The CITY has the option to add or change the projects at a later time. B. Individual Project Descriptions: 1. Stevens Creek Corridor Park & Restoration – Phase 2 project is located on Stevens Creek south of Stevens Creek Boulevard and north Blackberry Farm picnic area, project consists of demolition; clearing; tree removal; earthwork; grading, creek dewatering; construction of a modified creek channel between Blackberry Farm Park and Stevens Creek Blvd.; construction of concrete bridge abutments and installation of steel pedestrian bridge; installation of a pervious concrete trail, utilities modifications; planting; compliance with regulatory requirements; and related elements. 2. McClellan Ranch Environmental Education Center and Blacksmith Shop Relocation Projects is located at 22221 McClellan Road, project consists of the of constructing a building that will be approx. 2,100 square feet; the building will also include approx. 1,100 square feet of covered outdoor area. The building will contain 2 class rooms, restroom, resource room and office space with other space for storage and operational area. The project also includes the relocation of the existing Blacksmith Shop and the accessible upgrade to the existing park restrooms. There will also be Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 1 of 57 279 some site work for accessibility improvements and access. The estimated construction contract to be approximately $ 1,100,000. 3. Mary Avenue Dog Park project is located on the west side of Mary Avenue north of Stevens Creek Boulevard and will consist of two phases. The first phase is the soil remediation phase where the site will be remediated of lead-contaminated soil. The second phase will develop a dog park that will be approximately 22,000 square-feet and be split into a large and a small dog area with fencing and other amenities and potentially landscaping. The estimated construction contract to be approximately $ 120,000. 4. Monta Vista Storm Drain project consists of the installation of a main storm drain on Orange and Byrne Avenues and will include the installation of drop inlets and asphalt swales for drainage in a mostly unimproved area of Cupertino. The estimated construction contract to be approximately $ 530,000. 5. Quinlan Center Interior Upgrades project is located at 10185 N. Stelling road. Project consists of replacement of furniture and interior color schemes and some circulation changes. The estimated construction contract to be approximately $ 225,000. 6. Sports Center is located at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Project 6A consists of the replacement of an existing failing retaining wall along some tennis courts and a private development. Project 6B includes the installation of a sports court on an area that contained a swimming pool that has been filled in with dirt. The work may also include the resurfacing of some existing tennis courts and the installation of lighting. 7. Annual Pavement Maintenance Program Phase 1 project consists of the removal/replacement of failed asphalt, overlay of various streets and mill/fill of various streets. There will also be crack-filling on collector streets. Work on arterial streets and significant intersections shall be completed at night. The estimated construction contract to be approximately $ 1,400,000. 8. Annual Pavement Maintenance Program Phase 2 project consist of the placement of rubberized asphalt on Stevens Creek Blvd. from Hwy 85 to DeAnza Blvd. Also included the placement of rubberized cape seal on collectors and conventional Type III chip on rural roads and conventional cape seal on various residential streets and Type II slurry on various residential streets. Work on Stevens Creek Blvd. shall be night work. The estimated construction contract to be approximately $ 2,250,000. 9. Service Center Solar Project consists of the installation of a carport style solar PVC system in the parking area at the Service Center. 10. Portal Park – Collins Sch. Cricket Pitch/Batting Cage Replacement project consist of the replacement of the two existing cricket pitch/batting cages including artificial turf. 11. Wilson Park – Bleacher Shade & Ball Protection Fence Project consists of the installation of shade canopies over the bleachers at the ball fields and extending existing fencing and install ball safety netting screens along the 1st and 3rd base lines and at backstops. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 2 of 57 280 12. Wilson Park – Building & Landscape Improvement project consists of remodeling the existing kitchen area in the building on the northeast side of the park, and the installation of irrigation and drought tolerant plants around the building. 13. Monta Vista Rec. Ctr. – Pre-School Play Area Improvements project consists of constructing a play area with play structures appropriate for pre-school aged children. 14. McClellan Ranch – Pedestrian, Parking, Landscape Improvement project consists of installation of pedestrian paths to connect the ranch house and nature center to the new Environmental Education Center and the right-of-way, upgrade the existing parking area and installing landscape for erosion control around the new Environmental Education Center and Blacksmith shop. There will be some accessibility upgrades achieved by this work. 15. Senior Ctr. – Exercise Room Wood Floor Replacement project consists of the replacement of the existing wood floor in the exercise room with a new wood floor. 16. Bubb Rd. Storm Drain Improvements project consists of the construction of improvements to increase the capacity of the storm drain system in Bubb Road. This could include work on McClellan Rd. C. General Performance Requirements: 1. The performance of all services by CONSULTANT shall be to the satisfaction of the CITY, in accordance with the express terms hereof, including but not limited to the terms set out in detail in this scope of services and the standard of care provisions contained in this AGREEMENT. 2. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for coordinating the work of all consultants and contractors, as needed or as directed by the CITY. CONSULTANT shall schedule meetings and prepare meeting agendas and minutes for all PROJECT meetings during the execution of this agreement under the scope of work. All minutes of meetings are due to the CITY within five (5) working days after the meeting. CONSULTANT shall provide copies of such documentation to the CITY, and as directed by the CITY, to other appropriate agencies and entities. 3. CONSULTANT shall designate and provide to the CITY the names of their team members for the PROJECT. The team members shall be satisfactory to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall not substitute any team members without the prior approval of the CITY. CITY retains the right to reject team members assigned by CONSULTANT or require replacement of team members. 4. CONSULTANT shall manage its SUBCONSULTANTS, and administer the PROJECT. CONSULTANT shall consult with the CITY, research applicable information, and communicate with members of the PROJECT team. 5. CONSULTANT shall meet weekly with CITY’s assigned project manager for the respective construction projects to provide an update on the current status of the construction project. CM will provide the CITY’s assigned project manager with a summary report. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 3 of 57 281 6. CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT’s subconsultants and subcontractors shall comply with applicable requirements of City’s Applicant-State Agreement No. 04-20-035 Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) Program for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park & Restoration - Phase 2 project. A copy of the agreement marked Exhibit D is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. D. CONSULTANT shall effectively manage the assigned construction projects for the efficient, progressive, and proactive delivery of each construction project. For each assigned construction project, the CONSULTANT may provide any or all of the following tasks and subtasks under Section 2, as each specific project requires. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 4 of 57 282 SECTION 2. TASKS Task 1 – Pre-Construction Phase - work shall include but is not limited to the following: 1. Conduct a constructability review of the construction documents (50%, 95% and 100%) for the various projects. Provide a written report with recommendations for changes. 2. Cost Estimate review and value engineering for various projects. Provide a written report with recommendations. 3. Utility coordination for projects. Work shall include a survey of existing utilities, the development of utility service plan for new and existing structures, coordinating with consultant preparing the project plans and making application to the utility companies for service. 4. Assist with the building permit approval process. Work shall include but is not limited to coordinating with design consultant and building department to receive an approved building permit. 