The URL can be used to link to this page

09-19-2017 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA CITY COUNCIL 4:45 PM 10300 Torre Avenue and 10350 Torre Avenue Tuesday, September 19, 2017 Special Meeting Non-televised Closed Session (4:45) and Televised Regular Meeting (6:45) 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, September 19, 2017, commencing at 4:45 p.m. in City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting." The regular meeting items will be heard at 6:45 p.m. in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. SPECIAL MEETING ROLL CALL - 4:45 PM City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue CLOSED SESSION 1.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Name of case: City of Saratoga; City of Cupertino; Town of Los Gatos v. California Department of Transportation, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 115CV281214 2.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 - One Case 3.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 - Two Cases Page 1 1 September 19, 2017City Council AGENDA 4.Subject: Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: Cupertino Municipal Water System; Agency Negotiator: Timm Borden; Negotiating Parties: City of Cupertino and San Jose Water Company; Under Negotiation: Terms for City Leased Asset ADJOURNMENT REGULAR MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 PM Community Hall , 10350 Torre Avenue ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1.Subject: Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Update Recommended Action: Accept update on the Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan ("Master Plan") and provide direction Staff Report Attach A - Map, Exist Parks & Rec Facilities, Draft, Apr 2017 Attach B - Table, Park & Facility Inventory Matrix, Draft, July 2017 Attach C - Exist. Parks & Facilities Summary, Draft, May 2017 Attach D - Commty. Outreach & Vision Summary, Draft, May 2017 Attach E - Vision, Mission & Goals, Draft, Aug 2017 2.Subject: Presentation from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Recommended Action: Receive the presentation from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Page 2 2 September 19, 2017City Council AGENDA 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. 3.Subject: Approve the September 5 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the September 5 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes 4.Subject: Contract amendments for professional building department and public inspection services for Apple Campus 2 Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to: a. Execute the Third Amendment to Agreement 14-028 with 4LEAF, Inc. for Apple Campus 2 Phase 1 building inspection services and public works inspection services to increase the previously authorized contract amount by $1,829,890 for a total amount not to exceed $16,956,368; and b. Execute the Second Amendment to Agreement 15-146 with 4LEAF, Inc. for Apple Campus 2 Phase 2 building inspection services to increase the previously authorized contract amount by $524,068 for a total amount not to exceed $1,438,855 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute contract amendments to the extent that the costs are recovered from the project applicant 3. Approve the budget allocations necessary to execute the contract amendments Staff Report A - Draft Third Amendment to Agreement 14-028 – 4LEAF, Inc. for Apple Campus 2 B - Draft Second Amendment to Agreement 15-146 – 4LEAF, Inc. for Apple Campus 2 C - Budget Journal 5.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending August 11, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-091 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 11, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 6.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending August 18, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-092 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 18, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Page 3 3 September 19, 2017City Council AGENDA 7.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending August 25, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-093 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 25, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 8.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 1, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-094 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending September 1, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 9.Subject: Zoning Amendment to make minor corrections to the zoning map. Application No(s): Z-2017-01; Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide Recommended Action: Conduct a second reading and enact Ordinance No. 17-2166: “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino approving amendments to the zoning map to correct inconsistencies between the City of Cupertino’s records and certain map designations as shown in Exhibit A” Staff Report A - Draft Ordinance PUBLIC HEARINGS 10.Subject: Extension of an Urgency Ordinance imposing a moratorium on all commercial, non-medical marijuana land uses including dispensaries, marijuana cultivation and cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities and marijuana transport and deliveries. (Application No.: MCA-2016-06; Location: City-wide; Applicant: City of Cupertino) Recommended Action: That the City Council: 1. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA; and 2. Enact Urgency Ordinance No. 17-2167: “An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Extending Moratorium on Non-Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Marijuana Cultivation and Cultivation Facilities, Commercial Cannabis Activities and Marijuana Transport and Deliveries within the City of Cupertino Pending Completion of an Update to the City’s Zoning Code” Staff Report A - Draft urgency Ordinance B - Ordinance No. 16-2153 C - Ordinance No. 16-2160 Page 4 4 September 19, 2017City Council AGENDA 11.Subject: Adoption of City of Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Program and Approval of Fees Recommended Action: 1. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 17-2168 Adding Chapter 14.02 to the Cupertino Municipal Code To Adopt And Implement The City’s Transportation Impact Fee Program As Shown In Exhibit 1" (Attachment A); and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 17-095 Adopting A Transportation Impact Fee And Amending Schedule B Of The 2017-18 Fee Schedule To Include The New Transportation Impace Fee As Shown in Exhibit 1 (Attachment B) Staff Report A - Draft Ordinance B - Draft Resolution C - Schedule B TIF Fee (Red Line) D - August 15, 2017 Staff Report E- Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 12.Subject: Service Center Administration Building with Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Feasibility Study and Facility Master Plan Recommended Action: Receive the Service Center Administration Building with Emergency Operations Center Feasibility Study and Facility Master Plan Staff Report A – Service Center Feasibility Study 13.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments ADJOURNMENT Page 5 5 September 19, 2017City Council AGENDA 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 6 6 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:217-3011 Name: Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/11/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Name of case: City of Saratoga; City of Cupertino; Town of Los Gatos v. California Department of Transportation, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 115CV281214 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Name of case:City of Saratoga; City of Cupertino; Town of Los Gatos v. California Department of Transportation, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 115CV281214 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™7 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:217-3012 Name: Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/11/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 - One Case Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 - One Case CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™8 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2961 Name: Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:8/24/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 - Two Cases Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 - Two Cases CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™9 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2962 Name: Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:8/24/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: Cupertino Municipal Water System; Agency Negotiator: Timm Borden; Negotiating Parties: City of Cupertino and San Jose Water Company; Under Negotiation: Terms for City Leased Asset Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject: Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: Cupertino Municipal Water System; Agency Negotiator: Timm Borden; Negotiating Parties: City of Cupertino and San Jose Water Company; Under Negotiation: Terms for City Leased Asset CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™10 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2861 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/26/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Update Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Attach A - Map, Exist Parks & Rec Facilities, Draft, Apr 2017 Attach B - Table, Park & Facility Inventory Matrix, Draft, July 2017 Attach C - Exist. Parks & Facilities Summary, Draft, May 2017 Attach D - Commty. Outreach & Vision Summary, Draft, May 2017 Attach E - Vision, Mission & Goals, Draft, Aug 2017 Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council9/19/2017 1 Subject: Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Update Accept update on the Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan ("Master Plan") and provide direction CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™11 RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER 10 10185 NORTH STELLING RD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: September 19, 2017 Subject Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Update Recommended Action Accept update on the Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan (“Master Plan”) and provide direction. Background The Recreation and Community Services Department is curr ently developing a Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan, as directed through the City Council adopted FY2017-18 work program. In January 2017, the City Council authorized execution of a consultant services agreement for the preparation of a Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan. This report provides an update, including community outreach strategies, issues to be studied, project schedule and expected outcomes and deliverables. Discussion Development of the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Progress Update Staff and the consultant team have been working on community outreach, data collection and the preparation of background documents with the help of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The following is a brief outline of steps to date:  February and March 2017 - The Parks and Recreation Commission received updates including schedule and process information.  February through April 2017 - The consultant team reviewed and evaluated city parks and recreation facilities and met with stakeholders.  April 2017 - The Commission and public provided feedback on a draft park classification system, a map of parks and recreation facilities (Attachment A), an inventory matrix of parks and recreation facilities (Attachment B), and observations about our parks and recreation system. 12  June 2017 - The Commission and public provided feedback on an Existing Parks and Facilities Summary report (Attachment C), a draft community-wide survey summary report regarding results of the 2016 citywide surve y, and a draft Community Outreach and Vision Summary report (Attachment D).  August 2017 - The Commission provided feedback on a Geographic Analysis including maps relating to the city’s parks and recreation system.  September 2017 - This summer, a project advisory group was formed of community members representing a variety of stakeholder groups that convened the first week of September. On September 7, the Commission and public provided feedback on draft Vision, Mission and Goals for the master plan including the results of a community-wide survey conducted this summer (Attachment E). Various other documents have been prepared and are posted on the city’s website on the project page, at the link below, as well as in the on-line records associated with the Commission meetings. http://forms4.cupertino.org/parks&recmasterplan/projectUpdates.html An update presentation will be provided to the City Council. The City Council’s input and feedback is invited. Fiscal Impact None. Sustainability Impact The project will support the city’s sustainability and environmental policies and objectives. ____________________________________ Prepared by: Gail Seeds, Park Improvement Manager Reviewed by: Jeff Milkes, Director of Recreation & Community Services Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachment A: Map, Existing Parks & Recreation Facilities, Draft, April 2017 Attachment B: Table, Park and Facility Inventory Matrix, Draft, July 2017 Attachment C: Existing Parks & Facilities Summary, Draft, May 2017 Attachment D: Community Outreach and Vision Summary, Draft, May 2017 Attachment E: Vision, Mission & Goals, Draft, August 2017. Includes: Appendix A – Vision & Goals Questionnaire Summary Appendix B – Vision & Goals Questionnaire Write-In Responses Appendix C – Vision & Goals Questionnaire 13 SARATOGA SAN JOSE SUNNYVALE LOS ALTOS SANTA CLARA Stevens Creek Reservoir SAN JOSE Homestead Rd Lawrence ExpwyStelling RdProspect Rd Stevens Creek Blvd McClellan Rd Bubb RdSteven s Canyon RdFoothill BlvdFo o t h i l l E x p w y Pierce RdSaratoga Sunnyvale RdSunnyvale Saratoga RdDe Anza BlvdQuito RdBlaney AveWolfe RdMiller AveBollinger Rd Rainbow Dr Blackberry Farm Park Memorial Park Kennedy Middle School Creekside Park Hyde Middle School Linda Vista Park Blackberry Farm Golf Course Collins Elementary Eaton Elementary Faria Elementary Varian Park Lincoln Elementary Regnart Elementary Jollyman Park Wilson Park Hoover Park Garden Gate Elementary Stevens Creek Elementary Portal Park Stocklmeir Ranch Library Field Quinlan Community Center Sports Center and Teen Center Three Oaks Park Monta Vista Recreation Center & Park McClellan Ranch West Somerset Park Franco Park Mary Ave Dog ParkCanyon Oak Park Little Rancho Park Sterling Barnhart Park Community Hall De Anza College Stevens Creek County Park Fremont Older Open Space PreservePicchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve Rancho San Antonio County ParkRancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve Stevens Creek County Park Deep Cliff Golf Course Cupertino High School Homestead High School Lawson Middle School Monta Vista High School McClellan Ranch Preserve Senior Center Rancho Rinconada Civic Park Cupertino Library Cali Mill Plaza Sedgwick Elementary Town Square Main Street Park SCVWD Percolation Pond Cupertino City Center Park City Hall Calab az as Creek Saratoga CreekRodeo CreekPermanete CreekPr o s p e c t C r e e k Junipero Serra Channel Swiss Cree k Heney CreeksSunnyvale East ChannelMontebello Creek CreekSaratogaPark and Recreation Facilities Cupertino Parks and Recreation Facilities Community Parks Large Neighborhood Parks Small Neighborhood Parks Special Use Sites Other Recreation Resources Park & Recreation Resources Open Space Preserves Schools and Colleges Base Map Features Cupertino City Boundary Cupertino Sphere of Influence * Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Note: * per Local Agency Formation Commission April 2017 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000500 Feet Map 1: Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities (DRAFT) Trail Corridors Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge & Homestead Rd. to Mary Ave. Trail Stevens Creek Trail Saratoga Creek Trail Trails and Bike Facilities Park/Open Space Trails Class II Bike Lane Recreation Centers/Fields Recreation Centers/Facilities Other Facilities School Sport Fields Managed by City Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Sources: City of Cupertino and Santa Clara County, 2017. 14 City AcreageBaseball/Softball FieldBasketball HoopCricket FieldSoccer FieldTennis CourtVolleyball CourtAmphitheaterCommunity GardenHorseshoe PitOpen Field/Lawn AreaPicnic AreaPlaygroundSwimming PoolWater PlayRecreation BuildingOther BuildingFood Prep/KitchenRestaurant/Food Serv.Natural AreaTrailBBQ GrillsConcessionsRestroomWiFiAdjacent to SchoolRentable FacilityReservable PicnicNotesMemorial Park22.1•L•L• ••••• • ••6 tennis courts, 1 softball field, water features (inactive), community festival site. (Acreage includes 0.4 acre parcel at Senior Center entry.) Quinlan Community Center₋•²•••••Senior Center₋•••••Stevens Creek Corridor (SCC)Blackberry Farm Golf Course16.4••• ••Municipal 9‐hole golf course, restaurant, pro shopBlackberry Farm Park19.7• ••••••³••⁴••••• •2 sand volleyball courts, 2 bocce courts, 2 pools, 2 horseshoe pits. Acreage includes west creek bank at Scenic CircleMcClellan Ranch Preserve13.0•••••••Environ. Education Center (EEC), historic buildings, 4‐H, Audubon & nonprofits, wifi at EEC and vicinityMcClellan Ranch West3.1•Stocklmeir Ranch5.1•••Residence (closed), orange groveNathan Hall Tank House0.322050 Stevens Crk Blvd0.6Parcel between golf course & Stocklmeir Ranch; former private residenceOther City property in SCC0.4••SCVWD trail property in SCC2.6••Use agreement in place; Water District ownershipSCVWD creek property in SCC2.5 ••Water District ownership; most of this is Stevens Creek within McClellan Ranch PreserveCommunity Parks Subtotal85.8100011111223113442772263032Creekside Park13.0• •••• • • ••• •3 soccer fields, 2 basketball hoops, backstop, Friday Farmers' Market, concession area inactiveHoover Park5.0• ••••2 Soccer Fields, 1 basketball hoopJollyman Park11.2•• ••••• •1 Baseball/Soccer Joint Use Field, 1 Soccer Field, Batting cageLinda Vista Park11.0•••• • •Water feature (inactive); par/exercise courseMonta Vista Park & Recreation Center6.2• •••• •• •2 softball fields, 2 tennis courts, batting cage, separate preschool and program buildingsPortal Park3.8••• ••₁••••Varian Park6.3••••• •2 tennis courts, apricot orchard, adjacent YMCA program buildingWilson Park9.9• •••• ••₁••• •⁵Ceramic studio, 2 baseball fields, 1 soccer/baseball joint use field, batting cageLarge Neighborhood Parks Subtotal66.4330420000888004030007260222Canyon Oak Park0.6•Franco Park0.6••Little Rancho Park0.3•Somerset Park1.3•••••1 basketball hoop. Adjacent to freeway & railroad. (PG&E land adds ~0.4 acres not included.)Sterling Barnhart Park0.5••Adjacent to Saratoga Creek Trail and creekThree Oaks Park3.1••••Small Neighborhood Parks Subtotal6.4 010000000246000000002000000Civic Center Civic Center Plaza1.0•0⁶•Community Hall₋•••• •Library Field3.0••1 cricket field (youth only; overlay with seasonal outdoor volleyball)Mary Avenue Dog Park0.5Cupertino Sports Center6.2•L•• • • •Fitness Center, Teen Center, indoor gym & racquetball, 18 tennis courts & 1 multi‐purpose courtSpecial Use Parks Subtotal10.7001010000100011111000132020SPECIAL USE SITESSiteCity Parks and FacilitiesRevised 7/27/2017Table 3: Park & Facility Inventory Matrix SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD PARKSCOMMUNITY PARKSIndoor FacilitiesTrails/ Natural AreasAthletic Facilities Outdoor Recreation FacilitiesAmenities OtherLARGE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKSCupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan15 City AcreageBaseball/Softball FieldBasketball HoopCricket FieldSoccer FieldTennis CourtVolleyball CourtAmphitheaterCommunity GardenHorseshoe PitOpen Field/Lawn AreaPicnic AreaPlaygroundSwimming PoolWater PlayRecreation BuildingOther BuildingFood Prep/KitchenRestaurant/Food Serv.Natural AreaTrailBBQ GrillsConcessionsRestroomWiFiAdjacent to SchoolRentable FacilityReservable PicnicNotesSiteRevised 7/27/2017Indoor FacilitiesTrails/ Natural AreasAthletic Facilities Outdoor Recreation FacilitiesAmenities OtherTRAIL CORRIDORS4.0•Trail is approx. 0.4 milesSaratoga Creek Trail4.7••Approx 0.45 miles maintained by City via joint use agreement; owned by County (~3.3 acres) and SCVWD (~1.4 acres). Trail extends south of Bollinger in San Jose.Stevens Creek Trail••Trail is approx. 1 mile, restrooms at Blackberry Farm Park & McClellan Ranch. (Acreage included in Stevens Creek Corridor above.)Trail Corridors Subtotal8.7 000000000000000000230000000SCHOOL FIELDS (managed by city)Collins Elementary School2.5•1 baseball field, cricket batting cages not managed by CityEaton Elementary School4.5••1 soccer/baseball joint use fieldFaria Elementary School4.2••1 soccer/baseball joint use fieldGarden Gate Elementary School2.9•1 soccer fieldHyde Middle School7.8••1 soccer field, 1 baseball/soccer joint use field, track not managed by city Kennedy Middle School13.3•••1 baseball field, 1 soccer field, 2 baseball/soccer joint use fields, track not managed by cityLincoln Elementary School3.1••2 softball/soccer joint use fieldsRegnart Elementary School4.1••2 baseball/soccer joint use fieldsStevens Creek Elementary School3.1••1 softball diamond 1 softball/soccer joint use fieldSchool Fields Subtotal45.5800800000000000000000010000Total City Parks and Facilities223.5 12 4 1 1241111131417128583910115165274LOCAL PARKS & RECREATION RESOURCESCali Mill Plaza Park1.00⁶•Use agreement in placeCivic Park [at Town Center Lane]0.5•0⁶Pivate ownership Cupertino City Center Park (& amphitheater)1.4••Private ownership; pool is private use only (approx. 0.3 acres of total)Deep Cliff Golf Course~ 52•18‐hole public golf course; private ownershipMain Street Park0.75•••0⁶2 chess/checker tables; nature play elements; use agreement in place; private ownershipRancho Rinconada 1.5••• •• • •Recreation & Park District; public facilitiesSCVWD Percolation Pond5.0•Walking path around percolation pond; Water District ownershipTown Square [at Main Street]0.7•Use agreement in place; private ownership. (Size includes restaurant bldgs.; net avail. space is smaller.)Subtotal Local Parks & Resources63 000000100322101005011011010COUNTY PARKS & REGIONAL OPEN SPACE PRESERVESFremont Older Open Space Preserve739•• •Extensive trailsRancho San Antonio County Park & Preserve4,153•••••• •Extensive trails, Deer Hollow Farm, 4 tennis courts, model airplane flying area. (County notes size as 124 acres larger.)Stevens Creek County Park~ 1,070•••• • •Extensive trails, boating access to reservoir (non‐motorized), archery course & range5,9620000100001200000003320300016,025000010100442101005343041011L ‐ Lighted court2 ‐ Playground at Quinlan Center for preschool program; other playgrounds available in adjacent Memorial Park4 ‐ Food service for outdoor dining available during swim season1 ‐ Building has a kitchenette3 ‐ Seasonal creek access5 ‐ Ceramic party rentals available6 ‐ Restaurant or café adjacent to siteTotal Other Recreation ResourcesDon Burnett Bicycle‐Ped. Bridge (Mary Ave. to Homestead Rd. Trail)Other Recreation ResourcesSubtotal County Parks & Regional PreservesCupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan16 CITY OF CUPERTINO Parks & Recreation System Master PlanParks & Recreation System Master Plan EXISTING PARKS & FACILITIES SUMMARY Final Draft · May 2017 17 18 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXISTING PARKS & FACILITIES SUMMARY Introduction................................................................................................ 1 Park System Overview................................................................................ 2 Park and Facility Summary......................................................................... 7 Park Observations...................................................................................... 9 Conclusions and Next Steps..................................................................... 17 Appendix A: Park and Facility Inventory Matrix 19 20 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 1 EXISTING PARKS & FACILITIES SUMMARY The City of Cupertino provides quality parks, recreation programs and community services that enhance the community. In 2015, the City began creating a Parks and Recreation System Master Plan (Master Plan) to integrate the community’s vision and aspirations into a cohesive strategy and action plan to guide the future development, renovation, management and activation of City parks, recreation facilities and trails for the next 20+ years. In this context, the Existing Parks & Facilities Summary provides an overview of the park system, describes the park inventory by classification, maps the distribution of parks and facilities and presents some overarching observations about the quality and character of park sites in the city. It includes one appendix: •Appendix A: Park and Facility Inventory Matrix As the summary of findings for the Existing Systems Inventory & Assessment, this information provides a foundation for the assessment of community park and recreation needs and opportunities (Figure 1). Figure 1: Master Plan Process 21 2 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Existing Parks & Facilities Summary PARK SYSTEM OVERVIEW Cupertino has more than 220 acres of parks, trails and sports fields at 33 sites managed by the City. Residents also benefit from nearby Santa Clara County parks, open space preserves, as well as other local park and recreation resources. To better understand the function and role of different parks and resources, this document presents a new park classification system, approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission, that will help evaluate recreation opportunities in the City. The classification is divided into two sections: 1) City Parks and Facilities, and 2) Other Recreation Resources. The first category includes all parks and recreation facilities owned or managed by the City. The latter includes additional parks, recreation facilities and open space areas owned and managed and by other providers. These other resources include public recreation spaces or sites that play a significant role in meeting residents’ needs. City Parks and Facilities The Parks and Recreation System Master Plan proposes six different park classifications: • Community Park: Community parks are larger parks (20+ acres) that provide unique recreation opportunities and serve the entire community. These parks consist of a single contiguous site or several functionally- and geographically-linked use areas that provide a variety of recreation facilities. They typically include specialized facilities and space for large group gatherings, programming and events. Examples include Memorial Park and the Stevens Creek Corridor. • Large Neighborhood Park: Large neighborhood parks, varying between 4 acres and 13 acres in size, provide a range of passive and active recreation opportunities for surrounding neighborhoods. They typically include play areas, picnic areas, open lawn areas, and sports courts. Several also include programmable and reservable facilities, such as sports fields and small recreation centers. Examples of large neighborhood parks include Creekside Park, Jollyman Park, Monta Vista Park & Recreation Center, and Wilson Park. Community parks, such as Blackberry Farm Park in the Stevens Creek Corridor, provide specialized facilities such as swimming pools, community centers, and event space, which are suitable for large group use and gatherings. Large neighborhood parks, such as Creekside Park, support play, picnicking, sports, programming and other recreation opportunities for the surrounding neighborhoods. 22 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 3 Existing Parks & Facilities Summary • Small Neighborhood Park: Small neighborhood parks provide essential recreation opportunities for nearby neighbors. Typically less than 3 acres in size, these parks may include play areas, open lawn areas, and picnic tables/benches. Some include sports courts. Examples of small neighborhood parks include Little Rancho Park and Sterling Barnhart Park. • Special Use Site: Special use sites support a unique recreation opportunity serving all or most of the Cupertino community. These single-purpose sites may include specialized recreation facilities not found elsewhere in the park system. Urban plazas, civic space, historic properties, dog parks and sports complexes (without other uses) are considered special use sites. Examples include Civic Center Plaza & Community Hall, Mary Avenue Dog Park, and Cupertino Sports Center. • Trail Corridors: Trail corridors include trails and associated greenways that link destinations in the community. These typically are single-purpose linear features not located within parks of other types. These trails may extend beyond Cupertino and connect to surrounding cities and regional trail systems. Examples of trail corridors include the Don Burnett Bicycle- Pedestrian Bridge (and E. Homestead Road to Mary Ave Trail), the Saratoga Creek Trail, and the Stevens Creek Trail. • School Sports Fields: The City currently manages sports fields at nine school sites. These sports fields provide additional recreational opportunities to the community when not in use by the schools. Examples include sports fields at Collins Elementary and Kennedy Middle School. Small neighborhood parks, such as Sterling Barnhart Park, include play areas, open lawns and recreation amenities for nearby neighbors. Special use sites, such as the Mary Avenue Dog Park, provide specialized facilities that may not be found elsewhere in the park system. Trail corridors, such as the Stevens Creek Trail, connect to surrounding neighborhoods, cities and regions in addition to providing recreation opportunities. 23 4 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Existing Parks & Facilities Summary Other Recreation Resources (Non-City) In addition to the parks provided by the City of Cupertino, there are additional public-serving recreation resources owned or managed by other providers in the city. These are divided into two categories to distinguish local and regional resources. •Local Parks and Recreation Resources: Ranging from 0.5 to approximately 50 acres in size, these parks and facilities help address community recreation needs. Most of the sites in this category support special uses, and in a few cases, the City has agreements in place that allow City staff to program these spaces. Examples of these recreation resources include Cali Mill Plaza, Cupertino City Center Park, Rancho Rinconada, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District Percolation Pond. •County Parks and Regional Open Space Preserves: Within the city and/or Cupertino’s sphere of influence are several large Santa Clara County parks and open space preserves that protect significant natural areas and provide recreation access for the entire region. Examples include: Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve, Stevens Creek County Park, and Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. Cali Mill Plaza created by public-private partnership between the City of Cupertino and a local development firm, provides a gathering place at a high-visibility crossroads location. Rancho San Antonio County Park & Open Space Preserve, owned by the County and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, provides recreation access while preserving significant natural habitat. Park Distribution Map 1 illustrates the distribution of these park resources across the city. In Cupertino, community parks and most special use sites are fairly centralized. While large and small neighborhood parks are dispersed across the community, there is less park land in eastern and northern neighborhoods. The City has numerous on-street bike routes. However, City trails corridors currently run north/south in three separate areas of the community. County parks and open space preserves are primarily located on the south and west periphery. Several of these sites also have trails, providing better access to both parks and trails for residents in the western part of the city. 24 SARATOGA SAN JOSE SUNNYVALE LOS ALTOS SANTA CLARA Stevens Creek Reservoir SAN JOSE Homestead Rd Lawrence ExpwyStelling RdProspect Rd Stevens Creek Blvd McClellan Rd Bubb RdSteven s Canyon RdFoothill BlvdFo o t h i l l E x p w y Pierce RdSaratoga Sunnyvale RdSunnyvale Saratoga RdDe Anza BlvdQuito RdBlaney AveWolfe RdMiller AveBollinger Rd Rainbow Dr Blackberry Farm Park Memorial Park Kennedy Middle School Creekside Park Hyde Middle School Linda Vista Park Blackberry Farm Golf Course Collins Elementary Eaton Elementary Faria Elementary Varian Park Lincoln Elementary Regnart Elementary Jollyman Park Wilson Park Hoover Park Garden Gate Elementary Stevens Creek Elementary Portal Park Stocklmeir Ranch Library Field Quinlan Community Center Sports Center and Teen Center Three Oaks Park Monta Vista Recreation Center & Park McClellan Ranch West Somerset Park Franco Park Mary Ave Dog ParkCanyon Oak Park Little Rancho Park Sterling Barnhart Park Community Hall De Anza College Stevens Creek County Park Fremont Older Open Space PreservePicchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve Rancho San Antonio County ParkRancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve Stevens Creek County Park Deep Cliff Golf Course Cupertino High School Homestead High School Lawson Middle School Monta Vista High School McClellan Ranch Preserve Senior Center Rancho Rinconada Civic Park Cupertino Library Cali Mill Plaza Sedgwick Elementary Town Square Main Street Park SCVWD Percolation Pond Cupertino City Center Park City Hall Calab az as Creek Saratoga CreekRodeo CreekPermanete CreekPr o s p e c t C r e e k Junipero Serra Channel Swiss Cree k Heney CreeksSunnyvale East ChannelMontebello Creek CreekSaratogaPark and Recreation Facilities Cupertino Parks and Recreation Facilities Community Parks Large Neighborhood Parks Small Neighborhood Parks Special Use Sites Other Recreation Resources Park & Recreation Resources Open Space Preserves Schools and Colleges Base Map Features Cupertino City Boundary Cupertino Sphere of Influence * Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Note: * per Local Agency Formation Commission April 2017 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000500 Feet Map 1: Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities (DRAFT) Trail Corridors Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge & Homestead Rd. to Mary Ave. Trail Stevens Creek Trail Saratoga Creek Trail Trails and Bike Facilities Park/Open Space Trails Class II Bike Lane Recreation Centers/Fields Recreation Centers/Facilities Other Facilities School Sport Fields Managed by City Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Sources: City of Cupertino and Santa Clara County, 2017. 25 26 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 7 Existing Parks & Facilities Summary PARK AND FACILITY SUMMARY The Cupertino Park & Facility Inventory Matrix (Appendix A) provides an overview of park land resources by classification and by site. It includes notations on the types of amenities, facilities and buildings found at each site. Table 1, below, summarizes this park acreage by classification. TABLE 1: EXISTING CITY PARKS ACREAGE BY TYPE PARK TYPE EXISTING PARKS (#) PARK ACRES City Parks & Facilities Community Parks 2 85.8 Large Neighborhood Parks 8 66.4 Small Neighborhood Parks 6 6.4 Special Use Sites 5 10.7 Trail Corridors 3 8.7 School Fields 9 45.5 Totals 33 223.5 Other Recreation Resources Local Parks & Recreation Resources 8 63 County Parks & Regional Open Space Preserves 3 5,962 Totals 11 6,025 Table 2 summarizes the provision of recreation facilities in Cupertino that are available for public use. It distinguishes between those managed by the City and those managed by other recreation providers. (Note: Facilities operated by schools, De Anza College and private providers that are not available to the public are not counted in this table.) While Cupertino residents have access to thousands of acres of parks and open space, the City provides approximately 224 acres of park land—if counting the school sports fields managed by the City. Based on a 2015 population of 62,545, the City provides a level of service of 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents. 27 8 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Existing Parks & Facilities Summary TABLE 2: CITY RECREATION FACILITIES FACILITY TYPE # AT CITY-MANAGED PARKS AND SCHOOL FIELDS # AT OTHER SITES Athletic Facilities Baseball/Softball Field 12 0 Basketball Hoop 4 0 Cricket Field 1 0 Soccer Field 12 0 Tennis Court 4 1 Volleyball Court 1 0 Subtotal 34 1 Outdoor Recreation Facilities Amphitheatre 1 1 Community Garden 1 0 Horseshoe Pit 1 0 Open Field/Lawn Area 13 4 Picnic Area 14 3 Playground 17 1 Swimming Pool 1 1 Water Play 2 0 Subtotal 50 10 Indoor Facilities Recreation Building 8 1 Other Building 5 0 Food Prep Area/Kitchen 8 0 Restaurant/Food Service 3 5 Subtotal 24 6 Trails/ Natural Areas Natural Area 9 3 Trail 10 4 Subtotal 19 7 The City provides a lot of traditional park facilities, such as athletic facilities, open play areas, playgrounds and picnic areas. It also manages most of the community’s sports facilities, and has several recreation buildings such as the Senior Center, Sports Center, Quinlan Community Center, Civic Center (Community Hall) and Environmental Education Center. It provides fewer recreation facilities of other types. 28 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 9 Existing Parks & Facilities Summary PARK OBSERVATIONS In March 2017, MIG and City staff together visited parks, trails and recreation facilities in Cupertino and discussed issues and opportunities for Cupertino’s park and recreation system. City staff, including facility and maintenance staff, shared insights regarding the programming and use of park facilities, planned and desired improvements and site operations and maintenance issues. Ten overarching findings for the park system emerged from this tour. These observations are noted and illustrated below. City parks are well maintained. Cupertino’s parks and facilities are maintained at a high level. All are tidy and clean with no observable litter, graffiti or vandalism. Adequate discretionary funds allow City staff to quickly address short-term needs, such as occasional supplemental tree plantings. The care provided to aging amenities, such as the play equipment at Little Rancho Park, prolongs the life and usefulness of these amenities. This regular upkeep also effectively reduces the lifecycle costs of this equipment, by extending the period of time before they need to be replaced. Their upkeep and replacement provides more value and a longer service life to residents. Creekside Park and Little Rancho Park are two of many clean, well-maintained parks throughout the city. 29 10 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Existing Parks & Facilities Summary Recent park and facility development is high quality. The newest and most recently-upgraded facilities in Cupertino demonstrate the City’s commitment to high-quality design and materials. The Senior Center takes advantage of its setting by providing ample views of Memorial Park. Its thoughtful room layout and internal circulation system provide flexibility for programming while also creating welcoming, comfortable spaces for users. The Environmental Education Center at McClellan Ranch Preserve exemplifies the City’s commitment to environmental education and sustainability. Examples on a smaller scale include the Mary Avenue Dog Park as well as Sterling Barnhart and Franco Parks. The Dog Park effectively uses a challenging site to provide an in- demand service to residents. Sterling Barnhart and Franco Parks are relatively small parks that host a rich variety of activities, provide visual interest, have unique identities, and function for all ages. Sterling Barnhart Park is a successful example of layering activities in a small area. The Environmental Education Center at McClellan Ranch Preserve is a state-of-the art environmental education facility. 30 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 11 Existing Parks & Facilities Summary The City has an organized approach to meeting traditional recreation needs. Cupertino residents have access to a range of recreation facilities that serve multiple generations, from preschool classrooms to the teen center and senior center. The Quinlan Community Center, Monta Vista Park and Recreation Center and Community Hall at the Civic Center provide meeting, classroom and event spaces. The Sports Center offers a range of indoor courts and facilities, including a comprehensive fitness center. Together, these scattered sites provide the full complement of indoor and outdoor recreation facilities for a community of this size. Many park landscapes seem ordinary and standardized. Many of the City’s parks offer limited visual or sensory interest. While they provide ample amenities such as picnic areas, play fields and playgrounds, there is little that differentiates the parks from one another, or that draws users for any length of time. Large open lawn areas, such as the one at Wilson Park, provide limited recreation value for their size and add little character to the park. There are few elements of surprise or interest to be found. Parks do not reflect Cupertino’s unique identity or its diverse, progressive and tech- savvy residents. Park spaces are adequate, but do not offer many unique memorable elements that contribute to an exceptional system. A typical large open lawn space in Wilson Park. Children play on an indoor court at the City’s Sports Center. A traditional preschool space in the Monta Vista Recreation Center. 31 12 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Existing Parks & Facilities Summary Parks provide a limited variety and diversity of recreation opportunities. Cupertino’s parks provide traditional recreation opportunities that primarily serve teams, families and children. There is an overall lack of variety in these offerings, with few unique, cross-generational or age- specific amenities for teens, young adults or seniors. For example, most designated play areas in parks consist of traditional play equipment for younger children, with limited play value. They do not include nature or water play elements, movable parts, or allow for thematic play. The park system lacks challenge elements for teens and young adults, such as a skatepark, mountain bike trails, ziplines or climbing spire. The Teen Center itself is relatively unpopular among its target age group, while high school students are observed hanging out at other sites such as on play structures at Franco Park. Facilities that serve adults and seniors—including outdoor fitness equipment, pickleball courts, and outdoor seating areas –are also in short supply. Likewise, the park amenities found throughout the City do not mirror its diversity. There are few facilities supporting cultural interests, such as tai chi courts or performing arts spaces. There is little universal access to play for all abilities, and no fully inclusive playgrounds. Examples of standard children’s play structures in Varian Park Examples of standard children’s play structures in Jollyman Park Few parks emphasize or integrate natural systems and habitat. Apart from the Stevens Creek Corridor, Cupertino’s park landscapes consist primarily of lawn and trees, with little emphasis on unique, local natural elements. There are few features, such as successional shade tree plantings or seasonally-changing groundcover and shrubs, that provide visual interest and comfort to park visitors. However, many of the City’s parks have attributes that can celebrate and improve natural systems, habitat and the surrounding landscapes. Linda Vista Park has dynamic topography, views, and habitat that could be enhanced. Three Oaks Park’s mature oak trees that could be further incorporated into the park design. The spaces around the Civic Center could be refined to bring elements of nature into an urban setting, while creeks throughout the city offer opportunities for nature play, environmental education and habitat connectivity. Providing more natural elements and visual and seasonal interest in Cupertino’s parks can have multiple benefits. These spaces provide Cupertino residents a reprieve from busy, stressful lives while enhancing natural systems and adding to the diverse, unique character of Cupertino. 32 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 13 Existing Parks & Facilities Summary Linda Vista Park has many natural environmental attributes that can be strengthened. However, this pond is not natural, and the water-circulating pump is inoperable. 33 14 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Existing Parks & Facilities Summary Parks and facilities should be more comfortable, social and user friendly. Many of Cupertino’s parks would benefit from improvements focused on the comfort, sensory and physical issues of users. Some sites, including Somerset Park, Saratoga Creek Trail and Cali Mill Plaza, are subject to significant freeway and traffic noise. Other issues include high-pollen trees near play and picnic areas at Three Oaks Park, and a lack of places to site and rest along the paths of Jollyman Park. The Quinlan Community Center is modern and visually striking, but its rooms have poor acoustics. Quinlan’s rooms, like many indoor and outdoor spaces throughout the city, don’t support social interaction and comfort. Throughout the park system, there is a general lack of seating for groups and comfortable surfaces on which to rest. Many pathways are disrupted by tree roots, which causes tripping hazards and limits accessibility. Other issues that can be found across the system include the lack of shelters and shade in parks and at outdoor facilities. Limiting sun exposure is important for the health and comfort of all users, particularly those who do not like to be in direct sun. Jollyman Park’s pathway system does not include benches or other amenities where people can rest or just “people-watch.” 34 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 15 Existing Parks & Facilities Summary There’s a legacy of fixed, single purpose facilities and spaces. As is the case in many peer communities, Cupertino’s recreation facilities were designed for specific, fixed uses, and do not offer the flexibility staff and residents now expect. Traditional, historic use patterns led to the design of spaces which do not allow expansion, adaptation or changes uses. For example, parks offer many spaces for team and organized sports, but lack flexible spaces for pick-up games. Recreation facilities are largely devoted to single uses, such as the senior center, while courts and fields are usually striped for a single sport. Because of these rigid designs, park users and City staff “make do” with facilities and amenities that do not work well. This can be compounded by the tendency to replace failing amenities and facilities in- kind without reviewing current needs. Play structures, such as the newer structure at Wilson Park or the play area at Three Oaks Park, have been upgraded but continue to be confined to the existing concrete circle around the play area. Failing wood fences are typically replaced, even if there is no functional need for them. Recently, a fence at Jollyman Park was replaced in its same location even though it had been purely decorative and does not match other park fencing. These design decisions also impact special events, which rely on generators for electrical service and inconvenient loading and unloading zones. Memorial Park’s gazebo and pond reflect outdated design and difficulties in adapting to changing conditions. The pond was drained during drought conditions and is not reopened. 35 16 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Existing Parks & Facilities Summary Park functionality, connectivity and synergies can be improved. The physical location of parks and facilities should consider many factors, including how people move within the site and connections to surrounding uses. When siting and design do not account for these functions and synergies, it impacts their use and value. The play areas at Monta Vista Recreation Center offer an example. The tot play area is located away from both the preschool facility and the play structure for older children. This affects how staff can supervise students and the ability of parents to watch children of different ages. The quantity and location of supporting amenities in parks, including lighting, trash receptacles, water fountains, restrooms, loading/unloading zones and parking, does not always reflect functional needs. In some Cupertino parks, restrooms are located far from playgrounds, or are located outside facilities with indoor activities. Connections and paths between and to surrounding uses, such as schools, could be improved. For example, a fence prevents travel from Varian Park to the nearby school and YMCA. At the Senior Center and Portal Park, drop-off areas for programs are inconveniently located. Connections within parks are often missing and there are few loop trails. Community parks are centralized in Cupertino, and few sites are linked by trails. This makes parks and recreation activities less accessible and walkable and compounds parking and traffic issues. Linking amenities and considering synergies between uses enables better use, increases the functional value of amenities and contributes to the vibrancy of the entire park and recreation system. Seating, play structures and other amenities at Monta Vista Recreation Center are not optimally located for use by students, teachers and parents. 36 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 17 Existing Parks & Facilities Summary Cupertino parks have immense potential to create community identity and sense of place. The character of Cupertino is missing from its parks. There are currently few elements in the City’s parks and facilities that reflect Cupertino’s unique environment and community characteristics. However, by observing and gathering data on patterns of use and behavior and taking advantage of natural landscapes and features, the City can tap into the unlimited potential of this place. Integrating art and interpretive elements, highlighting natural features and adding color and varied designs will elevate Cupertino’s system and enhance user experiences. Parks are social spaces that are connected to urban and natural features. Specific opportunities include emphasizing hillside views, the urban landscape of Library Field and Civic Center Plaza and the natural character of the Stevens Creek Corridor. The City can make relatively small moves –such improving and adding pathways for the many avid walkers in the community—that can have big impacts. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS The City of Cupertino has some tremendous park and recreation resources. As noted in these park observations, there also are opportunities to enhance parks and facilities to meet community needs. The information in this document will be compared with community outreach findings, project directions, and other analysis findings to identify community needs, opportunities and goals for the park and recreation system. 37 38 Park and Facility Inventory Matrix APPENDIX A 39 40 Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan City AcreageBaseball/Softball FieldBasketball HoopCricket FieldSoccer FieldTennis CourtVolleyball CourtAmphitheaterCommunity GardenHorseshoe PitOpen Field/Lawn AreaPicnic AreaPlaygroundSwimming PoolWater PlayRecreation BuildingOther BuildingFood Prep Area/KitchenRestaurant/Food ServiceNatural AreaTrailBBQ GrillsConcessionsRestroomWiFiAdjacent to SchoolRentable FacilityReservable PicnicNotes Memorial Park 22.1 •L •L •••••••••6 tennis courts, 1 softball field, water features (inactive), community festival site. (Acreage includes 0.4 acre parcel at Senior Center entry.) Quinlan Community Center ₋•²••••• Senior Center ₋••••• Stevens Creek Corridor (SCC) Blackberry Farm Golf Course 16.4 •••••Municipal 9-hole golf course. (Acreage includes assoc. restaurant/pro shop.) Blackberry Farm Park 19.7 •••••••³••⁴••••••2 sand volleyball courts, 2 bocce courts, 2 pools, 2 horseshoe pits. Acreage includes west creek bank at Scenic Circle. McClellan Ranch Preserve 13.0 •••••••Environ. Education Center (EEC), historic buildings, 4-H, Audubon & nonprofits, wifi at EEC and vicinity McClellan Ranch West 3.1 • Stocklmeir Ranch 5.1 •••Residence (closed), orange grove Nathan Hall Tank House 0.3 22050 Stevens Crk Blvd 0.6 Parcel between golf course & Stocklmeir Ranch; former private residence Other City property in SCC 0.4 •• SCVWD trail property in SCC 2.6 ••Use agreement in place; Water District ownership SCVWD creek property in SCC 2.5 ••Water District ownership; most of this is Stevens Creek within McClellan Ranch Preserve Community Parks Subtotal 85.8 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 4 4 2 7 7 2 2 6 3 0 3 2 Creekside Park 13.0 •••••••••••3 soccer fields, 2 basketball hoops, Friday Farmers' Market, concession area inactive Hoover Park 5.0 •••••2 Soccer Fields, 1 basketball hoop Jollyman Park 11.2 ••••••••1 Baseball/Soccer Joint Use Field, 1 Soccer Field, Batting cage Linda Vista Park 11.0 ••••••Water feature (inactive); par/exercise course Monta Vista Park & Recreation Center 6.2 ••••••••2 softball fields, 2 tennis courts, separate preschool and program buildings Portal Park 3.8 •••••₁•••• Varian Park 6.3 ••••••2 tennis courts, apricot orchard, adjacent YMCA program building Wilson Park 9.9 •••••••₁••••⁵Ceramic studio, 2 baseball fields, 1 soccer/baseball joint use field, batting cage Large Neighborhood Parks Subtotal 66.4 3 3 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 7 2 6 0 2 2 2 Canyon Oak Park 0.6 • Franco Park 0.6 •• Little Rancho Park 0.3 • Somerset Park 1.3 •••••1 basketball hoop. Adjacent to freeway & railroad. (PG&E land adds ~0.4 acres not included.) Sterling Barnhart Park 0.5 ••Adjacent to Saratoga Creek Trail and creek Three Oaks Park 3.1 •••• Small Neighborhood Parks Subtotal 6.4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civic Center Civic Center Plaza 1.0 •0⁶• Community Hall ₋••••• Library Field 3.0 ••1 cricket field (youth only), seasonal outdoor volleyball, community festivals Mary Avenue Dog Park 0.5 Cupertino Sports Center 6.2 •L •••••Fitness Center, Teen Center, indoor gym & racquetball, 18 tennis courts & 1 multi-purpose court Special Use Parks Subtotal 10.7 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 2 0 TRAIL CORRIDORS 4.0 •Trail is approx. 0.4 miles Saratoga Creek Trail 4.7 •• Approx 0.45 miles maintained by City via joint use agreement; owned by County (~3.3 acres) and SCVWD (~1.4 acres). Trail extends south of Bollinger in San Jose. Stevens Creek Trail ••Trail is approx. 1 mile, restrooms at Blackberry Farm Park & McClellan Ranch. (Acreage included in Stevens Creek Corridor above.) Trail Corridors Subtotal 8.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL FIELDS (managed by city) Collins Elementary School 2.5 •1 baseball field, cricket batting cages not managed by City Eaton Elementary School 4.5 ••1 soccer/baseball joint use field Faria Elementary School 4.2 ••1 soccer/baseball joint use field Appendix A: Park & Facility Inventory Matrix SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS COMMUNITY PARKS Indoor Facilities Trails/ Natural AreasAthletic Facilities Outdoor Recreation Facilities Amenities Other LARGE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Don Burnett Bicycle-Ped. Bridge (Mary Ave. to Homestead Rd. Trail) SPECIAL USE SITES Site City Parks and Facilities Revised 4/14/2017 41 Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan City AcreageBaseball/Softball FieldBasketball HoopCricket FieldSoccer FieldTennis CourtVolleyball CourtAmphitheaterCommunity GardenHorseshoe PitOpen Field/Lawn AreaPicnic AreaPlaygroundSwimming PoolWater PlayRecreation BuildingOther BuildingFood Prep Area/KitchenRestaurant/Food ServiceNatural AreaTrailBBQ GrillsConcessionsRestroomWiFiAdjacent to SchoolRentable FacilityReservable PicnicNotes Indoor Facilities Trails/ Natural AreasAthletic Facilities Outdoor Recreation Facilities Amenities Other Site Revised 4/14/2017 Garden Gate Elementary School 2.9 •1 soccer field Hyde Middle School 7.8 ••1 soccer field, 1 baseball/soccer joint use field, track not managed by city Kennedy Middle School 13.3 •••1 baseball field, 1 soccer (track) field, 2 baseball/soccer joint use fields Lincoln Elementary School 3.1 ••2 softball/soccer joint use fields Regnart Elementary School 4.1 ••2 baseball/soccer joint use fields Stevens Creek Elementary School 3.1 ••2 softball diamonds adjoining 1 soccer field School Fields Subtotal 45.5 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total City Parks and Facilities 223.5 12 4 1 12 4 1 1 1 1 13 14 17 1 2 8 5 8 3 9 10 11 5 16 5 2 7 4 LOCAL PARKS & RECREATION RESOURCES Cali Mill Plaza Park 1.0 0⁶•Use agreement in place Civic Park [at Town Center Lane]0.5 •0⁶Pivate ownership Cupertino City Center Park (& amphitheater)1.4 ••Private ownership; pool is private use only (approx. 0.3 acres of total) Deep Cliff Golf Course ~ 52 •18-hole public golf course; private ownership Main Street Park 0.75 •0⁶Use agreement in place; private ownership Rancho Rinconada 1.5 •••••••Recreation & Park District; public facilities SCVWD Percolation Pond 5.0 •Walking path around percolation pond; Water District ownership Town Square [at Main Street]0.7 •Use agreement in place; private ownership. (Size includes restaurant bldgs.; net avail. space is smaller.) Subtotal Local Parks & Resources 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 COUNTY PARKS & REGIONAL OPEN SPACE PRESERVES Fremont Older Open Space Preserve 739 •••Extensive trails Rancho San Antonio County Park & Preserve 4,153 •••••••Extensive trails, Deer Hollow Farm, 4 tennis courts, model airplane flying area. (County notes size as 124 acres larger.) Stevens Creek County Park ~ 1,070 ••••••Extensive trails, boating access to reservoir (non-motorized), archery course & range 5,962 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 6,025 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 3 4 3 0 4 1 0 1 1 L - Lighted court 2 - Playground at Quinlan Center for preschool program; other playgrounds available in adjacent Memorial Park 4 - Food service for outdoor dining available during swim season 1 - Building has a kitchenette 3 - Seasonal creek access 5 - Ceramic party rentals available 6 - Restaurant or café adjacent to site Total Other Recreation Resources Other Recreation Resources Subtotal County Parks & Regional Preserves 42 CITY OF CUPERTINO Parks & Recreation System Master PlanParks & Recreation System Master Plan COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND VISION SUMMARY Final Draft · May 2017 43 44 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | i TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMUNITY VISION AND OUTREACH SUMMARY Outreach Methods and Participation........................................................ 2 Key Themes................................................................................................ 3 Community Vision and Goals................................................................... 14 Conclusions and Next Steps..................................................................... 16 Appendix A: Community‐Wide Survey Appendix B: Intercept Events Appendix C: Stakeholder Meetings Appendix D: Community Workshop Appendix E: Block Leader Workshop Appendix F: Council/Community Leader Directions 45 46 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 1 COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND VISION SUMMARY In 2015, the City began creating a Parks and Recreation System Master Plan (Master Plan) to integrate the community’s vision and aspirations into a cohesive strategy and action plan to guide the future development, renovation, management and activation of City parks, recreation facilities and trails. The Community Outreach and Vision Summary supports the planning process by providing an overview of public outreach activities conducted to date, identifying the overarching themes that emerged from these outreach activities and presenting the City’s vision and goals as these relate to the forthcoming development of Master Plan vision, goals and strategies. The document includes six appendices: • Appendix A: Community-Wide Survey • Appendix B: Intercept Events • Appendix C: Stakeholder Meetings • Appendix D: Community Workshop • Appendix E: Block Leader Workshop • Appendix F: Council/Community Leader Directions The outreach findings and themes noted in this report will be combined with other technical information and directions to provide a foundation for the assessment of community needs and opportunities (Figure 1). Figure 1: Master Plan Process 47 2 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary OUTREACH METHODS AND PARTICIPATION The City of Cupertino reached out to approximately 1,000 residents and stakeholders through six different outreach activities: • City-wide Survey: From March 24th to July 19th, 2016, the City of Cupertino implemented a survey to collect community input on the state of the City’s parks and recreation system and potential improvements and alterations to the system in the future. The 27-question survey, available online and in paper, collected input from a total of 679 respondents. • Intercept events: Between March and July 2016, the City and RHAA held four intercept events at Cupertino’s Big Bunny Fun Run, the Earth Day & Arbor Day Festival, Cupertino Day and 4th of July Festival to raise awareness about the Master Plan process. Hundreds of community members placed stickers on three different display boards to “vote” for desired recreation amenities, programs and facilities. • Stakeholder interviews: The City and RHAA team met with stakeholder groups to identify issues and ideas unique to Cupertino. Twenty-four organizations (34 people) participated, representing the following eight areas of interest: environmental groups, organized sports teams, non-City parks and recreation providers, public safety organizations, community service groups, Cupertino’s business community, Cupertino hotels, and schools that offer joint use of facilities with the City. • Community workshop: In May 2016, the City and RHAA hosted a public community workshop to continue to receive feedback and suggestions for the improvement of the City’s existing parks, recreation facilities, and programming. Approximately eight people attended. • Block leader workshop: In June 2016, the City and RHAA conducted a workshop with approximately 25 block leaders to collect information on the current and future park and recreation system. Block leaders are community members that serve as representatives of their neighborhoods and liaisons to City residents. • Council and community leader direction: As a follow-up to the other outreach activities, the City and MIG, Inc., conducted eight interviews with 11 Council members and community leaders in April and May 2017 to gain insights from elected officials and key partners into planning opportunities and challenges. As noted above, many of the outreach events were conducted by the consulting firm RHAA. MIG, Inc., met with Council members and community leaders and provided additional analysis on the community survey. Summary reports from each of these activities are included in appendices. 48 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 3 DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary KEY THEMES Nine key themes emerged from the outreach activities collectively, representing priorities for Cupertino residents, stakeholders and community leaders. These themes are shown below and described on the following pages. 49 4 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary Community members want more opportunities to connect to nature. In all outreach activities, having increased access to nature was noted as a priority for the community. City-wide survey results revealed that of all potential enhancements, the most respondents (85%) favored additional access to natural open space. Across all intercept events, the public “voted” to see more access to natural spaces. Many of the stakeholders interviewed said they would like the City to increase access to existing natural amenities. Several stakeholders and community leaders noted the importance environmental education and nature programs, including community gardening and nature play, in connecting people to nature. In the survey, approximately 70% of residents favored or strongly favored enhancing nature and environmental programs. As the City works to develop and refresh its parks, community members would like to see a decreased emphasis on large lawn areas and more focus on retaining a site’s natural character. Residents noted that City parks could better highlight existing natural amenities and tree cover, adding to the City’s overall “natural capital.” Stakeholders recommended that sites such as Creekside Park, which now has several soccer fields, could be oriented and better connected to its namesake waterway. Stakeholders, Council members and community leaders also recommended planting more native plants, incorporating nature in parks, and protecting creek corridors. At intercept events, people placed dot stickers on display boards to indicate their preferences and priorities. Increased access to natural open space (the option on the bottom row) was the most popular enhancement desired for recreation amenities. 50 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 5 DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary The McClellan Ranch Preserve brings nature to people and people to nature, offering environmental education facilities, community gardening opportunities and places where residents can experience peace and solitude. Residents value trails in Cupertino and desire more opportunities for walking and biking. Many residents use the trails in Cupertino to access recreation and pursue fitness and health goals. In the City-wide Survey, participants noted that they value trails as places to hike with friends and family, walk their dogs, exercise, and experience nature. Residents, stakeholders and Council members all expressed a desire to build a connected network of trails and paths in Cupertino. At the Community Workshop, attendees recommended the City develop a comprehensive network for biking and walking, linking parks to neighborhoods and other destinations. This idea was reiterated through other engagement efforts, and stakeholders recommended amenities such as bike parking, bike repair stations and water fill-up stations to promote active transportation. Over 80% of participants of the Citywide Survey were in favor or strongly in favor of adding park trails and pathways. Outreach respondents provided many examples of the trail linkages that would benefit the city. For example, residents in Cupertino would like to see City trails connected to regional trails and nearby County parks and open space preserves. When Survey respondents were asked what additional amenities would improve their experience, they frequently noted the extension of Stevens Creek Trail to county land and nearby municipalities, such as south to Stevens Creek County Park, and north towards Mountain View. Others noted that they want trails connecting parks to other parks, schools and other commercial and community destinations. Workshop participants recommended trail connections between Linda Vista Park and McClellan Ranch Preserve. Various Council members noted opportunities to evaluate corridors such as Stevens Creek, Regnart Creek, Saratoga Creek, Calabazas Creek, the old haul road to the former quarry and Foothill Boulevard for trails and safer bike routes. 51 6 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary INTEREST IN RECREATION AMENITY ENHANCEMENTS OR ADDITIONS Park trails and pathways was a top desired recreation amenity in the Citywide Survey. Over 80% of participants were in favor or strongly in favor of adding these amenities, with little opposition. As shown in the results above, this level of support is unique, second only to providing more access to natural open space. Residents want more trails connectivity and extensions of existing trails, such as the Stevens Creek Trail (not pictured), the Mary Avenue Trail (left) and Saratoga Creek Trail (right). Sport courts (i.e. tennis, volleyball, basketball etc.) Athletic fields Cricket fields Picnic/BBQ spaces Dog areas Playground/tot lots Community gardens Fitness/exercise spaces and equipment Park trails and pathways Access to natural open space 52 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 7 DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary Residents want easy, enhanced access to parks and recreation opportunities. In several outreach forums, comments revolved around improving park and recreation access for all members of the community. This included the provision of accessible and inclusive play areas and facilities, improved bike and pedestrian connections, and parkland and trails in underserved areas. For example, several Council members discussed extensively the need for park land in the outer east side of Cupertino, which has fewer City parks and less parks and open space acreage provided by other agencies. In comparison, survey respondents living east of Highway 85 (an area with different boundaries than what is commonly referred to as East Cupertino) noted lower satisfaction levels with parks and facilities than residents west of Highway 85. Open-ended responses noted east Cupertino needs for more park and recreation amenities. When indicating the challenges that prevented people from using parks, Citywide Survey respondents mentioned a lack of parking, lack of bike pedestrian accessibility, and park location. The provision of amenities such as restrooms and benches were also noted as ways to improve park use and make parks more available to families, seniors and others in the community. Other access issues were noted in a few forums. For example, some survey respondents expressed interest in adding a year-round aquatic center, potentially exploring options for an indoor pool. Stakeholders, particularly organized sports leagues, expressed a desire for all-weather artificial turf fields for year-round play. Others expressed a need to ensure that facilities continue to be accessible to families with children, residents with special needs, as well as older adults and seniors in the community. Although it’s small, Sterling Barnhart Park provides important recreation opportunities in east Cupertino. More close-to-home, accessible recreation options are needed on the east side of the city. 53 8 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary Residents appreciate community events and would like to see more spaces in Cupertino for bringing people together. Cupertino parks, programs and events play an important role in connecting residents socially. Stakeholders noted the popularity of city-wide events and festivals, such as the Big Bunny run, Harvest Festival, Diwali and 4th of July events. When Survey respondents were asked about adding programs and activities, approximately 60% noted they would like to see more special events. This was echoed at the intercept events, through which many participants “voted” for enhancing special events and festivals. Stakeholders also recommended additional spaces that could increase the variety and size of community-serving events. Cupertino Chamber of Commerce representatives suggested adding gathering spaces for 300+ people to support community events and conferences. Council members and community leaders also noted opportunities to improve Memorial Park for events and amphitheater programs, and potentially, to build a performing arts venue with a theater hold host large indoor events and gatherings. While neither the conference space or performance centers showed majority support among Survey respondents, there was a clear preference for continuing to celebrate the strong sense of community through parks and programs. In intercept events, adding special events (shown on the bottom row) was clearly a popular choice for enhancing recreation programs. People placed stickers on display boards to indicate their preferences and priorities. Memorial Park (shown below) is a favored location for concerts, events and festivals. 54 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 9 DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary Cupertino desires a variety of play experiences for all ages and abilities. Across the engagement efforts, participants were interested in providing diversified play experiences. Community members mentioned that they are interested in adding amenities that would support water, nature and adventure play. Environmental groups consulted through the stakeholder interviews recommended adding “un-sanitized” and “unstructured” play opportunities, stressing the need to look beyond modular, traditional and cookie-cutter playgrounds. Survey respondents highlighted examples of amenities they have seen in other communities in California and around the world, including zip lines, climbing towers, mazes and swings for people who use wheel chairs. Stakeholders frequently mentioned that it was important to make play opportunities inclusive for people with disabilities. In open-ended comments in the City-wide Survey, respondents mentioned Rotary PlayGarden, in San Jose, California, as an example of a multi-layered park with inclusive play features. Many people mentioned a desire to have more unique and engaging play opportunities in Cupertino. On the left, children at Koret Children’s Quarters in Golden Gate Park play in the sand. On the right, the Rotary PlayGarden in San Jose, California, was mentioned in the survey as a notable example of an inclusive play area. 55 10 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary Residents and visitors desire a wide-range of recreation options. Cupertino is a diverse, well-off community with more discretionary funds than average to spend on recreation activities. Public outreach feedback suggested that residents expect Cupertino to offer a greater variety of recreation options, including unique, high-quality attractions for residents and visitors who use their parks system. The wide range of recreation interests was apparent in City-wide Survey responses, which showed support for all rather than just one or a few of the recreation programs set forth in the survey, including performance and visual arts, nature and environmental education, aquatic programs, and sports and fitness. Moreover, community members want to see different types of facilities that go beyond standard recreation offerings, such as non-traditional, multi-purpose facilities. Block leaders recommended adding a parcourse, outdoor exercise equipment, and moveable seating to city parks. Council members expressed an interest in providing new and different recreation options for culturally diverse residents and changing markets and demographics. This included providing busy “activated” parks and quieter parks and facilities. In the City-wide Survey, at least 50% of participants were interested in each of the proposed programming enhancements. Participants have a wide range of tastes and preferences for recreation opportunities. Performing, visual, cultural arts Classes for lifelong learning Before and after school programs Nature and environmental programs Aquatic programs Adult sports/fitness Youth sports/fitness Special events (i.e. Earth Day, 4th of July, festivals, etc.) 56 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 11 DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary Special attention is needed to engage and empower Cupertino teens. With the high academic pressure placed on teenagers in Cupertino, residents indicated that it is important to provide spaces and programming for teenage residents that focus on fun, fitness, confidence-building and stress reduction. For example, the intercept events highlighted a need to enhance youth sports and fitness. In the Community Workshop, participants suggested innovative ideas for teens, such as promoting non-competitive fitness programs. Survey respondents in open-ended comments noted a desire for a city facility to support nighttime teen activities and social events, such as late night basketball leagues or game nights. Community members, many who identified as parents, stressed that teenagers do not want to be lumped in with other age groups and should have programming tailored to their specific needs. In the interviews with Council members and community leaders, several participants mentioned the need to increase youth and teen involvement (e.g., the Teen Commission, Scouts and students) in community activities, events and volunteer projects. There was greater discussion about how best to relocate and reprogram the teen center to better support teens. Staff, school district partners and Council member input noted a desire for teen facilities that balance needs for educational, recreational and social opportunities; challenge, skill-building and healthy activities; youth development, empowerment and involvement; parent-supported activities and engaging after-hours options. A few suggested student-union or café-style spaces, possibly developed in conjunction with the Cupertino Library or schools, and organized around educational programming themes (e.g., incubator space, music/performing arts, entrepreneurship). While ideas to serve teens varied, many outreach respondents agreed that teens warranted special attention and services. Several outreach respondents indicated the City should focus on teen programming that is fun and stress- reducing, such as Teen Nights at a recreation facility or after-hours venue. (Source: Osidenews.com) 57 12 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary Residents expect outstanding customer service and quality facilities that are responsive to community needs. Survey data shows residents are highly satisfied with the safety and maintenance of Cupertino’s parks. Approximately 80% of Survey respondents indicated that they also are somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of Cupertino’s parks and recreation facilities. However, the top characteristic (selected by 18% of respondents) that prevents people from using the City’s parks is that there are “better parks offered outside of Cupertino.” While that seems like a small percentage, another 17% noted concerns about the “quality of park amenities and features.” In open ended questions, City-Wide Survey respondents noted several opportunities for customer service enhancements, including improvements to the reservation process and having more interesting parks. In their comments, residents give credit to the City where due, but they are looking for a more responsive park system and recreation programming that is timed for their lives and better suited to their interests. Council members and staff also mentioned opportunities to improve the City’s website, creating a portal for residents to make complaints or suggestions. A few Council members noted a need to take a fresh look at policies, procedures and services to provide flexibility where possible and be more accommodating to residents where practical. In general, outreach conveyed high community expectations for a more user-friendly, customer-oriented park and recreation system. Nearly 80% who took the community survey indicated that they are somewhat or very satisfied with the quality of parks and recreation facilities in the City of Cupertino. 24.9% 54.5% 14.7% 2.8%3.1% Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somwhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied 58 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 13 DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary Parks and recreation opportunities should reflect Cupertino’s character, heritage and diverse community. Cupertino is a unique community. Outreach findings suggest that residents want parks that emphasize the community’s character and heritage, the special qualities of this place, and the cultural diversity of residents. As noted by Council members, culturally diverse and culturally enriching programs and facilities are needed, including cultural events and celebrations, tai chi, cricket, performing and cultural arts. Programs, preschool options and teen services should respond to the community’s interest in educational opportunities and lifelong learning. In several outreach forums, participants noted opportunities for community groups, agencies, businesses and providers to collaborate to provide unique and specialized opportunities. In addition, the City is gauging resident and business support for integrating technology and innovation into events, programs and recreation spaces to incubate new and exciting opportunities for Cupertino residents. As one Council member noted, the City needs to ask, “What is best for Cupertino?” and incorporate those answers into the parks, programs and services provided. 59 14 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary COMMUNITY VISION AND GOALS The outreach themes developed through this report summarize the community’s desires for enhancing the overall park and recreation system. These themes will be used to develop a community-driven vision, goals and strategies for developing, renovating, sustaining, managing and programming the park and recreation system. Below, existing plans and policies are reviewed to provide additional context for the forthcoming development of the system-wide vision and goals. Recreation and Community Services Department The mission, vision and goals of the Recreation and Community Services Department, presented in FY 2015-2016 Annual Report, are intended to provide direction to the Department. The five outlined goals and objectives showcase the spirit and breadth of expertise and work conducted by Department staff. MISSION The Department is committed to providing opportunities, resources, and services to the community to enhance the quality of people’s lives through recreational, educational, and cultural experiences. VISION Our vision is to create a positive, healthy, and connected community. GOALS/ OBJECTIVES • Healthy Community (Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino Sports Center, swimming, tennis, soccer, softball, basketball and many other venues) • Creative and Playful Community (Summer Camps, Blackberry Farm Park, Noon-time recreation in our schools, dance, music and art) • Well-Educated Community (Preschool, ESL classes, After-school Enrichment programs, Summer school and computer classes) • Connected and United Community (Service camp, festival support, Senior Trips, Case management, Helping Hands, leaders in training, Block Leaders and Disaster Preparedness) • Fiscally Responsible Community (adheres to budget and embraces an active volunteer program) General Plan Vision In 2015, the City Council adopted Community Vision 2015-2040, a “roadmap to the future” for the Cupertino community. At its core is an overarching vision statement which captures the ideas, thoughts and desires of the City, as well as the stakeholders consulted during the 2013-2014 General Plan Amendment process. This citywide vision is presented on the next page. It illustrates the way in which the City and its residents embrace parks, open spaces, and recreation opportunities. 60 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 15 DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary General Plan Goals The adopted General Plan identifies goals, policies and strategies for the development and maintenance of high-quality parks, recreational amenities and community services as the City grows. Looking forward, the General Plan highlights five action areas to address challenges facing the parks and recreation system: • Expand Recreation Facilities • Equitable Distribution and Access • Collaboration • Sustainability • Funding The document also presents eight goals for Recreation, Parks and Community Services that guide park and recreation services through the year 2040. Goals for Recreation, Parks and Community Services • GOAL RPC-1: Create a full range of park and recreational resources and preserve natural resources • GOAL RPC-2: Distribute parks and open space throughout the community and provide services, and safe and easy access, to all residents and workers • GOAL RPC-3: Preserve and enhance access to parks that have significant natural resources • GOAL RPC-4: Integrate parks and public facilities within neighborhoods and areas • GOAL RPC-5: Create an interconnected system of multiuse trails and provide safe pedestrian and bicycle access through the city and connections to local nodes and destinations • GOAL RPC-6: Create and maintain a broad range of recreation programs and services that meet the needs of a diverse population • GOAL RPC-7: Provide high-quality, flexible and well maintained community facilities that meet the changing needs of the community and are a source of community identity • GOAL RPC-8: Cooperate with school districts to share facilities and meet community needs Cupertino aspires to be a balanced community with quiet and attractive residential neighborhoods; exemplary parks and schools; accessible open space areas, hillsides and creeks; and a vibrant, mixed-use “Heart of the City.” Cupertino will be safe, friendly, healthy, connected, walkable, bikeable and inclusive for all residents and workers, with ample places and opportunities for people to interact, recreate, innovate and collaborate. 61 16 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan DRAFT Outreach and Vision Summary CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS The Community Outreach and Vision Summary identifies overarching community directions for the park and recreation system based on outreach feedback obtained to date in this planning process. It also presents the current vision and goals of the City and the Recreation and Community Services Department. This information will be discussed with the Project Team and the Parks and Recreation Commission, and evaluated by residents in an online forum, before developing the vison and goals for the Parks & Recreation System Master Plan. This approach is intended to create a community-driven, community-supported plan that reflects the needs and priorities of Cupertino. 62 Community-Wide Survey APPENDIX A 63 64 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 1 COMMUNITY-WIDE SURVEY SUMMARY INTRODUCTION From March 24th to July 19th, 2016, the City of Cupertino implemented a communitywide survey to collect community input on the state of the City’s parks and recreation system and potential improvements and alterations to the system in the future. This document summarizes the major findings from the results, including MIG’s additional analysis. The survey collected input from a total of 679 respondents and was widely advertized through a variety of public announcements, events, and the City’s website. The 27-question survey was conducted using the online survey service Survey Monkey, with paper questionnaires available. Appendix A presents the raw results of the survey, as exported from Survey Monkey. Many of those who responded expressed interest in further involvement and participation, with about one-third of respondents opting to have their email addresses added to the contact list for the parks plan. WHO RESPONDED? Nearly 75% of the survey participants indicated they were Cupertino residents, and almost 18% reported that they work in Cupertino. These results indicate that both the employment and resident populations provided perspectives towards the survey. The age profile of respondents is depicted in Table 1, also showing a comparison to the City of Cupertino (2010 Census Estimates). TABLE 1: AGE OF RESPONDENTS AGE CATEGORIES SURVEY CENSUS (2010 ESTIMATES) Under 18 4.4% 29.5% 18-29 2.7% 7.3% 30-39 12.1% 13.5% 40-49 27.4% 19.5% 50-64 24.1% 17.8% 65 and over 23.9% 12.4% No answer 5.3% Totals 100% 100% 65 2 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Community-wide Survey Summary As Table 1 shows, the majority of respondents are 40 to 64 (51.5%). This is slightly larger than the percentage of City residents in the same age category (37.3% as per 2010 U.S Census). Children under the age of 18 were under-represented in the survey (4.4% respondents were under the age of 18 compared to 30% of Cupertino residents), while respondents over the age of 60 were over-represented (24% of the respondents indicated they were 65 years or older compared to 12.4% as per 2010 U.S Census). MIG also conducted additional analysis of the survey results, aggregating data according to where respondents live in Cupertino and analyzing whether there were differences in responses based on these locations (using Highway 85 as a divider). In some cases, responses differed substantially. In this analysis, we call out those questions where responses between east and west differed by 8-10% or more. LEVEL OF SATISFACTION The survey results indicate that while there is general satisfaction with parks and recreation services, there is room for improvement. A series of four questions about different aspects of parks and recreation services provides insights. TABLE 2: LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ABOUT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM IN GENERAL, HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE… NO OPINION VERY DISSATISFIED SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED SOMEWHAT SATISFIED VERY SATISFIED quality of Cupertino's parks and recreation facilities? 3% 3% 15% 54% 25% quality of Cupertino's recreation programs? 24% 2% 13% 40% 22% maintenance of Cupertino's parks and recreation 4% 3% 14% 47% 32% safety of Cupertino's parks and recreation facilities? 7% 2% 8% 42% 41% • When asked about satisfaction with parks and recreation facilities, though only 19 respondents reported being “very dissatisfied” overall, the top answer was “somewhat satisfied” (54%) with 15% choosing “somewhat dissatisfied”. Three follow-up questions delved into different areas of parks and recreation services, and the responses provide insights: • When asked about satisfaction with programs, almost a quarter of respondents chose “no opinion”, indicating a lack of familiarity with Cupertino’s program offerings. While the percentage of those “very satisfied” is about the same as with overall service satisfaction, the percentage of “somewhat satisfied” dropped by more than 10%. • The level of satisfaction with park safety is highest, with more than 40% choosing “very satisfied” and a similar percentage choosing “somewhat satisfied. • Park maintenance also was rated higher than services overall, with more than 30% reporting that they are “very satisfied” with another 47% selecting “somewhat satisfied”. 66 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 3 Community-wide Survey Summary MIG analyzed the data to understand differences in satisfaction between participants living east and west of Hwy 85. As Figure 1 illustrates, participants living west of Hwy 85 indicated more overall satisfaction with the parks and recreation facilities. A review of open-ended responses across the survey reveals many comments that note that East Cupertino needs more high-quality parks and recreation amenities. In the tables and charts breaking down east, west, and no answer, the final column includes all respondents that did not indicate where they live in Cupertino. This includes respondents who work or visit Cupertino. FIGURE 1. SATISFACTION WITH CUPERTINO’S PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES, BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION East West No Answer Very Satisfied 21%36%22% Somewhat Satisfied 54%47%58% Somewhat Dissatisfied 20%12%13% Very Dissatisfied 5%3%2% No Opinion 1%1%5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Percentage (%)67 4 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Community-wide Survey Summary FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION Two questions asked about frequency of visits to parks and frequency of participation in programs. As Figure 2 illustrates, the results show that respondents have more familiarity with and use of Cupertino’s parks, and less familiarity with and use of Cupertino’s programs. • About a third have never participated in a City program, compared to 2% reporting never visiting a City park. • Almost 55% reported visiting parks four times a month or more, whereas for Cupertino’s programs, only 18% participate at that same rate. FIGURE 2. PARTICIPATION IN CUPERTINO’S PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND RECREATION PROGRAMMING A total of 445 respondents provided open-ended comments about how they used Cupertino’s parks and recreation services over the past year. Respondents identified recreation activities they pursue in parks (dog walks, soccer, exercise, for example); named specific parks or facilities they visit; and wrote about specific programs and activities. A review of these comments shows the range of recreational pursuits supported by Cupertino. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Parks and Recreation Facilities Recreation Programming 4 or more times a month 2-3 times a month Once a month Less than once a month Never 68 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 5 Community-wide Survey Summary BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION Parks The survey asked respondents to indicate what challenges, if any, prevented them from using parks in Cupertino. Raw results and results by geography are shown in Table 3. When looking at all responses, the top reason for not visiting parks is “too busy”. In communities with Cupertino’s demographic profile, this is typically the top reason. Cupertino’s results, particularly when cross-tabulated by place of residence, reveals different patterns. • Respondents from the east side of the city were more likely to indicate that quality of park amenities and features and the location of parks kept them from using City parks (23% each), as well as “better parks offered outside Cupertino”. • West side Cupertino respondents reported lack of parking as the top reason, followed closely by “better parks offered outside Cupertino”, “too busy” and park quality. • The results for this question are consistent with the results on satisfaction with park maintenance and safety, with lack of safety/lighting and lack of maintenance the least frequently cited barriers to use • Especially notable is the high percentage of respondents listing “other” and “none of the above” as barriers to using parks, significantly higher for Cupertino residents than for visitors or employees. Those who selected “other” had an opportunity to write in a specific comment. A total of 141 people wrote in comments, some of which were very detailed. Some comments reiterated reasons already listed in the survey answers (lack of parking, lack of bike/ped accessibility, park location). Multiple comments addressed the lack of restrooms, the inability to get a reservation for a facility, the lack of walking/hiking paths in parks, and both the presence of dogs in parks and the lack of dog parks. FIGURE 3. WRITE-IN COMMENTS FOR BARRIERS TO USING PARKS Note: The word cloud (above) is a pictorial representation of the themes that emerge from all the open-ended responses received. Larger type fonts are words that many respondents used and smaller type fonts represent words that fewer respondents used in their open-ended responses. 69 6 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Community-wide Survey Summary Table 3 shows responses by location (east, west, and no answer) as well as all respondents that did not indicate where they live. This includes respondents who work or visit Cupertino. TABLE 3: BARRIERS TO USING CUPERTINO’S PARKS WHAT, IF ANYTHING, PREVENTS YOU FROM USING THE CITY’S PARKS? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) VALUES EAST WEST NO ANSWER ALL RESPONSES Better parks offered outside Cupertino 20% 17% 17% 18% I am too busy/don't have time 15% 17% 19% 17% Quality of park amenities & features 23% 16% 15% 17% Lack of parking 17% 19% 16% 17% Location of parks 23% 10% 10% 14% Parks are too crowded or over- programmed 14% 11% 10% 11% Lack of bicycle/pedestrian accessibility 13% 10% 5% 9% Lack of park maintenance 7% 6% 8% 7% Lack of safety or lighting 9% 4% 7% 7% Other (please specify) 27% 26% 20% 24% None of the above 19% 30% 32% 27% Number of respondents in each category (Note that multiple answers were allowed) 188 148 262 598 70 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 7 Community-wide Survey Summary Facilities and Programs The survey then asked respondents what challenges prevented them from using recreation facilities or attending programs. A total of 590 people responded to this question. Similar to the question on barriers to park use, the responses show “too busy” as a top barrier and indicate that lack of maintenance is not a barrier to using facilities and programs. • The most frequently selected answer was “none of the above” (29%). This answer did not allow comments, so it is not possible to further evaluate perceptions about barriers to programs. • Schedule and availability received 25% of responses overall, indicating a need for different programming approaches and models. More than 1/3 of east side residents chose this answer, and 28% of west side residents did. A review of write-in comments to the “other” response also reveals comments about schedule. • “Other” received 20% of responses, and 118 people wrote in comments. • While many of the comments addressed topics that were covered by the answer choices, the topic of program cost as a barrier was mentioned in several comments. • Though program quality received only 11% of responses overall, it was a barrier for significantly more east side residents (19%) compared to west side residents (8%). • Notably, a preference for private clubs and providers did not rank highly as a reason for not using Cupertino programs and facilities. This indicates that the Cupertino market is open to City- provided programs and facilities. In the tables and charts breaking down east, west, and no answer, the final column includes all respondents that did not indicate where they live in Cupertino. This includes respondents who work or visit Cupertino. TABLE 4: BARRIERS TO USING CUPERTINO’S RECREATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS WHAT, IF ANYTHING, PREVENTS YOU FROM USING THE CITY’S RECREATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) VALUES EAST WEST NO ALL RESPONSES Schedule & availability of programs 35% 28% 16% 25% I am too busy/don't have time 20% 25% 23% 23% Quality of programs 19% 8% 11% 13% Location of facilities 14% 9% 9% 11% Lack of parking 10% 7% 7% 8% Prefer using private gyms/clubs/facilities 10% 9% 5% 8% Lack of maintenance of facilities 5% 4% 6% 5% Lack of bicycle/pedestrian accessibility 9% 4% 3% 5% Other (please specify) 23% 20% 18% 20% None of the above 22% 31% 34% 29% Number of respondents in each category (Note that multiple answers were allowed) 188 148 254 590 71 8 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Community-wide Survey Summary POTENTIAL ADDITIONS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM A series of questions asked about preferences for potential additions. These questions provided four answer choices, and evaluating both the level of support for and opposition to answer choices provides insights about possible future directions. Additional Amenities The survey asked respondents to indicate their interest in adding amenities to parks in Cupertino, shown in Figure 4. • Providing access to natural open spaces and adding and enhancing park trails and pathways garnered widespread support and little opposition. This was highlighted in the open-ended responses throughout the survey, with many participants noted they would like to see more natural pathways and off-street trails, including bike paths linking parks and an extension of the existing Stevens Creek trail. • Additional cricket fields garnered the most opposition (26%), with limited support. • In contrast, opinion about additional dog areas appears divided, with 19% opposed and 17% strongly in favor. This was consistent with the pattern seen in the write-in comments. • Of note, participants living east of Hwy 85 were much more likely to be strongly in favor of athletic fields and sports courts and more strongly opposed to certain recreation amenities. • Respondents, regardless of location, highlighted the need for more basketball courts, tennis courts and bocce courts throughout Cupertino. Many survey participants wrote in that they would like to see a half or full-sized basketball court in Wilson Park, located in East Cupertino. FIGURE 4. INTEREST IN RECREATION AMENITY ENHANCEMENTS OR ADDITIONS Athletic fields Cricket fields Picnic/BBQ spaces Dog areas Playground/tot lots Community gardens Fitness/exercise spaces and equipment Park trails and pathways Access to natural open space Sport courts (i.e. tennis, volleyball, basketball etc.) 72 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 9 Community-wide Survey Summary Additional Recreation Programs The survey asked respondents to indicate their interest in adding different types of recreation programs, and 559 provided responses as shown in Figure 5. • Overall, there was support for each option and limited opposition. This aligns with earlier results indicating a desire for more programming options. • Additional nature and environmental programs received the most support and least opposition, also following patterns seen throughout the survey. • The results show a high level of support for more special events. FIGURE 5. INTEREST IN RECREATION PROGRAM ADDITIONS OR ENHANCEMENTS While this question did not provide an opportunity to write in comments, a review of other open-ended responses highlighted several potential programming additions: need for more programming for youth with special needs or disabilities and the need for programming geared towards teens. Performing, visual, cultural arts Classes for lifelong learning Before and after school programs Nature and environmental programs Aquatic programs Adult sports/fitness Youth sports/fitness Special events (i.e. Earth Day, 4th of July, festivals, etc.) 73 10 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Community-wide Survey Summary Additional Recreation Facilities The survey asked respondents to indicate their interest in adding different major recreation facilities. A total of 554 people responded to this question. • Most notable was the “neutral” responses. For all facility options, the neutral option received the most responses. This pattern was not seen on the two previous questions. • Of all the facility options, a year-round aquatic center appears to have the most support with fewer neutral responses than other answer choices. It should be noted that the answer choice does not make it clear whether this would be an outdoor facility or an indoor facility. Though the local norm is outdoor pool facilities, some write-in comments in other sections of the survey brought up the idea of an indoor pool. • Another community center has the least support and most opposition of all the answer choices. • The results of this question seem to indicate that there is more interest in the community in enhancements to existing parks and expansion of program than in adding major facilities. It also indicates that more evaluation of needs and the recreation market to develop a market-based space program would be advisable if Cupertino explores adding more recreation buildings or major facilities, or even considers major renovation to existing spaces. FIGURE 6. INTEREST IN ADDING RECREATION FACILITIES Multi-use gymnasium Year-round aquatic center Another community center More reservable event/ meeting/ conference spaces Makerspace (technology and innovation center) Fine arts studio and gallery Gymnastics center Performance center for theater, dance, music New location for teen/youth center 74 Intercept Events APPENDIX B 75 76 11 community input assessment September 2016•Sport courts •Athletic fields •Cricket fields •Picnic/BBQ spaces •Dog areas •Playground/tot lots •Community gardens •Fitness/exercise spaces and equipment •Park trails and pathways •Access to natural open space Would you favor the addition or enhancement of these existing recreation programs? •Aquatic programs •Performing/visual/cultural arts •Classes for lifelong learning •Before and after school programs •Nature and environmental programs •Adult sports/fitness •Youth sports/fitness •Special events (i.e. Earth Day, 4th of July, festivals) Would you favor adding these recreation facilities? •Multi-use gymnasium •Year-round aquatic center •Another community center •More reservable event/meeting/conference spaces •Makerspace (technology and innovation center) •Fine arts studio and gallery •Gymnastic center •Performance center for theater/dance/music •New location for teen/youth center Participants were not limited in the number of items they could choose and all stickers were of equal value. The following is a summary of input received during the intercept events. INTERCEPT EVENTS OVERVIEW Several intercept events were held on March 26th, April 30th and May 7th, 2016, by City staff and the Consultant team. These intercepts, hosted at several of Cupertino’s community events and festivals, were designed to provide an interactive and visual exercise to educate community members on the Master Plan while encouraging their participation in the outreach process. To implement the intercepts, City staff, and at some events the Consultant team, attended Cupertino’s Big Bunny Fun Run, Cupertino Earth Day & Arbor Day Festival, and Cupertino Day. At these events community members were encouraged to participate in the outreach process by placing stickers next to recreational amenities, programs, and facilities they found to be desirable for the City of Cupertino. Participants placed their stickers on three separate boards, which asked the following questions and provided the associated amenities to select from. Would you favor the addition or enhancement of these existing recreation amenities? 77 12community input assessment September 2016BIG BUNNY FUN RUN The first intercept event was held at Cupertino’s Big Bunny Fun Run on March 26th, 2016. The Big Bunny Fun Run is an annual 5k race, hosted by the City of Cupertino to support the City’s positive, healthy and connected community. At this event, attendees and community members were invited to share their thoughts regarding the recreation amenities, programs, and facilities they would like to see in Cupertino. With regard to additional or enhanced existing amenities, many of the participants supported park trails and pathways and access to natural open space. Close behind, many participants supported the addition or enhancement of the City’s playgrounds and tot lots, sports courts, and community gardens. In additional or enhanced existing recreation programs, participants most highly supported aquatic programs and special events such as Earth Day and festivals. Intercept participants also supported performing, visual and cultural arts, as well as fitness. On the addition of recreation facilities, many intercept participants selected a year-round aquatic center, multi-use gymnasium, and a makerspace. 78 13 community input assessment September 2016CUPERTINO EARTH DAY & ARBOR DAY FESTIVAL The second intercept event was held at the Cupertino Earth Day & Arbor Day Festival on April 30th, 2016. This annual City event serves Cupertino’s community by providing interactive and educational activities that relate to creating a healthy, safe, sustainable and environmentally vibrant City. The second intercept events saw similar responses to the first. In reference to additional or enhanced existing amenities, the highest number of participants selected access to natural open space, followed by park trails and pathways, and community gardens. Similar to the first intercept events, participants also supported special events with regard to the addition or enhancement of existing City-run recreation programs. Nature programs, youth sports and fitness, and performing arts were also popular. As in the first intercept, participants also selected the addition of a year- round aquatic center and a multi-use gymnasium as favored recreation facilities, with a performance center and fine arts studio also popular. 79 14community input assessment September 2016CUPERTINO DAY The third intercept event was held at the City’s Annual Cupertino Day on May 7th, 2016. The Cupertino Day event is hosted at the City’s Blackberry Farm and celebrates the reopening of the facility for the summer season. Responses of participants at this event echoed those of previous intercepts. Many participants here favored the addition or enhancement of park trails and pathways and access to natural open space. Following this, many participants also favored the addition or enhancement of Cupertino’s playgrounds and tot lots, sport courts, and community gardens. As seen before, participants here also supported the addition or enhancement of special events in the City’s recreation programs. Finally, reiterating earlier findings, participants supported the addition of a year-round aquatic center and a multi-use gymnasium as favored recreation facilities. A makerspace also received support. 80 15 community input assessment September 20164TH OF JULY The fourth and final intercept event was held at the City’s Annual 4th of July festival event, on July 4th, 2016. This event hosts a variety of activities to celebrate Independence Day as a community and engages kids, families, and community members annually. Responses of participants at this event replicate those at previous intercepts. Many participants here favored the addition or enhancement of park trails and pathways and access to natural open space. In addition to this, many participants also favored the addition or enhancement of Cupertino’s playgrounds and tot lots and sport courts. As seen before, participants here also supported the addition or enhancement of special events in the City’s recreation programs. When compared to previous intercepts, more participants were particularly interested in the addition of nature and environmental programs at the 4th of July intercept than earlier events. Finally, reiterating earlier findings, participants supported the addition of a year-round aquatic center and a multi- use gymnasium as favored recreation facilities. 81 82 Stakeholder Meetings APPENDIX C 83 84 community input assessment September 2016STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS OVERVIEW A series of stakeholder interviews were conducted by the Consultant team and City staff during April and May 2016. These interviews offered the opportunity for key stakeholder groups to provide focused input and perspectives on issues related to parks, open space, and recreation. Listed below are eight key stakeholder categories along with the corresponding organizations that represented the categories at the interviews: Environmental •Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society •Acterra Stewardship Program •Friends of Stevens Creek Trail Organized Sports •American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) Region 35 •American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) Region 64 •DeAnza Youth Soccer League (DYSL) •South Bay VIP Soccer (SBVPS) •California Cricket Academy •Cupertino Little League Non-City Parks & Recreation Providers •Cupertino Library •Northwest YMCA •Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District •Rolling Hills 4-H Club •Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department Public Safety •Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office •Office of Emergency Services Community Service •Cupertino Historical Society •DeAnza Optimist Club of Cupertino •Rotary Club of Cupertino Business Community •Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Hotels •Courtyard by Marriott •Aloft Cupertino •Juniper Hotel Cupertino Schools with Joint Use Facilities •Cupertino Union School District Following are summaries of the input received during each of these interviews. ENVIRONMENTAL The consultant and City staff met with and interviewed representatives of three organizations that have strong environmental pursuits and a regular physical presence at McClellan Ranch Preserve and in the Stevens Creek Corridor. These organizations include the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, whose educational activities and projects endeavor to foster local public awareness of native birds and their ecosystems, the Acterra Stewardship Program (now known as Grassroots Ecology), a non-profit focused on involving and educating the public in environmental stewardship and galvanizing local, volunteer- staffed restoration projects, and Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, an organization advocating for a multi-use trail in the Stevens Creek Corridor.85 community input assessment September 2016Improvements suggested by the three groups focused on creating more awareness and connection with the natural environment as well as encouraging continued protection of natural areas. The organizations believe both goals are possible with thoughtful and strategic planning. All three organizations welcomed more unstructured nature play and access to natural areas of the City’s existing parks as well as integration of more natural elements, suggesting the incorporation of more native plantings to help create habitat and habitat corridors. Additionally, suggestions from this interview included making the park system accessible by bike and other alternate forms of transportation. While extending and developing a connected trail system should be a long-term goal, adding more bike racks throughout the City’s park and recreation facilities was suggested as a more immediate action that will also encourage the community to bike. ORGANIZED SPORTS Six team sports organizations participated in the stakeholder interviews with a focus on soccer, cricket, and baseball. As soccer is a sport with rapidly increasing popularity, several different organizations represented the interests of youth soccer as well as one organization, South Bay VIP Soccer, which represents special needs soccer players. The consensus among these organized sports groups was a desire for more sports facilities, including a new all-weather (artificial turf) field, an international-size cricket field, increased use of high school fields in the City, and the opportunity for use of City park fields on Sundays. Cupertino Little League advocated for having an all-dirt infield that would allow field size flexibility as a new field size between little league and full size has recently been standardized. The four soccer organizations requested that grass length be kept around 2 inches, while the California Cricket Academy requested the turf on Library Field, their primary site to use, be cut to ½ inch. At this interview, the sports organizations advised that increased communication would be beneficial, both in terms of transparency on park projects including school-initiated projects that affect sport fields, and a backup system for field closure notifications. NON-CITY PARKS & RECREATION PROVIDERS Interviewing non-City providers helps to establish a more complete representation of which needs are being met outside of the City facilities and programs, which needs are still unmet within the Cupertino community, and how and where partnerships can help to bridge these gaps. The Non-City parks and recreation providers interviewed included the Cupertino Library, Northwest YMCA, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Rolling Hills 4-H Club, and the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department. At this interview, the Cupertino Library envisioned more coordination between their own extensive programs and the programs and resources provided by the City and local school district, in order to prevent duplication of programs and to enable efficient allocation of resources for all involved. The Library also shared its need for physical improvements, including a larger program room, more group study rooms, and structure that allows for flexibility of anticipated and unanticipated future uses. The YMCA also requested more partnering and coordination with the City for use of the City’s facilities. Additionally, they advocated for increased equity in the allocation of City outdoor space and recreation facilities in a manner that increases availability to private recreation providers. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District also identified a collaborative partnership with the City, on multiple levels, as a key enhancement. These partnerships with the City could aid in developing more comprehensive connections to regional trails through additional trails as well as public transportation, increasing online publicity for regional open space preserves, and instituting outreach to diverse community groups. The Rolling Hills 4-H Club’s suggestions focused primarily on physical improvements and expansions of their existing McClellan Ranch Preserve facilities. Specifically, these wishes included more space for programs, animal enclosures, more storage, and improvements to the existing facility to support both current and desired programs. 4-H is currently constrained in membership and offerings by lack of space. Similar to the previous stakeholders, the Santa Clara Country Parks and Recreation 86 community input assessment September 2016BUSINESS COMMUNITY The business community is a vital component of Cupertino, therefore the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce was interviewed as a representative for over 240 businesses. Currently, the Chamber collaborates with the City to organize the annual Diwali Festival. The Chamber echoed the Optimist and Rotary Clubs in asking for more event and community space, though they specifically would like a space with a kitchen that can accommodate over 300 people. In the interview, the Chamber expressed interest in increased availability of information about the parks and facilities, including a more accessible website featuring photos and clearer directions on how to reserve parks as well as collaborating on welcome packets distributed to new residents and businesses to introduce them to the City’s recreational amenities. From a programming perspective, the Chamber imagines more programs for children that educate about the importance of physical fitness. From a facilities and amenities standpoint, the Chamber envisioned more parking, an indoor year-round pool, and collaboration with the school district to fulfill unmet needs. HOTELS Three Cupertino hotels were interviewed in order to identify improvements that may help to attract more tourists and visitors to the City and support the hospitality industry. These hotels are the Courtyard by Marriott, a select service facility with smaller conference spaces, Aloft Cupertino, a hotel that attracts an international clientele, and Juniper Hotel Cupertino, the largest hotel in the City. All three hotels note lagging occupancy on weekends as the majority of their occupants are visiting during the week for tech-related corporate travel. The weekend occupants are often in Cupertino for tournaments and sports events or family travel and weddings, so ensuring that the City’s sports-related amenities and facilities and its parks are well maintained and attractive is important. The hotels’ suggestions for improvement focused on ways to make the City more attractive and accessible to visitors. They felt there could be opportunities for increased collaboration and improved communication with the City’s Recreation and Community Services Department. More facilities and events would help to attract weekend visitors, and an improved website would help visitors more easily access comprehensive information about existing facilities and events. In addition to improved information access, improved physical access to the City’s amenities would make them more visitor-friendly. This would include better coordination of transportation within the City, especially for events, and enhanced connectivity through a more developed pathway system. SCHOOLS WITH JOINT USE FACILITIES The City currently has joint use agreements with 9 schools within the Cupertino Union School District in order to share facilities and fulfill needs that are unmet within the City of Cupertino’s parks and recreation facilities. During the interview, the School District praised the current level of access to and responsiveness of City leaders and maintenance staff. The City maintains the fields at a higher level than the schools would otherwise maintain them, so the joint use agreement is extremely beneficial to the school, providing higher quality fields to students. Because of complexity associated with property ownership and operation, the School District suggested designating certain areas of the sites as “District Capital Improvement Zones” to provide more flexibility in their development. This would allow the fields to continue being used and maintained by the City, but the schools would be permitted to make improvements within those zones in a manner that is compatible with continued use of the fields. 87 community input assessment September 2016Department shared the need for a collaborative relationship with the City to complement each others’ efforts while clarifying their distinct roles in recreation management. Specifically, the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department suggested better coordination with the City on signage opportunities that affect both agencies, such as with local recreational trails, and creating a potential liaison committee between the City and County to support this relationship. PUBLIC SAFETY To understand the needs of public safety stakeholders, the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office and the Office of Emergency Services were both interviewed. The County Sheriff ’s Office has a substation in the City that functions as the City’s police department and is responsible for code enforcement in the parks, especially after operating hours. The Office of Emergency Services is responsible for the City’s emergency planning and response and works with several community organizations to disseminate information. Several City recreation facilities and schools are part of the emergency response plan and will require special consideration as changes to them could impact the City’s emergency plan. In the interview, the Sheriff’s Office noted it is generally satisfied with Cupertino’s parks and recreation facilities, but provided some useful suggestions to improve safety. These included additional lighting and call boxes in some parks as well as park modification to increase visibility. With any proposed modifications to existing parks and facilities, the Office of Emergency Services needs to evaluate the changes to determine how they may affect the current emergency plan. They would welcome increased communication and collaboration with the City as well as additional training of staff and the community. The City could be a valuable asset in distribution of information related to emergency preparedness. COMMUNITY SERVICE Cupertino has a robust assortment of community service organizations, three of which were interviewed. The Cupertino Historical Society partners with the City’s Recreation and Community Services Department to offer educational walks through the historically-rich McClellan Ranch Preserve and Blackberry Farm area. The DeAnza Optimist Club of Cupertino is primarily focused on performing local community service projects and is also very involved with supporting various City events. The Rotary Club of Cupertino has completed roughly 40 to 50 projects around the City and organizes several annual events open to the public. The Historical Society, currently based in the Quinlan Community Center, expressed preference to be established in a more historically relevant location. In addition, they would like to see their programs expanded in collaboration with the City’s Recreation and Community Services Department and hope to garner more recognition for their important role in the community. Improved historical and interpretive signage along trails and throughout the community would help raise awareness of their organization and, more importantly, educate the public about the rich history that shaped current-day Cupertino. In the interview, the DeAnza Optimist Club of Cupertino envisioned more community volunteer involvement in the City’s various events and festivals and hopes for increased City-sponsored activities in conjunction with the City’s annual Fourth of July festivities. The Department should continue to respond to the shifting needs of the City’s changing demographics and offer appropriate programming and events. Additionally, the Club requests that the City reviews its room reservation policies and strive to improve availability, as they have had trouble scheduling rooms for events and meetings. The Rotary Club of Cupertino had similar concerns with lack of meeting space and asked for additional facilities that can be reserved or rented at reasonable rates. The Club hopes to lease the Stocklmeir Ranch house and renovate the space to create a meeting place for local community service groups and hopes that the City will support this endeavor. Rotary also suggested that a drop-off center for hazardous waste and electronics would be beneficial to the community. 88 Community Workshop APPENDIX D 89 90 community input assessment September 2016COMMUNITY WORKSHOP OVERVIEW During a special meeting of the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission on May 23, 2016, City staff and Consultant team conducted a community workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to generate feedback and suggestions for the improvement of the City’s existing parks, facilities, and programming, while also gathering ideas for new amenities and programs that could enhance the park system. Community members also envisioned ways to incorporate these new amenities into existing parks where possible. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM In general, community members at this workshop expressed an interest in having more parks, particularly in the vicinity of the City center. Attendees specifically expressed that the City’s parks should be modern and state-of-the-art. This was especially noted with regard to the Cupertino’s playground and picnic areas. Additionally, a general need to update the City’s existing recreation facilities was voiced at the community workshop. A priority among the workshop attendees was the development of a comprehensive network for bicyclists and pedestrians that links parks and neighborhoods, simultaneously supporting alternative modes of transportation and decreasing dependence on cars. Participants suggested that railroad corridors and service roads could be considered for trail extensions. One specific desirable trail connection that was mentioned was Linda Vista Park to McClellan Ranch Preserve. Where possible, the community also suggested providing free public transportation and shuttles for children, teens, and seniors, and to consider partnering with local businesses to accomplish this goal. In addition to these system-wide improvements, the workshop attendees proposed individual items desired in greater numbers in order to meet the community’s demand. These include: •Parks •Swimming Pools •Community Gardens •Teen Centers •Sports Fields & Courts •Recreation & Community Centers that offer classes NEW ELEMENTS Along with increasing and improving existing parks and facilities in the City of Cupertino, workshop attendees expressed an interest in adding new elements that are currently not provided in the City’s recreational network. These missing elements include water and nature play, adventure play, inclusive play areas, performance space, and artificial turf fields. To address the inclusion of new elements to the City’s recreational network, workshop participants considered the exploration of partnerships with local businesses and organizations. Public-private partnerships may provide additional opportunities to address Cupertino’s recreational need. IMPROVEMENTS TO SPECIFIC PARKS & FACILITIES Once the park and recreation system was discussed as a whole, the workshop looked in more detail at suggestions for specific parks and facilities. They included Memorial Park, Quinlan Community Center, and Linda Vista Park. At Memorial Park, the workshop attendees envisioned removing the ponds and re-programming the space to activate use. In conjunction with this, it was suggested that the turf area adjacent to Quinlan Community Center be utilized for programmed activities. With respect to Quinlan Community Center, attendees suggested incorporating elements and making structural improvements to encourage social and community interaction. Highlighting the building’s entrance, providing more inviting furniture for gathering and lounging, and enhancing the visual aesthetic of the space were suggested actions to achieve this end. Additionally, attendees recommended the relocation of the Historical Society Museum from the Center to a more historically appropriate location.91 community input assessment September 2016At Linda Vista Park, the workshop participants felt that there could be more use and programmed activities. Among the suggestions were community gardens and ornamental gardens, as well as space for community events. IMPROVEMENTS TO PROGRAMMING Improvement and expansion of existing recreational programming was discussed in detail during the community workshop. Attendees focused on two specific groups, seniors and teens, as well as general programming ideas. For seniors, participants expressed the need to increase programs offered as well as provide a better geographic distribution of where those programs are offered. For teens, participants suggested increased programming, but specified that programming for this group may be most successful if activities were offered to smaller age ranges to enable more focused and compelling content for the participants. For example, activities could be offered to pre-teens under the age of 13 and teens age 13 and up. Program suggestions for this age group centered on social, community, fitness, and environmental activities for youth. Activities that encourage youth to be active outdoors were deemed important. Participants also noted an interest in full-day summer camps, and flexible facility hours to allow multiple programs and activities to happen concurrently. For general programming, workshop attendees agreed that intergenerational programming was important and desirable to the community. The group suggested that the City’s parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities, and community centers allowed increased intergenerational interaction. Additionally, participants expressed interest in the City offering inclusive programming to allow people of different abilities to recreate together. 92 Block Leader Workshop APPENDIX E 93 94 community input assessment September 2016BLOCK LEADER WORKSHOP OVERVIEW On June 13, 2016, City staff and the Consultant team conducted a workshop with Block Leaders to gather input for the Master Plan. Block Leaders have several primary functions – connecting neighbors, increasing public safety, and improving communication within the neighborhood and with the City. In attending the workshop, each Block Leader functioned as a representative of their neighborhood and a vital point of connection to the City’s residents. In order to guide discussion and encourage new ideas, the following questions were asked of the workshop attendees: 1.Are there additional park and recreation facilities that you would like to see added in Cupertino? (includes parks, recreation buildings, sports courts, fields, etc.) 2.Are there additional recreation programs you would like to see added in Cupertino? (includes activities, classes, sports, day camps, etc.) 3.What would improve your experience as a park or recreation facility user within the City of Cupertino? 4.What are your top priorities to add to Cupertino’s parks, recreation facilities and programs? The Block Leaders’ answers to each of these questions are summarized below. ADDITIONAL FACILITIES The Block Leaders had a variety of suggestions for additional facilities and elements to be added to existing recreation facilities. The major suggestions related to a new swim facility, more interesting playgrounds, an expanded trail network, improving existing parks with expanded amenities, and adding new recreational centers and parks. A priority expressed by the Block leaders was a year-round swim facility centrally located in the City. This aquatic facility could be indoor or outdoor but would have discounted entry fees for Cupertino residents. It could potentially provide a variety of amenities such as diving, recreational swimming, slides, and could accommodate varied uses such as masters swimming and water aerobics. The quality of existing playgrounds emerged as another priority to this group. Block Leaders expressed an interest in nature play, more variety, and the introduction of an adventure element to the City’s existing playground system. Trails were also discussed by many of the attendees, both in terms of quantity and quality. Attendees supported an expanded trail network providing more connectivity between parks and suggested utilizing the railroad right-of-way as well as providing trails along every creek. Some community members expressed an interest in walking-only trails, while others asked that the shared trails benefit more users. There were also several requests for more bicyclist amenities, such as bike racks and mountain bike courses. Within the existing parks, there were a variety of additional amenities that were proposed. Some were general and some were directed towards specific parks. These included parcourse and outdoor exercise equipment for both adults and children, demonstration gardens, more community gardens, more benches, moveable seating, first aid equipment, a picnic area in Jollyman Park, and restrooms in several of the parks (Hoover, Franco, and Three Oaks) or more ambitious suggestions for restrooms in every park. Finally, the Block Leaders expressed interest in building additional recreation centers and parks. They felt that the current recreation centers were too busy and suggested adding one or more new facilities distributed evenly across the City. They also felt that opening school sports courts to the public would help to alleviate the demands on the existing centers. Along with new recreational centers, attendees suggested building several other kinds of facilities including a makerspace, a technology center, and a performing arts center. In addition, the attendees expressed support for adding new parks to the City and recommended having promotional events at their opening. ADDITIONAL RECREATION PROGRAMS While the recreational programming already offered by the City is robust, the Block Leader workshop generated many valuable suggestions for new and expanded programming. These programming suggestions generally fell into the four categories of camps, education, events, and exercise. In addition, the participants felt age-specific programming for teens and seniors, especially active seniors, was very important. 95 community input assessment September 2016For camps, attendees asked for more all day camps and summer camps and requested that traditional camp activities such as singing and team games be offered as camp programs. Workshop participants requested more health education, nature programs, and practical courses such as construction, gardening, and cooking. A variety of specific events were proposed including a ghost walk at Blackberry Farm, a trail Easter egg hunt, organized trail runs, and separate career days focused on teens and adults. For exercise- related programming, the participants wanted to see more swimming, water aerobics classes, and organized biking and walking groups. The Block Leaders believed that the programming opportunities could be expanded through partnerships with adjacent cities and non-City affiliated organizations and companies. Given Cupertino’s array of technology related companies, there was even a suggestion that local companies could assist in starting an innovation camp for children and teens. IMPROVE EXPERIENCE When asked how users’ experience of the existing facilities and programs could be improved, the Block Leaders reiterated and expanded upon some of the ideas that had been previously mentioned, but also mentioned a variety of more specific improvements. With regard to existing parks and facilities, most of the comments again focused on playgrounds, trails, and amenities, though there were also comments related to maintenance, safety, and security. Regarding playgrounds, there was an interest in climbing trees, longer slides, jump ropes, hopscotch, and sidewalk chalk. For trails, the focus was again on adding more trails and connections for both pedestrians and bicyclists to make Cupertino less car dependent and safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Finally, regarding amenities, participants recommended having restrooms in every park, adding drinking fountains for people and dogs along with water bottle refill stations, adding more parking and seating at parks, and suggested vending machines at facilities. Maintenance topics included enhanced maintenance of group picnic areas, restrooms, and removal of poison oak. While some attendees desired new parks as previously noted, there was a contrary opinion that the existing parks and facilities should be maximized rather than building new ones. In this approach, attendees suggested that resources can be focused on improving what the City already owns. For programming, the Block Leaders suggested having mixed age groups in the youth programs, having nature camps in natural settings, and enlivening park events with attractions such as food trucks. PRIORITIES When asked about their top priorities related to parks and recreation, the Block Leaders had a wide range of suggestions that continued to echo the ideas previously expressed. With regard to facilities, the attendees reiterated the desire for a year-round swim facility, arts and makerspace centers, and improvements to Quinlan Community Center and Monta Vista Recreational Center. For parks, there was a repeated focus on playgrounds and trails. With regard to playgrounds, this included adding themed play structures that vary between parks and adding more tot playgrounds with shade. More safe, connected trails and bike parking were mentioned, as well as considering separating pedestrians from high speed bicycle routes. Additional park amenities were also mentioned again as a priority, including benches, rest stops, shade, trash receptacles, and adequate parking. Programming did not receive as much focus in the discussion of priorities, except for senior programming and the recommendation to have programming distributed across the City. At a higher level, several Block Leaders expressed a priority that there should be a neighborhood park within walking distance of every Cupertino resident and, generally, that Cupertino parks should emphasize serving Cupertino residents first and foremost. 96 Council/Community Leader Directions APPENDIX F 97 98 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 1 COUNCIL/COMMUNITY LEADER DIRECTIONS INTRODUCTION MIG, Inc., held eight stakeholder interviews with Council members and community leaders to provide direction for the development of Cupertino’s Parks and Recreation System Master Plan (Master Plan). The purpose of the interviews was to gain insights from elected officials and key partners into the opportunities and challenges the Master Plan should address. Cindy Mendoza (MIG, Inc.) and Gail Seeds (City of Cupertino) conducted seven individual or small group interviews on April 17-18, 2017. One additional interview was held by phone on May 4, 2017. Interview participants included: •Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor •Darcy Paul, Vice Mayor •Barry Chang, Council Member •Rod Sinks, Council Member •Steven Sharf, Council Member •Marisa Spatafore, De Anza College •Chris Jew and Toby Smith (CUSD) and Erik Walukiewicz (FUHSD) •David Brandt (City Manager) and Aarti Shrivastava (Assistant City Manager) A list of prepared questions was given to each interviewee for discussion. However, participants were encouraged to share the insights they felt were most important about this planning process. The interview responses, in coordination with other stakeholder and community engagement activities, will inform the development of the Master Plan vision and goals. KEY FINDINGS Collectively, the interviewers providing guidance in several areas, including opportunities and needs for: •Parks •Recreation facilities •Recreation programs and events •Policies and operations •Communications and outreach •Coordination with other resources and providers Most stakeholders also noted community issues for the Master Plan to address, as well as directions for the planning process. This document summarizes these opportunities, comments and directions. 