5. Assist with the review and approval process for other permits and regulatory requirements. Work shall include but is not limited to coordinating with design consultant, city staff, and regulatory agencies to apply for and secure approved permits and authorizations as needed. 6. Assist with the development and conducting of public outreach programs to assist in providing public information regarding project. 7. Assist with grant administration during the project. Task 2 – Bid Phase - work shall include but is not limited to the following: 1. Conduct a pre-bid Conference with prospective Bidders. 2. Assist with the issuing of Addendums. 3. Assist in the development of bidders’ interest in a project. 4. Review bid documents and assist the CITY in evaluation of bidders Statement of Qualifications for responsible low bidder and assist in analyzing bid protest as may be necessary. 5. Tabulation and evaluation of bid results. Assist in the evaluation of bid alternatives and make recommendations on award. 6. Assist in review and processing of substitution submittals during bid and construction phase. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 5 of 57 283 Task 3 – Construction Phase – work shall include but is not limited to the following: 1. Administration and Coordination of Construction Contract: CM will provide administrative, construction management and related services necessary to administer the Construction Contract on each assigned project. CM’s services shall include but are not limited to the following: a. Scheduling, coordinating and conducting pre-construction and construction meetings; recording, maintaining and distributing minutes thereof. b. Prior to start of project construction the CM and CITY will come to agreement on the format for all project records to be kept and turned over to the CITY at the completion of the project. Documents may be hard copies and/or electronic. CM will make recommendations on programs to be used for tracking and other record keeping needs. c. Develop and implement a procedure for the submittal and processing of submittals with the design consultant. This shall include preparing and updating logs. Provide preliminary review for completeness and general compliance of submittals that are to be reviewed by the design consultant. Provide review and response for submittals that do not involve the design consultant (such as Safety Plan, Fire Protection Plan). Sign and date such submittals with response: Reviewed or Revise and Resubmit. d. Develop and implement a procedure for the submittal and processing of substitution requests with the CITY and the design consultant. This shall include preparing and updating logs. e. Develop and implement a procedure for timely handling and disposition of the Contractor’s request for information (RFI) or clarifications with the design consultant. This shall include preparing and updating logs. f. Establish and implement procedures for the timely transmittal and receipt of communications, drawing and other information between CM, design consultant and the Contractor relating to construction of the project. g. Develop and implement a procedure for the timely submittal, processing and tracking of Contract Change Orders (CCO), Request for Price Quote (RPQ), etc. with the CITY. This shall include preparing and updating logs. h. Coordinate and maintain a project directory for the project, with emergency contact information. i. Review the Contractor’s comprehensive schedule that establishes a base line and reports the status and progress of the project. The schedule should include details such as milestones and key activities to track project progress. Review the Contractor’s three week look ahead schedule. Verify that schedules conform to the construction contract documents. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 6 of 57 284 j. Work with CITY and Contractor to maintain use of existing facilities that are affected by the construction, to minimize the disruption to the existing facilities and to have their continued use during the construction of the project. This includes all phase of construction and delivery of materials. 2. Monitoring of construction costs and progress payments, CM services shall include but are not limited to the following: a. Provide and maintain project level reports for budgeting and contingency tracking; contract payment status; cash flow forecasting and analysis; grant documentation; and other financial reporting as necessary to support the CITY’s accounting needs. CM shall maintain records reflecting the actual costs for activities completed or in progress, including records relating to work performed on a unit cost basis and additional work performed by the Contractor on a time and materials basis. CM shall monitor and advise the CITY of costs pertaining to potential, pending and completed changes; and potential or pending claims. b. Develop a procedure for submittal, review and processing of the progress payments to Contractor, along with associated forms and reporting systems. CM shall review progress payment applications and work with Contractor to achieve agreement on the progress payment amount. CM will verify that the “as built” check set of plans by the Contractor are updated prior to approval of progress payment being submitted to the CITY. CM will require Contractor to provide a conditional waiver and release for progress payments and a final release and waiver for the final payment. CM will certify that the data in each application for progress payment is to the best of CM’s knowledge, information and belief, the work has progressed to the point indicated in the application for progress payment and the quality of the work is generally in accordance with the contract documents. CM’s review of application for progress payment shall be undertaken and completed in a timely manner so that the CITY can meet its obligations to make progress payment due Contractor within the time permitted by applicable law without incurring interest liability or other penalties/liabilities. CM shall also verify the progress payment satisfies any grant requirement. 3. Substantial completion and final completion, CM services shall include but are not limited to the following: a. Consult with the design consultants and CITY to jointly ascertain the achievement of substantial completion of the project. If upon inspection of the project substantial completion has not been achieved, the CM will assist the design consultant in noting the conditions of the work and the measures necessary for the Contractor to achieve substantial completion. Upon determining that the Contractor has achieved substantial completion the CM will coordinate the CITY’s and design consultant’s final inspection of the work to note punch list items to be completed by the Contractor as a condition to achieve final completion. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 7 of 57 285 b. Assist the CITY in issuing a certificate of substantial completion and final completion, as applicable. 4. Progress Records, CM services shall include but are not limited to the following: a. Maintain records of the progress of construction of the project, including written progress reports and photographs reflecting the status of construction and percentage completion of the project. CM will maintain daily records during construction of the project showing weather conditions, personnel of the Contractor and Subcontractor at the site, work accomplished, problems encountered and other matters materially affecting the project, completion of the project or construction cost to complete construction of the project. CM shall maintain project records for test results and special inspection results. b. Provide monthly progress reports on the project. 5. Site observations of project, CM services shall include but are not limited to the following: a. CM shall be on-site during construction of the project and substantially at all times during which there are construction activities at the site. CITY and CM may agree to the amount of time required to be at the site for observation, however this does not relieve the CM from the requirement of having knowledge of the status of the work. b. Coordinate testing, lab services and inspections, this includes by outside firms. CM will work with the Building Department for permit inspections coordination and final approvals of permit. Provide testing and test results by testing firm acceptable to CITY. Such testing services shall be a reimbursable expense as described in Task 5. c. Maintain at the site the following documents at a minimum: Contract, Drawings, Specifications, approved Change Orders, Submittals, building permit, SWPPP and associated testing or monitoring documentation, other permits, applicable codes, rules and regulation and other written or electronic materials relating to the project. d. CM will endeavor to guard the CITY against defects and deficiencies in construction and workmanship of the project on the basis of its site observations, and a quality control program established and implemented hereunder to monitor construction workmanship for conformity: 1) accepted industry standards; 2) applicable