99 2 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Council/Community Leader Directions Parks Several interview participants talked extensively about park needs on the east and north side of Cupertino. They noted different options to address this park deficiency, including acquisition of the Lawrence Mitty site, maximizing public use of Rancho Rinconada facilities, and pursuing a partnership to develop School District property to help meet neighborhood park needs. Other park land opportunities noted include: •Repurposing, renovating and replacing facilities to support more activities at parks •Considering park character in design and renovation to provide a mix of active and passive parks •Acquiring creek corridors for increased trail connectivity and restoration •Periodically assessing golf course use in the long term Recreation Facilities Community needs for a variety of recreation facilities drew many comments from interview participants. The facilities mentioned by the most stakeholders included a desire for a performing arts center, trails, and facilities to serve teens and a culturally diverse community. The following types of facilities were discussed in multiple interviews: •A variety of safe trails, paths and bike routes for recreation and trail connectivity •Performing and cultural arts center and theater •Large and small-group meeting space •Sports field development, renovation and enhancement (especially for soccer and cricket) •Year-round aquatics facility (indoor and outdoor) •Teen facilities, challenge elements and new models for teen centers •Diverse and inclusive play opportunities •Shade structures and shelters •Off-leash dog areas •Community gardens Recreation Programs and Events When discussing program needs and opportunities, interview participants identified a variety of demographics groups in need of better services, the types of programs and events needed, and overarching comments regarding the provision of recreation program services. Across interviews, many stakeholders noted that the City should do a better job of serving teens and providing programs that reflected the cultural diversity of the community. Specifically, Memorial Park improvements were noted frequently in the context of improving this site as a hub for indoor and outdoor events, activities and programs. Also, several stakeholders recognized a need to improve coordination with other providers to enhance what is being offered and avoid duplication in services. Several also expressed a need to “transition” what the City offers to reflect changing trends and needs. The following was mentioned across multiple interviews: •Programs for youth, teens, young adults, older adults, seniors, families, multi-generations •Educational opportunities to appeal to a unique community •Culturally sensitive and diverse programs; cultural enrichment •Teen empowerment and engagement •Health and wellness programs •Cultural and performing arts programs •Social activities and events in parks 100 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 3 Council/Community Leader Directions •Outdoor programs in parks •Sports practice, games and skill-building activities •Environmental education and nature programs (including community gardening) •Coordination with the City’s initiative to create an incubator space •Teen center(s) with a new location and new programming orientation, balancing needs for educational, recreational and social opportunities, challenge/skill-building/healthy activities, youth empowerment and involvement, engaging after-hours options, student-union or café-style spaces, parent supported activities, and possibly programming themes (e.g., incubator space, music/performing arts, entrepreneurship) •A focus on successful revenue generating activities (e.g., tennis, soccer, music, Math Olympiads), while supporting non-generating activities that benefit the community in other ways (e.g., volunteerism, community events) •Transition of current preschool program to more academic-based curriculum, full day program, and/or educational-focused classes •Maximized use of facilities through expanded programming and partnerships (Senior Center Rancho Rinconada, teen hubs in schools) Policies and Operations Many interview participants noted opportunities to improve operations by taking a fresh look at current policies, procedures and protocols. Several noted ways to increase operational efficiencies, cost recovery and customer service. These include addressing elements such as the following: •Park land standards •Limitations on facility access and use •Market pricing and fee philosophy •Sports field scheduling and use •School- park partnerships •Developer requirements •Water conservation, irrigation and drought-tolerant landscaping •Staff diversity •Department re-branding and core services •Flexible, accommodating, quality customer service Communications and Outreach Council members and community leaders agree that strong ongoing communication is needed for successful park and recreation services. That includes engaging residents in the master planning process and in department activities in the long term. Comments included desires for the following: •Collaborative contact with school districts •Updated and improved website •Portal for complaints and feedback •More direct engagement and prioritization: Ask what is best for Cupertino •More youth involvement and direct outreach •Parks and Recreation Commissioners as ambassadors •Coordination with all groups, including diverse cultures and those with concerns about growth/development issues •Varied outreach applications, ranging from lawn signs to splashy social media and marketing 101 4 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Council/Community Leader Directions Coordination with Other Resources and Providers There are a variety of other recreation providers, special interest groups and community leaders who may have an interest in the master plan process and/or department services. Several interview participants expressed optimism around potential partnerships or coordinated services between City and Cupertino Union School District (CUSD), Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), De Anza College, and performing arts groups. There also was a desire to improve coordination with the Santa Clara County Library District to step beyond “competing” with the free programs offered at the Cupertino Library. Stakeholders mentioned the following providers and/or resources: •School District and De Anza College (adult and community education classes, theaters, sports facilities, community gardens, teen centers) •Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District (pool and facilities) •Rotary Club •Magical Bridge Playground (grant funding) •Youth (Teen Commission, Scouts and students) •Cultural arts community •Cupertino Library •Caltrans •Surrounding cities Community Issues for the Master Plan to Address Interview participants identified several issues that affect needs for parks, recreation, open space and trails. Some of these are citywide issues, while others are more specific to the provision of parks and programs. •Traffic congestion, parking, mobility for cars, and pedestrian/ bicyclist (non-motorized) transportation and connectivity •Poor access to certain parks (via walking, biking, auto) •Limitations on park use (e.g., Blackberry Farm Park) •Unique diverse demographics •Community Hall use for Library and City programs •Memorial Park pond removal (water conservation needs) •Land costs, limited land availability •Park needs in east and north Cupertino •Land acquisition policies, strategies and goals (e.g., Lawrence Mitty parcel, Vallco renovation) •Greater investments in parks and facilities (new and existing) to improve functionality •Cost / funding needs for planned major renovations (e.g., Stevens Creek Corridor and Civic Center complex) •Staff decision-making process and policy enforcement (policy adherence vs. empowerment) •Need to ensure flexible use of facilities for benefit of most people •Customer service, communication and outreach Master Plan Support and Guidance Through their comments, all interview participants expressed an affinity for Cupertino parks and recreation and noted the importance of these places, programs and services to the community. All seemed connected to the success of this Master Plan and its implementation. Stakeholders also expressed many different opportunities and priorities. Several stakeholders acknowledged differences in 102 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 5 Council/Community Leader Directions priorities and recognized that recent debates over growth, development and improvements have divided the community. Several interview participants offered guidance and directions to ensure the success of the Master Plan. These comments are noted below. • Provide a strategic plan organized around community-supported goals • Identify how this Master Plan feeds into the City’s more-detailed implementation process, policies and procedures, but recognize those processes are separate from the guidance needed in the Master Plan • Incorporate the overarching direction of plans and decisions already made (e.g., General Plan, Bicycle Transportation Plan, Civic Center Master Plan) • Focus on the consensus-building support for parks and recreation • Identify prioritization criteria to emphasize projects that provide best use for the greatest number of people, as well as improvements in efficiency, function and quality • Identify financially-modest projects and program changes in addition to the more costly, large- scale projects that the community wants • Continue to engage Council members, community leaders, additional stakeholders, residents and youth in the process to build momentum for plan directions INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Below are the written questions participants received during the in-person interviews. Most discussions were self-directed by stakeholders, allowing them to share their perspectives, priorities and guidance. 1. What do people value most about parks and recreation in Cupertino? 2. How do parks, open space, trails, recreation programs and events help address critical community issues and needs? 3. Are improvements in parks, facilities or recreation services needed? If yes, what? 4. Are there any groups in need of more or better services? 5. What are the biggest opportunities for Cupertino parks and recreation in the future? 6. From your perspective, what should be the City’s top priority for managing and providing parks, open space, and recreation opportunities? 7. What do we need to know to gain community support for this plan? 8. What partners or stakeholders should be involved in working with the City to carry out Master Plan recommendations? 9. Is there anything else you would like to share? 103 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 1 VISION, MISSION AND GOALS (DRAFT) Since 2015, the City of Cupertino has collected comments from community members and stakeholders to shape the Parks & Recreation System Master Plan (Master Plan). Building on earlier outreach efforts, an online questionnaire was conducted between July 10 and August 9, 2017, to invite feedback on language and concepts related to the Master Plan vision and goals. This document presents the draft vision, mission, and goals that articulate the community’s desired outcomes for the Master Plan. It reflects the community insights from the online questionnaire as noted in Appendix A (questionnaire data tables), Appendix B (write-in responses) and Appendix C (questionnaire). This organizing framework will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council prior to incorporation in the Master Plan. VISION The vision reflects the City’s aspirations for parks and recreation. It paints a picture of the desired future the community wants to achieve. We aspire to provide excellent recreation facilities, activities and outdoor areas that connect community members in a sustainable, healthy and diverse community. This vision includes the following elements:  Excellent: our desire to be the best, to be an accredited, gold medal department that cultivates a high level of community satisfaction  Recreation facilities: a variety of inclusive, indoor, outdoor, year-round facilities  Activities: programs, events and drop-in recreation opportunities that provide experiences for all ages, interests and abilities  Outdoor areas: parks, trail corridors, open space and natural areas that support recreation, environmental education and stewardship  Connect: link and unite people through trails, social activities, volunteerism, community engagement and transportation opportunities  Community members: people who live and work in Cupertino  Sustainable: maintained in a green, environmentally-friendly way to support our future legacy  Healthy: the single largest social issue in our country, addressing health, fitness and wellness, along with the city’s financial health and economic vitality  Diverse: the unique character and culture of our city 104 2 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Vision, Mission and Goals (DRAFT) MISSION A mission statement describes the business or approach that staff will take in providing parks, recreation facilities, trails and open space. Two different options are noted: Option 1: The City of Cupertino:  PROMOTES parks and public spaces as integral elements of our City’s character;  RESTORES, preserves, and protects our creeks, meadows, trees and natural areas;  ENGAGES our diverse residents in healthy, inclusive events and activities; and  CREATES a livable, walkable and welcoming community. Option 2: The Recreation and Community Services Department provides, manages, and sustains a network of parks and natural areas, recreation facilities, and trails that host a variety of recreational, cultural, educational, and social experiences. MASTER PLAN GOALS Six Master Plan goals will guide park and recreation projects and help achieve General Plan goals for the Recreation and Community Services Department. Goals are the desired outcomes to be achieved by implementing the Parks & Recreation System Master Plan. Goals can be used to identify plan strategies, policies or recommendations to guide future decisions and ensure consistent long-term direction for service provision. To better understand Master Plan goals, each includes samples of the types of policy and strategy areas that could support them. Several samples are tied specifically to outreach themes identified in the first phase of the Master Plan process. MP1. Protect nature, trees and natural areas in parks and throughout the city to support wildlife, ecological functions and a stronger connection to Cupertino’s natural environment. a. Natural resource protection b. Nature experience and access c. Environmental stewardship d. Environmental education MP2. Create a walkable, bikeable and accessible city by providing an interconnected network of multiuse trails, walkways and bikeways, close-to-home parks, and community destinations. a. Trail opportunities b. Park and facility access c. Geographic distribution of new parks and facilities MP3. Reinvigorate and revitalize parks and recreation facilities and offerings to support broad and inclusive recreation interests. a. Recreation variety b. Extraordinary play 105 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 3 Vision, Mission and Goals (DRAFT) c. Facilities to support high use/most popular activities d. Park renovation / revitalization MP4. Support social gatherings, events, programs and activities for people of all ages, abilities, cultures, and interests. a. Social gathering and celebration b. Teen empowerment, youth development, senior programming, lifelong learning c. Multi-generational programming d. Cultural diversity e. Health and wellness f. Neighborhood cohesiveness and community enrichment MP5. Create high quality recreation experiences, places and services that are welcoming, safe, responsive, comfortable and reflective of Cupertino’s unique character. a. Parks and recreation hospitality b. ADA accessibility and universal access c. Safe parks and facilities d. Uniquely Cupertino (heritage, history, landscape, interests, culture, art) e. Customer service, branding, marketing f. Communication and community engagement MP6. Provide, manage and maintain parks, facilities, programs and services through stewardship, sustainability and the wise use of resources. a. Fiscal and financial responsibility b. Operations and maintenance efficiencies c. Resources and asset maintenance and stewardship d. Sustainable practices e. Leveraging resources f. Collaborating with partners/stakeholders/volunteers DEPARTMENT TAGLINE The Department’s current tagline is “Creating a positive, healthy & connected community.” The tagline and brand for Recreation and Community Services could be updated in the future. 106 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A- 1 APPENDIX A: VISION AND GOALS QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY This document summarizes the data from the online survey that the City of Cupertino administered as a part of the several outreach activities for its parks and recreation system master plan update. The online survey was focused on eliciting community feedback that would help define the Master Plan vision and goals. The survey was open for community input from July 10th to August 9th, 2017. A total of 1,206 respondents participated in the survey but may not have answered every question. Full results are presented as data tables and figures below. For all questions, the percentages are calculated based on the total number of respondents who viewed the question—whether or not an answer was selected. For a few questions, respondents could write-in additional comments if their responses were different from the default answer choices. A summary of the write-in responses can be found in Appendix B. Appendix C presents the questionnaire. OUTREACH EFFORTS The City staff used various social media platforms, printed publications, flyers, mailing lists and email notifications to publicize the survey link and prompt as many respondents as possible. Following is a summary of the outreach efforts undertaken for this survey:  July through final week: o Cover article in The Scene (July/August 2017 issue) mailed to more than 20,000 households in Cupertino. Copies of the publication were provided at the City Hall, Library, Quinlan and Senior Center. o Hard copies of the survey and postcards were made available at Quinlan and Senior Center. o Email notifications sent to the Senior Center notification list (over 1600 members) and people on the project notification list (over 230). o Survey link posted to the websites such as Next Door, Twitter, Facebook, City’s website home page and on McClellan Ranch Preserve Facebook page. o Flyers and postcards distributed at the Library, City Hall, BBF Golf Course, Sports Center, Senior Center and at the Summer Concert at Memorial Park (Killer Queens). o Lawn signs posted at all City parks, trails and recreation facilities. o Email blast to around 14,300 Recreation program participants. o Email notifications sent to City staff, Commissioners, and Council members (over 250) and over 100 Sports Center members. Notification regarding the survey included in the quarterly online newsletter issued to approx. 380 block leaders. 107 A-2 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables o Requested email notification distribution to Chamber of Commerce members and Rotarians. o Email notification sent to summer staff and part time staff, and block leaders. o Email notification and flyers distributed to 840 Citizen Corps and community members involved in safety and emergency response. o Hard copies provided at Teen Center and teens encouraged to participate. o Announced at Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. o Questionnaires and flyer provided at the Teen section of two local libraries. o Questionnaires distributed at summer camp families with youth. o Distributed surveys to teens and counselors at Leader-in-Training dinner. o Questionnaires, flyers and promotion provided at National Night Out event. o  Final Week of Survey: o Facebook promotion in the local region continued with final week reminder. o Email notification reminder to Rec program participants (over 14,750 subscribers). o Email notification reminder City staff, Commissioners, Council members, Sports Center members, block leaders, etc. o Last Week of Survey reminder posted to NextDoor, Twitter, City and McClellan Ranch Facebook pages 108 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-3 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary SURVEY RESULTS TABLE 1: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WORDS BEST DESCRIBE THE IDEAL FUTURE FOR CUPERTINO’S PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM? (CHOOSE YOUR TOP 4) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Safe 601 47.3% Friendly/welcoming 512 40.3% Bikeable/walkable 478 37.6% Natural 453 35.6% High quality 334 26.3% Healthy 310 24.4% Inclusive/diverse 298 23.4% Quiet/peaceful 296 23.3% Multi-generational 289 22.7% Playful 241 19.0% Accessible/equitable 168 13.2% Educational 149 11.7% Innovative 139 10.9% Unique/extraordinary 121 9.5% Interconnected 104 8.2% Exciting 72 5.7% Collaborative 37 2.9% 109 A-4 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables TABLE 2: HOW SHOULD NATURE BE INCORPORATED IN CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Improve or restore creeks, meadows, natural areas and wildlife habitat in existing parks 552 49.3% Plant trees and native plants across the community to create green space 432 38.6% Acquire more natural areas to protect wildlife and provide quiet areas for people to connect with nature 413 36.9% Provide places to interact with and explore plants, animals and their natural environment 251 22.4% Support environmental education and nature interpretation 168 15.0% Add bird-friendly or pollinator-friendly plantings and features in parks and city properties 155 13.9% None of the above / this is not important to me 30 2.7% Other (please describe): 33 3.0% TABLE 3: HOW SHOULD CUPERTINO SUPPORT A VARIETY OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Provide different types of recreation facilities, programs and activities for all ages, abilities, cultures and interests 584 52.2% Include varied types of active recreation (e.g., sports, fitness, biking) and passive recreation (e.g., relaxing, picnicking, playing board games) 513 45.8% Increase both indoor and outdoor recreation facilities and programs 308 27.5% Provide more traditional recreation options, such as sports fields and courts, picnic areas, and playground equipment 233 20.8% Introduce new, exciting, trendy or innovative opportunities 155 13.9% Support drop-in, unprogrammed activities 130 11.6% None of the above/this is not important to me 33 3.0% Other (please describe): 37 3.3% 110 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-5 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary TABLE 4: HOW SHOULD PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES REFLECT CUPERTINO’S UNIQUE CHARACTER AND IDENTITY? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Integrate local history, art, culture and natural resources in parks and facilities 503 45.0% Involve nearby neighbors in the planning, design and development of parks, recreation facilities and trails 247 22.1% Protect historic buildings and landscapes 407 36.4% Create more options for education and lifelong learning through parks and programs 279 24.9% Design parks with different color palettes, elements and themes so that each has a unique character 346 30.9% None of the above/this is not important to me 66 5.9% Other (please describe): 35 3.1% TABLE 5: HOW SHOULD CUPERTINO’S CULTURAL DIVERSITY INFLUENCE PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Identify and provide recreation facilities that support diverse cultural interests, such as tai chi space and cricket pitches 575 54.9% Provide more multicultural festivals, events and programs 450 43.0% Hire more staff who speak different languages and understand different cultures 126 12.0% Provide programs, information, signage and materials in different languages 109 10.4% None of the above/this is not important to me 213 20.3% Other (please describe): 65 6.2% 111 A-6 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables TABLE 6: HOW SHOULD RECREATION ACCESS BE ENHANCED IN CUPERTINO? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Ensure that parks and recreation facilities are easy to reach by foot and bicycle 403 38.5% Ensure that parks and facilities are accessible for people of varied physical ability according to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 289 27.6% Provide recreation facilities that are usable year- round and in all seasons 287 27.4% Invest in more park land distributed across the city 261 24.9% Focus on low cost or free activities and events in neighborhood parks 242 23.1% Strive to provide more parks and/or recreation opportunities in east Cupertino 143 13.7% Consider motorized transportation options to parks and recreation facilities such as shuttles, drop-off areas, improved parking, etc. 129 12.3% Provide support to seniors to get to parks and facilities 104 9.9% None of the above/this is not important to me 19 1.8% Other (please describe): 18 1.7% 112 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-7 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary TABLE 7: HOW SHOULD CUPERTINO IMPROVE TRAILS AND CONNECTIVITY? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Provide more on and off-street trails and bikeways to support walking and biking and to reduce traffic congestion 476 45.5% Connect the Stevens Creek Trail to County parks and open space areas 428 40.9% Provide loop trails and internal paths in parks 321 30.7% Provide more trails in creek corridors, rail corridors and off-street locations 298 28.5% Vary trail length, types and challenge levels to expand trail-related recreation options 253 24.2% None of the above/this is not important to me 56 5.4% Other (please describe): 27 2.6% TABLE 8: HOW SHOULD EXTRAORDINARY PLAY OPPORTUNITIES BE PROVIDED? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Encourage play for all age groups, including children, teens, adults and seniors 500 49.7% Provide universally accessible play areas for people all abilities 289 28.7% Stimulate the imagination by providing nature play, sand and water play, or interactive and adventure playgrounds with movable and loose parts 257 25.6% Provide unique destination play areas in community parks 196 19.5% Provide more water play features (splash pads/splash play areas) for play on hot days 193 19.2% Provide temporary “pop-up play” programs and amenities in different locations around the city 107 10.6% None of the above/this is not important to me 115 11.4% Other (please describe): 28 2.8% 113 A-8 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables TABLE 9: HOW COULD CUPERTINO SUPPORT THE ARTS IN PARKS AND RECREATION? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Increase visual, performing and fine art programs, events and festivals 466 46.3% Develop a cultural, fine and performing arts center with elements such as an indoor theater, kiln room, classrooms and program space for music, dance, and arts programs 448 44.5% Integrate public art and sculptures to create memorable places 310 30.8% Provide and enhance interpretive elements and monuments to tell a story about Cupertino and the surrounding region 184 18.3% None of the above/this is not important to me 121 12.0% Other (please describe): 30 3.0% TABLE 10: WHAT COULD YOUTH OR TEEN EMPOWERMENT LOOK LIKE IN CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Connect youth and teens to volunteer opportunities and internships 401 39.9% Consider a new café-style activity center for teens which could include maker/incubator spaces and other programming themes 274 27.2% Add more challenging and adventurous recreation facilities, such as zip lines, climbing spires and bike skills parks 249 24.8% Involve youth and teens in designing park spaces and planning events and programs 219 21.8% Support teen opportunities for skill building, college application assistance, employment training, trips and excursions 207 20.6% Provide more nighttime teen activities and social events 167 16.6% Improve and/ or relocate the Teen Center 84 8.4% None of the above/this is not important to me 93 9.2% 114 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-9 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary TABLE 11: HOW COULD CUPERTINO BETTER SUPPORT SPECIAL EVENTS AND GROUP GATHERINGS? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Provide small events in neighborhood parks, such as movies in the park, concerts and recreation activities that would appeal to nearby neighbors 502 51.6% Support outdoor health, wellness and fitness activities, such as races, walkathons, park boot camps, etc. 293 30.1% Increase community-wide events, fairs and festivals at Memorial Park and other community spaces 291 29.9% Provide reservable large group picnic shelters and/or pavilions in parks 274 28.2% Support temporary unique events, such as "pop- up" parklets or temporary street closures for special programs 160 16.4% None of the above/this is not important to me 69 7.1% Other (please describe): 22 2.3% 115 A-10 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables TABLE 12: WHAT COULD HELP CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION OFFER WELCOMING PLACES AND SERVICES? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Make parks more comfortable by providing or enhancing support amenities such as benches, shade structures, water fountains and bike racks 569 58.5% Provide restrooms in neighborhood parks 358 36.8% Provide small social spaces, seating areas and activity hubs in parks 202 20.8% Improve technology in parks and facilities (for example, provide WiFi in parks) 138 14.2% Provide more places to take my dog that are off - leash 134 13.8% Improve entryways to parks and recreation facilities to make them more attractive, accessible, and welcoming 98 10.1% Simplify the ability to report unsatisfactory park conditions or concerns using the web or a smartphone app 94 9.7% Improve customer service to make it easier to register, reserve and use parks, facilities and programs 64 6.6% None of the above/this is not important to me 31 3.2% Other (please describe): 28 2.9% 116 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-11 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary TABLE 13: HOW COULD PARTNERSHIPS BE SUPPORTED IN CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Work with schools, the Library and other community organizations to offer more and different programs and event 494 50.8% Expand volunteer opportunities for all ages 390 40.1% Identify and explore new opportunities to share existing public or private facilities 303 31.1% Identify partners to help build and operate new public facilities 285 29.3% None of the above/this is not important to me 91 9.4% Other (please describe): 14 1.4% FIGURE 1: FOR EACH OF THE GOAL AREAS BELOW, PLEASE TELL US HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO INCLUDE THESE IDEAS IN GOALS FOR CUPERTINO’S PARK AND RECREATION SYSTEM. 117 A-12 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables RECREATION INTERESTS AND PARTICIPATION TABLE 14: DO YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RECREATION AND LEISURE ACTIVITIES? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Nature Walks/Hikes 598 63.7% Walking for Pleasure or Fitness 597 63.6% Cultural Events/Performing Arts/Concerts 457 48.7% Bicycling (recreation) 431 45.9% Fairs and Festivals (attend) 426 45.4% Exercising/Aerobics/Weightlifting 408 43.5% Gardening 344 36.6% Swimming 341 36.3% Arts and Crafts 335 35.7% Picnicking 327 34.8% Playground (visit/play) 296 31.5% Volunteer Activities 296 31.5% Library Programs 286 30.5% Jogging/Running 272 29.0% Tours and Travel 254 27.1% Dog Walking/Dog Parks 252 26.8% Wildlife Watching (including bird watching) 251 26.7% Senior Center Activities 248 26.4% Yoga 231 24.6% Musical Instrument (play) 225 24.0% Instructional/Educational Classes 211 22.5% Summer Camps 198 21.1% Technology/Programming 197 21.0% Basketball 181 19.3% Bicycling (commute/transportation) 180 19.2% Environmental Education/Nature Study 177 18.9% 118 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-13 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Sports Events (attend) 158 16.8% Dancing 158 16.8% Tennis 155 16.5% Soccer 154 16.4% Golf/Driving Range 141 15.0% Badminton 121 12.9% Table Tennis/ Ping Pong 111 11.8% Cultural Events/Performing Arts/Concerts 102 10.9% Baseball 87 9.3% Tai Chi 85 9.1% Martial Arts 76 8.1% Volleyball 75 8.0% Preschool 73 7.8% Teen Center Activities (at library or city) 72 7.7% Skateboarding 52 5.5% Other 51 5.4% Softball 50 5.3% Football 47 5.0% Roller Hockey/Roller Skating 37 3.9% Disc Golf 34 3.6% Racquetball/Squash/Handball 30 3.2% Cricket 29 3.1% Pickleball 27 2.9% Footgolf 24 2.6% 119 A-14 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables FIGURE 2: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER? A total of 318 people responded to the open-ended question noted above. Comments received are presented in Appendix B in their entirety. Specifically, the need for more or improved access to parks, open and natural space and trails was emphasized by many respondents. Several respondents also suggested different ideas for play areas (e.g., water play, unique and iconic play areas, classic play structures, accessible play areas) and trails (e.g., jogging paths, loop trails, bike trails, guided hikes, eco- trails, interpretive trails). Many respondents requested more community events and activities that would bring the community together. The word cloud (below) is a pictorial representation of the words that were repeated most frequently in the written comments. 120 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-15 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF TABLE 15: PLEASE INDICATE YOUR GENDER? ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Male 334 35.7% Female 531 56.7% Transgender 0 0.0% Prefer not to answer 38 4.1% TABLE 16: WHAT IS YOUR AGE? (CHOOSE ONE) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Under 14 30 3.2% 14 – 17 63 6.7% 18 – 29 46 4.9% 30 – 39 77 8.2% 40 – 49 159 17.0% 50 – 64 255 27.2% 65 – 74 155 16.6% 75 + 83 8.9% Totals 936 100% TABLE 17: OF THE PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY RESIDE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD, INCLUDING YOURSELF, HOW MANY ARE: ANSWER COUNT Under the age of 18 425 Over the age of 50 649 121 A-16 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables FIGURE 3: WHERE DO YOU LIVE? Inset map (right) shows respondents from cities such as Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, San Jose have participated in the survey. These respondents may work or attend school in Cupertino. 122 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-17 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary TABLE 18: DO YOU LIVE, WORK OR ATTEND SCHOOL IN CUPERTINO? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)? ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Yes, I live here 701 75.9% Yes, I work here 214 23.2% Yes, I attend school here 187 20.2% I do not live, work or attend school in Cupertino 73 7.9% TABLE 19: WHAT ETHNIC GROUP DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A PART OF OR FEEL CLOSEST TO? (CHOOSE ONE) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE African American or Black 4 0.4% Asian - Cambodian 0 0.0% Asian - Chinese 139 15.2% Asian - Filipino 7 0.8% Asian - Indian 110 12.0% Asian - Japanese 22 2.4% Asian - Korean 9 1.0% Asian - Laotian 0 0.0% Asian - Thai 0 0.0% Asian - Vietnamese 7 0.8% Asian - Other 14 1.5% Caucasian or White 410 44.7% Latino or Hispanic 20 2.2% Pacific Islander 0 0.0% Two or more races 46 5.0% Other (please describe): 32 3.5% No answer 97 10.6% Totals 917 100% 123 A-18 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables TABLE 20: WHAT PRIMARY LANGUAGES ARE USED IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE English 820 89.4% Cantonese 38 4.1% Chinese 57 6.2% French 14 1.5% German 7 0.8% Hindi 38 4.1% Japanese 19 2.1% Korean 10 1.1% Mandarin 41 4.5% Spanish 24 2.6% Tagalog 2 0.2% Thai 2 0.2% Vietnamese 7 0.8% Prefer not to answer 22 2.4% Other (please describe): 138 15.1% 124 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-1 APPENDIX B: WRITE-IN RESPONSES The following includes all of the write-in responses for open-ended questions and questions that provided an “other” category to choose and explain. OTHER RESPONSES: HOW SHOULD NATURE BE INCORPORATED IN CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION?  Keep natural areas Natural  stop housing development and save space for nature, i.e. parks, trails, etc.  Places to meditate with flowers and shade  Outdoor sports access  Add/Improve parks in East Cupertino, to off-set the City Council 's urbanization of East Cupertino.  Bring back the water fountain in Memorial Park  MANY parklets!  Plant for sustainability and educate about sustainability  provide more places for dogs  Turn on the water at the Memorial Park!  Bring natural elements into all our neighborhood parks (nature play instead of play structures, distributed community gardens, more natural areas to play and congregate in)  more shade trees everywhere  Trees in parks  All of the above  access to creeks allowing people to get their toes wet  Keep it maintained  Parks not libel to be taken over for any other purpose  I see parks as places to explore  Work with Planning Commission to find development projects that showcase natural area s. For example, an opportunity was lost when Main Street buried Calabazas Creek.  keep trees that already support bird species  Add more parks and green space  I believe that McClellan Ranch and the trail meet the requirements for natural space. The parks n eed to be a place where people can go and meet and interact with their neighbors . It should have lots of trees, sitting areas, water fountains . I would like our parks to have free access. A few hours in the morning and evening for dogs to interact with other dogs and owners.  Just make them beautiful from afar and accommodating within.  Athletic fields  grass and trees, but NOT a park on a roof  rest rooms at every park 125 B-2 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses  Within a golf course!  all of the above, except last  leave as is  trails alongside creeks  Need a world class swimming pool. Please.  trees and flowers make people smile  take out poison oak OTHER RESPONSES: HOW SHOULD CUPERTINO SUPPORT A VARIETY OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES?  install turf field that all can come to play  Provide a par course with different levels of fitness exercises for different age groups to be used any time  Add parcourse, jogging path  please do not add more sports fields, especially not artificial turf!  parks in eastside  make sure you are providing open space in all parts of cupertino  Organize outdoor painting competition for children of different age groups. Here is what I have in mind: A day will be set for the painting completion. It will happen in one of the large park lawns. Children will come with colored pencils, crayons. Blank sheets of drawing paper would be provided to the participants at the entry. They are asked to sit anywhere in the designated lawn area. The suiting areas are assigned with their respective age groups or grade level. Ten minutes before the start of the competition, a coordinators of each age group section will hand out the subject for the painting. There are two choices for subjects. The participant chooses what he/ she likes. There is a three hour time given. At the end of the three hours, participants need to stop. A bell will sound. The participant must put their name, grade and school name at the back of the painting. The coordinators will collect their work. There will be three prizes... the paintings could be displayed in the city offices. It could be done in during fall when the weather is pleasant. There will be need of Cupertino city volunteers for this activity. It could be a once a year planned activity on a weekend in fall.  Increase number of sports center classes  safe walking trails  Nature interpreters/educators  examples of native and drought tolerant plantings  provide walking paths of dirt, not rocks or pavement. Less impact on joints.  No opinion  provide a walkway, running track along railroad like City of Saratoga  More open space and not so much large blogs planned that will block our city  museum for local artists, like the Triton Museum of Art in Santa Clara  Work on improving the management at the CRC and keeping excellent, long term instructors, improving pay and more timely pay increases.  Please build a world class swimming pool.  Build a rival to seven seas and magical bridges  provide "disconnected from world" (no gadgets) type reserved areas 126 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-3 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary OTHER RESPONSES: HOW SHOULD PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES REFLECT CUPERTINO'S UNIQUE CHARACTER AND IDENTITY?  integrate more natural areas, native plantings, protected wildlife habitat to demonstrate the community can co-exist with a thriving ecosystem  Less buildings, more parks in keeping with our orchard past  Add shades and tents so that kids don't get sunburned  Provide less density and provide more green space  most if not all our historical building are already gone and built over. We need more open space incorporated all over the city especially where you are over building  one park like Rose Garden  Innovative green spaces.  keep it maintained add character to parks and streets  Naturalistic water features are important! Find ways to include them without wasting water or attracting too many Canada Geese  Large grass fields  have taken most of our history for "progress" like Cali Mill what an eyesore  not many historic left, we built them out  Provide a pool, perhaps indoor, that's 85 degrees or more for seniors/others with arthritis and joint issues. Blackberry is too cold.  Quiet spaces  I don't know enough about local history to know whether incorporating it would be of interest/value.  Involve if new areas not existing  Need a world class swimming pool built. And or other sport activities center.  build world class indoor and outdoor swimming pools  Include some more tables etc. for meetings to be done outdoors, etc. OTHER RESPONSES: HOW SHOULD CUPERTINO'S CULTURAL DIVERSITY INFLUENCE PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES?  Foster culture-bridging activities. E.g., if the City provides a Tai-Chi space, work with Tai-Chi practitioners to introduce Tai-Chi to the broader community. If the City provides a cricket pitch, work with the cricket clubs to provide opportunities for non-cricket players to know the sport. Otherwise, the culture-specific facilities segregate the community.  Provide classes to understand different cultures and languages  Lit courts for basketball, volleyball where anyone can join in and participate  Bring back Octoberfest  promote English language  A place where everyone feels welcome  we are very inclusive  Please encourage citizens to speak our native language as there are already too many ways native speakers are EXCLUDED!  include white people also  Stay traditionally American.  feel cupertino in very inclusive with other cultures  All cultural festivals, not just Asian  Cultural diversity is important, but so are age diversity, sexual orientation diversity, physical diversity and cognitive diversity 127 B-4 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses  All people can enjoy nice parks.  I think we are very sensitive to diversity  I am against city enforced diversity. Leave it to people themselves.  we are pretty inclusive  make Memorial park better for public use & events by removing the water ponds & adding new features  Don't forget USA traditions  Human cultural diversity isn't the priority. Native healthy plantings with plant diversity aimed for the health of plants and the birds and other creatures who need the trees.  Inclusive to other cultures using the cultural interest spaces not take over an area because it was created with you in mind  create green space and all cultures will assimilate  No opinion  I strongly disagree in signs in other languages and in fact I find it a form of reverse racism and hostility towards American culture  should not influence it  Deaf services  Need to build a world class swimming pool and other activities center  Cupertino already has cultural programs  Bubble tea carts  We are pretty inclusive now  build an indoor and outdoor swimming pools OTHER RESPONSES: HOW SHOULD RECREATION ACCESS BE ENHANCED IN CUPERTINO?  Equitable playground  allocate hours for dog playing  Add water feature/sprayground to some parks (that already have ample parking)  There’s too much efffort put into parks in the wealthiest, privileged parts of Cupertino. Most of the council lives in Monta Vista, where the best parks are located. I haven’t been to Blackberry Farm in decades. I don’t feel that’s a park that serves all of Cupertino.  Improve reservations for city facilities (shorten notice, more available times)  provide clean/updated bathroom facilities in all parks  Go beyond ADA access to really understand how people of all abilities can access.  free parking  enough parking spots and free parking  Limit new buildings, create open green space  I have lived in Cupertino for over 40 years. I was born in Berkley. I pay taxes and support education and other city bonds. I did not go to school in Cupertino nor do I have children who used Cupertino schools. Equal access to means that I should be able to take my dog to my neighborhood (not a dog park fa r away) every day in the morning and then later in the late afternoon. It is only fair and equitable as I pay taxes and support the community but do not have the benefits of a very important use of neighborhood parks.  add turf fields  please focus on low-impact recreation  More shades around play structure  Add back cancelled sports center class, including TRX and strength training  Have plenty of parking  Enforce leash laws in parks so people aren't frightened to enter parks.  low cost usage for seniors especially 128 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-5 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary OTHER RESPONSES: HOW SHOULD CUPERTINO IMPROVE TRAILS AND CONNECTIVITY?  Bikes and walkers do not mix well. Keep separate  Please do not add more on-street bike paths. Instead, stop the City policy of increasing traffic. Bike paths will never decrease traffic. They only increase congestion.  Obtain "Parkside Trails"  no more pavement/asphalt please!  Keep the park clean!!!  create an alternate method to connect alternate routes to move around the city  Promote trails (add to website, flyers, gatherings)  Add shortcuts to Memorial walks/sidewalks  All the above! And please make every effort to separate bikers and walkers, for everyone's safety  separate walk ways from bike ways  Connect Stevens Creek Trail!!! Say no to the Nimbys!!!  See earlier discussion regarding off leash dogs during limited hours. Also dogs on leash should be allowed in trails.  Work with Planning Commission to ensure that growth doesn't fundamentally change the character of the city. Parks & Rec should not be the healer of the devastation caused by aggressive development, but a champion of a healthy, nature-connected community. Traffic in too many areas has already reached the point that biking is unsafe. Don't let further development drive frustrated motorists from arterial streets into neighborhoods and make biking even more dangerous.  please do not develop more trails in sensitive areas, such as creek corridors, but rather along streets and through urban areas  think about trails as tool for TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND DAILY TRIPS not just recreation  Respect neighbors rights to safety  Trail connectivity for people often means cutting off wildlife corridors and habitat. Connectivity of wildlife habitat should be just as important, if not more so, than connectivity for trails.  Work with SCVWD and UPRR to put bike path/trail along UPRR tracks, like done in Saratoga  cut the weeds on the trails  all these would have a negative impact on the Stevens Creek corridor  Let's not overload natural areas with trails - defeats the peace and quiet function of parks  Include easy short walks for visually vestibular impaired  How about all of the above? Connectivity creates opportunities for a wide range of use.  Complete Lawrence trail  Distance trails from creeks and ecologically sensitive areas  No trail to connect Stevens creek trail to county parks, wasting money and destroying the neighborhood  Make sure that all trails and walkways have plenty of benches and areas to rest for people with limited mobility. OTHER RESPONSES: HOW SHOULD EXTRAORDINARY PLAY OPPORTUNITIES BE PROVIDED?  allocate hours for dog playing  Setup and maintain a Cupertino parks YouTube channel to show accessible play in action of all ages at different sites. 129 B-6 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses  We need water back in the pound at Memorial Park, the drought is over... the park has lost its appeal. Use to be a calm place to go and picnic with the water. Now what? Cement????  I wish they had stretching and exercise equipment, like they have in fitness parks. Like a elliptical or waist exercising machine. These are not powered by electricity.  Sports activities (football, basketball)  Keep Golf  there is already adequate access to various community swimming pools and splash areas (Library and ortega park)  support otdoor fitness for adults/ think par course, gymnastics, calesthenics  provide outdoor rollerskating link  Adult Pool activities  Dogs  Promote Blackberry golf for all age groups  Provide opportunities to interact with the natural environment, especially riparian environments  add soccer turf fields  I think teens need more basketball hoops around to encourage them to hang in a safe park  not all parks need to have all of the same features  some parks need area for little ones. Not even an area at memorial for little tykes  All these suggestions would have a negative impact if done in the Stevens Creek corridor or McClellen Ranch.  Peace and natural beauty are important to me - not play.  NO on any Extraordinary Play things/events  Always have a quiet area to retreat  Mostly I'm interested in exercise walking  Create technology based, water play, bike hub, family plaza  I'm confused by what Extraordinary Play and "pop-up play) mean.  outdoor stationary game tables (City Hall plaza, Quinlan, Senior Center), oversized games/game pieces for checkout (Jenga, checkers,etc.)  Need to build a world class swimming  Provide Greenfields exercise equipment, perhaps Rotary would donate for a named area. Sr Center area.  Look toward magical bridges playground in PA. Love the proximity to library and design of playground. OTHER RESPONSES: HOW COULD CUPERTINO SUPPORT THE ARTS IN PARKS AND RECREATION?  offer paint/draw/sculpt in the parks events  ALL of these are important!  too many cultural events already at Memorial Park.  Use Flint Center for the whole community in performances  Include story, poetry, fiction in these concepts  Encourage Poet Laureate presentations in parks throughout the city  More events like concerts or theater in the park...  Art space for youths  Please focus on history of Cupertino!!  Build performing arts center  Have more than one Art and Wine Festival  Sponsor/create Jazz festival 130 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-7 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary  Cupertino seems to support more traditional art events. As a professional visual artist I feel my city could be more relevant to what is happening in the art world in the same way it is in the technological realm. I have many ideas along these lines, but don't know who/how to contribute to the city.  music jams  have kids (gr 5-12) concerts in parks  Merge art and functionality, unique benches/seating (Singapore has great examples), artistic fountains, playstructures  These are supported by De Anza and other organizations  Host shows of local artists. It happens on a limited scale at the library; why not on a larger scale at other public venues?  Have a city walk Art festival and invite artists from all over to buy a booth Like the Menlo Park one Its fun  Keep the summertime rock 'n' roll  Make sure use real art instead of so called "modern art" garbages.  Funds should be spent to expand and improve the existing Parks & Rec. programs, especially the 2yr old preschool programs that are now completely gone.  Music and performance in Memorial Park should be maintained/expanded. Opera in the park?  Keep at Memorial Park and leave it at that.  Not sure  art and craft fairs for everyone to participate not just professionals with professional set ups, e.g. city organized Holiday craft fair  a Museum  Interactive public art that can be manipulated, climbed, etc.  Make more use of Quinlan Community Center! It's under utilized.  continue professional events such as shakespear e in the park, live bands OTHER RESPONSES: WHAT COULD YOUTH OR TEEN EMPOWERMENT LOOK LIKE IN CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION?  Provide more leadership programs and opportunities for kids & teens  Teen Center location is great and accessible.  Build the skateboard park we were promised years ago  ask the teens  A parkour space would set Cupertino apart from other facilities that are available in other cities.  Build a skateboard park  We have never used the teen center and do not plan to. We think it is not diverse. But we h ave never been there, so we don’t know for sure.  Provide opportunities for teens to have fun and connect with each other without an electronic device  bike park similar to calabazas in San Jose, Skate park similar to Fair Oaks in Sunnyvale  Arrange outdoor discos or music events in parks  team sports  encourage private businesses to create teen facilities  I prefer to have adults included, and not have events that are exclusively for teens only.  had more challenging adventurous recreation facilities in different locations from standard Park, with the help of DeAnza college or in parts of the unincorporated Cupertino  I would like all of the above :)  not knowledgeable on this subject  Skateboard park  Whatever it is, provide some crumbs to the teens on the east side of the city. Consider negotiating services for teens at the eventual refurbishment of Vallco. 131 B-8 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses  move teen center to Library  Provide more nighttime teen activities & involve teens in designing & planning are tied for #2; connect teens to volunteer opportunities is #3  More physical activities  guest speakers  all the above  I would support for skill building, trips and excursions, but not college application and employment training. They don't belong to a park.  Please absolutely skip the named "adventurous" programs  No opinion (when my kids are older, I might be more informed about these options)  pass  Teen activities/hang out spot w/girl activities also  Build more sport center facilities to get teens active. Build a world class swimming OTHER RESPONSES: HOW COULD CUPERTINO BETTER SUPPORT SPECIAL EVENTS AND GROUP GATHERINGS?  Provide individual family spaces at Blackberry Farm  There is already plenty of venues available to groups. We are not interested in most of them. Most are focused on a single goup's ethnicity or religion. We go to other cities to participate in events and activities that are all-inclusive.  Provide reservable small group (12 - 20) picnic areas - so people can have smaller family gatherings and be assured of getting a table/space - fee required  create an area along Stevens Creek separate from the parks system, don't use Memorial Park for large groups. Make it easier for families to have parties at the park  Pop up outdoor yoga!  There are already too many events in Memorial Park - develop other parks, so that one park is not over- used  Multi use stage and open green  leave some of the common areas unreserved for spontaneous gatherings  community events at parks OTHER than Memorial Park!!!  Stay American  More reservable picnic facilities for small groups.  Support group gatherings by creating off-leash dog areas, as Mountain View (Cuesta Park) does  Gatherings on home character and decor like in some neighborhoods where everyone strives to make it look nicer and unique in a collaborative fashion.  There's no parking for Memorial park events  Provide classes for interest groups in parks like yoga, paintings etc  Neighborhood development, block parties, neighborhood watch training  Our parks do not have space for large events and parking is inadequate except for Linda Vista park.  collaborate w/ DeAnza college in using Flint Ctr for events  If anything do this at Memorial Park  I really do not go to "theme" events in Memorial Park  No opinion  Renovate, redesign and improve the current landscaping and facilities at Memorial park. Refill the pond, revive the grass fields. 132 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-9 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary OTHER RESPONSES: WHAT COULD HELP CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION OFFER WELCOMING PLACES AND SERVICES?  The dog park on Mary Avenue has not bathroom, no shade, loose dirt , drip lines above the soil. We had to beg for the one pic-nic table that is there. The design & function of this park was not thought through! Most Cupertino residents go to other dog parks out of Cupertino for this reason. You won't see anyone there after 10:00 am. It's to hot due to the lack of shade! We all need to take our K -9's home and give them a bath. The soil is a huge issue. We have a lot of resources to provided our Residents & their furry friends a better well thought out Dog Park!  More parking  Provide reservable space at Blackberry Farm for families/small groups  more parking  The grass doesn't need to be as green but I don't understand why bushes (that are surviving the drought without additional water) are being removed. Our neighborhood park is now less inviting and rather ugly.  Provide maps on the city website that are easy to locate on the city website or an app that shows all the parks and scheduled activities  Please, no added dogs off leash. Already there is rampant unlawful dogs of f leash in school yards and parks. There are attacks you don't hear about. Payoffs by dog owners to parents of bitten kids (see NextDoor) . There should be more lawsuits, if that's what it takes to keep dogs on leashes.  Provide lighting for overnight, keep park safe at night.  Make sure that dogs are on leashes where they are supposed to be. I have been attacked by off leash dogs several times in parks and in spite of my complaints, no solution has been found.  Teens should feel welcomed at all parks. They should not be viewed at "problematic".  Invite small vendors like food trucks  Ensure that facilities and policies are in place to maintain parks that are free of dog poop.  more shade trees  Dogs should be allowed in fewer parks and always with leash  More safe access routes to encourage walking, biking, fewer automobiles.  I would like to have my neighborhood park allow off leash times and areas for my dog. This improves the life of the dog by having social play. It, more importantly, improves the life of the dog owners by meeting people in the park. In our city most of us don’t even know our neighbors . this could solve this  Replace ponds at memorial park with shade trees, flowers, and plants  Open to helping school clubs with locations in the summer.  invest in upkeep  upscale landscaping  Large fields  Continue to require leashes for dogs!  Butterfly garden for every park  Increase park maintenance staff to keep our parks looking beautiful  Sufficient parking  Put in BBQ's for people to use  Build a world class swimming or other  Increase the park maintenance staff 133 B-10 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses OTHER RESPONSES: HOW COULD PARTNERSHIPS BE SUPPORTED IN CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION?  Get Apple to share spaceship grounds.  Plan a formal charity gala for local non-profit organizations with local business partnerships at the park  partner with youth sport organizations  make sure we have areas all over the city without so much density east of De Anza we have no large parks or gathering places like Memorial or Blackberry or McClellen  Work with appropriate other City departments to ensure that growth doesn't fundamentally change the character of the city. Parks & Rec should not be the healer of the devastation caused by aggressive development, but a champion of a healthy, nature-connected community.  Charge soccer or sport fees  Explore partnering with the county and Stevens Creek Park/Resevoir  identify partnerships with local environmental organizations  don't use developers bull to add open space that is not enough or in other parts of city all developers should have to add loads of open space in their projects  make sure developers have to actually build open areas for us not just buy into a program where we just put money back into existing parks there should be park space in every new development  Find partners for nature programming  No opinion  Rotary for example  Partnerships should not be developers OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER?  1. Keep things Natural 2. Improve on existing places 3. Add more variety and diversity in current programs 4. Involve more local community 5. More Youth and Volunteer Possibilities  1. Guided hikes in county park trails. 2. Connect county park trails to city parks. 3. Keep parks clean and safe.  Please build or reserve more park area in the east side of Cupertino. I'm not quite satisfied with the current limited green land in the east side of Cupertino.  We would love to extend the trail along Lawrence expressway and near Stevens Creek Blvd. than ks  Send new information, updates, reminders to the residents on social media platform as facebook.  I would like to see the City bring back the iconic Cali Brothers feed tower that once graced the crossroads of DeAnza Bl and Stevens Crk Bl. It served as a great city marker and was a place to display the lighted Christmas tree that people could view when crossing the intersection.  More Volunteering opportunities  You need to conserve more space/open land for community parks so residents have a place to go and meet neighbors. The parks need a bench, table, shaded areas, playground, open space for running, trails, etc. It doesn't need anything extraordinary. When it is welcoming, residents will start to use it more often, thus making it extraordinary.  I feel there are a lot of dog lovers in the community, for example the group that gathers at Jollyman Park regularly with 30+ dogs at times. This group of people, apparently, have been meeting there for years/ decades. There was only one opportunity in this survey to respond to options that include dog related opportunities (increase in off leash area). I feel this is a major oversight. We know how valuable pets can be to our mental, emotional, social, AND recreational lives. I would like to see options that incl ude pet washes, access to water play, agility apparatus, vaccine clinics, staff to support activities, etc. The public 134 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-11 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER? may benefit from information on dogs: how to approach them, etc, as some people have not been exposed to dogs- which can endanger both people and dogs. Thank you for offering this opportunity to provide input. I love this city and thank you for the work done by your, very important, department.  Focus on innovative, inclusive of age, abilities and cleaner spaces  "Many of the Cupertino trails lack shade and Vista points  Many city events lack adequate parking so my family no longer participates  Rec classes should be more friendly to people's work schedules  Memorial park recently looks a lot more depressing than I remember as a child since over 20 years ago. It would be best to find a sustainable and natural way to restore the park for use.  More basketball courts for teens would be nice"  Pocket Parks throughout the city to green our city and provide pleasant rest areas for walkers and bikers along corridors, and small visiting spots for neighbors in neighborhoods.  "Closed bike lanes. Shuttles to lottery schools to reduce traffic. Shuttles to schools."  Establish a friendly, welcoming and ready to assist culture for Cupertino's park and recreation system staffs. Continuous training (people interaction and technical skills) for all Cupertino's park and recreation system staffs.  "Please give most important to walking and biking trails, play structures, indoor recreational facilities, as they are the key solutions to maintain health and fitness of the cupertino residents.  Make residents of all ages as part of the maintenance of these public facilities. Send out flyers to each house of volunteering opportunities in those public facilities."  Add in rc racing  Accessibility to programs and events for all socioeconomic backgrounds and all ages.  Consider transforming the landscape of Memorial Park's water ponds to large foot/play areas for ball playing, small bikes, and/or water misting for children. Ponds are NOT needed. Seven Seas Park is a good example of a well designed park for all ages.  Provide some service for dog as well  Parks should be kept clean.  More pet friendly areas within our parks. Not so much as to have full run of the park, but so me place they can go and run and have fun also. Maybe some dog runs with tunnels to run through and things to jump on, place to play with other dogs. Pets are a part of the community also and right now we must go to other cities to have a place to enjoy the out of doors with our dogs.  Build into the ongoing budget enough money to maintain and improve a parks infrastructure. Parks need to balance the population density and be nurtured as a living, biodiverse environment.  This may or may not be within the City/Parks and Recreation purview, but making Flint Center more accessible and affordable, to a wide variety of LOCAL performing groups, as well as touring shows, etc., is really important to me. I think the residents of the city helped pay for that facili ty many years ago, and it is the finest performing arts facility between San Francisco and San Jose, or maybe even SF and Santa Barbara or LA. The management has made it difficult to schedule, and work with. I know of some important program which have had to move to other venues because Flint was so difficult.  Look at best practices and successful programs, events, and partnerships in other communities. Link healthy lifestyle to recreation decisions, programs and facilities. Cultivate corporate and non -profit partnerships and seek grant funding for special projects. Lots more outreach and better communication with residents (improve scope and detail of Scene -- for instance, basic things like listing upcoming events for more than just a month ahead so we can plan).  "I live off of Mary Avenue in Cupertino. Our Redwood trees were neglected during the drought. We need to have a watering system put into place in the event we have another drought. Not to loose our trees that have been a valuable part of our ecosystem. 135 B-12 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER?  The water structure needs to have water init. The drought is over, fix the pond equipment and fill our pound back up with water.  Residents would go to the park to have their meals, read, take in nature. It has lost its appeal!  We need to have the Dog Parks evaluated for bathrooms, appropriate watering systems, enough shade & seating for the residents.  More shaded areas for our furry friends to rest, and what about the loose dirt! This park was horribly planned out, I understand the  person responsible for the design doesn't even have a dog. Really?  I have lived in Cupertino my entire life, we need to embrace our History. This is why people wanted to move to Cupertino. We have lost a great deal of our original residents because of all the changes in our City! Please restore and embrace what this beautiful City once was. The drought gave everyone an excuse to neglect their yards, parks & trees is this what we want for Cupertino?  Let's have festivals that include all cultures and not specific for one. We need to remember where are roots are and preserve that vision. I'm tired of the events at Memorial Park embracing other cultures, can't we all blend together as Americans?  Thank you for providing us Music in the Park and Shakespeare. We need to embrace the pancake breakfast @ 4th of July, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Harvest Fest, tree lighting ceremonies. Take a look at what Los Altos, Mt. View (Cuesta) ,Saratoga Los Gatos & Campbell are doing for their residents in they're parks. What about an Art & Wine Festival? A pet parade?  Let's remember our roots, we should all be proud in live in Cupertino and not sale out to other pressures."  Joint efforts with neighboring cities  Need free shuttle for all ages for the city to senior center schools, libraries , teen center , sports centers , supermarkets, Kaiser , PAMF facilities, YMCA, Traget Santa Clara transportation hubs such as to Sunnyvale Cal trains, Mountain View Light rail and Cal Trans, Winchester light rail, etc.  Have all the picnic tables be under shade structures. That would increase the number of reservations for Birthday parties and gatherings. Usually only one or two have some shade, while the rest are in full sun. In gets too hot in the afternoon and not many people use t hem. They only get traffic in the evening. Also increase the number of picnic tables and BBQ pits.  N/A  I think that there should be more places that are set aside completely or almost completely for the wildlife, so that it does not become too used to humans and has an opportunity to hunt and feed off of its' natural food instead of human food and garbage. There should be more programs designed on teaching the public about the wildlife in and around the city and that they should not fear the natural predators like coyotes and mountain lions. The public should be turned to loving and caring for the animals and there should be more in-depth programs for younger people that are interested or concerned.  Good heavens, no! This is the most wide-ranging, oddly arranged questionnaire I've ever seen. I suspect most people will not complete this because it is written in ways that mix points of varying value and complexity in the same "question".  none  I think basketball court space is something I don't always see in the parks. Not all schools allow access for this anymore. Make sure trash receptacles are clearly marked like they are by the library. Keep offering your excellent variety of programs at reasonable costs- we really need it and appreciate it!  Include more unique playgrounds, (such as Magical bridges), gardens  "The Stevens Creek trail need to be on a faster track to completion...  Cupertino has the connecting hub through Sunnyvale and Los Altos which can be crucial for commuting to the Sunnyvale, Mtn. View and Palo Alto areas."  None 136 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-13 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER?  Preserve and enhance the natural character of Cupertino, the orchard city by the Stevens Creek. Preserving and enhancing the natural environment is more important than ever as the city's concrete jungle expands.  Make Cupertino Parks more suitable for the special needs community. Cupertino has a very large special needs community. Specifically students attending the special education program at CUSD. Building a all inclusive playground would be a great plus. A good example is the Magical Bridge playground at Palo Alto.  "An indoor swimming pool that offers classes for community youth and for seniors as it benefits elders to swim instead of jogging.  An outdoor turf field for multipurpose use (soccer, baseball, Track) with partnership with local youth only non-profit organizations."  As previously mentioned, a skateboard park was defunded several years ago before it could be built. That should be a priority.  "community input  parking  continue reservation system for picnic areas  nature education  restrooms, working water fountains"  Provide enough parking for parks and recreation spaces.... plan on residents from other cities coming to Cupertino for special events and programs. (For example, I certainly travel to Sunnyvale to spend time at their parks, especially the ones with spraygrounds/water features on hot days.) I feel like Cupertino doesn't have a "downtown" like Sunnyvale (Murphy St.) or Mountain View (Castro St.) that is full of restaurants, entertainment, and other businesses (aside from the Main St. Cupertino development.) The Oaks and Vallco should be re-developped into a thriving destinations for the citizens of Cupertino (and beyond).... places to hang out and spend time outside of the home.  Programming is at the heart of Cupertino. Our parks could be the epitome of technology in the Silicon Valley and world. Run Hackathons and tech events. Invite tech companies to run their camps so that city could earn some cash and use it to implement state-of-the-art technologies such as solar power, etc.  Involve in more sports (soccer, football, basketball)  Top concern is TRUE park for East Cupertino! Better yet, give that park a covered pavilion and plan programs for it. Plant it with native species that attract wildlife. Have trails and cozy shady areas for people to relax and enjoy nature. It needs to be much greater than the one small park that is on the very extreme East border of our city! And of course, a play area for small children with picnic tables and shady benches for caregivers to watch the kids at play. A park that is a destination for all Cupertino, more than just an afterthought for East Cupertino, please.  Security for the park itself and the visitors should be taken into consideration, especially in the evening when some individuals choose to hang out in the park either to party or in some cases vandalize. I think it would be beneficial to review the data and determine whether adding cameras is warranted. It's a touchy subject due to people who are concerned about their privacy, but I think it's a topic worth discussing, or at least planning the infrastructure requirements in case there is a need to add these capabilities in the future.  Promote Health (i.e. Par-course like the new one in Campbell next to downtown Campbell). It's not very expensive and emphasizes health  An All-Inclusive Playground like Magical Bridge of Palo Alto.  Peaceful environment  An indoor theater is an important place for people to gather and utilize. Great examples include Cubberly Community Center's well-used theater and the Campbell Community Center's well used theater. As a mid- size city with a very culturally diverse population, a small to mid-size theater for programs would be very welcome! 137 B-14 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER?  The biggest problem is the location of parks especially for teens and young children because most of them walk everywhere. If public transportation could improve and be promoted as safe and effective it would really really help. Additionally, regarding teen facilities, the advice of teens themselves would be the m ost effective. The teen center currently is unheard of and inaccessible for most teens.  I incorporate parks most days while walking my dogs. My favorite part is the coolness from the shade, the grass, plants, and trees as well as the calm break from a hectic day. Festivals are okay once in awhile, but the uniqueness of parks is the haven they present. Thank you for trash cans and the occasional doggie bag. Thank you to the gardeners who take good care of the plants. I'd like to see different kinds of p lants and more places to sit and enjoy the scenery.  Make a consideration for parking, bike access or walking since the likelihood of public transportation (i.e. busses) is non-existent in this town. It would be nice if my kids felt safe biking to various parks in town but they don't with the amount of traffic in Cupertino.  Gaining input from the neighborhoods where parks are located - I would love to see organized activities like group yoga, dog walking groups and dog training classes, tai-chi groups, etc. I love the summer activities at Memorial Park that bring the community together (concerts, movies, Shakespeare and of course the July 4th activities.  zero carbon footprint  please figure out a way to connect our portion of the Stevens Creek Trail with the other communities'  Get as many people as possible to participate in community -wide events  better play structures to support activity, for example, Fremont's Central Park playground is great. It has a theme, and the cool use of the large space encourages a ctivity.  Long-term planning for the transition from a suburban to an urban/suburban city. Multi-generational, interactive activities, especially volunteer activities for seniors to support teens and children and teens to support seniors  Cupertino is unique with Blackberry Farm Golf course. It is a short but challenging course. To remove the two par 4 holes would decrees the challenge and turn the course into a shorter less attractive venue.  Dogs off leash are a serious problem that is not being addressed . There is NO park in Cupertino without this serious problem. We need a very large open space dog park for dogs and we need to enforce the leash law in all of our other parks.  Focus less on the aesthetics and the trendy, but more on functional, practical and sustainable things.  "Restrooms in each park- Barnhart park doesn't have restrooms and very poor structure.  Trail along the Saratoga creek is poorly maintained, need to clean up and make it look nice."  Camera's in parks and for events that need more than publics' cell phone, I phone, etc for safety. Also where homeless are allowed to sleep in their cars!  "IT WOULD BE GREAT IF ALL NATIONALITIES COULD COME TOGETHER AND ENJOY EACH OTHER DOING ONE THING, INSTEAD OF SEPARATING EACH GROUP (CHINESE, INDIAN, ETC) THUS ELIMINATING ""JUST CHINESE"" OR JUST WHATEVER TO ACTIVITIES.  A WONDERFUL THING WOULD BE DIVERSITY AS ""ONE""."  Cost and sustainability over time - solar lighting, appropriate recycling and other trash disposal programs, use of grey water, funding to enable proper upkeep of whatever facility is put in place  Many long-time residents feel left out of community activities due to the emphasis on diversity. It seems like every event other than 4th of July emphasizes a foreign culture.  "East Cupertino is not a desirable place to live, for most people. Most residents are immigrants who moved here because they think the schools are good. A small number of residents only live here because they inherited a home and haven'[t the ability or ambition to move.  There is little nature in East Cupertino, and little sense of community. Its already overcrowded and the City Council's plan is to increase crowding specifically in East Cupertino. The residential streets are already lined 138 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-15 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER? solid with cars. And the 2nd housing units haven't yet been built in the backyards. And the urban ""villages"" haven’t yet been built. Its the most expensive place in the country, vs what you actually get for living here. Ratio of $Expense/Nature is worst I have seen in US. $Expense/Home S ize/Quality is worst in US. Please do not make it worse. At least not before I can get out."  Convert the existing waterway and pond areas, currently dry, at Memorial Park to create bike, scooter, skate and skateboard activities!  "Please fill water to memorial park, return to nature.  Please keep light stay on overnight, in all Cupertino parks, also increase police patrols in parks area, to keep it safe."  If Cupertino becomes too appealing with unique opportunities, it will attract outsiders which will creat e excess traffic and make the city services less accessible and desirable to its citizens for whom the programs were created.  Remember MAINTENANCE. It you can't/won't pay to maintain it WELL, don't do it at all.  Would love to have special events at local parks for the surrounding neighborhoods to have people get to meet each other (e.g., massive block party?). Cities that have places for people of all ages to explore the arts are very dynamic. Meeting for pottery, painting, planting, crafts, etc. Not necessarily the type of routine classes offered at the Quinlan Community Center. More benches for sitting in shady areas around the play areas would be helpful. Bathrooms in the smaller parks would be desirable, but only if there is an understanding with nearby residents about their hours of operation and routine maintenance.  I would say implementation of these goals without asking residents to completely change the character of their neighborhood (unless they want to actually do that).  Something has to be done with Vallco. It can't be allowed to sit there empty. Such a shame and waste of space.  Improve neighborhood parks and recreation centers so people don't have to fight traffic to get to Quinlan or Memorial Park or the Senior Center for classes. Offer classes for seniors through FUHSD ACE or the senior center at Monta Vista Recreation center so local residents can walk there instead of driving and adding to traffic in central Cupertino. Improve, update, modernize existing facilities in neighborhoods to make them attractive.  - URGENT: Facilitate a density credit transfer with owners of "Parkside Trails" and a downtown project in order to preserve, restore, and enjoy this area of great potential for open space. Don't be afraid of the cliff; a skilled & equipped crew can remove  More areas in the shade.  No. This survey was way too long. It will impact that response.  An upkeep maintenance program should be in place. Some paved walk paths are cracked and falling apart. They should be repaved and seal from time to time to avoid tripping.  Possibility of building a public swimming pool facility. Install basketball courts in more neighborhood parks such as Wilson Park.  Please stop removing all of the trees and paving everything! There are enough facilities with o ut turning the only semblances of nature that are left in this city into more plots of land designed to support cars and buildings.  "Cleaner bathrooms Creekside bathrooms smell always Does not matter time of day Bathrooms at other parks"  Don't waste money and keep environmental protection, please!  It would be really nice to create a park setting adjacent to the Main Street Cupertino Complex, where you can provide a hub for different activities, that include entertainment/concert/outdoor theater venue. Add some decent retail shops and walking/biking paths for easy access to the entire area. 139 B-16 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER?  Having an indoor facility for games, music, dance etc. Have a person (park employee?) responsible for facilitating activities, controlling/managing the environment, organizing, etc., during the weekend and, maybe, after school.  Continue to strengthen and enhance the natural environment within the city and it's parks.  "Make it unique. Cupertino is an extremely unique city. Have fruit trees that anyone can pick fruits to celebrate our orchard heritage. They can be apple trees, to celebrate Apple corporation too.  Explain the history via a scavenger hunt. i.e. Make a Cupertino City app, then have residents go to various places where they can have a phone-guided tour of the city and discover places. For example, they can find the Archery club in the Cupertino Foothills, or find a geotag spot where Fremont Older used to be (Creekside Park, the rock with the placard). Then the person can get points for finding locations."  I think there should be more places like the Teen Center.  Develop trail by UPRR rail to connect Saratoga's trail to Cupertino to Sunnyvale!  Focus on teen activities since there's a tradition in the area of kids doing too much school work, leading to isolation, stress, and even suicide. Discos, other events, skateparks, outdoor gyms  This is VERY IMPORTANT: Please DO NOT consider using neighborhood streets to connect the Stevens Creek Trail from Blackberry Farm/Stevens Creek Blvd. to the Sunnyvale side of 280. This would be extremely intrusive and lower the property values on those neighborhood streets.  Improve public transportation in addition to safer pedestrian & bike ways, advocating light rail on hwy 85, shuttle buses for festivals & parking enforcement in the neighborhoods during festivals, not just dumb signs that get knocked over and ignored.  Save Stocklmeir House from Rotary offices. Provide some real nature for the east side. Do not push Vallco's roof as a park ever again!  Improve multi-use paths within existing parks - widen paths as needed, clarifying when paths are multi-use and when they are pedestrian only.  I would love for there to be more safe and accessible places to bike and walk throughout the city.  None that I can think of, thanks for asking and also sending me this survey to fill out.  We need a community theater for plays, recitals, etc.  Safe Biking tracks in the park  Fine arts and performing arts center which is rentable year round.  I think the thing that most interests me is public space innovation. The small town of Delta, UT has a man- made circulating river for kids to play in. East of Memphis, TN in the middle of nowhere, there is a highly in innovate park area with huge rope nets to climb on, 75' diameter "pits" with slides and sand. Cuesta P ark in Sunnyvale has a fantastic play area with large quantities of sand. I don't see innovative use of space in most of Cupertino's parks.  Raising awareness of the native local plants & animals, how our daily choices impact them, and how we can do our part to conserve our open spaces for future generations to enjoy & appreciate. Walking trails and paths through parks with information boards is one example.  I'd like to propose that City of Cupertino partner with Blackberry Farm Golf course to offer Cupertin o residents to be eligible to play golf at the Blackberry Farm Golf course, located at 22100 Stevens Creek Blvd in Cupertino, as part of an agreement with the City of Cupertino. Each Cupertino resident will be entitled to golf six times per year. Cupertino residents can secure a tee time up to six days in advance by calling the club directly at 408.253.9200. Reservations can be made for 1 to 4 players. Only the player making the reservation needs to be a resident. Proof of residence is required. Walk-ins are welcome subject to availability, but reservations are recommended. City of Aliso Viejo, California offers similiar golf benefits to their Aliso Viejo residents. http://www.cityofalisoviejo.com/city-hall/departments/parks-recreation/aliso- viejo-resident-golf-opportunities/  Safe walkable trails from neighborhoods to parks. 140 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-17 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER?  sorry have no idea  Rebuilding the Oaks. It was nice when there was a bookstore, theater, food and coffee. It was a good neighbor meeting place. There was also music and dance! Main Street has over the top prices for family food and drinks. It's more of a yuppie environment.  "Davis, CA has terrific interconnected bike/walking/running trails. Some are designed to have under street access which is also very useful. Surely Apple would contribute to more community parks and healthy lifestyle for Cupertino.  The new ""Downtown"" was poorly designed for walking, relaxing, and natural. It is awful."  Relocate the teen space to the Vallco shopping center because the Bay Club is there and t hat is a very popular place for teens to go.  "Cupertino Parks should restore native habitats and work with the descendants of the Native American tribes from the region to respectfully educate current residents about the plants/animals/traditional practices.  Bike trail connectivity is very important. The Stevens Creek trail should be continuous! :)"  Make really fun toys like small water slides.  Something has to be done with the water area's at Memorial Park. If there will not be any water in those ponds, perhaps replace with grass, trees, Bocci Ball courts or cornhole. Something that the community can use. Please consider when attempting to make the area "culturally diverse", do not replace English with other languages, the idea is to incorporate and be inclusive not to make other culture's inclusive by taking away the culture that is already exists and has been there for hundreds of years. This practice is divisive!!!!  We like geese - but we don't like what the geese leave . . . we'd like to have Memorial Park 'lake' - but . . . we see the geese and the problems . . . tennis courts are desirable . . .  More high school improvements  The history of Cupertino should be reflected in our parks and recreation programs.  How about having a unique community center with library, meeting places, gym, pool, climbing wall?  "The themes for individual parks do not have to be homogenous. Each park should be examined to identify its particular character: natural attributes, topography, placement relative to the neighbori ng community, accessibility, public facilities, etc. Not every park need provide the same services to the public. certain parks may be flat and open and best to supporting outdoor sports. Other parks may have wooded areas where trails and paved walkways can provide individuals of different ability means to explore the natural environment. Other parks may be better suited to private/public events such as picnicking, gaming, social engagements, small outdoor theater, etc.  Variety between park themes better suit the varied interest and culture of the community. All parks share the need to be a safe place for individuals to engage in their legal pursuits.  Consider the concept of engaging volunteer staff who can serve as docents or stewards to the public an d direct continued maintenance of the park facilities."  Community garden  Parks should be walkable/bike-able, connected, and plentiful, particularly in east Cupertino. More dedicated walking/biking paths are needed to connect our city, and encourage residen ts to get out of their cars and enjoy their city on foot/bike.  More parking at the senior center, or/and shuttle service to the senior center. Some type of "natural" water feature in Memorial Park.  Make sure there is adequate parking. For example, the park ing at Rancho San Antonio is very limited causing unsafe spillover into the neighborhoods. The weekends are very dangerous for pedestrians because of all of the cars trying to find parking.  "Build a performing arts center  Get freeway traffic off city streets and prioritize bike boulevards increasing green spaces" 141 B-18 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER?  A key goal is increasing our citizens' interest in our parks. The more interesting the parks are to the local families, the greater interest the families will have in the park system; and this can become a virtuous cycle of increasing interest. The trick can be to start this cycle in the right direction, and leveraging existing interest in youth activities (sports, scouting, etc.) can be a powerful way of making a good start.  The master plan should identify a clear set of long-term goals in terms of facilities, services, and programs. Even if we can't afford to do all these things immediately, it's important that a clear list of priorities exist so that we can build community buy in to the plan and demonstrate progress. If the plan must change over time, that's OK, but it should be a public process that continues to review and reaffirm the City's priorities with regard to our parks, open space, and programs.  Cupertino attracts lots of families so please consider how to encourage the families to get outside to play together, and do things besides tutoring classes for the kids. The annual fireworks show is a wonderful tradition that allows families to do something together that I hope will continue. I would also like to see permanent improvements in the park infrastructure that will make the parks beautiful in a permanent way for a long term return on the investment.  Perhaps continue to build ways to bring diverse neighbors together. Maybe identify needs in community and ways for neighbors to pitch in and meet those needs, whether it's physical assistance, language learning, food delivery, company for isolated people, referral to available resources . . . building neighborhoods of connected people who understand and want to help each other.  doing something with the empty lake at memorial park/goose Pooh park. Consider making a bicycle park/skateboard park for the teens  Safety - Lot of homeless people take shelter in the park which is OK but it detracts regular visitors because they're often hassled. Also, late at night - you can see trouble makers in the park.  Sustainability. Our parks should not contribute to green house gas emissions and should encourage sustainable behavior.  Focus on infrastructure such as replacing main lines, drainage, electrical, and structures. Installing new points of connection for irrigation. The installation of new points of connection will have a direct impact on the visual appearance of the locations. It will create the opportunity to better utilize the water window we are allowed to use to water the sites.  Move more to the East Cupertino, wifi in parks, more activities for teens, indoor badminton for free/reduced price  Add obstacle courses around Memorial Park!  When a developer promises an "amenity" such as a town square or park because we're giving them an "amenity" such as additional office space or reneging on senior housing, make sure that what they promise is a true quality amenity, and what they deliver is exactly what they promised (main Street, e.g.).  Blackberry Farm Golf Course and The Blue Pheasant Restaurant need to be refurbished to keep BBFGC a destination golf outing experience for young golfers, as well as, more experienced golfers. The BP bar and restaurant should remain an "after golf experience", where golfers can congregate after their round of golf. Therefore, The BP should be open especially on Saturdays and Sundays, in order to accommodate golfers from the BBFGC.  no ideas on this  "Three areas that are very important to me:  1) Shade!!! Most of our parks are miserably hot and uninviting for a large part of the day.  2) Adequate on-site parking. This is an issue throughout Cupertino. Especially during events the impact on nearby neighborhoods is unacceptable. And the disabled often end up not attending at all because there is nowhere to park within the short distance they are able to walk. (Handicapped parking fills long before the event starts. There's seldom enough.)  3) As trails are developed, please be cognizant of the dangers that bicycles pose to pedestrians. Kids are allowed to ride on sidewalks throughout Cupertino, and that has been recently expanded to include those 142 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-19 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER? up to 12 yrs and adults accompanying them. Yikes! for pedestrians. I have narrowly escaped being knocked down by bikes on sidewalks several times recently. I don't want to pay to develop trails where I won't be safe walking."  Your survey covers the possibilities quite thoroughly. The rest of the Cupertino MasterPlan shoul d observe strict population density criteria. Recent building seems to have completely forgotten resident Population density concerns.  Thanks for making Cupertino a better place to live!  Keep costs down and use what is already there. Never underestimate the value of volunteers of all ages.  Diversity: Most recreational activities are universal. As long as activities are open to all, attempting to cater to every possible group might create small sets of activities. That may unintentionally exclude citizens from other walks of life or limit the availability of the most popular activities.  Thank you for the opportunity to be part of this project.  Provide and create more high tech family oriented interconnect park or trail where the people can hang out and play with more social festival events to attract people to come & join.  Each park, when possible, should have a safe, even, and accessible walking path with mileage markers. All parks should have an area designated for off leash dogs - away from playground equipment and "peaceful nature retreats." Every park should have specific designated trash and recycle bins. Not ones that have the same "body like can" and different color lids. These are important especially if it is a park that has youth events in them ie: baseball, soccer, etc...  It would be great to have the bike trail along Saratoga Creek continue on to the new Apple Spaceship on Tantau. Right now it is difficult to get across Stevens Creek by bicycle. We like to be able to not use our cars just getting around town  No  "Control of noise level around park area.  July 4th Fireworks.  Safety in the parks."  Cupertino is already doing well with many of the goals I identified, but more is better, of course.  Further promote what is already available.  Why are we not using the schools more as part of our recreation for non school times?  Facilities, like running tracks, should be available during all daylight hours every day and NOT closed during school hours! It is not acceptable that runners do not have a track to run on when there are so many tracks in Cupertino!  Really like the idea of bringing small adventures and events to the smaller neighborhood parks, inviting the neighbors in that area to participate, and bringing them together to meet and greet each other. Sounds like these types of "nuclear events" could help built relationships in neighborhoods.  More open spaces. Taller mixed use living, like Santana Row.  some type of communication phone. in case someone needs help for medical or a criminal observation s is seen and a person doesn’t have a smart phone. Like the phones they used to have on the highways to call for assistance.  This was an excellent survey, and seemed to cover most aspects. I would like more greenery all around, and more festivals, perhaps an animal farm, and events in our parks.  create dog park within a park concept  The public garden area in Blackberry farm that has plots that are open to the public for planting needs to be looked at. MANY of these areas are not being used by those who have been allot the plots. Someone from the city should review each plot and open them up to people who are on a wait list and can't get access to them because many people who have access are not even using them. Please review this and also open up new areas so more people who want to actively participate in using these areas can. Please!!!! 143 B-20 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER?  "We need more facilities for recreation (Youth/senior center for kids/senior to watch movies, shopping, playing sports indoor or outdoor, sunny day or raining day), we don't need more housing (apartments, hotel, townhouse, even senior housing).  We need to educate the ADULTS to bike on the bike lane, Cupertino City spend a lot of money create bike lane on Stevens Creeks, McClellan Road, but ""Biker"" still bike on the road."  Provide more park spaces  Gym with ample basketball space as well as a work out facility. A pool.  the main goal of our parks is to have a place where people will want to go to play and relax. There should be plenty of picnic areas in shady areas. make it possible to reserve tables for only half of the day so that more people can use them. 10 AM to 3 PM and 3 PM to 8 PM. Each park should have their own individual feel. I would love to see a water feature designed like the old portal Park. Water cannons, water fall and an imitation Creek going around the structure. Operating costs could be covered by inserting coins to run a feature for 5 minutes. fill the pond areas at Memorial Park,  Install irrigation systems to Street trees to let the tree grow quicker and ma ke Cupertino greener and more shaded areas  Mtn. View has done a great job interconnecting pathways/bikepaths. We have so many beautiful creekside paths, let's open them.  "Create a safe pedestrian walkway along Foothill Blvd./Stevens Canyon Rd. from Miramo nte Rd. to Stevens Creek county park.  Create a safe bicycle path along Foothill Blvd. from Homestead Rd. to Stevens Creek county park. and within Stevens Creek county park along Stevens Canyon Rd. to the city of Saratoga."  Let's make the Stevens Creek Trail happen!!!  Keep the parks clean and maintained. Many need basic lawn mowing, watering and weed pulling  Story time in a parks or acts in the parks for children (1-6)  I am a teen and I would love there to be more activities at the park for me and I would love there to be sitting area (like a hub) designed for teens!  Increasing the number and variety of fitness classes offered at the Sports Center. Improving the customer service and management of the CSC.  "Living in Cupertino is beautiful because of its nature and diversity.  I am very supportive in improving parks and put more trees/green into all Cupertino streets.  Comment because of some of the questions -> Please use English and value it's diversity culture. I am born in Italy, and have been living in Cupertino for 15+ years. I am really disappointed when I see signs or festivals in Chinese, and feel excluded - which I see happening more and more over the years. I wouldn't want to see using my born language since I know that it automatically excludes others, and kills diversity instead of helping."  