laws, codes, regulations, ordinances or rules: 3) and the requirements of the construction documents. e. CM shall reject work whenever in the ordinary course of discharging its services the CM discovers or observes patent conditions of defective or deficient construction and workmanship which as or may have an adverse impact upon the project’s life-safety systems or operations, structural elements or integrity of the safety of persons or property. CM shall take prompt action appropriate Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 8 of 57 286 under the circumstances, including stopping the work and thereupon notifying the CITY in writing. CM’s responsibilities hereunder shall be limited to defective or deficient work or an apparent or patent nature. f. Review the Contactor safety program and the requirements of the construction documents and applicable law. CM shall monitor the Contractor’s compliance with safety programs and advise the CITY of measures, if any, necessary or appropriate to obtain the Contractor’s compliance. By undertaking the obligation hereunder, CM shall not be deemed to have assumed responsibility of the adequacy or sufficiency of safety programs implemented by the Contractor, but the CM is responsible for verifying that the Contractor has established a safety program, that the safety program established by the Contractor is in compliance with applicable law, rule or regulation and that the Contractor has implemented its safety program. g. CM shall promptly notify the CITY in writing of all CM observed instances of Contractor’s failure to comply with applicable safety requirements. If in the course of performing services during the construction, the CM observes a safety violation or other unsafe condition on or about the site or surrounding area which have a immediate or potential or actual adverse effect on life or property, the CM is authorized, without prior notice to the CITY or prior directive by the CITY, to take all actions deemed necessary and appropriate by the CM under the then existing circumstances to prevent such actual or potential adverse effect. h. CM shall become familiar with all CEQA documents and permit requirements from other agencies having jurisdictions over the site or work that will affect the project and the construction site. CM shall be responsible for monitoring all aspects of the project as it relates to the requirements. CM shall monitor the Contractor’s compliance with all requirements of the CEQA documents and permits by other agencies. CM shall take prompt action appropriate under the circumstances, including stopping the work and thereupon notifying the CITY in writing if Contractor is not following all requirements. 6. Contract Change Order (CCO) processing, CM services shall include but are not limited to the following: a. Coordinate and disseminate correspondence, drawings and other written materials by and between the Contractor, the CITY and the design consultants relating to changes to the project. CM will coordinate the Contractor’s performance of changes authorized by the CITY. CM shall maintain a log or other written records to monitor the pendency and disposition of change and CCOs to keep the CITY advised of the status of the same and the actual or potential impact of any particular change or CCO or the cumulative effects thereof on the construction cost or time for completion of construction of the project. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 9 of 57 287 b. Assist the CITY and design consultant in evaluation of requests for the Contactor for issuance of CCOs, assist in negotiations with the Contractor relative to the CCOs proposals and the adjustment of the contract price or the contract time under the construction contract. CM will make recommendations to the CITY and the design consultant for handling and disposition of the Contractor’s proposal relative to the changes. If a change to the construction contract is approved or authorized by the CITY, CM will assist the CITY and the design consultant in the preparation of a CCO reflecting such approved or authorized change to the construction contract. The CM is not authorized, without the prior consent and approval of the CITY, to effectuate or authorize any change to the work of the project. The CM shall be liable to the CITY for all direct and consequential costs, losses or damage resulting from the CM’s direction or authorization of effectuate a change to the work of the project without the prior direction and authorization by the CITY. 7. Claims handling, CM service shall include but are not limited to the following: a. Assist the design consultant in the review, evaluation and processing of claims asserted by the Contractor; CM will make recommendations to the CITY as to merit, handling and disposition of Contractor’s claims. Except in the event that the CM is alleged to have caused or contributed to the circumstances giving rise to a Contractor claim or other Contractor demand for compensation, services of the CM to prepare documentation or provide testimony in a mediation, arbitration or judicial proceeding arising out of such a claim or demand for compensation shall be deemed additional services. If the CM is alleged to have caused or contributed to a Contractor claim, the CM’s claims handling services, including without limitation, claims analysis, assistance in preparing briefs/graphic materials in connection with negotiations or dispute resolution proceeding relating to a Contractor claim shall be deemed part of the CM’s basic services under this agreement. 8. CM equipment, CM shall provide the following equipment necessary to carry out CM duties: a. Provide all equipment, furnishings and other items necessary to complete the services required for the project. Including without limitation, trailer, computers, related hardware, software, vehicles, cell phones, office equipment and copiers. Task 4 – Post-Construction Phase – work shall include but is not limited to the following: 1. Contractor closeout document review, CM services shall include but are not limited to the following: Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 10 of 57 288 a. Receive from the Contractor the closeout documents and items to be submitted by the Contractor under the terms of the Construction Contract upon completion of its obligations under the Construction Contract. The CM shall review each Contractor’s closeout submitatals to determine conformity with the requirements of the Construction Contract. If the CM determines that any Contractor’s closeout submittals are not in conformity with requirements of the construction contract, the CM shall make recommendations to the CITY for measures to secure compliance with the requirements of the construction contract. The CM shall deliver to the CITY all of the Contractor’s closeout submittals, including the Contractor’s as-build drawings which the CM shall transmit to the design consultant for preparation of the record drawings. The CM shall monitor the design consultant’s preparation and completion of the project record drawings prior to delivering to the CITY. b. Within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance of a Certificate of Final Completion for the construction contract, the CM shall assemble and deliver to the CITY all of the records maintained by the CM relating to the project. Task 5 – Allowance for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant 1. CM shall engage the necessary subconsultants to perform the necessary testing and inspection as required for the project. This is the only reimbursable expense that will be allowed in the agreement. CM shall schedule and coordinate with the contractor and subconsultant for the necessary testing and inspection for the project. 2. Compensation to the CM for testing and inspections by subconsultant shall be for the actual billed amount only, no mark up or overhead will be allowed for these subcontracted services. CM shall bill monthly for actual testing and inspections completed. CM shall attach copies of subconsultants’ invoice for verification of cost being billed. Task 6 – Additional Services 3. Services provided by CM that are different from or in addition to those described herein are being included in the scope of Basic Services are referred to as “Additional Services”. No Additional Services shall be performed without the prior written authorization of the CITY. No compensation shall be due from the CITY to the CM for any Additional Services provided or performed by the CM without the prior written authorization of the CITY. 4. Compensation to the CM for Additional Services directed and authorized by the CITY shall be on the basis of either: 1) actual and reasonable time of the CM’s personnel necessary to complete the authorized Additional Service computed in accordance with the Rate Schedule attached to this Agreement; or 2) a fixed price mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the CM. The forgoing notwithstanding, if Additional Services Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 11 of 57 289 authorized by the CITY result from the neglect of CM or CM’s default under this Agreement, CM shall complete Additional Services at no cost to the CITY. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 12 of 57 290 EXHIBIT B REVISED SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall complete all work by March 31, 2016. The following sets forth the distribution of CONSULTANT’s Schedule of Performance for each project. The CITY may approve in writing the extension of any date set in this Exhibit. PROJECT No. 1: Stevens Creek Corridor Park & Restoration Phase 2 Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: NIC NIC Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 13 of 57 291 PROJECT No. 2: McClellan Ranch Environmental Education Center & Blacksmith Shop Relocation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 14 of 57 292 PROJECT No. 3: Mary Avenue Dog Park Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: NIC NIC Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 15 of 57 293 PROJECT No. 4: Monta Vista Storm Drain Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 16 of 57 294 PROJECT No. 5: Quinlan Center Interior Upgrades Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: NIC NIC Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 17 of 57 295 PROJECT No. 6A: Sports Center Projects – Retaining Wall Repair Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 18 of 57 296 PROJECT No. 6B: Sports Center Projects – West Side Court Improvements Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 19 of 57 297 PROJECT No. 7: Annual Pavement Maintenance Program Phase 1 Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: NIC NIC Task#2 Bid Phase: NIC NIC Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 20 of 57 298 PROJECT No. 8: Annual Pavement Maintenance Program Phase 2 Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: NIC NIC Task#2 Bid Phase: NIC NIC Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 21 of 57 299 PROJECT No. 9: Service Center Solar Project Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: NIC NIC Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 22 of 57 300 PROJECT No. 10: Portal Park-Collins Sch. Cricket Pitch/Batting Cage Replacement Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 23 of 57 301 PROJECT No. 11: Wilson Park – Bleacher Shade & Ball Protection Fence Project Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 24 of 57 302 PROJECT No. 12: Wilson Park – Building & Landscape Improvements Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 25 of 57 303 PROJECT No. 13: Monta Vista Rec. Ctr. – Pre-School Play Area Improvements Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 26 of 57 304 PROJECT No. 14: McClellan Ranch – Pedestrian, Parking, Landscape Improvements Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 27 of 57 305 PROJECT No. 15: Senior Center - Exercise Room Wood Floor Replacement Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 28 of 57 306 PROJECT No. 16: Bubb Rd. Storm Drain Improvements Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase: 1 weeks after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this phase Task#2 Bid Phase: Upon City sending Advertisement for Bid to Contractors Task #3: Construction Phase: Upon City sending Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Contractor Task #4: Post-Construction Phase: Upon City issuance of Notice of Final Completion Task #5: Allowance for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant: As required by Construction Progress Task #6: Additional Services When authorized to Proceed on task These are estimated start times for each task. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 29 of 57 307 EXHIBIT C REVISED COMPENSATION A. Maximum Compensation. The CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, including both payment for professional services, additional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE DOLLARS ($ 1,478,489). CONSULTANT agrees that it shall perform all of the services set forth in EXHIBIT A of this AGREEMENT, except for additional services required pursuant to Section 2, Task No. 6 and inclusive of reimbursable expenses, for the lump-sum amount of ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE DOLLARS ($ 1,378,489). The maximum amount of Additional Services are authorized under Section F of this EXHIBIT C is ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($ 100,000). B. Method of Payment For Task Nos. 1 through 6 CONSULTANT shall, during the term of this AGREEMENT, invoice the CITY monthly based upon a percentage of completion of each task set forth below in the Payment Schedule for services performed, and reimbursable expenses incurred if applicable, in completing that task under this AGREEMENT (Hereinafter “Invoice”). Provided CONSULTANT has completed the services and incurred the reimbursable expenses covered by the Invoice in accordance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT, as determined by the CITY, the CITY shall pay CONSULTANT the amount shown on the Invoice within thirty (30) working days of receipt of the Invoice. The Invoice shall be based on the percentage of the task completed, and it shall describe the work completed during the Invoice period in accordance with the Payment Schedule set forth below. The Invoice shall be broken out per project as listed on the Payment Schedule. The Invoice shall list work completed and reimbursable expenses if applicable, in accordance with the Payment Schedule set forth below. CONSULTANT also shall include supporting documents to verify completed work and for any reimbursable expenses. The Invoice shall include sufficient detail to satisfy grant requirements, funding agreements and financial audits. The Invoice shall also show the total to be paid for the Invoice period. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 30 of 57 308 C. Payment Schedule The Payment Schedule for this AGREEMENT shall be as follows: PROJECT No. 1: Stevens Creek Corridor Park & Restoration Phase 2 Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase - NIC NIC Task #2: Bid Phase $ 5,000 Task #3: Construction Phase (includes S.O. #3 - $20,000 & S.O. #6 - $57,489)) $ 356,489 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 26,000 Task #5: Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant $ 18,000 Task #6: Additional Services $ 20,000 TOTAL $ 425,489 PROJECT No. 2: McClellan Ranch Environmental Education Center & Blacksmith Shop Relocation Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 10,000 Task #2: Bid Phase $ 15,000 Task #3: Construction Phase (includes S.O. #5 $11,500) $ 222,500 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 30,000 Task #5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 43,500 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 321,000 Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 31 of 57 309 PROJECT No. 3: Mary Avenue Dog Park Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 1,000 Task #2: Bid Phase $ 1,000 Task #3: Construction Phase (includes S.O. #2 - $5,000 & S.O. #4 - $18,000) $ 43,000 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 3,000 Task 5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant (includes S.O. # 1 - $ 6,000) $ 6,000 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 54,000 PROJECT No. 4: Monta Vista Storm Drain Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 1,000 Task #2: Bid Phase $ 1,000 Task #3: Construction Phase $ 54,000 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 4,000 Task 5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 15,000 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 75,000 PROJECT No. 5: Quinlan Center Interior Upgrade Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 1,000 Task #2: Bid Phase $ 1,000 Task #3: Construction Phase $ 19,000 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 3,000 Task 5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant NIC NIC Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 24,000 Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 32 of 57 310 PROJECT No. 6A: Sports Center Projects – Retaining Wall Repair Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 500 Task #2: Bid Phase $ 500 Task #3: Construction Phase $ 19,600 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 1,500 Task 5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 17,900 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 40,000 PROJECT No. 6B: Sports Center Projects – West Side Court Improvements Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 2,000 Task #2: Bid Phase $ 1,000 Task #3: Construction Phase $ 70,000 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 2,000 Task 5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 15,000 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 90,000 PROJECT No. 7: Annual Pavement Management Program Phase 1 Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase NIC NIC Task #2: Bid Phase NIC NIC Task #3: Construction Phase $ 0 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 0 Task #5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 0 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 0 Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 