Please consider creating a Full Time Ranger staff to help with outdoor events, community or volunteer activities, nature interpretation walks, public safety, outreach and to monitor maintenance needs.  A pool with a lap swim program would be great.  "Dog friendly areas that are better than what is available today - perhaps a dog play area at each park?  Please make sure that community golf courses remain and begin early / teenager programs"  I think the space between Blackberry Farm & McClellan Ranch - where there is some grass and open space - volleyball courts? - is under utilized and would be a good space for some sort of unleashed dog play area.  Cupertino needs to be like Saratoga- the city of trees! Make our city GREEN again!  Spread the word in a more efficient manner.  No.  Add some more parks 144 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-21 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER?  "We are an interesting and diverse community but we are also American. Sometimes so much emphasis on various cultures  seems divisive. We need to be inclusive and enjoy our diversity but also to be together in the spirit of being Americans. Many other languages are spoken and are on signage but I think English should be first and most prominent to bring us together. I see too much divisiveness. We ne ed to respect our English language as something to unify us. We need to find things in common to foster communication between cultures, ages and social class."  Quinlan & Memorial Park parking  To me it is important that our population density either decrease or stay the same. Adding more parks will help make that happen.  Yearly bus pass to seniors to get to parks cheap. Get a better gym for health like sunnyvale and santa clara.  A community theater is an important element in any remodel. Especially in Memor ial Park.  Please provide low-maintenance exercise machines in the parks.  More shady places for play areas in parks. When children play in the summer our areas are not shaded by trees or structures and have to endure the sun. Some trees have been torn down without replacement  More parks and trails for walking dogs please.  More bike trails along the creeks  Connect the trails and publicize  "Memorial Park does not have a Tot Play Area for little ones. With such a big park and one of our only large shaded parks. we need that. Also Monta Vista Rec Tot Area has NO SHADE  Some of our little parks have no bathroom and feel like they are not welcoming. Example: Hoover Park is nice, but no bathroom"  providing enough parking and toilets around parks etc, especially Rancho San Antonio, which has waaay too few parking spots.  "Adult fitness ""playgrounds"" would be great.  Better integration with the bike pathways would be amazing. Bicycle commutes would be so much more enjoyable and safer if they could cut through quiet and peaceful parks instead of along busy 6-lane roads."  Cost  "we are multi-cultural area, yet each culture seems to want to do their own thing --one event featuring their own culture  instead of combining all together. Why not have at least one event wher e Chinese, Japanese, Indian, German, Italian or any other  cultural group can feature their folklore, history, diversity. That's a community coming together to respect and learn from each other."  It would be nice for Memorial Park to have more trees and shady areas, places to sit, more quietude, and fewer events. This park is over-used - too many festivals, with attendant traffic and noise. It is an ideal location for an "urban forest" where people could enjoy nature and quiet places to relax, stroll, ha ve small group gatherings - it could be more like Serra Park in Sunnyvale, a respite and counterpoint to hectic lifestyles.  Design to minimize automobile traffic. Promote biking and walking.  The exercise classes at Cupertino Sr. Center should be on going t hroughout the year. At the present time there are breaks in the class schedules when no classes are held. Exercise is very important to the health of seniors. Thanks for your consideration.  Make our parks desirable--clean, accessible, walkable from the neighborhoods, appealing to all ages and cultures as a park. Don't try to be too many things. It's a park. 145 B-22 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER?  AS our urban density increases, we need to have areas for families to gather, maybe small areas. I know portal park is very active for people just coming for playtime for children and just gathering in the evenings before dark to visit. It's a small park but very useful for those who live in this area.  Maintain space for golf.  You have youth/teen empowerment.....but nothing about seniors. Services a nd accommodation for aging baby boomers needs to be a priority. 43% of residents are over the age of 50 and 37% of households have at least one person over the age of 65.  "Use of materials that do not overheat (as metal slides); cause no intentional harm  Swings for adults  Tai Chi in parks - with schedules posted (and other senior positive activities)"  no tot area in Memorial park for little ones. Preschool has a little yard, but not easy to get in and has minimal shade. I peeked in and only 3 or 4 kids have shade in sand area and sand area is way too small for a full class. Also Monta Vista Rec has a tot area with no shade at all.  Improve what we have to the best facility possible and plan to maintain it through times of water restrictions( don't turn off the water and let everything die) create a truly green space with native trees and shade (nobody wants to sit in the sun), and grass area. Consider artificial turf for high surface use like soccer fields, sand/ beach like areas for multi -use (beach volleyball or play area), boulders and benches, create a truly relaxing, green and calm Oasis ( I think Central Park New York), no new buildings, keep the green space green and plan for maintenance. It is sad to see what happened to Memorial Park  Please think about the future of Cupertino when you plan. The growing population and business have occupied more and more land and our usable public area is shrinking, the skyline is disappearing and air pollution and traffic are getting worse. We need a public and green areas for our recreation. No feed for trendy, human arts. Keep the parks green, natural, welcome places for natural animals.  Get Apple to invest in Cupertino since they are dominating the city.  Alternatives to hard paths, fake ponds and fake grass. City needs to figure out how to create dense development to maintain a maximum of open and green space. Work with planners and developers to build up in order to preserve as much living earth as possible. Our kids will need affordable places to live, not big single-family homes with private, rarely used yards. Create frog habitat, bird habitat, connected greenways, wildlife corridors, and open spaces for the community to share. Number one goal should be acquiring and preserving land. Worry about programs later. You don't have the option of putting land acquisition anywhere but as a top priority, cause it won't be around to acquire later. We will go insane without land.  Add as much open space as possible. Cupertino is becoming too crowded. Walking and hiking trails are important. Also need more swimming opportunities.  We like to have more trees, tree lines are beautiful and we needs more trees. We like the Cupertino City to have a plan in planting more trees, not to cut down trees. This may be out of subject, b ut we found that all business parking lots should grow trees to shade ourselves and to help our environment. We seem to fill up space with concrete.  Master Plan should not only include the imperatives invited by this questionnaire, but needs to show terrain and physical plant in illustration of any new improvements, innovations, changes and before that changes to the plan concerning illustration itself of virtual or document or regulation or other changes. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.  Free space/hiking. You cannot simply expand the parks.  Please consider parking. For instance, there seems to be no parking available for residents on DeAnza Flea Market Days or whenever there is a festival. Thus, residents must find somewhere else for daily walking. Also, shade trees in parking areas are a definite plus.  "Hiking/walking does not mean walking in the street because the sidewalks are unsafe.  Places for kids to skateboard does not mean transporting moveable ramps on a truck to different parks. 146 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-23 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER?  Not everyone wants dogs in parks. There needs to be a place for them away from me."  If Cupertino is serious about equal and equitable access to neighborhood parks, it is time of provide off leash at local parks for early morning and then later afternoon. A singular dog park not easily accessible is NOT acceptable. As noted in my previous comment, I am a senior, born in Berkley CA., who has lived in Cupertino for over 40 years and I am a homeowner. Dogs, and off leash, were always a part of my life. As I did not attend school in Cupertino nor have children who did. Therefore, benefits from related taxes and all my yes votes on bonds to support local communities have given me very limited park or school benefits. I supported ALL of the aforementioned bonds bonds because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!, even if I did not received direct benefit. A diverse community includes people with dogs and that has forever been true. It is long overdue that Cupertino City Council stand up and do the FAIR, EQUITABLE and RIGHT action and support their dog lovers. More damage to parks and nature is done by people than by dogs. People are also more dangerous than dogs will ever be. Cupertino needs to grow up and provide the same equitable and fair access for off-leash neighborhood park limited time hours as is currently done by many cities.  Minimum building of new infrastructures since existing ones are in excellent condition conservation of natural environmental resources. May need more volunteer efforts to work together. Communities are needed more for cooperation and meeting for new activities  No big fountains to attract geese.  The dog park is too small and too far away for most of us to walk to it. Why can't we have designated "dog hours" at regular parks when these parks are largely deserted?  "Vallco is an opportunity to provide recreational opportunities for east side neighbors.  Investigate opportunities for the City to partner with Vallco owners:  - Immediate opportunities for east side neighbors during Vallco's ""closure""  - Longer term opportunities that are included in plans for Vallco's refurbishment  - Let Vallco owners demonstrate that they are receptive partners for Cupertino officials and residents"  Try not to partner with private organizations. Keep joint ventures public. School, libraries, mid peninsula.  To be green and environment friendly.  Add artificial soccer turf for all year plays, don't worry about field closure due to wet rain. Like other cities, they have their own city parks that have turf fields. Let Cupertino be one that have it own.  I just came from a walk starting at McClellan Ranch Park, through Blackberry Farm and ending at Stevens Creek. I would like to see the trail continue but I don't know if that's possible. The buildings at McCl ellan Ranch have been beautifully built/restored. Blackberry Farm is a jewel. The trail past the golf course and through the orchard is lovely. Cupertino has a lot to be proud of. If the Master Plan can continue this good work it will be a success.  N/A  The use of school playgrounds and fields to help facilitate the variety of sports and walking paths/par course stations for stretching and movement.  Utilize De Anza capital more for community events  Diversity should include everyone including people of color recognizing that white is a color!  Investigate green ground cover that is not grass but could be played on. I know water is at a premium but all the brown grass is depressing.  Keep dogs on leash, and provide off leash dog "parks".  The fact that Cupertino is an extremely congested area should be a priority consideration. Do not necessitate increased use of automobiles. Roads are clogged and parking is a nightmare!  Do not reduce size of any parks in Cupertino  A community swimming pool! On the east side of Cupertino. Or at Memorial Park. There are not enough places for people to swim or wade during our increasingly hot summers. Cupertino has only the one at 147 B-24 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER? Blackberry Farm, and the access becomes more difficult as the connecting streets are burdened with more traffic.  The Blackberry Farm Golf Course is a unique recreation facility. Some proposals have recommended elimination due to lack of use, use primarily by older people, and amount of acreage committed. I feel the uniqueness outweighs these factors and thought should be put into improving usability.  Create a new park space in East Cupertino, such as creating the Lawrence Mitty park.  Encourage setting neighborhood variety of play groups for different age groups: Tai chi, Frisbee, Vollyball, ... so that nearby residents who share similar interests can easily find companions.  "Please consider how expensive it will be to change things around at all the different parks in the city.  Also, please consider not ripping out existing trees and habitats, but l etting these spaces remain. They are already established homes for wildlife."  Jogging paths would be nice. Also building trails alongside creeks would be good.  natural and native habitat, protected areas without access  "Park planning should take into account the context of each park. Successful parks and squares can draw from a diverse source of visitors nearby at all times. For example, Cupertino has many multigenerational immigrant households, and a successful park will likely have to be a welcoming pla ce for elderly visitors, esp those who do not speak English. Jollyman Park seems to be busy all day, with grandparents hanging out in the park or taking their grandkids.  Also, look for better ways to integrate visitors from shopping centers. Make it easy to, say, buy boba or a meal and then walk to the park to enjoy it. Think about better advertising connections between commerc ial districts and nearby parks.  Failed parks become dead places that people prefer to avoid. at worst they attract crime. This happens when planners plunk down parks for the sake of having created X acres of parkland within Y distance rather than paying attention to neighborhood context and what neigh bors need. Cali Mill Plaza on Stevens Creek/De Anza seems to attract fewer visitors than Jollyman Park even though it's right next to condos, offices, shops, and the library. When I went there, it just felt too empty and wide open, plus it is surrounded by high speed traffic. Needs more shade too for summer. Best enjoyed through a photograph or an architectural drawing."  No  Add more parks. Distribute festivals more evenly so the Memorial Park neighborhood isn't as heavily impacted by noise, parking issues, etc.  "Preserve and maintain natural areas - reduce cemented/ non permeable landscapes-THINK LONG TERM- WILL THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THIS AREA BE AROUND FOR YOUR GRANDCHILDREN TO APPRECIATE AND ENJOY??  have plans the help reduce pollution and traffic that is destroying our environment"  Cupertino needs a stronger identity (apart from its excellent schools and high tech reputation) that can shine through the county, state, and, yes, the country and the world. It needs to shed its image as just a bedroom community!  Preserve Blackberry Farm Golf Course  "Keep all the parks and build more.  Provide more facilities in parks which have more use (basketball in jollyman park, for instance. Needs another court)  No more structures, please.  Keep green stuff, green."  I have two toddlers and I like to take them to different Cupertino parks to play during the weekends, especially in the summer. However, most of the play structures don't have shades and during the summer time when the temperatures are in its high 80s and 90s, it is simply too hot to play. I think it is crucial for 148 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-25 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER? the city to come up with plans to create more shades / adding tents to cover the play structures so that kids can still enjoy playing outside during hot weather. Water play is another great idea t hat should be taking into considerations. Thanks in advance for listening to us, we Cupertino residents are proud that you are coming with great plans for all our parks.  Minimize building and facilities development.  Tying arts, local history and nature together.  Bathrooms at EVERY park. And community events at parks other than Memorial Park.  dont let current parks fall to the wayside  make sure there is lots of shade in parks  The city has done a horrible job on growth!!! Way too urban and not enough green sp ace or ability for safe biking. Something needs to be done now to protect the environment before it is too late!!! All the city cares about is adding Moreno housing but not making this a city in harmony with green space!!!  Respect private property and educate about the agricultural culture that led to Santa Clara Valley being known as " The Valley of Hearts Delight" and how this was overwhelmed and replaced with concrete, asphalt and steel to create "Silicon Valley".  Improve neighborhood planning, information, and street access for the Fourth of July fireworks event.  Eliminate race and cultural distinctions. Focus on America not foreign countries.  Look for ways to integrate parks with Cupertino's Bicycling Transportation Plan.  "Keep looking for opportunities to add park land on east side of Cupertino. Encourage Apple to make part of their so-called ""Apple Park"" campus available as pubic park space.  Preserve and enhance nature/habitat values in all parks, especially the Stevens Creek Corridor."  More parking at the Senior Center. Assisted access to and from parking.  "keep East Side in mind  create more parks in other parts of Cupertino  all of our city deserves open space as much as McClellan and Blackberry and Memorial"  make sure there is shade and plenty of open space. some of our parks have kid areas without shade like monta vista rec tot play area. tot area in memorial park  Please consider allowing off leash dog areas in the parks. Mountain View does this in Eagle and C uesta parks. Practically speaking, this already happens in different corners of the parks. It is a great social activity for both the dog owners and the dogs. We appreciate and take care of the parks!  Try to hold events to build a sense of greater community and caring for the character of the city, much like how is done in other communities, with particular attention to upkeep of properties, etc. This would add substantial value to Cupertino which is sometimes viewed as having only "school value". Show h ow everyone can get together and encourage better upkeep, uniqueness, curb appeal, etc so that the entire community can benefit.  We need an amphitheater to provide live music like Saratoga has Small and not big Just an awesome draw for local businesses Put it into Vallco in the back  The parks along the Stevens Creek corridor - McClellan Ranch, Blackberry Farm, Stocklmeir Orchard, and Linda Vista - include semi-natural areas which provide Cupertino residents with places to walk among the soaring sycamores, view hawks grabbing a squirrel snack, and delight in butterflies sipping nectar from wildflowers. It is worrying that these special parks are lumped in with other city parks in a planning process which focuses on various forms of development. These parks provide the community with a needed respite from their activity-packed, work/school-oriented lives. If we try to crowd too many man-made facilities and organized activities into these parks, we will end up destroying much of their value.  Get rid of all the empty concrete water features which take up space and are a hazard. Install baby changing facilities in all restrooms. Update and expand playground facilities. More shaded trails. 149 B-26 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER?  Reach out to the community when getting enrollment for programs and projects especially for programs that are offered elsewhere and might have a waiting list (i.e. the Cupertino YMCA). If a program is at -risk for cancellation, do all you can to accommodate those who have shown interest in signing up before cancelling the program entirely. In addition, publicize that a program may not happen due to low enrollment to garner interest. Work with other nearby organizations to better serve the community.  Ensure adequate outdoor lighting around picnic areas.  I think MeClellan Ranch and the trail is superb. It is beautiful and a wonder. I live by Jollyman and in the summer evenings it is a vibrant and busy park. There are families on the play structures. People walking the circular path. Groups of rugby and soccer players by the baseball field. In the mornings it is also very busy. It is a great park, everything a park should be. It could use some more trees and some benches, the grass could be in better shape but overall I am happy with the park. Do we need some parks with other things such as cricket, etc? Yes, but don’t' screw up the parks that are well used and enjoyed. Just make them better  Improve receptiveness to customer complaints at the sports center, solicit input from sports center members, and incorporate member suggestions.  Parks should be easily accessible and must be safe for children to walk or bike. Parks should be a go to place where children can leave technology behind and have physical playtime with neighboring kids. It should be a common meeting and hangout place for neighbors. For this parks should be safely accessible and have classes like yoga or any common exercise class and some common forum where neighbors can exchange some skills like paintings, holiday time crafts etc.  More turf fields for pickup soccer!  more indoor recreation spaces on the east side  More camps during school year that can partner with school clubs - ex: theater class with high school alums (? illegible), etc.  "My experience is predominately with Creekside Park which I use for exercise and socializing 3 times a week. I have gone to Memorial park on occasion but found parking difficult and the feeling of it being ""in the city"" rather than Creekside which is more bounded. Overall, I find Creekside extraordinary.  P.S. My father and sister are City Managers so I know what I am talking about. Keep up the good work and good luck with your plan."  "Make it unique to each subdivision. For example:  Linda Vista Park - make it look more exclusive and better lit. Plant more trees and cleanup the picnic area a little. There is a large hill area that is currently blocked off that could be opened up and be used as almost an observatory hill with some better gardening. Maintain the pond area and keep it running now that the drought is over or rebuild that area.  McClellan Ranch / BB Farm - make the McClellan Ranch and Stevens Creek entrances more appealing with maintained gardening. Trim back all the weeds. Also try to contro l the odor a bit at the Ranch.  Memorial Park - Fill the water and include more than grass.  Varian Park - focus on upkeep. There could be a lot of nice roses and trees planted and maintained in the perimeter"  There is simply not enough parks. The parks are jam packed during weekends. We need more parks and open spaces. Cupertino is turning into a noisy, traffic congested, poorly planned city rather than the old quiet peaceful suburb it used to be.  There should be adequate parking at all parks.  Designing a great park is all about achieving unique look and feel followed by regular ongoing maintenance. Shoot for a look and feel of something peaceful and timeless like in Palo Alto or Willow Glen. Have a park that is well lit in the nighttime, tree lined, etc. Finally, once you build something great invest in some basic maintenance. This is the Achilles heel of anything new in Cupertino. It doesn't stay maintained. For example, the Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch was very unique when remodeled in 2009. But then 2 150 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-27 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER? years later all the bushes and plants that were planted were allowed to die and its now a jungle of dead bushes and weeds. Buy a lawn mower and weed whacker. Water the lawn once in a while. Get rid of the "funky feel." You know what I'm talking about (a beautiful park 75% and then the remaining 25% became a junkyard) or something completely out of place.  Keep the McClellan Ranch as a Preserve and expand it whenever that opportunity arises. Having a natural preserve in Cupertino is very important as is keeping it as natural as possible. It is unique and should not ever be developed in the same way as a city park. Restoring the land west of the creek and fully incorporating it into the rest of the preserve needs to be put near the top of the priority list. It has been near the bottom of the list for about 20 years! There is nothing in this questionnaire that even seems to address the needs or goals for this Nature Preserve which I thought was part of the Parks and Rec department.  "Just have clean and well maintained parks with large multiple use fields.  Most of the ideas in the survey sounded like nonsense."  Please fill in the pond at memorial park. And replace with usable space. It could be for games and it would make festivals so much better.  be mindful of enough shade and trees for each park. Some parks have lost thei r trees with no replacement trees. Other parks have no shade in play areas. Need access for little ones to have play areas, as well.  I strongly believe that protecting the native landscape and wildlife should be a goal of the master plan.  Improve Wifi  Get attractions other than food and Apple.  Invludedpevial needs children in your programs  lots of shade. trees were taken away and not replaced. there are areas to play with no shade at all  Protect our remaining natural areas and the wildlife that life in them. It is unique to Cupertino and the Santa Clara county area. It is Cupertino's treasure and we need to care for it.  "Better use of Blackberry Farm pool - adult encouragement, aqua classes, lap swimming  Don't forget that we are in the USA and other cultures, while fun to visit, should not supersede our long time traditions."  When you talk about special events it should be all inclusive. How about St. Patrick Day? And have a cultural eleison there to explain the Customs the history and just give out gen eral information if people have questions  "Put the priority on providing:  healthy, well-maintained trees and native plants  an environment that is wild-life friendly  promoting the value of native plantings/healthy trees for human and other species. Create environments that promote quality of life."  No.  Please keep in mind the concept of 'over development' - please keep any changes simple so that each park retains some sort of main objective rather than trying to do too many things in each place. If one or two parks can carry the load (offering the many things the survey asks about) then make it Memorial Park and perhaps another one in 'east' Cupertino. Central, easy to get to.  Green space and light are going away as local communities are building higher d ensity and much taller structures. Communities (not just Cupertino) should put a MUCH higher priority to PLAN FOR UNIMPACTED areas for public to enjoy, without having to go too far from their residential home.  We need more county run indoor water parks and water based play areas. Too much focus on pushing the kids into activity. Where is the fun?  "1. Focus some resources for neighborhood connecting special events, pop-up family fun aimed at young (and extended families) 151 B-28 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER?  2. Continue planning golf course renovation in a way that does not eliminate par 4 holes and incorporate adjacent city land into plan, reducing size of family putting areas for families (shown in 2016 concept)."  Partner with nearby or park's neighborhood companies to provide funding or contribution for the park improvement  Keep the golf course!  Have an indoor basketball court/improve existing courts/expand courts  Everything is well.  Let us play on our devices.  Provide more afterschool cares/classes.  Resolve the situation with the ponds in Memorial Park. (Recycled water, replace with new features, ???)  really try to improve social opportunities for the seniors at the Cupertino Senior Center, since we seniors are the ones that need social interactions the most. Th anks.  Adding lights to outdoor pickleball courts so that pickleball can be played in the evening outdoors. There are currently NO lighted outdoor courts where pickleball can be played in the evening. Please add more space where pickleball can be played indoors too. Please make some changes to the Cupertino Sports Center!! Kids camps are occupying the indoor gym so that there is absolutely no opportunities to play pickleball indoors for the whole summer which does not seem fair. Please make these considerations for I am not the only one that has these concerns. Thank you.  Make it more pet friendly in general! Lots of pets in the community  Our elderly and limited mobility residents do not always feel comfortable in our parks due to lack of benches, poor access, loose dogs, and careless bike riders. The parks can be their only access to outdoor activities and their needs must be considered.  Improve maintenance in the Stevens Creek Trail general area  "more creek and other habitat restoration  more nature and wildlife interpretation programs for adults and children"  Do not take on future liability when adding creeks to the system.  Don't put any more structures, such as restrooms in neighborhood parks.  Cupertino should expand its park network. I Personally find memorial park to be depressing in uninviting. Considering the amount of money that the city of Cupertino generates in property taxes it really is doing a poor job of providing parks to its citizens. I'm glad you're doing a survey for the lawn the next 20 years but realistically you need to improve this immediately in the next three years. Factoring in the amount of money the city has the park system is horrible compared to other parts of the country  The Cupertino Sports Center is an excellent facility for residents. An outdoor facility for people to walk/jog/bike 3-5 miles outdoors like the Saratoga trail along the railroad track would help and encourage residents to walk/run safely.  Better service to the public, people who work for parks & rec, should be train to understand the different cultures and age groups that are part of our city.  No  Safe parks  Interconnected trails suitable for biking to work, parks or retail outlets. Current creekside trail by Bollinger/Lawrence dead ends without connection.  No.  save city money  "- Safety of the park, we may add security camera to prevent the crime.- tranquility for the resident living close to the park"  Please add walking trails to Hoover Park.  Keep BlackBerry Farm golf course!! 152 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-29 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary DO YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RECREATION AND LEISURE ACTIVITIES? BELOW ARE RESPONSES TO “OTHER (PLEASE DESCRIBE):”  4-H group and nature center at Mcllean ranch  Beach volleyball  Water arobics  social networking, face-to-face  Reading, scrapbooking, flying  off road biking  Shooting sports  Iceskating  Hiking  Boy Scouts  Parkour  kayaking  Reading/visiting museums/Segway tours  Advocacy  Hooping  Bocce ball  History walks along Stevens Creek Corridor  Water Fitness  field hockey  genealogy  Bowling  fencing  Writing classes; Poet Laureate  family gatherings/child parties  lacrosse  Bocce Ball  artist open studios  Pilates  Food related activities  Photography  Family dinner  Footgolf is available on the west side of the city? Too far for me (east side resident)  gymnastics  Feldenkrais  Birding  Shooting sports / Trap  Block events  Farmer's market  My family now is just my husband and I , but when we had children living with us , someone did just about everything mentioned above.  My children participated in various activities long ago. I am now at a point where I'd like to enjoy some of the activities myself, perhaps on a weekday after work.  I don't live in Cupertino 153 B-30 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses  Golf  Bocci ball  Gymnastics  Farmers Market  gymnastics  gymnastic  areas for little ones to play too  none at this time  Cupertino's Dog Park is a sad joke - my dot doesn't like it nor do I.  rockets WHAT ETHNIC GROUP DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A PART OF OR FEEL CLOSEST TO? BELOW ARE RESPONSES TO “OTHER (PLEASE DESCRIBE):”  Taiwanese  Human being - American  Mixed race : hispanic / Caucasian  Turkish  AMERICAN  Asian Pakistani  American Chinese  Asian - Mix  Caucasian and Hispanic  EQUAL TO ALL  Hispanic and Asian  Irish German  Middle eastern  Taiwanese  Asian and Caucasian  Caucasian and Native American (Asian)  European white  American  Italian  European Islander  middle eastern  American  Taiwanese  Celtic  European  American  U.S. Citizen  Why are you asking racist questions?  Persian  Taiwanese 154 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | B-31 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary WHAT PRIMARY LANGUAGES ARE USED IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? BELOW ARE RESPONSES TO “OTHER (PLEASE DESCRIBE):”  Tamil  Taiwanese  Kannada, Sanskrit.  Tamil  Marathi  romanian  Turkish  Telugu  Telegu  farsi  Marathi  Russian  Greek  Tamil  Greek  Gujarati  Sinhala  gujarati  Bengali  Kannada  Konkani  Russian  Russian  Marathi  Hebrew  Kannada  Hebrew  Marathi  Swedish Danish  Punjabi  Arabic  Russian  Taiwanese  Telugu  hebrew  Tolugo  Portuguese  Portuguese  Marathi  Bengali  Greek  Italian  Dutch  Farsi  Punjabi 155 B-32 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses  Tamil  Russian, Armenian  European  Marathi  Turkish  Italian  Telugu  Malayalam  Tamil -  Tamil  Telugu  Malayalam  Indian Language  Kannada  Russian  Tamil  Swiss German/French  Russian  Hungarian  Ethiopian  Mandarin and Cantonese are Chinese, why is there another category CHINESE, what does that mean? Should be another category of OTHER CHINESE 156 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | C-1 APPENDIX C: VISION AND GOALS QUESTIONNAIRE Dear residents, In 2016, the City of Cupertino conducted several outreach activities for its Parks and Recreation System Master Plan. The community’s comments helped us identify the ideas and directions that will shape our future parks, recreation, open space and trails. We need your help again! Please complete this survey to help us define our Master Plan vison and goals. It takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. If you need the questions translated in another language, please call (408) 777- 3120. Your insights will help us enhance parks and recreation for all of Cupertino! Jeff Milkes, Director Recreation and Community Services Department There are 24 questions in this survey. Paper copies can be  turned in at the Cupertino Senior Center or Quinlan Community Center  mailed to: Quinlan Community Center 10185 North Stelling Road Cupertino, CA 95014 157 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | C-2 Vision and Goals Questionnaire VISION LANGUAGE Q1. Which of the following words best describe the ideal future for Cupertino’s parks and recreation system? (Choose your top 4)  Inclusive/diverse  Playful  Healthy  Interconnected  Safe  High quality  Bikeable/walkable  Exciting  Unique/extraordinary  Friendly/welcoming  Innovative  Natural  Educational  Accessible/equitable  Multi-generational  Collaborative  Quiet/peaceful GOAL AREAS Master Plan goals will provide directions for long-range change. Through community feedback, we defined 12 categories or interest areas to focus on for developing goals. Please answer the questions below to help us understand what is important about each of these goal areas. For each of the questions below, select the 2 answer choices that most closely describe your ideal. The goal areas are noted in italics in each question. 158 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | C-3 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Q2. How should Nature be incorporated in Cupertino parks and recreation? (Select up to 2)  Improve or restore creeks, meadows, natural areas and wildlife habitat in existing parks  Acquire more natural areas to protect wildlife and provide quiet areas for people to connect with nature  Provide places to interact with and explore plants, animals and their natural environment  Support environmental education and nature interpretation  Plant trees and native plants across the community to create green space  Add bird-friendly or pollinator-friendly plantings and features in parks and city properties  None of the above / this is not important to me  Other (please describe): Q4. How should Cupertino support a Variety of Recreational Opportunities? (Select up to 2)  Provide different types of recreation facilities, programs and activities for all ages, abilities, cultures and interests  Introduce new, exciting, trendy or innovative opportunities  Increase both indoor and outdoor recreation facilities and programs  Include varied types of active recreation (e.g., sports, fitness, biking) and passive recreation (e.g., relaxing, picnicking, playing board games)  Support drop-in, unprogrammed activities  Provide more traditional recreation options, such as sports fields and courts, picnic areas, and playground equipment  None of the above/this is not important to me  Other (please describe): Q5. How should parks and recreation facilities reflect Cupertino’s Unique Character and Identity? (Select up to 2)  Integrate local history, art, culture and natural resources in parks and facilities  Design parks with different color palettes, elements and themes so that each has a unique character  Involve nearby neighbors in the planning, design and development of parks, recreation facilities and trails  Create more options for education and lifelong learning through parks and programs  Protect historic buildings and landscapes  None of the above/this is not important to me  Other (please describe): 159 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | C-4 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Q6. How should Cupertino’s Cultural Diversity influence parks and recreation services? (Select up to 2)  Identify and provide recreation facilities that support diverse cultural interests, such as tai chi space and cricket pitches  Provide more multicultural festivals, events and programs  Provide programs, information, signage and materials in different languages  Hire more staff who speak different languages and understand different cultures  None of the above/this is not important to me  Other (please describe): Q7. How should Recreation Access be enhanced in Cupertino? (Select up to 2)  Ensure that parks and facilities are accessible for people of varied physical ability according to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)  Ensure that parks and recreation facilities are easy to reach by foot and bicycle  Consider motorized transportation options to parks and recreation facilities such as shuttles, drop- off areas, improved parking, etc.  Strive to provide more parks and/or recreation opportunities in east Cupertino  Provide recreation facilities that are usable year-round and in all seasons  Focus on low cost or free activities and events in neighborhood parks  Provide support to seniors to get to parks and facilities  Invest in more park land distributed across the city  None of the above/this is not important to me  Other (please describe): Q8. How should Cupertino improve Trails and Connectivity? (Select up to 2)  Provide loop trails and internal paths in parks  Provide more on and off-street trails and bikeways to support walking and biking and to reduce traffic congestion  Connect the Stevens Creek Trail to County parks and open space areas  Provide more trails in creek corridors, rail corridors and off-street locations  Vary trail length, types and challenge levels to expand trail-related recreation options  None of the above/this is not important to me  Other (please describe): 160 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | C-5 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Q9. How should Extraordinary Play opportunities be provided? (Select up to 2)  Provide universally accessible play areas for people all abilities  Encourage play for all age groups, including children, teens, adults and seniors  Stimulate the imagination by providing nature play, sand and water play, or interactive and adventure playgrounds with movable and loose parts  Provide unique destination play areas in community parks  Provide more water play features (splash pads/splash play areas) for play on hot days  Provide temporary “pop-up play” programs and amenities in different locations around the city  None of the above/this is not important to me  Other (please describe): Q10. How could Cupertino support The Arts in parks and recreation? (Select up to 2)  Increase visual, performing and fine art programs, events and festivals  Integrate public art and sculptures to create memorable places  Develop a cultural, fine and performing arts center with elements such as an indoor theater, kiln room, classrooms and program space for music, dance, and arts programs  Provide and enhance interpretive elements and monuments to tell a story about Cupertino and the surrounding region  None of the above/this is not important to me  Other (please describe): Q11. What could Youth or Teen Empowerment look like in Cupertino parks and recreation? (Select up to 2)  Improve and/ or relocate the Teen Center  Consider a new café-style activity center for teens which could include maker/incubator spaces and other programming themes  Add more challenging and adventurous recreation facilities, such as zip lines, climbing spires and bike skills parks  Provide more nighttime teen activities and social events  Involve youth and teens in designing park spaces and planning events and programs  Connect youth and teens to volunteer opportunities and internships  Support teen opportunities for skill building, college application assistance, employment training, trips and excursions  None of the above/this is not important to me  Other (please describe): 161 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | C-6 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Q12. How could Cupertino better support Special Events and Group Gatherings? (Select up to 2)  Provide reservable large group picnic shelters and/or pavilions in parks  Increase community-wide events, fairs and festivals at Memorial Park and other community spaces  Provide small events in neighborhood parks, such as movies in the park, concerts and recreation activities that would appeal to nearby neighbors  Support temporary unique events, such as "pop-up" parklets or temporary street closures for special programs  Support outdoor health, wellness/fitness activities, such as races, walkathons, park boot camps, etc.  None of the above/this is not important to me  Other (please describe): Q13. What could help Cupertino parks and recreation offer Welcoming Places and Services? (Select up to 2)  Improve entryways to parks and recreation facilities to make them more attractive, accessible, and welcoming  Make parks more comfortable by providing or enhancing support amenities such as benches, shade structures, water fountains and bike racks  Provide restrooms in neighborhood parks  Provide small social spaces, seating areas and activity hubs in parks  Improve customer service to make it easier to register, reserve and use parks, facilities and programs  Simplify the ability to report unsatisfactory park conditions or concerns using the web or a smartphone app  Improve technology in parks and facilities (for example, provide WiFi in parks)  Provide more places to take my dog that are off-leash  None of the above/this is not important to me  Other (please describe): Q14. How could Partnerships be supported in Cupertino parks and recreation? (Select up to 2)  Work with schools, the Library and other community organizations to offer more and different programs and event  Identify and explore new opportunities to share existing public or private facilities  Identify partners to help build and operate new public facilities  Expand volunteer opportunities for all ages  None of the above/this is not important to me  Other (please describe): 162 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | C-7 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Q15. For each of the goal areas below, please tell us how important it is to include these ideas in goals for Cupertino’s park and recreation system. Please choose the appropriate response for each item: Very important Somewhat Important Neutral Somewhat unimportant Not at all important Nature Variety of recreational opportunities Cupertino’s unique character/identity Cultural diversity Trails and connections Recreation access Extraordinary play opportunities The arts Youth/teen empowerment Special events and group gatherings Welcoming places and services Partnerships Q16. Are there any other goals or important ideas should the Master Plan consider? Please write your answer here: 163 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | C-8 Vision and Goals Questionnaire RECREATION INTERESTS AND PARTICIPATION Q17. Do you or members of your household participate in any of the following recreation and leisure activities? Select all that apply.  Arts and Crafts  Badminton  Baseball  Basketball  Bicycling (recreation)  Bicycling (commute/active transportation)  Cultural Events/Performing Arts/Concerts (attend)  Cultural Events/Performing Arts/Concerts (participate)  Cricket  Dancing  Disc Golf  Dog Walking/Dog Parks  Environmental Education/Nature Study or Appreciation/4-H  Exercising/Aerobics/Weightlifting  Fairs and Festivals (attend)  Football  Footgolf  Gardening  Golf/Driving Range  Racquetball/Squash/Handball  Technology/Programming  Instructional/Educational Classes  Jogging/Running  Library Programs  Martial Arts  Musical Instrument (play)  Nature Walks/Hikes  Picnicking  Pickleball  Playground (visit/play)  Preschool  Roller Hockey/Roller Skating  Senior Center Activities  Skateboarding  Soccer  Softball  Sports Events (attend)  Swimming  Table Tennis/ Ping Pong  Tai Chi  Teen Center Activities (at library or city)  Tennis  Tours and Travel  Summer Camps  Volleyball  Volunteer Activities  Walking for Pleasure or Fitness  Wildlife Watching (including bird watching)  Yoga  Other (please describe): TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF Q18. Please indicate your gender.  Male  Female  Transgender  Prefer not to answer 164 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | C-9 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Q19. What is your age? Please choose only one of the following:  Under 14  14 – 17  18 – 29  30 – 39  40 – 49  50 – 64  65 – 74  75 + Q20. Of the people who currently reside in your household, including yourself, how many are: Answer Under the age of 18 (enter number): Over the age of 50 (enter number): Q21. Where do you live? Please circle a number on the map to indicate where you live within Cupertino. The map below defines different areas in Cupertino based on intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd with Foothill Blvd., Highway 85, and De Anza Blvd. If you live outside Cupertino, please write the name of the city below. Name of City: 165 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | C-10 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Q22. Do you live, work or attend school in Cupertino? (Select all that apply)  Yes, I live here.  Yes, I work here.  Yes, I attend school here.  I do not live, work or attend school in Cupertino. Q23. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Choose one.  African American or Black  Asian - Cambodian  Asian - Chinese  Asian - Filipino  Asian - Indian  Asian - Japanese  Asian - Korean  Asian - Laotian  Asian - Thai  Asian - Vietnamese  Asian - Other  Caucasian or White  Latino or Hispanic  Pacific Islander  Two or more races  Other (please describe): Q24. What primary languages are used in your household? (Select all that apply)  English  Cantonese  Chinese  French  German  Hindi  Japanese  Korean  Mandarin  Spanish  Tagalog  Thai  Vietnamese  Prefer not to answer  Other (please describe): Thank you very much for participating in this survey! Please encourage your friends, neighbors and other community members to take this survey by sharing the survey link with them or by telling people to visit the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan webpage (www.cupertino.org/parksmp) Survey link: bit.ly/cupertinoparksvision 166 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2964 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:8/28/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Presentation from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council9/19/2017 1 Subject: Presentation from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Receive the presentation from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™167 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-2056 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:10/4/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Approve the September 5 City Council minutes Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Minutes Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council9/19/2017 1 Subject: Approve the September 5 City Council minutes Approve the September 5 City Council minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™168 1 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2017 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING At 5:15 p.m. Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan called the Special City Council meeting to order in the City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue. Present: Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Darcy Paul, and Councilmembers Barry Chang, Steven Scharf, and Rod Sinks. Council went into closed session and reconvened in open session at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue for the Regular Meeting. CLOSED SESSION 1. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Name of case: City of Saratoga; City of Cupertino; Town of Los Gatos v. California Department of Transportation, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 115CV281214 Mayor Vaidhyanathan announced that Council gave direction to staff. 2. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 – one potential case Mayor Vaidhyanathan announced that Council gave direction to staff. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROLL CALL At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan called the Regular City Council meeting to order in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue and led the Pledge of Allegiance. 169 City Council Minutes September 5, 2017 2 Present: Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Darcy Paul, and Councilmembers Barry Chang, Steven Scharf, and Rod Sinks. CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Subject: Proclamation designating September as Prostate Cancer Awareness month Recommended Action: Present Proclamation designating September as Prostate Cancer Awareness month Mayor Vaidhyanathan read an excerpt from the proclamation and noted that the proclamation would be mailed to Walt D'Ardenne since he was unable to attend the meeting. 2. Subject: Presentation from Monta Vista High S chool AP science teacher Kavita Gupta regarding her recent participation in the National Geographic Grosvenor Teaching Fellowship program in the Galapagos Recommended Action: Receive presentation Kavita Gupta gave a presentation. Council received the presentation from Monta Vista High School AP science teacher Kavita Gupta regarding her recent participation in the National Geographic Grosvenor Teaching Fellowship program in the Galapagos. 3. Subject: Presentation from Monta Vista High School AP science teachers Kavita Gupta and Emily Fitzgerald regarding a proximity sensor for people with disabilities Recommended Action: Receive presentation from Monta Vista High School AP science teachers Kavita Gupta and Emily Fitzgerald regarding a proximity sensor for people with disabilities Kavita Gupta, Emily Fitzgerald, and some of their students gave a presentation. Council received the presentation from Monta Vista High School AP science teachers Kavita Gupta and Emily Fitzgerald regarding a proximity sensor for people with disabilities. Council concurred to write a letter in support of a grant application for the students on behalf of the Mayor. 170 City Council Minutes September 5, 2017 3 POSTPONEMENTS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR Sinks moved and Paul seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Scharf and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. 4. Subject: Approve the August 15 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the August 15 City Council minutes 5. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending June 30, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-082 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending June 30, 2017 6. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending July 7, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-083 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending July 7, 2017 7. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending July 14, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-084 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending July 14, 2017 8. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending July 21, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-085 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending July 21, 2017 9. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending July 28, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-086 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending July 28, 2017 10. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending August 4, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-087 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 4, 2017 11. Subject: Resolution amending City’s Records Retention Schedule and authorizing the destruction of records 171 City Council Minutes September 5, 2017 4 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-088 rescinding Resolution No. 13-094 adopting an amended Records Retention Schedule for the City of Cupertino and authorizing the destruction of records 12. Subject: Amend 2017-18 Adopted Budget to specify streets to be maintained using the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account created by Senate Bill 1 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-089 amending the City’s adopted budget for fiscal year 2017-18 to incorporate a list of projects planned to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues 13. Subject: City's Agreed Upon Procedures with Outside Auditors for Gann Limit and Investments Recommended Action: Authorize City Manager to sign on behalf of the City Council the Agreed Upon Procedures with Outside Auditors for Gann Limit and Investments 14. Subject: Update to Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter Ending June 2017 approved by Council on August 1, 2017 Recommended Action: Accept the updated report SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 15. Subject: General Plan and Zoning Amendment to make minor corrections to the Land Use and Zoning maps. Application No(s): GPA-2017-01, Z-2017-01; Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide Recommended Action: 1. Find that the project is exempt from CEQA; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 17-090 “Amending The General Plan Land Use Map As Shown in Exhibit A”; and 3. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 17-2166 “Amendments To The Zoning Map To Correct Inconsistencies Between The City Of Cupertino’s Records And Certain Map Designations As Shown in Exhibit A” Written communications for this item included a staff presentation. Senior Planner Catarina Kidd reviewed the staff report. Sinks moved and Chang seconded to find that the project is exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution No. 17-090 amending the General Plan Land Use Map as shown in Exhibit A. The motion carried unanimously. 172 City Council Minutes September 5, 2017 5 City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance. Sinks moved and Chang seconded to read Ordinance No. 17-2166 by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Scharf, and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS - None REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 16. Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments City Manager David Brandt acknowledged Citizen Corps Coordinator Ken Ericksen who organized cooling stations at Quinlan Community Center and the Senior Center. Both centers were open throughout the weekend due to the heat. Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. ADJOURNMENT At 8:00 p.m., Mayor Vaidhyanathan adjourned the meeting in memory of artist and community leader Ann Woo. ________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk 173 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2952 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:8/22/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Contract amendments for professional building department and public inspection services for Apple Campus 2 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Third Amendment to Agreement 14-028 – 4LEAF, Inc. for Apple Campus 2 B - Draft Second Amendment to Agreement 15-146 – 4LEAF, Inc. for Apple Campus 2 C - Budget Journal Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council9/19/2017 1 Subject: Contract amendments for professional building department and public inspection services for Apple Campus 2 Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to: a. Execute the Third Amendment to Agreement 14-028 with 4LEAF, Inc. for Apple Campus 2 Phase 1 building inspection services and public works inspection services to increase the previously authorized contract amount by $1,829,890 for a total amount not to exceed $16,956,368; and b. Execute the Second Amendment to Agreement 15-146 with 4LEAF, Inc. for Apple Campus 2 Phase 2 building inspection services to increase the previously authorized contract amount by $524,068 for a total amount not to exceed $1,438,855 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute contract amendments to the extent that the costs are recovered from the project applicant 3. Approve the budget allocations necessary to execute the contract amendments CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™174 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3228 • FAX: (408) 777-3333 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: September 5, 2017 Subject Contract amendments for professional building department and public works inspection services for Apple Campus 2 Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to a. Execute the Third Amendment to Agreement 14-028 with 4LEAF, Inc. for Apple Campus 2 Phase 1 building inspection services and public works inspection services to increase the previously authorized contract amount by $1,829,890 for a total amount not to exceed $16,956,368; and b. Execute the Second Amendment to Agreement 15-146 with 4LEAF, Inc. for Apple Campus 2 Phase 2 building inspection services to increase the previously authorized contract amount by $524,068 for a total amount not to exceed $1,438,855. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute contract amendments to the extent that the costs are recovered from the project applicant. 3. Approve amendments to budgeted appropriations and estimated revenues as detailed in the attached budget journal. Description In January, 2014, 4LEAF proposed and was granted a contract from the City of Cupertino in the amount of $9,431,390 to cover Phase 1 building inspections from January 2014 through July 2016. The first amendment to the contract with 4LEAF in July 2015 included an expanded scope of services for the Public Works Department in the amount of $933,712. The second amendment increased the budget amount by $4,761,376.00 to include additional services from July 2016 through June 2017. The third amendment proposes to extend the term of the contract in order to cover Phase 1 building inspections from July 2017 through December 2017 and Public Works inspections from July 2017 through February 2018. 175 2 In August 2015, 4LEAF was awarded Phase 2 of the AC2 project for a contract amount of $347,256. The first amendment increased the budget amount by $567,531.00 to include additional services from July 2016 through June 2017. The second amendment proposes to increase the budget amount by $524,068 to cover Phase 2 building inspections from Jul y 2017 through June 2018. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact If approved, this would result in an overall increase to the General Fund budgeted appropriations of $2,353,958. This increase is funded by an increase in pass thru revenue of $2,353,958 and an increase of $353,094 in miscellaneous revenue as a result of the City’s 15% administrative fee. This will result in an estimated increase to fund balance of $353,094. Transaction details of this impact are shown in the attached budget journal. Prepared by: Ari Lattanzi, Management Analyst Reviewed by: Albert Salvador, Building Official Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A. Draft Third Amendment to Agreement 14-028 – 4LEAF, Inc. for Apple Campus 2 B. Draft Second Amendment to Agreement 15-146 – 4LEAF, Inc. for Apple Campus 2 C. Budget Journal 176 THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND 4LEAF, INC FOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS FOR APPLE CAMPUS 2 This Third Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Cupertino and 4Leaf, Inc, for reference dated August 22, 2017, is by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and 4Leaf, Inc a California Corporation (“Consultant”) whose address is 2110 Rheem Drive, Suite A, Pleasanton, CA 94588, and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On February 10, 2014, an agreement was entered into by and between City and Consultant (hereinafter "Agreement") for Phase 1 building inspections and public works inspection at Apple Campus 2. B. On July 8, 2015, City and Consultant agreed to the First Amendment for Phase 1 building inspections and public works inspection at Apple Campus 2. C. On October 20, 2016, City and Consultant agreed to the Second Amendment for Phase 1 building inspections and public works inspection at Apple Campus 2. D. The Agreement and the First, Second and Third Amendments are collectively referred to as the “Agreement” unless otherwise indicated. E. City and Consultant 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. TERM Paragraph 1 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: The term of this Agreement shall commence on February 10th, 2014 and shall terminate on June 30, 2018, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Paragraph 2 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: Consultant shall perform building inspection and public works inspections as set forth in Exhibit A to the Third Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO THE CONSULTANT Paragraph 3 of the agreement is modified to read as follows: Compensation shall be increased by this amendment in the amount not to exceed $1,537,344 for Phase 1 Building Inspection and $292,546 for Public Works Inspections for a total contract amount not to exceed $16,956,368. 4. The following Exhibits to the Agreement, are amended and replaced to read as shown in the attachments to this Amendment: a. Exhibit “A,”- Scope of Services: Apple Campus 2 Phase 1 Building Inspection Service Estimates July 1, 2017 – December 31, 2017; Public Works Inspection Service Estimate July 217 – February 28, 2018 177 5. 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed. CONSULTANT By_________________________________ Title _______________________________ RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By_________________________________ Title _______________________________ CITY OF CUPERTINO By_________________________________ Title _______________________________ Date _______________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ City Attorney ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Clerk EXPENDITURE DISTRIBUTION PO #2015- 57 100-73-715 900-923 Building Inspections 100-82-804 900-923 Public Works Inspections Both Accounts Original $8,310,998.00 $1,120,392.00 $9,431,390.00 Amendment #1: - $933,712.00 $933,712.00 Amendment #2: $3,450,399.00 $1,310,977.00 4,761,376.00 Amendment #3: $1,537,344.00 $292,546.00 $1,829,890.00 Total: $13,298,741.00 $3,657,627.00 $16,956,368.00 178 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND 4LEAF, INC FOR APPLE CAMPUS 2 PHASE 2 BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES This Second Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Cupertino and 4Leaf, Inc, for reference dated August 23, 2017, is by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and 4Leaf, Inc a California Corporation (“Consultant”) whose address is 2110 Rheem Drive, Suite A, Pleasanton, CA 94588, and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On August 5, 2015, an agreement was entered into by and between City and Consultant (hereinafter "Agreement") for Apple Campus 2 Phase 2 building inspection services. B. On October 20, 2016, City and Consultant agreed to the First Amendment for Apple Campus 2 Phase 2 building inspection services. C. The Agreement and the First Amendment are collectively referred to as the “Agreement” unless otherwise indicated. D. City and Consultant 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. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Paragraph 2 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: Consultant shall perform building inspection services, set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT Paragraph 3 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: Compensation shall be increased by this amendment in the amount not to exceed $524,068 for Phase 2 Building Inspection for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,438,855. 3. The following Exhibits to the Agreement, are amended and replaced to read as shown in the attachments to this Amendment: a. Exhibit “A,”- Scope of Services: Apple Campus 2 Phase 2 Building Inspection Service Estimates July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 4. 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed. 179 CONSULTANT By_________________________________ Title _______________________________ RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By_________________________________ Title _______________________________ CITY OF CUPERTINO By_________________________________ Title _______________________________ Date _______________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ City Attorney ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Clerk EXPENDITURE DISTRIBUTION PO #2016- 171 Account: 100-73-715 900-923 Original Contract: $347,256.00 Amendment #1: $567,531.00 Amendment #2: $524,068.00 Total: $1,438,855.00 180 Date GL Account Revenue Appropriations Description 9/19/2017 10073714900923 - 1,829,890 Increase in 4leaf contract for AC2 9/19/2017 10088844900923 - 524,068 Increase in 4leaf contract for AC2 9/19/2017 10073714450404 1,829,890 - Pass Thru Revenues 9/19/2017 10088844450404 524,068 - Pass Thru Revenues 9/19/2017 10073714480405 274,484 - 15% Admin Fee 9/19/2017 10088844480405 78,610 - 15% Admin Fee Total 2,707,052 2,353,958 181 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-3000 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/8/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending August 11, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council9/19/2017 1 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending August 11, 2017 Adopt Resolution No. 17-091 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 11, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™182 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 August 11, 2017 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 the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: Beth Viajar, Acting Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19th day of September 2017, by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-3001 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/8/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending August 18, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council9/19/2017 1 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending August 18, 2017 Adopt Resolution No. 17-092 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 18, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™202 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 August 18, 2017 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 the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: Beth Viajar, Acting Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19th day of September 2017, by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-3002 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/8/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending August 25, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council9/19/2017 1 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending August 25, 2017 Adopt Resolution No. 17-093 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 25, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 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 August 25, 2017 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 the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: Beth Viajar, Acting Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19th day of September 2017, by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-3003 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/8/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 1, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council9/19/2017 1 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 1, 2017 Adopt Resolution No. 17-094 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending September 1, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™237 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 September 1, 2017 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 the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: Beth Viajar, Acting Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19th day of September 2017, by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2771 Name: Status:Type:Second Reading of Ordinances Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/29/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Zoning Amendment to make minor corrections to the zoning map. Application No(s): Z-2017- 01; Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Ordinance Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council9/19/2017 1 Subject: Zoning Amendment to make minor corrections to the zoning map. Application No(s): Z-2017-01; Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide Conduct a second reading and enact Ordinance No. 17-2166: “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino approving amendments to the zoning map to correct inconsistencies between the City of Cupertino’s records and certain map designations as shown in Exhibit A” CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™255 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: September 19, 2017 Subject Zoning Amendment to make minor corrections to the zoning map. Recommended Action Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 17-2166: “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino approving amendments to the zoning map to correct inconsistencies between the City of Cupertino’s records and certain map designations as shown in Exhibit A” Description Application No: Z-2017-01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: city-wide; APN(s): 326 49 034, 326 49 035, 326 49 039, 357 07 029, 357 06 014, 357 06 019, 326 27 030, 357 09 053, 342 52 006, 342 48 999, and 326 41 115. On September 5, 2017, City Council introduced and conducted the first reading of ordinance 17-2166. Sustainability Impact None. Fiscal Impact None. Next Steps Ordinance No. 17-2166 will go into effect 30 days after the second reading. 256 Prepared by: Catarina Kidd, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Ordinance No. 17-2166 257 ORDINANCE NO. 17-2166 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING MAP TO CORRECT INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO’S RECORDS AND CERTAIN MAP DESIGNATIONS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A WHEREAS, corrections are necessary because the General Plan land use map and zoning map must be internally consistent and changes to the zoning map are made by a separate ordinance of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the zoning map will correct inaccuracies and will not add development capacity or result in a change of land use, development rights, or regulations for any of the affected parcels; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the zoning map are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because “it can be seen with a certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment,” and are, therefore, not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)); and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the procedural ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 8, 2017 to consider the proposed amendments and the City Council held a public hearing on September 5, 2017 to consider the proposed amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: That after careful consideration of the facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the City Council based upon the findings described above, the public hearing record and the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of August 8, 2017: Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety. Section 2. The City Council, having considered the evidence received at the public hearing duly noticed and held for said proposed amendments, finds that in accordance with Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.152.020 (Amendments to the Zoning Maps and Zoning Regulations), the Approval Body may approve of an application to change the district boundaries, if it finds all of the following: 1. That the proposed zoning is in accord with this title of the Municipal Code and the City's Comprehensive General Plan. 258 Ordinance No. 17-2166 Parcels #1-8 are public facilities or public parks and open spaces. The requested corrections align the general plan land use with the internally correct zoning of either BA (public buildings) or PR (parks and recreation). Parcel #9 (~14,578 sq.ft. and ~54 feet wide) was originally offered and accepted as a public roadway easement to the City for future development in the area of the Diocese/Oak Valley. However, this easement was formally vacated in 1999 through City Council Resolution 99-072, because during development of the Oak Valley neighborhood, Oak Valley Road was located approximately 500 feet to the south instead of in the area of the easement. Once vacated, the land use designation of the easement should have been changed to Quasi-public/Institutional; the zoning remained “Planned Development with Institutional uses” (P(Institutional)) to match the zoning of the Forum. Research on this parcel indicates that the land use designation of the parcel was changed to Parks and Open Space during the 2005 General Plan update. During the 2014 General Plan update, the parcel was rezoned to Park and Recreation (PR) for consistency with the land use designation from 2005 and the existing parcel data which erroneously listed City of Cupertino as the owner. The current change in the land use and zoning designations is proposed to correct the City’s past erroneous and/or incomplete actions. Parcel #10 is a portion of property offered for dedication to, and accepted by, the City for open space purposes. However, this was not reflected in the City’s zoning maps. Parcel #11 is a privately-owned, single-family residential parcel. The northeast corner of the subject parcel was once a surplus City-owned parcel that was eventually sold to the adjacent property owner of 10500 Castine Avenue. The transaction to merge the parcels into one single-family residential lot occurred in 2016. However, the land use designation needs to be updated to reflect this transaction. The total effect of making these revisions does not add development capacity for any of the parcels. 2. The proposed zoning is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed amendments to the Zoning Maps will correct inaccuracies in these maps and will not add development capacity or result in a change of land use, development rights, or regulations for any of the affected parcels. Therefore, the proposed amendments are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because “it can be seen with a certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment” and are, therefore, not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).) 3. The site is physically suitable (including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested zoning designation(s) and anticipated land use development(s). 259 Ordinance No. 17-2166 Parcels #1-8 are public facilities or public parks and open spaces. The requested corrections align the general plan land use with the internally correct zoning of either BA (public buildings) or PR (parks and recreation). Parcel #9 (~14,578 sq.ft. and ~54 feet wide) was originally offered and accepted as a public roadway easement to the City for future development in the area of the Diocese/Oak Valley. However, this easement was formally vacated in 1999, because during development of the Oak Valley neighborhood, Oak Valley Road was located approximately 500 feet to the south instead of in the area of the easement. Once vacated, the land use designation of the easement was changed to Quasi-public/Institutional and was zoned “Planned Development with Institutional uses” (P(Institutional)) to match the zoning of the Forum. However, during the last General Plan Update in 2014, as a result of inaccurate data from the County Assessor’s records, which reflected this parcel to be owned by the City, the land use and zoning designations, were incorrectly changed to Parks and Open Space and PR. The current change in the land use and zoning designations is proposed to correct the City’s past erroneous action. Parcel #10 is a portion of property offered for dedication to, and accepted by, the City for open space purposes. However, this was not reflected in the City’s general plan land use or zoning maps. Parcel #11 is a privately-owned, single-family residential parcel. The northeast corner of the subject parcel was once a surplus City-owned parcel that was eventually sold to the adjacent property owner of 10500 Castine Avenue. The transaction to merge the parcels into one single family residential lot occurred in 2016. However, the land use designation needs to be updated to reflect this transaction. The total effect of making these revisions does not add development capacity for any of the parcels. 4. The proposed zoning will promote orderly development of the City. As a result of responding to public inquiries, along with city actions over the years, Planning staff have identified parcels for which the general plan land use designation and zoning is not internally consistent or correct or has not been updated to correlate with known city actions, such as resolutions, ordinances, recorded tract maps, purchases and agreements. Corrections assure internal consistency and provide for orderly development by assuring that maps are accurate and, in a timely manner, reflect city actions that have already occurred. 5. That the proposed zoning is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. There is no increase in development capacity and therefore is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days following its adoption. 260 Ordinance No. 17-2166 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 5th day of September 2017, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19th day of September, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________ _______________________ Grace Schmidt Savita Vaidhyanathan City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 261 Map key APN Lot sq. ft. General Plan Land Use (GPLU)Zoning General Plan Land Use (GPLU)Zoning Owner City action/public record 1 326 49 034 39,332 Public Facilities R1-10 Public Facilities BA PG&E Tract Map 4735 2 326 49 035 39,332 Public Facilities R1-10 Public Facilities BA PG&E Tract Map 4735 3 326 49 039 6,875 Public Facilities R1-10 Public Facilities BA PG&E Tract Map 4735 4 357 07 029 161,168 Parks and Open Space R1-7.5 Parks and Open Space PR City of Cupertino (open space)Tract Map 5873; City Council reso. 4307 5 357 06 014 138,888 Parks and Open Space R1-10 Parks and Open Space PR City of Cupertino (McClellan Ranch)City Council reso. 823; Santa Clara County Assessor's data 6 357 06 019 105,636 Parks and Open Space R1-7.5 Parks and Open Space PR SCVWD City Council reso. 823; Santa Clara County Assessor's data 7 326 27 030 28,600 Parks and Open Space P(R1C)Parks and Open Space PR City of Cupertino (Mary Ave. Dog Park)City Council reso. 13-012; ord. 13-2104 8 357 09 053 223,898 Very Low Density (1/2 acre slope density)PR Parks and Open Space PR City of Cupertino City Council reso. 99-186 purchased Stocklmeir farm in 1999 9 342 52 006 14,578 Parks and Open Space PR Quasi-public/institutional P (Institutional)Roman Catholic Bishop of SJ City Council reso. 99-072 vacated roadway easement in 1999 10 342 48 999 Very Low Density (1/2 acre slope density)P(R1) 0-2))Parks and Open Space PR City of Cupertino Tract Map 6190 11 326 41 115 9,516 Public Facilities R1-10 Low Density Residential (1-5 dwelling units per acre): R1-10 R1-10 Private owner City Council reso. 12-008; Grant deed document #23244980 * The corrected designation is highlighted in gray Zoning abbreviations key: BA: Public building BQ: Quasi-public building OS/PR: Open space/Public park/recreational zone P: Planned development R1: Single family residential Current Corrected* Exhibit A of Ordinance 17-2166 262 ST85 F o o t h i l l B l v dNFoothillBlvdM c c l e l l a n R d S t e v e n s C r e e k B lv d B u b b R d 10 9 11 8 Los Altos Sunnyvale Unincorporated Unincorporated Unincorporated Unincorporated Greenleaf DrOa k Valley R d StevensC re e k B lv d Byrne AveCany onO a k W ayOrange AveVoss AveCristoReyDr Wright AveStokes A v e ScenicB lv d MannDrD e o d ara DrD e o d a r a DrSt evensCr e e k F w y Via EsplendorAinsworth D r Ainsworth DrParkwood Dr Parkwood DrC r e s t o n D r CrestonDrMary AveMaryAveGeneral Plan Corrections Current Corrected 8 9 10 11 #9 Current: Parks & Open Space Corrected: Quasi-public/institutional #10 Current: Very Low Density Corrected: Parks & Open Space #8 Current: Very Low Density Corrected: Parks & Open Space #11 Current: Public Facilities Corrected: Low Density Residential 263 ST85 F o o t h i l l B l v dNFoothillBlvdM c c l e l l a n R d S t e v e n s C r e e k B l v d B u b b R dBu bbRd7 12 3 10 9 5 6 4 Los Altos Sunnyvale Unincorporated Unincorporated Unincorporated WilkinsonAveLind a Vista DrSt ev ensCr e e k F w yOa k V a ll e y Rd Byrne AveCanyonOak Wa y Hyannisport Dr San J u a n Rd Orange AveVoss AveStevensCreekBlvdCristoReyDr November DrWright AveD e o d a r a DrStokes A v e ScenicB lv d MannDrAinsworth D r Ainsworth DrP a r k w ood Dr Parkwood DrC r e s t o n D r CrestonDrMary AveMaryAveCupertino Zoning Corrections 1 2 3 7 9 10 4 5 6 Current Corrected #10 Current: P(R0-2) Corrected: PR (Public Park/Recreational) #9 Current: PR (Public Park/Recreational) Corrected: P (Planned Development/Institutional)#1,2 & 3 Current: R1-10 (Single Family Residential) Corrected: BA (Public Building) #7 Current: P(R1C) (Planned Development) Corrected: BA (Public Building) #4, 5 & 6 Current: R1 (Single Family Residential) Corrected: PR (Public Parks & Recreational) 264 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2658 Name: Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready File created:In control:5/22/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Extension of an Urgency Ordinance imposing a moratorium on all commercial, non-medical marijuana land uses including dispensaries, marijuana cultivation and cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities and marijuana transport and deliveries. (Application No.: MCA-2016-06; Location: City-wide; Applicant: City of Cupertino) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft urgency Ordinance B - Ordinance No. 16-2153 C - Ordinance No. 16-2160 Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council9/19/2017 1 Subject: Extension of an Urgency Ordinance imposing a moratorium on all commercial, non- medical marijuana land uses including dispensaries, marijuana cultivation and cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities and marijuana transport and deliveries. (Application No.: MCA-2016-06; Location: City-wide; Applicant: City of Cupertino) That the City Council: 1. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA; and 2. Enact Urgency Ordinance No. 17-2167: “An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Extending Moratorium on Non-Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Marijuana Cultivation and Cultivation Facilities, Commercial Cannabis Activities and Marijuana Transport and Deliveries within the City of Cupertino Pending Completion of an Update to the City’s Zoning Code” CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™265 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: September 19, 2016 Subject Extension of an Urgency Ordinance imposing a moratorium on all commercial, non- medical marijuana land uses including dispensaries, marijuana cultivation and cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities and marijuana transport and deliveries. (Application No.: MCA-2016-06; Location: City-wide; Applicant: City of Cupertino) Recommended Action That the City Council: 1. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA; and 2. Enact Urgency Ordinance No. 17-XXXX - “An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Extending Moratorium on Non-Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Marijuana Cultivation and Cultivation Facilities, Commercial Cannabis Activities and Marijuana Transport and Deliveries within the City of Cupertino Pending Completion of an Update to the City’s Zoning Code” (Attachment A.) Discussion Background Upon adoption of the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MCRSA”) by the State of California in September 2015, the City’s Municipal Code was updated to establish regulations regarding medical marijuana businesses, cultivation facilities, transport and deliveries in January 2016. Subsequently, on November 8, 2016, the people of California approved the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA” or Proposition 64), which allows the non-medical use, personal cultivation, and establishment of commercial marijuana facilities and businesses in California. The AUMA also established a licensing scheme for non-medical marijuana cultivation and manufacturer, testing, and distribution establishments. The proposed measure, however, allowed local agencies land use control over such uses. Since the Cupertino Municipal Code does not list non- 266 medical marijuana dispensaries, cultivation sites, and other non-medical marijuana establishments as either permitted or conditionally-permitted land uses, such activities, are both prohibited under the principles of permissive zoning (any use not enumerated is deemed prohibited) and illegal under federal law. As a preemptive measure, and in anticipation of the passage of the AUMA, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 16-2153, as a temporary moratorium on non-medical marijuana businesses, cultivation facilities, transport and deliveries in order to ensure that the City retain as much local control as legally possible over the portions of the proposition that went into effect immediately, on October 18, 2016 (Attachment B.) Urgency Ordinances are effective for 45 days from date of adoption but may be extended for a period of 10 months and 15 days, and possibly mo re, as allowed per Govt. Code Code § 65858(a). Subsequently, upon further review of the legislative field at that time, in November 2016, staff recommended that the City Council extend the moratorium for a period of 10 months and 15 days. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 16-2160 to extend the urgency as recommended (see Attachment C.) Ordinance No. 16-2160 expires on September 30, 2017. Urgency ordinances may be extended for an additional 12 months pursuant to Govt. Code § 65858(a.) with a four-fifths vote of the Council (i.e., 4 out of 5 council members voting yes). Analysis In addition to the adoption of the MCRSA and the AUMA, in June 2017, Governor Brown signed SB 94 (the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act or “MAUCRSA,”) a budget trailer bill that made significant changes to California’s commercial cannabis regulatory structure. SB 94 effectively repealed the MCRSA (medical marijuana regulations) and incorporated some of its provisions into the licensing provisions of AUMA. MAUCRSA effectively set up a new hybrid regulatory structure and created more operator-friendly standards than under MCRSA. Since this regulation is fairly new and there is little guidance on the City’s responsibilities during the licensing process, it is recommended that the moratorium be extended further. Additionally, the state did not have a licensing structure in place to license medical marijuana facilities which were regulated under MCRSA since 2015. As mentioned earlier, while the state agencies were in the process of establishing a licensing structure for both, medical and non-medical, marijuana facilities, SB 94 merged the licensing requirements of both, under the authority of the Bureau of Cannabis Control (formerly the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation and Bureau of Medical Marijuana 267 Regulation), which anticipates issuing licenses on January 1, 2018. As indicated on the bureau’s website, “Applications will be available for all cannabis cultivation licenses— both medical and adult-use (nonmedical)—on January 1, 2018.” Therefore, an extension of the moratorium is recommended for the full 10 months and 15 days as allowed under the Govt. Code. The extension of the Urgency Ordinance continues to ensure that the City retains the ability to regulate, allow or prohibit non- medical marijuana dispensaries, cultivation sites and delivery services in the future. The extension allows the City to:  Analyze the effect of recently approved legislation regarding both non-medical and medical marijuana,  Analyze the effectiveness of state regulations and licensing,  Consider additional regulation or licensing, and  Prepare a regular ordinance to amend the City’s Municipal Code in compliance with SB 94. The additional Interim Urgency Ordinance contains findings stating the basis for the urgency, as well as the facts to justify the preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare. These have been documented in the staff report (and attachments) regarding medical marijuana dated January 19, 2016 and in the staff report (and attachments) on the non-medical marijuana urgency ordinance dated October 18, 2016. The findings, facts, and analysis contained within those staff reports remain valid, and are incorporated by reference. It is recommended that Council adopt the current Urgency Ordinance which will extend the prohibitions in place for an additional 12 months. Should the ordinance not be extended, the City has two options – either adopt a regular ordinance to establish regulations regarding non-medical marijuana commercial activities, cultivation, deliveries and transportation or , be subject to State regulations. State regulations may not be as restrictive as regulations that the City Council may desire in the areas where local control may be exercised. In the interest of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the residents in the City of Cupertino, it is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to extend a temporary moratorium on all commercial marijuana land uses in the City and prohibit all marijuana cultivation for personal use in the City while the City evaluates and adopts appropriate land uses and reasonable regulations following the passage of the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (Proposition 64). 268 This ordinance is not intended to interfere with a patient’s access and use of medical marijuana, as provided for in California Health and Safety Code section 11362.5. This ordinance is intended to supplement existing law. Nothing herein is intended to impair any existing City ordinance concerning medical or non-medical marijuana within the City. Any restrictions provided herein, and remedies flowing herefrom, are cumulative to any other restriction or remedy provided under existing local, state, or federal law. Noticing and Public Comment In compliance with the Government Code, the following noticing has been conducted:  Legal notice and Display Ad in the newspaper  Public hearing notices/agenda on the City’s website and at City Hall/Community Hall. No communication has been received on this issue as of the date of production of this staff report. Environmental Impact (CEQA) The proposed Ordinances are not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it has no p otential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that these Ordinances are found to be a project under CEQA, they are exempt CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because they can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment, as such uses are already prohibited under the Municipal Code. Next Steps Upon review of the steps taken by the state to regulate marijuana facilities, cultivation etc., a regular ordinance will be presented for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council at a later date. In conjunction with this, should the Council wish to allow such uses, it could also consider taxation. Such a tax may only be imposed upon a vote of the citizens. Sustainability Impact No impacts Fiscal Impact No impacts _________________________ 269 Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A. Draft Urgency Ordinance No. 17-XXXX B. Urgency Ordinance No. 16-2153 C. Extension of Urgency Ordinance (Ordinance No. 16-2160) 270 Non-Marijuana Urgency Ordinance Extension Council Date: September 19, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 17-XXXX AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO EXTENDING URGENCY ORDINANCE NUMBER 16-2153 AND A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES, MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND CULTIVATION FACILITIES, COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITIES AND MARIJUANA TRANSPORT AND DELIVERIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO PENDING COMPLETION OF AN UPDATE TO THE CITY’S ZONING CODE WHEREAS, this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, and the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(1), 15061(b)(2), and 15061(b)(3). Moreover, the adoption of this Ordinance is further exempt from CEQA because the Ordinance does not change existing City law and practice. WHEREAS, the City Council is the decision making body on this Ordinance, and before taking action on it, using its independent judgment, finds such CEQA exemptions to apply; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Authority. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the provisions set forth in Government Code sections 36937(b) and 65858(a), (b) and pursuant to other applicable law. SECTION 2. Findings. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council finds: A. In 1970, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) which, among other things, makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess or use marijuana in the United States. 