33 of 57 311 PROJECT No. 8: Annual Pavement Management Program Phase 2 Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase NIC NIC Task #2: Bid Phase NIC NIC Task #3: Construction Phase $ 0 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 0 Task #5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 0 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 0 PROJECT No. 9: Service Center Solar Project (Service Order No. 7) Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 5,000 Task #2: Bid Phase $ NIC Task #3: Construction Phase $ 30,000 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 10,000 Task 5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 15,000 Task#6: Additional Services $ 5,000 TOTAL $ 65,000 PROJECT No. 10: Portal Park – Collins Sch. Cricket Pitch/Batting Cage Replacement Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 1,000 Task #2: Bid Phase $ 1,000 Task #3: Construction Phase $ 5,000 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 1,000 Task 5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 1,500 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 9,500 Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 34 of 57 312 PROJECT No. 11: Wilson Park – Bleacher Shade & Ball Protection Fence Project Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 1,000 Task #2: Bid Phase $ 1,000 Task #3: Construction Phase $ 21,000 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 2,000 Task 5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 4,000 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 29,000 PROJECT No. 12: Wilson Park – Building & Landscape Improvements Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 1,000 Task #2: Bid Phase $ 1,000 Task #3: Construction Phase $ 16,000 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 2,000 Task 5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 4,000 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 24,000 PROJECT No. 13: Monta Vista Rec. Ctr. – Pre-School Play Area Improvements Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 2,000 Task #2: Bid Phase $ 1,000 Task #3: Construction Phase $ 28,000 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 2,000 Task 5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 5,000 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 39,000 Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 35 of 57 313 PROJECT No. 14: McClellan Ranch – Pedestrian, Parking, Landscape Improvements Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 2,000 Task #2: Bid Phase $ 2,000 Task #3: Construction Phase $ 27,000 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 2,000 Task 5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 5,000 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 38,000 PROJECT No. 15: Senior Center – Exercise Room Wood Floor Replacement Project Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 1,000 Task #2: Bid Phase $ 1,000 Task #3: Construction Phase $ 5,000 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 1,000 Task 5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 1,500 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 9,500 PROJECT No. 16: Bubb Road Storm Drain Improvements Task Description Task Compensation Task #1: Pre-Construction Phase $ 5,000 Task #2: Bid Phase $ 5,000 Task #3: Construction Phase $ 95,000 Task #4: Post-Construction Phase $ 5,000 Task 5: Allowances for Testing and Inspections by Subconsultant $ 25,000 Task#6: Additional Services $ 0 TOTAL $ 135,000 Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 36 of 57 314 TOTAL OF PROJECTS: Project No. & Name Total Per Project Compensation Project No. 1: Stevens Creek Corridor Park & Restoration Phase 2 425,489.00 Project No. 2: McClellan Ranch Environmental Education Center & Blacksmith Shop Relocation 321,000.00 Project No. 3: Mary Avenue Dog Park 54,000.00 Project No. 4: Monta Vista Storm Drain 75,000.00 Project No. 5: Quinlan Center Interior Upgrade 24,000.00 Project No. 6A: Sports Center Project: Retaining Wall Repair 40,000.00 Project No. 6B: Sports Center Project: West Side Court Improvements 90,000.00 Project No. 7: Annual Pavement Management Program Phase 1 0.00 Project No. 8: Annual Pavement Management Program Phase 2 0.00 Project No. 9: Service Center Solar Project 65,000.00 Project No. 10: Portal Park - Collins Sch. Cricket Pitch/Batting Cage Replacement 9,500.00 Project No. 11: Wilson Park - Bleacher Shade & Ball Protection Fence Project 29,000.00 Project No. 12: Wilson Park - Building & Landscape Improvement 24,000.00 Project No. 13: Monta Vista Rec. Ctr. - Pre-School Play Area Improvements 39,000.00 Project No. 14: McClellan Ranch - Pedestrian, Parking, Landscape Improvements 38,000.00 Project No. 15: Senior Ctr. - Exercise Room Wood Floor Replacement 9,500.00 Project No. 16: Bubb Rd. Storm Drain Improvements 135,000.00 Additional Services - ASDs 100,000.00 1,478,489.00 CONSULTANT shall not exceed any of the specified budget amounts for any Task without prior written authorization from the CITY. The CITY may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the Tasks listed above provided the total AGREEMENT amount does not exceed ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE DOLLARS ($ 1,478,489). Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 37 of 57 315 D. Payment Schedule The Payment Schedule for this AGREEMENT shall be as follows: Project No. 1: Stevens Creek Corridor Park & Restoration Phase 2 TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase NIC NIC Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 38 of 57 316 Project No. 2: McClellan Ranch Environmental Education Center & Blacksmith Shop Relocation TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 39 of 57 317 Project No. 3: Mary Avenue Dog Park TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant NIC NIC Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 40 of 57 318 Project No. 4: Monta Vista Storm Drain TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 41 of 57 319 Project No. 5: Quinlan Center Interior Upgrade TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant NIC NIC Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 42 of 57 320 Project No. 6A: Sports Center Projects – Retaining Wall Repair TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 43 of 57 321 Project No. 6B: Sports Center Projects – West Side Courts Improvements TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 44 of 57 322 Project No. 7: Annual Pavement Management Program Phase 1 TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase NIC NIC Task #2 – Bid Phase NIC NIC Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 45 of 57 323 Project No. 8: Annual Pavement Management Program Phase 2 TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase NIC NIC Task #2 – Bid Phase NIC NIC Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 46 of 57 324 Project No. 9: Service Center Solar Project TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase NIC NIC Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 47 of 57 325 Project No. 10: Portal Park – Collins Sch. Cricket Pitch/Batting Cage Replacement TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 48 of 57 326 Project No. 11: Wilson Park – Bleacher Shade & Ball Protection Fence Project TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 49 of 57 327 Project No. 12: Wilson Park – Building & Landscape Improvements TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 50 of 57 328 Project No. 13: Monta Vista Rec. Ctr. – Pre-School Play Area Improvements TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 51 of 57 329 Project No. 14: McClellan Ranch – Pedestrian, Parking, Landscape Improvements TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 52 of 57 330 Project No. 15: Senior Center – Exercise Room Wood Floor Replacement Project TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 53 of 57 331 Project No. 16: Bubb Road Storm Drain Improvements TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 54 of 57 332 Project No. TASK MILESTONE PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE Task #1 – Pre-Construction Phase 100% Task #2 – Bid Phase 100% Task #3 – Construction Phase a. Substantial Completion 95% b. Final Completion 5% Task #4 – Post Construction Phase a. Construction Documentation Delivered to City 95% b. Final Close out of Project 5% Task #5 – Allowances for Testing and Inspection by Subconsultant 100% Task #6 – Additional Services Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. D. Subconsultant Services. CONSULTANT is directly responsible for any payment for SUBCONSULTANT work on this PROJECT. SUBCONSULTANT work on this PROJECT is included in the Payment Schedule shown above and shall be billed to the CITY by CONSULTANT as part of the Basic Services. E. Reimbursable expenses. Reimbursable expenses are included in CONSULTANT’s maximum compensation, including, but not limited to, any expenses related to CONSULTANT’s tasks. There are no separate reimbursable expenses for Basic Services performed under any Task of EXHIBIT A. F. Additional Services. CONSULTANT shall not perform Additional Services without prior written authorization of the CITY. Additional Services shall be separately negotiated to be paid on a lump sum or a time and material basis at the rates set forth herein, as authorized by the CITY. The CITY has set aside the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($ 100,000) for the payment of Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 55 of 57 333 Additional Services. The CITY shall not authorize and CONSULTANT shall not perform any Additional Services that result in charges in excess of the above amount. CONSULTANT shall submit an Invoice to the CITY for payment on a monthly basis for authorized Additional Services rendered during the previous month. In the event Additional Services are authorized, CONSULTANT shall submit Invoices in accordance with the CONSULTANT hourly rate schedule attached to this EXHIBIT C -1. The rates shown in the EXHIBIT C-1 shall stay in effect during the full term of the contract. The CITY shall pay Additional Services Invoices as provided in this EXHIBIT C. Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 56 of 57 334 EXHIBIT C-1 REVISED CONSULTANT HOURLY RATES FOR ADDITONAL SERVICES Gilbane Project Executive $226 Project Manager $170 Superintendent $159 Assistant Superintendent $134 Senior Project Engineer $143 Project Engineer $96 Office Engineer $72 Project Accountant $116 Administrative Assistant $68 Operations Executive/Principal-in-Charge $247 Senior Preconstruction Manager $226 Preconstruction Manager $173 Chief Estimator $196 MEP Estimator $173 CSA Estimator $125 Scheduling Manger $173 Scheduling Engineer $134 Safety Manager $140 Gilbane Building Company Agreement Revised Exhibits - Amendment No. 2 Page 57 of 57 335 ATTACHMENT B 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0426 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/12/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: City Project, 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1, Project No. 2014-01 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1 Street List Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject: City Project, 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1, Project No. 2014-01 Accept Project No. 2014-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™390 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 3, 2015 Subject City Project, 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1, Project No. 2014-01 Recommended Action Accept Project No. 2014-01. Discussion The City’s contractor, O’Grady Paving, Inc., has completed work on the 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1 Project, which consisted of asphalt overlay, asphalt leveling and digout repairs at various locations throughout the City. Staff has inspected the work and found that it meets the requirements of the contract. Final project expenditures will be within the approved budget of $4,200,000. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Jo Anne Johnson, Senior Engineering Technician Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A- 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1 Street List 391 2014 Pavement Maintenance - Phase 1 Project Street List February 3, 2015 Street Name From To Type of Work Alcalde Rd.Foothill Avienda Overlay w/ Leveling Course Antoinette Dr.Clay Clifden Overlay w/ Leveling Course Aster Ct.Aster End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Aster Ln.Waterford Barnhart Overlay w/ Leveling Course Avocado Pl.Bixby End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Banhart Pl Aster 7589 Barnhart approx.Overlay w/ Leveling Course Belknap Ct Belknap End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Belknap Dr.Elmsford Yorkshire Overlay w/ Leveling Course Bixby Dr. Portal Cold Harbor Overlay w/ Leveling Course Bollinger Rd Blaney Ave De Anza Blvd Digout Repair Camino Vista Dr.Stevens Creek Dubon Overlay w/ Leveling Course Carnoustie Ct.Deep Cliff End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Carriage Cr.Stelling End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Catalina Ct.Terrace End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Cold Harbor Ave.Bixby Wintergreen Overlay w/ Leveling Course Cristo Rey Dr.Roundabout Forum Driveway Digout Repair Cristo Rey Dr.East City limit Roundabout Mill and Fill Dubon Ave.Prado Vista Camino Vista Overlay w/ Leveling Course Elmsford Ct.Elmsford End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Elmsford Dr.Belknap End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Folkestone Dr.Bubb Yorkshire Overlay w/ Leveling Course Huntridge Ln.S. Stelling Rose Blossom Overlay w/ Leveling Course La Jolla Ct.Terrace End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Lebanon Av.Lockwood SCB Overlay w/ Leveling Course Lilac Ct.Rose Blossom End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Lilac Wy.S. Stelling Rose Blossom Overlay w/ Leveling Course Lily Ave.Rose Blossom Rose Blossom Overlay w/ Leveling Course Lily Ct.Lily End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Lockwood Dr.Stevens Creek Voss Overlay w/ Leveling Course Lynton Ct.Farallone End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Medina Ct Stevens Creek End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Merriman Rd.Alcalde San Lucia Asphalt Leveling Meyerholtz Ct.Stokes End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Micheal Ct.Clifden End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Mira Vista Rd.Janice Palm Overlay w/ Leveling Course Monterey Ct.Terrace End Overlay w/ Leveling Course N. Stelling Rd.Apt. Ent.Homestead Overlay w/ Leveling Course Nobel Fir Ct.S. Stelling End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Pacifica Ave.De Anza Blvd.Farallone Overlay w/ Leveling Course Palm Ave.S. Foothill Scenic Overlay w/ Leveling Course Palo Vista Rd.Janice Palm Overlay w/ Leveling Course Palos Verdes Ct.Terrace End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Prado Vista Dr Stevens Creek Dubon Overlay w/ Leveling Course Rainbow Ct.Rainbow End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Red Fir Ct.Nobel Fir End Overlay w/ Leveling Course 392 2014 Pavement Maintenance - Phase 1 Project Street List February 3, 2015 Redondo Ct.Terrace End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Rose Blossom Dr.McClellan Rd.Huntridge Overlay w/ Leveling Course Rosemarie Pl.Miller Ave End Overlay w/ Leveling Course S. Stelling Rd.85 Bridge Deck South Prospect Rd.Digout Repair Sage Ct.Lilac End Overlay w/ Leveling Course San Felipe Rd.Alcalde rd End Overlay w/ Leveling Course San Fernando Ave.Byrne Ave AC Dike Santa Lucia Rd. Stevens Canyon Cordova/Alcalde Asphalt Leveling Sola St.Tula Ln.Bonny Overlay w/ Leveling Course Stevens Canyon Rd.Park Ent. South New Pvmnt.6" Mill and Fill Stevens Crk Blvd.85 Bridge Deck West Foothill Blvd.Digout Repair Tonita Wy.Cheryl Shelly Overlay w/ Leveling Course Torre Ave.Stvns Crk Blvd Pacifica Overlay w/ Leveling Course & Digout Repairs Tula Ct.Tula Ln.End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Tula Ln.Sola St North & South Ends Overlay w/ Leveling Course Via Camino Ct.Ainsworth End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Vicksburg Dr.Cold Harbor E Estates Overlay w/ Leveling Course Westacres Dr.McClellan Rd.End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Weymouth Dr.Rainbow Belknap Overlay w/ Leveling Course White Fir Nobel Fir End Overlay w/ Leveling Course WillowGrove Ln.Ferngrove Hyde Overlay w/ Leveling Course Wilson Ct.Stokes End Overlay w/ Leveling Course Wintergreen Dr.Portal Cold Harbor Overlay w/ Leveling Course Yorkshire Dr.Rainbow Stafford Overlay w/ Leveling Course Yorshire Ct.Yorshire End Overlay w/ Leveling Course 393 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0427 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/12/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: City Project, 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2, Project No. 2014-04 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject: City Project, 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2, Project No. 2014-04 Accept Project No. 2014-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™394 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 3, 2015 Subject City Project, 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2, Project No. 2014-04 Recommended Action Accept Project No. 2014-04. Discussion The City’s contractor, O’Grady Paving, Inc., has completed work on the 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2 Project, which consisted of a rubberized asphalt overlay on portions of Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza Blvd. Staff has inspected the work and found that it meets the requirements of the contract. Final project expenditures will be within the approved budget of $2,550,000, a portion of which will be reimbursed by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Rubberized Pavement Grant Program. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Jo Anne Johnson, Senior Engineering Technician Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: 395 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0428 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/12/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: City Project, 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3, Project No. 2014-05 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3 Street List Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject: City Project, 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3, Project No. 2014-05 Accept Project No. 2014-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™396 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 3, 2015 Subject City Project, 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3, Project No. 2014-05 Recommended Action Accept Project No. 2014-05. Discussion The City’s contractor, VSS International, Inc., has completed work on the 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3 Project, which consisted of rubberized asphalt chip seal, conventional chip seal, and slurry seal at various locations throughout the City. Staff has inspected the work and found that it meets the requirements of the contract. Final project expenditures will be within the approved budget of $1,015,300, a portion of which will be reimbursed by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Rubberized Pavement Grant Program. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Jo Anne Johnson, Senior Engineering Technician Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A- 2014 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3 Street List 397 ATTACHMENT B City of Cupertino - FY 14-15 Pavement Maintenance Program PHASE 3 STREET NAME FROM TO TREATMENT Blaney Ave Stevens Creek Rodrigues Rubber Chip Bollinger Rd Blaney Ave De Anza Rubber Chip Miller Ave Calle De Barcelona Bollinger Rubber Chip Stevens Creek Blvd Foothill Blvd Highway 85 Rubber Chip Cliffden Way Martinwood Bollinger Chip/Slurry Martinwood Way Cliffden Bollinger Chip/Slurry Apple Tree Ln Vista Plum Tree Slurry Seal Cherry Tree Ln Apple Tree Peach Tree Slurry Seal Cozette Ln Tantau End Slurry Seal Cynthia Ave Sterling Gascoigne Slurry Seal Hanna Dr Gascoinge Wunderlich Slurry Seal Krista Ct Voss End Slurry Seal Loree Ave Tantau End Slurry Seal Madera Phar Lap End Slurry Seal Mount Crest Pl Mount Crest Dr End Slurry Seal Parkside Ln Rodrigues End Slurry Seal Peach Tree Ln Cherry Tree Plum Tree Slurry Seal Prune Tree Ln Apple Tree Peach Tree Slurry Seal Ralya Ct Sterling End Slurry Seal Rodribues Ave Blane Ave E End Slurry Seal Sterling Blvd Runo N End Slurry Seal Tomki Ct Stelling Rd End Slurry Seal Twig Ln Tantau End Slurry Seal De Foe Dr 7574 De Foe End Slurry Seal 398 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:115-0639 Name: Status:Type:Second Reading of Ordinances Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/26/2015 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Second Reading of "Ordinance amending Chapter 2.36 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission" Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Ordinance Redlined B - Draft Ordinance Clean Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject:SecondReadingof"OrdinanceamendingChapter2.36oftheCupertinoMunicipal Code regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission" ConducttheSecondReadingandenactOrdinanceNo.15-2127:"AnOrdinanceoftheCity CounciloftheCityofCupertinoamendingSection2.36.303Members-VacancyorRemoval, Section2.36.070RecordsRequired,andSection2.36.080PowersandFunctions,ofthe Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission" CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™399 RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 3, 2015 Subject Second reading and enactment of the “Ordinance amending Chapter 2.36 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission.” Recommended Action Conduct the Second reading of Ordinance No. 15-2127: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Section 2.36.303 Members-Vacancy or Removal, Section 2.36.070 Records Required, and Section 2.36.080 Powers and Functions, of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission.” Description Amend the following Sections in Chapter 2.36 of the Parks and Recreation Commission in the Cupertino Municipal Code: 2.36.030 Members –Vacancy or Removal. Any appointee member may be removed by a majority vote of the total membership of the City Council. If a vacancy occurs, other than by expiration of a term, it shall be filled by the Mayor’s appointment by the City Council for the unexpired portion of the term. 2.36.070 Re cords Required. The Commission shall keep an accurate record of its proceedings and transactions, and through the Director of Parks and Recreation and Community Services shall render such reports to the City Council as may be required. 2.36.080 Powers and Functions . The powers and functions of the City Park and Recreation Commission shall be as follows: A. To hold hearings on matters pertaining to planning and development of parks, cultural activities, historical resources, recreation and community services (including 400 but not limited to schools, Sheriff, Library, Fire and Disaster Preparedness) and capital expenditures related to community activities and facilities; F. To make, in its advisory capacity, any and all recommendations to the City Council relating to the above matters, including the extension of the parks, recreation system and community service activities to outlying areas of the City; G. In cooperation with the Director of Parks and Recreation and Community Services, the Commission will consider, review, and evaluate all parks, recreation programs, and community activities services; 2.36.090 Procedural Rules . The City Park and Recreation Commission may adopt from time to time such rules of procedure as it may deem necessary to properly exercise its functions. Such rules shall be recommended to the Director of Parks and Recreation and Community Services, and shall be subject to approval by the City Council before becoming effective. All such rules shall be kept on file with the Chairman of the City Park and Recreation Commission, the department office, and the Mayor, and a copy thereof shall be furnished each Commissioner and any other person upon request. Discussion The Parks and Recreation Commission discussed and approved at the October 2, 2014 meeting to amend the Park and Recreation Commission municipal code to update the Recreation and Community Services department name, reflect the community services involvement and update the Members Vacancy or Removal clause to reflect current practice. The vote was unanimous to keep the current Commission name of Parks and Recreation Commission. Fiscal Impact None ____________________________________ Prepared by: Carol A. Atwood, Director of Parks & Recreation Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachment: A –Redline Draft Ordinance B- Clean Draft Ordinance 401 Agenda: January 20, 2015 Item No: ORDINANCE NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTION 2.36.303 MEMBERS-VACANCY OR REMOVAL, SECTION 2.36.070 RECORDS REQUIRED, AND SECTION 2.36.080 POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, this Ordinance was determined to be not a project under provisions and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, "CEQA"), in that the amendments to the Code are changes to administrative policies which do not involve a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the physical environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the “not a project” determination under CEQA prior to taking any approval actions on this Ordinance; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 2.36.030, of Chapter 2.36 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.36.030 Members–Vacancy or Removal. Any appointee member may be removed by a majority vote of the total membership of the City Council. If a vacancy occurs other than by expiration of a term, it shall be filled by the Mayor’s appointment by the City Council for the unexpired portion of the term. SECTION 2. Section 2.36.070, of Chapter 2.36 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 402 Agenda: January 20, 2015 Item No: 2.36.070 Records Required. The Commission shall keep an accurate record of its proceedings and transactions, and through the Director of Parks and Recreation and Community Services shall render such reports to the City Council as may be required. SECTION 3. Section 2.36.080, of Chapter 2.36 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.36.080 Powers and Functions. The powers and functions of the City Park and Recreation Commission shall be as follows: A. To hold hearings on matters pertaining to planning and development of parks, cultural activities, historical resources, recreation, community services (including, but not limited to schools, Sheriff, Library, Fire, and Disaster Preparedness), and capital expenditures related to community activities and facilities; B. To conduct such other hearings as are necessary and in accordance with its own rules and regulations; C. To report its decisions and recommendations in writing to the City Council; D. To consider, formulate and propose programs, activities, resources, plans and development designed to provide for, regulate and direct the future growth and development of community activities, parks and a recreation system in order to secure to the City and its inhabitants better service; E. To make investigations and reports for future acquisition of park sites; F. To make, in its advisory capacity, any and all recommendations to the City Council relating to the above matters, including the extension of the parks, recreation system and community service activities to outlying areas of the City; G. In cooperation with the Director of Parks and Recreation and Community Services, the Commission will consider, review, and evaluate all parks, recreation programs, and community servicesactivities; H. To consider, formulate, and propose cultural activities and historical preservation for the City and its residents. SECTION 4. Section 2.36.090, of Chapter 2.36 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 403 Agenda: January 20, 2015 Item No: 2.36.090 Procedural Rules. The City Park and Recreation Commission may adopt from time to time such rules of procedure as it may deem necessary to properly exercise its functions. Such rules shall be recommended to the Director of Parks and Recreation and Community Services and shall be subject to approval by the City Council before becoming effective. All such rules shall be kept on file with the Chairman of the City Park and Recreation Commission, the department office, and the Mayor, and a copy thereof shall be furnished each Commissioner and any other person upon request. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 20th day of January, 2015, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the ____ of _______ 2015, by the following vote: PASSED: Vote: Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________ ______________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Rod G. Sinks, Mayor 404 Agenda: January 20, 2015 Item No: ORDINANCE NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTION 2.36.303 MEMBERS-VACANCY OR REMOVAL, SECTION 2.36.070 RECORDS REQUIRED, AND SECTION 2.36.080 POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, this Ordinance was determined to be not a project under provisions and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, "CEQA"), in that the amendments to the Code are changes to administrative policies which do not involve a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the physical environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the “not a project” determination under CEQA prior to taking any approval actions on this Ordinance; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 2.36.030, of Chapter 2.36 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.36.030 Members–Vacancy or Removal. Any appointee member may be removed by a majority vote of the total membership of the City Council. If a vacancy occurs other than by expiration of a term, it shall be filled by appointment by the City Council for the unexpired portion of the term. SECTION 2. Section 2.36.070, of Chapter 2.36 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 405 Agenda: January 20, 2015 Item No: 2.36.070 Records Required. The Commission shall keep an accurate record of its proceedings and transactions, and through the Director of Recreation and Community Services shall render such reports to the City Council as may be required. SECTION 3. Section 2.36.080, of Chapter 2.36 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.36.080 Powers and Functions. The powers and functions of the City Park and Recreation Commission shall be as follows: A. To hold hearings on matters pertaining to planning and development of parks, cultural activities, historical resources, recreation, community services (including, but not limited to schools, Sheriff, Library, Fire, and Disaster Preparedness), and capital expenditures related to community activities and facilities; B. To conduct such other hearings as are necessary and in accordance with its own rules and regulations; C. To report its decisions and recommendations in writing to the City Council; D. To consider, formulate and propose programs, activities, resources, plans and development designed to provide for, regulate and direct the future growth and development of community activities, parks and a recreation system in order to secure to the City and its inhabitants better service; E. To make investigations and reports for future acquisition of park sites; F. To make, in its advisory capacity, any and all recommendations to the City Council relating to the above matters, including the extension of the parks, recreation system and community service activities to outlying areas of the City; G. In cooperation with the Director of Recreation and Community Services, the Commission will consider, review, and evaluate all parks, recreation programs, and community services; H. To consider, formulate, and propose cultural activities and historical preservation for the City and its residents. SECTION 4. Section 2.36.090, of Chapter 2.36 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 406 Agenda: January 20, 2015 Item No: 2.36.090 Procedural Rules. The City Park and Recreation Commission may adopt from time to time such rules of procedure as it may deem necessary to properly exercise its functions. Such rules shall be recommended to the Director of Recreation and Community Services and shall be subject to approval by the City Council before becoming effective. All such rules shall be kept on file with the Chairman of the City Park and Recreation Commission, the department office, and the Mayor, and a copy thereof shall be furnished each Commissioner and any other person upon request. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Go vernment Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 20th day of January, 2015, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the ____ of _______ 2015, by the following vote: PASSED: Vote: Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________ ______________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Rod G. Sinks, Mayor 407 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:115-0629 Name: Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/22/2015 City Council On agenda:Final action:2/3/2015 Title:Subject: Civic Center Master Plan Consultant Contracts (Continued from January 20) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council2/3/20151 Subject: Civic Center Master Plan Consultant Contracts (Continued from January 20) StaffrecommendsthattheCityCouncilauthorizetheCityManagertonegotiateandexecute contractsforallremainingservicesnecessarytocompleteworkdirectedbytheCouncilon October 21, 2014 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2015Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™408 - 1 - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 3, 2015 Subject Civic Center Master Plan Consultant Contracts Recommendations Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute contracts for all remaining services necessary to complete work directed by the Council on October 21, 2014. Background On Oct 21, 2014, Council received a presentation of alternatives for the Civic Center Master Plan. Council provided direction to staff as to a Preferred Project to be further developed and analyzed for environmental impacts and completion of the master plan document. Discussion After receiving Council direction on the Preferred Project, the design consultant team is in the process of preparing the final Master Plan document and the environmental consultant is in the process of preparing the initial study for the plan. It is anticipated that the final Master Plan, supporting CEQA document, as well as financing options and schedules will be brought for City Council consideration in spring, 2015. In order to complete the documentation for the Council-directed plan, additional services will be required of consultants. There are currently four CIP project budgets appropriated for the Civic Center site that are available to fund the required services, as listed below:  $400,000 – Civic Center Master Plan – encumbered  $500,000 – Civic Center-Parking Structure-Conceptual Design - $237,048 is expended/encumbered; $262,952 remaining. 409 - 2 -  $2,000,000 – Library Program Room Expansion Project (available this FY) - $84,800 is encumbered; $1,915,200 is remaining  $2,200,000 – Initial Civic Center Project (2014-15) Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute service agreements as needed to facilitate the Civic Center Master Plan project through approval of the master plan utilizing the appropriated funds. Environmental Review An Initial Study will be prepared for the preferred plan and will be submitted at the time of Council approval of the Civic Center Master Plan. Sustainability Impact This project will be designed to be consistent with City sustainability and environmental policies and objectives. _________________________________________________________________________ Prepared by: Katy Jensen, Capital Improvement Program Manager Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager 410