271 Non-Marijuana Urgency Ordinance Extension Council Date: September 19, 2017 B. In 1972, California added Chapter 6 to the state Uniform Controlled Substances Act, commencing at Health and Safety Code section 11350, which established the state’s prohibition, penalties, and punishments for the possession, cultivation, transportation, and distribution of marijuana. C. In 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215 (the "Act;" Health and Safety (H&S) Code Section 11362.5). D. On October 9, 2015, Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643 (collectively, the “Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act” or “MMRSA”) were enacted to create a state regulatory and licensing system governing the cultivation, testing, and distribution of medical marijuana, the manufacturing of medical marijuana products, and physician recommendations for medical marijuana. The new law also recognizes a range of medical marijuana businesses referred to as “commercial cannabis activities,” including cultivation businesses, marijuana product manufacturers, marijuana distributors and transporters, marijuana testing laboratories, and dispensaries, and provides immunity to marijuana businesses operating with both a state license and a local permit. E. The Municipal Code does not have express provisions regarding non - medical marijuana dispensaries, non-medical marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and non-medical marijuana deliveries. These uses are not listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted land uses in the Zoning Code and are therefore prohibited in Cupertino under principles of permissive zoning (City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 418, 431-433). Moreover, the Municipal Code requires compliance with the most restrictive law, which in this case is federal law, which prohibits all marijuana activity. (Cupertino Municipal Code §§1.04.010(5), 19.04.030) F. It is imperative that the City retain local land use control over marijuana cultivation and associated uses. Several California cities and counties have experienced serious adverse impacts associated with and resulting from medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation sites. According to these communities and according to news stories widely reported, medical marijuana activities have resulted in and/or caused an increase in crime, including burglaries, robberies, violence, and illegal sales of marijuana to, and use of marijuana by, minors and other persons without medical need in the areas immediately surrounding such medical marijuana activities. There have also been large numbers of complaints of odors related to the cultivation and storage of marijuana. G. A California Police Chiefs Association compilation of police reports, news stories, and statistical research regarding crimes involving medical marijuana businesses and their secondary impacts on the community is contained in a 2009 white 272 Non-Marijuana Urgency Ordinance Extension Council Date: September 19, 2017 paper report which is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on January 16, 2016, and is on file with the City Clerk, and is incorporated by reference. H. The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office issued a May 2014 memorandum entitled “Issues Surrounding Marijuana in Santa Clara County,” which outlined many of the negative secondary effects resulting from marijuana cultivation; a copy of this memorandum is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on January 16, 2016, and is on file with the City Clerk, and is incorporated by reference. I. The Santa Clara County Public Defender issued a May 2014 memorandum entitled “Substance-Related Suspensions in the East Side Union High School District,” describing a correlation between substance abuse-related suspensions in local high schools and a proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the area; a copy of this memorandum is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on January 16, 2016, and is on file with the City Clerk, and is incorporated by reference. J. The Police Foundation and the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police issued a 2015 report entitled “Colorado’s Legalization of Marijuana and the Impact on Public Safety: A Practical Guide for Law Enforcement,” which outlined many of the summarize the numerous challenges faced by law enforcement when enforcing the laws surrounding legalization, to document solutions that have been proposed and put into effect, and outline problems that still need to be addressed; a copy of this memorandum is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council with this ordinance and is on file with the City Clerk, and is incorporated by reference. K. News stories regarding adverse impacts of medical marijuana businesses, including dispensaries, cultivation sites, and delivery services, are attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on January 16, 2016, and is on file with the City Clerk, and are incorporated by reference. L. It is reasonable to conclude that non-medical marijuana dispensaries, non- medical marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and non - medical marijuana deliveries and transport would cause similar adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare in Cupertino. M. Although the state law has established a regulatory system for medical marijuana, the California Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation advises that it is in the early stages of developing a licensing program and will not be accepting applications for medical marijuana license until 2018. N. In order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council desires to amend the Municipal Code to address, in express terms, non-medical marijuana dispensaries, non-medical marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and non-medical marijuana deliveries. Proposition 64, which was 273 Non-Marijuana Urgency Ordinance Extension Council Date: September 19, 2017 on the November 8, 2016 ballot has passed, and therefore, the City Council hereby determines that the Municipal Code is in need of further review and revision to protect the public against potential negative health, safety, and welfare impacts and preserve local control over non-medical marijuana establishments. Non-medical marijuana currently is prohibited under both state and federal law, unless Proposition 64 decriminalizes non-medical marijuana at the state level. O. Proposition 64, and subsequently, SB 94 (the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act or “MAUCRSA”) which repealed the Medical and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MCRSA”) and incorporated some of its provisions into the licensing provisions of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult -Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”), has decriminalized recreational marijuana use, cultivation, and distribution under state law and further established a licensing program for non-medical commercial cultivation, testing, and distribution of non- medical marijuana and the manufacturing of non-medical marijuana products. However, such licenses will not be issued at least until January 2, 2018. P. Proposition 64, and subsequently, MAUCRSA expressly preserves local jurisdictions’ ability to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate non -medical marijuana establishments including local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and the ability to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of non-medical marijuana businesses. Q. Proposition 64, and subsequently, MAUCRSA further recognizes the City’s ability to completely prohibit outdoor planning, harvesting, cultivation or processing of non-medical marijuana for personal use, and the City’s ability to regulate indoor cultivation for personal use. R. The City did not take a formal position on Proposition 64, but in order to preserve local control, the City confirms that such non-medical marijuana is prohibited within the City to the fullest extent permitted by law. S. It is necessary to extend Urgency Ordinance Number 16-2153 because it will expire before there is an opportunity fo r the City to evaluate state law, regulation, and licensing for non-medical marijuana for purposes of evaluating the impacts and policies for non-medical marijuana, consideration of obtaining voter approval for taxes, and adopting a regular zoning code amendment, which includes public notice, consideration by the Planning Commission, and first and second reading before the City Council. Any loss of local land use control over marijuana cultivation would result in a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. T. Government Code sections 36937 and 65858 authorize the extension of adoption of an interim urgency ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and 274 Non-Marijuana Urgency Ordinance Extension Council Date: September 19, 2017 welfare, and to prohibit land uses that may conflict with land use regulations that a city’s legislative bodies are considering, studying, or intending to study within a reasonable time. Prior to this extension, the City provided notice of the public hearing as required by law. U. Failure to adopt this extension of the moratorium could impair the orderly and effective implementation of contemplated amendments to the Municipal Code. V. The City Council further finds that this moratorium is a matter of local and City-wide importance and is not directed towards any particular person or entity that seeks to cultivate marijuana in Cupertino. W. The proposed Ordinance conforms with the latest adopted general plan for the City in that a prohibition against medical and non -medical marijuana cultivation facilities, medical and non-medical marijuana dispensaries, commercial cannabis activities, and medical and non-medical marijuana delivery and transport services does not conflict with any allowable uses in the land use element and does not conflict with any policies or programs in any other element of the general plan. X. The proposed Ordinance will protect the public health, safety, and welfare and promote the orderly development of the City in that prohibiting marijuana cultivation facilities, non-medical marijuana dispensaries, commercial cannabis activities, and non-medical marijuana delivery and transport services will protect the City from the adverse impacts and negative secondary effects connected with these activities. Y. The proposed Ordinance is consistent with Municipal Code Title 19, which currently bans marijuana cultivation facilities, non-medical marijuana dispensaries, commercial cannabis activities, and non -medical marijuana delivery services under principles of permissive zoning. SECTION 3. Extension of Moratorium. The ordinance prohibiting non-medical marijuana activities, cultivation and all commercial marijuana land uses in all zoning districts and lands within the City, and all of the terms and provisions of said ordinance, is hereby extended for a period of twelve (12) months through September 19, 2018. In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the City finds that it is necessary to extend the Urgency Ordinance and all of the prohibitions imposed by Ordinance No. 16-2153, including those on non-medical marijuana facilities, non- medical marijuana cultivation, commercial cannabis activities, non-medical marijuana deliveries and transport within the City of Cupertino, and Ordinance No. 16-2153 is hereby extended. 275 Non-Marijuana Urgency Ordinance Extension Council Date: September 19, 2017 SECTION 4. Effective Period. This Ordinance is an extension of Ordinance No. 16-2153, an urgency measure adopted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65858. This Ordinance shall be in effect until the earlier of the following, and shall thereupon be repealed and of no further force or effect, unless extended by subsequent enactment of the City Council: i) The completion of the study, evaluation, consideration, and legislative action and effective date of the amendments to Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, to address non-medical marijuana uses, cultivation, and activities on a permanent basis, or ii) 12 months beyond September 19, 2017. SECTION 5: Report of Interim Moratorium. Ten days prior to the expiration of Urgency Ordinance No. 16-2153, the City provided a report describing the measures taken to alleviate the urgency pursuant to Government Code section 65858(d). Further, 10 days prior to the expiration or any extension of this Interim Ordinance, the City Council will issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of this Interim Ordinance. SECTION 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, cause and phrase is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity, or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases. SECTION 7: Publication. The City Clerk is directed to cause this ordinance to be published in the manner required by law. THE FOREGOING EXTENSION OF THE URGENCY ORDINANCE was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino held on September 19, 2017 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 276 Non-Marijuana Urgency Ordinance Extension Council Date: September 19, 2017 ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ___________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang, Mayor, City of Cupertino 277 INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 16-2153 AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES, MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES, COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITIES AND MARIJUANA TRANSPORT AND DELIVERIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO PENDING COMPLETION OF AN UPDATE TO THE CITY'S ZONING CODE WHEREAS, this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, and the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(l), 15061(b)(2), and 15061(b)(3). Moreover, the adoption of this Ordinance is further exempt from CEQA because the Ordinance does not change existing City law and practice. WHEREAS, the City Council is the decision making body on this Ordinance, and before taking action on it, using its independent judgment, finds such CEQA exemptions to apply; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Authority. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the provisions set forth in Government Code sections 36937(b) and 65858(a) (b) and pursuant to other applicable law. SECTION 2. Findings. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council finds: A . In 1970, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) which, among other things, makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess or use marijuana in the United States. B. In 1972, California added Chapter 6 to the state Uniform Controlled Substances Act, commencing at Health and Safety Code section 11350, which established the state's prohibition, penalties, and punishments for the possession, cultivation, transportation, and distribution of marijuana. 278 Ordinance No. Page2 C. In 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215 (the "Act;" Health and Safety (H&S) Code Section 11362 .5). D. On October 9, 2015, Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643 (collectively, the "Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act" or "MMRSA") were enacted to create a state regulatory and licensing system governing the cultivation, testing, and distribution of medical marijuana, the manufacturing of medical marijuana products, and physician recommendations for medical marijuana. The new law also recognizes a range of medical marijuana businesses referred to as "commercial cannabis activities," including cultivation businesses, marijuana product manufacturers, marijuana distributors and transporters, marijuana testing laboratories, and dispensaries, and provides immunity to marijuana businesses operating with both a state license and a local permit. E. The Municipal Code does not have express provisions regarding non-medical marijuana dispensaries, non-medical marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and non-marijuana deliveries. These uses are not listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted land uses in the Zoning Code and are therefore prohibited in Cupertino under principles of permissive zoning (City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 418, 431 -433). Moreover, the Municipal Code requires compliance with the most restrictive law, which in this case is federal law, which prohibits all marijuana activity. (Cupertino Municipal Code §§1.04 .010(5), 19 .04 .030) F. It is imperative that the City retain local land use control over marijuana cultivation. Several California cities and counties have experienced serious adverse impacts associated with and resulting from medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation s ites. According to these communities and according to news stories widely reported, medical marijuana activities have resulte d in and/or caused an increase in crime, including burglaries, robberies, violence, and illegal sales of marijuana to, and use of marijuana by, minors and other persons without medical need in the areas immediate ly surrounding such medical marijuana activities. There have also been large numbers of complaints of odors related to the cultivation and storage of marijuana. G. A California Police Chiefs Association compilation of police reports, news stories, and statistical research re garding crimes involving medical marijuana businesses and their secondary impacts on the community is contained in a 2009 white paper report which is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on January 16, 2016 , and is on file with the City Clerk. 279 Ordinance No. Page 3 H. The Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office issued a May 2014 memorandum entitled "Issues Surrounding Marijuana in Santa Clara County," which outlined many of the negative secondary effects resulting from marijuana cultivation; a copy of this memorandum is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on January 16, 2016, and is on file with the City Clerk. I. The Santa Clara County Public Defender issued a May 2014 memorandum entitled "Substance-Related Suspensions in the East Side Union High School District," describing a correlation between substance abuse-related suspensions in local high schools and a proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the area; a copy of this memorandum is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on January 16, 2016, and is on file with the City Clerk J. The Police Foundation and the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police issued a 2015 report entitled "Colorado's Legalization of Marijuana and the Impact on Public Safety: A Practical Guide for Law Enforcement," which outlined many of the summarize the numerous challenges faced by law enforcement when enforcing the laws surrounding legalization, to document solutions that have been proposed and put into effect, and outline problems that still need to be addressed; a copy of this memorandum is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council with this ordinance and is on file with the City Clerk. K. News stories regarding adverse impacts of medical marijuana businesses, including dispensaries, cultivation sites, and delivery services, are attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on January 16, 2016, and is on file with the City Clerk. L. It is reasonable to conclude that non-medical marijuana dispensaries, non-medical marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and non-medical marijuana deliveries would cause similar adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare in Cupertino. M. Although the state law has established a regulatory system for medical marijuana, the California Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation advises that it is in the early stages of developing a licensing program and will not be accepting applications for medical marijuana license until 2018. N. In order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council desires to amend the Municipal Code to address, in express terms, non-medical marijuana dispensaries, non-medical marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and non-medical marijuana deliveries. In the event that Proposition 280 Ordinance No . Page4 64 passes, the City Council hereby determines that the Municipal Code is in need of further review and revision to protect the public against potential negative health, safety, and welfare impacts and preserve local control over non-medical marijuana establishments. Non-medical marijuana currently is prohibited under both state and federal law. 0. Proposition 64 is on the California ballot for the November 8, 2016, election which would decriminalize under state law recreational marijuana use, cultivation, and distribution and further establish licensing program for non-medical commercial cultivation, testing, and distribution of non-medical marijuana and the manufacturing of non-medical marijuana products. However, such licenses will not be issued at least until 2018. P. Proposition 64 expressly preserves local jurisdictions' ability to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate non-medical marijuana establishments including local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and the ability to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of non-medical marijuana businesses. Q. Proposition 64 further recognizes the City's ability to completely prohibit outdoor planting, harvesting, cultivation or processing of non-medical ) marijuana for personal use, and the City's ability to regulate indoor cultivation for personal use. R. The City does not take a formal position on Proposition 64, but in order to preserve local control, the City confirms that such non-medical marijuana is prohibited within the City to the fullest extent permitted by law. S. Non-medical marijuana use, cultivation, and distribution is prohibited by both state and federal law. A regular ordinance is unnecessary if Proposition 64 does not pass. Moreover, the compacted time frame between now and the November General Election does not provide sufficient time to consider and adopt a regular zoning code amendment, which includes public notice, consideration by the Planning Commission, and first and second reading before the City Council, an interim prohibition on recreational use of marijuana and the issuance of any permits and/or entitlements relating to marijuana cultivation is necessary for a period of 45 days. The loss of local land use control over marijuana cultivation would result in a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. T. Government Code sections 36937 and 65858 authorize the adoption of an interim urgency ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to 281 Ordinance No. Page 5 prohibit land uses that may conflict with land use regulations that a city's legislative bodies are considering, studying, or intending to study within a reasonable time. U . Failure to adopt this moratorium could impair the orderly and effective implementation of contemplated amendments to the Municipal Code. V. The City Council further finds that this moratorium is a matter of local and City-wide importance and is not directed towards any particular person or entity that seeks to cultivate marijuana in Cupertino. W. The proposed Ordinance conforms with the latest adopted general plan for the City in that a prohibition against medical and non-medical marijuana cultivation facilities, medical and non-medical marijuana dispensaries, commercial cannabis activities, and medical and non-medical marijuana delivery services does not conflict with any allowable uses in the land use element and does not conflict with any policies or programs in any other element of the general plan. X. The proposed Ordinance will protect the public health, safety, and welfare and promote the orderly development of the City in that prohibiting marijuana cultivation facilities, non-medical marijuana dispensaries, commercial cannabis activities, and non-medical marijuana delivery services will protect the City from the adverse impacts and negative secondary effects connected with these activities. Y. The proposed Ordinance is consistent with Municipal Code Title 19, which currently bans marijuana cultivation facilities, non-medical marijuana dispensaries, commercial cannabis activities, and non-medical marijuana delivery services under principles of permissive zoning. SECTION 3. Imposition of Temporary Moratorium. In accordance with the authority granted the City under Government Code sections 36937(b) and 65858 (a), (b), and pursuant to the findings stated herein, the City Council hereby finds that: (1) the foregoing findings are true and correct; and (2) there exists a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare from unregulated marijuana businesses, especially marijuana cultivation facilities, operating in Cupertino; and (3) this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety as set forth herein; and (4) hereby declares and imposes a temporary moratorium for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare as set forth below: A. Prohibitions. The restrictions on medical marijuana dispensaries, marijuana cultivation facilities, and commercial cannabis activities in Section 19.98.020, 282 Ordinance No. Page6 and other references to "marijuana" or "medical marijuana" throughout this Code shall apply equally to nonmedical marijuana, other than as provided in subdivisions (B), (C), and (D) below. B. Cultivation of nonmedical marijuana for personal use. If cultivation for non- medical marijuana for personal use is decriminalized under state law, such cultivation is prohibited in all zones in the City to the fullest extent permitted by law. Outdoor cultivation of any amount of nonmedical marijuana for personal use is prohibited in all zones, and indoor cultivation of nonmedical marijuana for personal use is prohibited in all zones in the City unless conducted in full compliance with state law. C. Transportation of non-medical marijuana for personal use. If transportation of non-medical marijuana for personal use without compensation is decriminalized under state law, such transportation to a destination within the City is prohibited unless conducted in full compliance with state law. D. Delivery of non-medical marijuana for personal use. If delivery of non-medical marijuana for personal use without compensation is decriminalized under state law, such delivery to a destination within the City is prohibited unless conducted in full compliance with state law. E. In addition to all other enforcement or legal remedies available to the City, any use or condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be and is hereby declared a public nuisance and may be abated by the City. SECTION 4 . Effective Date and Duration. Pursuant to Government Code section 65858(a), (b), this Ordinance shall take effect immediately but shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption unless the City Council, after notice and public hearing as provided under Government Code section 65858(a), (b) and adoption of the findings required by Government Code section 65858(c), subsequently extends this Ordinance. SECTION 5. Report of Interim Moratorium. Pursuant to Government Code section 65858(d), 10 days prior to the expiration or any extension of this Interim Ordinance, the City Council will issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of this Interim Ordinance. 283 Ordinance No. Page 7 SECTION 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, cause and phrase is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity, or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases. SECTION 7: Publication. The City Clerk is directed to cause this ordinance to be published in the manner required by law. THE FOREGOING URGENCY ORDINANCE was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 13t1, day of October, 2016 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council A YES: Chang, Vaidhyanathan, Sinks, Wong NOES: None ABSENT : Paul ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: APPROVED : €]a~/J1 Grace Schmidt, City Clerk ~~~ Savita Vaidhyan~ City of Cupertino 284 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) CITY OF CUPERTINO ) I, GRACE SCHMIDT, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California, do hereby ce1iify the attached to be a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 16-2153 which was enacted on October 18, 2016, and that it has been published or posted pursuant to law (G.C. 40806). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 20 th day of October, 2016. GRACE SCHMIDT, City Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Cupe1iino, California 285 URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 16-2160 AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO EXTENDING A URGENCY ORDINANCE NUMBER 16-2153 AND A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES, MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND I ' CULTIVATION FACILITIES, COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITIES AND MARIJUANA TRANSPORT AND DELIVERIES WITHIN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO PENDING COMPLETION OF AN UPDATE TO THE CITY'S ZONING CODE WHEREAS, this Ordinance is exempt from the prov1s1ons of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, and the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(l), 15061(b)(2), and 15061(b)(3). Moreover, the adoption of this Ordinance is further exempt from CEQA because the Ordinance does not change existing City law and practice. WHEREAS, the City Council is the decision making body on this Ordinance, and before taking action on it, using its independent judgment, finds such CEQA exemptions to apply; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Authority. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the provisions set forth in Government Code sections 36937(b) and 65858(a), (b) and pursuant to other applicable law. SECTION 2. Findings. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council finds: A. In 1970, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) which, among other things, makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess or use marijuana in the United States. B. In 1972, California added Chapter 6 to the state Uniform Controlled Subs tances Act, commencing at Health and Safety Code section 11350, which 286 Ordinance No. 16-2160 Page2 established the state's prohibition, penalties, and punishments for the possession, cultivation, transportation, and distribution of marijuana. C. In 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215 (the "Act;" Health and Safety (H&S) Code Section 11362.5). D. On October 9, 2015, Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643 ( collectively, the "Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act" or "MMRSA") were enacted to create a state regulatory and licensing system governing the cultivation, testing, and distribution of medical marijuana, the manufacturing of medical marijuana products, and physician recommendations for medical marijuana. The new law also recognizes a range of medical marijuana businesses referred to as "commercial cannabis activities," including cultivation businesses, marijuana product manufacturers, marijuana distributors and transporters, marijuana testing laboratories, and dispensaries, and provides immunity to marijuana businesses operating with both a state license and a local permit. E. The Municipal Code does not have express provisions regarding non- medical marijuana dispensaries, non-medical marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and non-marijuana deliveries. These uses are not listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted land uses in the Zoning Code and are therefore prohibited in Cupertino under principles of permissive zoning (City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 418, 431-433). Moreover, the Municipal Code requires compliance with the most restrictive law, which in this case is federal law, which prohibits all marijuana activity. (Cupertino Municipal Code §§1.04.010(5), 19 .04.030) F. It is imperative that the City retain local land use control over marijuana cultivation and associated uses. Several California cities and counties have experienced serious adverse impacts associated with and resulting from medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation sites. According to these communities and according to news stories widely reported, medical marijuana activities have resulted in and/or caused an increase in crime, including burglaries, robberies, violence, and illegal sales of marijuana to, and use of marijuana by, minors and other persons without medical need in the areas immediately surrounding such medical marijuana activities. There have also been large numbers of complaints of odors related to the cultivation and storage of marijuana. G. A California Police Chiefs Association compilation of police reports, news stories, and statistical research regarding crimes involving medical marijuana businesses and their secondary impacts on the community is contained in a 2009 white paper report which is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on January 16, 2016 , and is on file with the City Clerk, and is incorporated by reference. 287 Ordinance No. 16-2160 Page 3 H. The Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office issued a May 2014 memorandum entitled "Issues Surrounding Marijuana in Santa Clara County," which outlined many of the negative secondary effects resulting from marijuana cultivation; a copy of this memorandum is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on January 16, 2016, and is on file with the City Clerk, and is incorporated by reference. I. The Santa Clara County Public Defender issued a May 2014 memorandum entitled "Substance-Related Suspensions in the East Side Union High School District," describing a correlation between substance abuse-related suspensions in local high schools and a proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the area; a copy of this memorandum is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on January 16, 2016, and is on file with the City Clerk, and is incorporated by reference. J. The Police Foundation and the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police issued a 2015 report entitled "Colorado's Legalization of Marijuana and the Impact on Public Safety: A Practical Guide for Law Enforcement," which outlined many of the summarize the numerous challenges faced by law enforcement when enforcing the laws surrounding legalization, to document solutions that have been proposed and put into effect, and outline problems that still need to be addressed; a copy of this memorandum is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council with this ordinance and is on file with the City Clerk, and is incorporated by reference . K. News stories regarding adverse impacts of medical marijuana businesses, including dispensaries, cultivation sites, and delivery services, are attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on January 16, 2016, and is on file with the City Clerk, and are incorporated by reference. L. It is reasonable to conclude that non-medical marijuana dispensaries, non- medical marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and non- medical marijuana deliveries and transport would cause similar adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare in Cupertino. M. Although the state law has established a regulatory system for medical marijuana, the California Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation advises that it is in the early stages of developing a licensing program and will not be accepting applications for medical marijuana license until 2018. N. In order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council desires to amend the Municipal Code to address, in express terms, non-medical marijuana dispensaries, non-medical marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and non-medical marijuana deliveries. In the event that Proposition 64 passes, the City Council hereby determines that the Municipal Code is in need of further review and revision to protect the public against potential negative health, 288 Ordinance No . 16-2160 Page4 safety, and welfare impacts and preserve local control over non-medical marijuana establishments. Non-medical marijuana currently is prohibited under both state and federal law, unless Proposition 64 decriminalizes non-medical marijuana at the state level. 0. Proposition 64 is on the California ballot for the November 8, 2016, election which would decriminalize under state law recreational marijuana use, cultivation, and distribution and further establish licensing program for non-medical commercial cultivation, testing, and distribution of non-medical marijuana and the manufacturing of non-medical marijuana products. However, such licenses will not be issued at least until 2018. P. Proposition 64 expressly preserves local jurisdictions' ability to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate non-medical marijuana establishments including local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and the ability to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of non- medical marijuana businesses. Q. Proposition 64 further recognizes the City's ability to completely prohibit outdoor planning, harvesting, cultivation or processing of non-medical marijuana for personal use, and the City's ability to regulate indoor cultivation for personal use. R. The City did not take a formal position on Proposition 64, but in order to preserve local control, the City confirms that such non-medical marijuana is prohibited within the City to the fullest extent permitted by law. S. It is necessary to extend Urgency Ordinance Number 16-2153 because it will expire before there is an opportunity for the City to evaluate state law, regulation, and licensing for non-medical marijuana for purposes of evaluating the impacts and policies for non-medical marijuana, consideration of obtaining voter approval for taxes, and adopting a regular zoning code amendment, which includes public notice, consideration by the Planning Commission, and first and second reading before the City Council.. Any loss of local land use control over marijuana cultivation would result in a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. T. Government Code sections 36937 and 65858 authorize the extension of adoption of an interim urgency ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to prohibit land uses that may conflict with land use regulations that a city's legislative bodies are considering, studying, or intending to study within a reasonable time. Prior to this extension, the City provided notice of the public hearing as required by law. U. Failure to adopt this extension of the moratorium could impair the orderly and effective implementation of contemplated amendments to the Municipal Code. 289 Ordinance No. 16-2160 Page 5 V. The City Council further finds that this moratorium is a matter of local and City-wide importance and is not directed towards any particular person or entity that seeks to cultivate marijuana in Cupertino. W. The proposed Ordinance conforms with the latest adopted general plan for the City in that a prohibition against medical and non-medical marijuana cultivation facilities, medical and non-medical marijuana dispensaries, commercial cannabis activities, and medical and non-medical marijuana delivery and transport services does not conflict with any allowable uses in the land use element and does not conflict with any policies or programs in any other element of the general plan. X. The proposed Ordinance will protect the public health, safety, and welfare and promote the orderly development of the City in that prohibiting marijuana cultivation facilities, non-medical marijuana dispensaries, commercial cannabis activities, and non-medical marijuana delivery and transport services will protect the City from the adverse impacts and negative secondary effects connected with these activities. Y. The proposed Ordinance is consistent with Municipal Code Title 19, which currently bans marijuana cultivation facilities, non-medical marijuana dispensaries, commercial cannabis activities, and non-medical marijuana delivery services under principles of permissive zoning. SECTION 3. Extension of Moratorium. In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the City finds that it is necessary to extend the Urgency Ordinance and all of the prohibitions imposed by Ordinance No. 16-2153, including those on non-medical marijuana facilities, non-medical marijuana cultivation, commercial cannabis activities, non-medical marijuana deliveries and transport within the City of Cupertino, and Ordinance No. 16-2153 is hereby extended. SECTION 4. Effective Period. This Ordinance is an extension of Ordinance No. 16-2153, an urgency measure adopted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65858. This Ordinance shall be in effect until the earlier of the following, and shall thereupon be repealed and of no further force or effect, unless extended by subsequent enactment of the City Council: i) The completion of the study, evaluation, consideration, and legislative action and effective date of the amendments to Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, to address non-medical marijuana uses, cultivation, and activities on a permanent basis, or ii) Ten months and fifteen days beyond November 15, 2016. 290 Ordinance No. 16-2160 Page 6 SECTION 5: Report of Interim Moratorium. Ten days prior to the expiration of Urgency Ordinance No. 16-2153, the City provided a report describing the measures taken to alleviate the urgency pursuant to Government Code section 65858(d). Further, 10 days prior to the expiration or any extension of this Interim Ordinance, the City Council will issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of this Interim Ordinance. SECTION 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, cause and phrase is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity, or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases. SECTION 7: Publication. The City Clerk is directed to cause this ordinance to be published in the manner required by law. THE FOREGOING EXTENSION OF THE URGENCY ORDINANCE was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino held on November 15, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council Chang, Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Sinks None Wong None APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk 291 ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) CITY OF CUPERTINO ) I, GRACE SCHMIDT, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California, do hereby certify the attached to be a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 16-2160, which was enacted on November 15, 2016, and that it has been published or posted pursuant to law (G.C. 40806). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 17 th day of November, 2016. GRACE SCHMIDT, City Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California 292 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2941 Name: Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready File created:In control:8/16/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Adoption of City of Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Program and Approval of Fees Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Ordinance B - Draft Resolution C - Schedule B TIF Fee (Red Line) D - August 15, 2017 Staff Report E- Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council9/19/2017 1 Subject: Adoption of City of Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Program and Approval of Fees 1. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 17-2168 Adding Chapter 14.02 to the Cupertino Municipal Code To Adopt And Implement The City’s Transportation Impact Fee Program As Shown In Exhibit 1" (Attachment A);and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 17-095 Adopting A Transportation Impact Fee And Amending Schedule B Of The 2017-18 Fee Schedule To Include The New Transportation Impace Fee As Shown in Exhibit 1 (Attachment B) CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™293 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: September 19, 2017 Subject Adoption of City of Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Program and Approval of Fees Recommended Actions 1. Conduct the first reading of the Draft Ordinance “Adding Chapter 14.02 To The Cupertino Municipal Code To Adopt And Implement The City’s Transportation Impact Fee Program As Shown in Exhibit 1” (Attachment A); and 2. Adopt the Draft Resolution “Adopting A Transportation Impact Fee And Amending Schedule B Of the 2017-18 Fee Schedule To Include The New Transportation Impact Fee As Shown in Exhibit 1” (Attachment B) Background The City adopted an amended General Plan known as "General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040" (The General Plan) on December 4, 2014. The General Plan specifically identifies the need to implement a TIF to fund needed transportation improvements necessary to accommodate and mitigate the impacts of future development in the City. To support the TIF program, the City must prepare a Nexus Study that will provide a legal basis for requiring development impact fees consistent with Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code Section 66000 et seq.). On August 15, 2017, City Council adopted the Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study (Attachment E) and directed Staff to draft the appropriate legislation to implement the City Wide Traffic Impact Fee. Discussion At the August 15, 2017 City Council Meeting, City council directed staff to draft an Ordinance to adopt the maximum allowable traffic impact fee. The Nexus Study adopted by City Council on August 15, 2017 calculates the maximum allowable transportation impact fee by land use category shown in the table below. 294 Maximum TIF Schedule Land Use Cost Per Trip Trip Demand Factor1 Raw Fee Admin Charge2 Total TIF per Unit Residential Single Family $5,907 0.99 $5,851 2% $5,968 / unit Multi-Family3 $5,907 0.61 $3,627 2% $3,700 / unit Non-residential Retail $5,907 1.59 $9.41 2% $9.60 / sqft. Office $5,907 2.79 $16.48 2% $16.81 / sqft. Hotel $5,907 0.54 $3,207 2% $3,272 / room Other $5,907 1.00 $5,907 2% $6,025 / trip [1] PM Trips per dwelling unit, per 1,000 building square feet, or per hotel room. [2] Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for legal, accounting, and other administrative costs (e.g. revenue collection, mandated public reporting, and Nexus Analysis). [3] Includes apartments, condos, and townhomes. The TIF will be applied in accordance with the TIF Schedule noted above and consistent with the Nexus Study adopted by Council. Pursuant to the TIF Study, t he following development projects will be exempt from the TIF Program Fee: A. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction and/or expansion of any legal, residential unit and/or the replacement of a previously existing legal dwelling unit that does not cause the addition of vehicular trips as defined by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. B. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of non-residential structures where there is no net increase in square footage and/or change in development type/land use (e.g. office to retail). C. Residential accessory buildings. D. Public facilities, including but not limited to, buildings, structures and outdoor recreation areas owned by a local agency. This is the first reading of the Ordinance which will return to the Council for adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Sustainability Impact None. 295 Fiscal Impact The traffic impact fee program necessarily doesn’t cover 100% of the costs for the improvements designated (and the statutory authority of AB 16000 requires a rational nexus so that new development only cover their “fair share” of costs). Additionally, the impact fee nexus study does not identify all other funding sources (and typically these other sources are not totally secured prior to approval of the fee program since the designated improvements are likely to be required over a very long time horizon, such as build-out of a General Plan). Therefore, the City will need to identify supplemental funding sources, such as General Fund, grants, or individual developer contributions through avenues such as Developer Agreements, to provide the balance of the funding to complete the designated improvements. _____________________________________ Prepared by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: Attachment A-Draft Ordinance Exhibit 1: Chapter 14.02 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Attachment B- Draft Resolution Exhibit 1: Amended Fee Schedule B Attachment C – Amended Fee Schedule B (Redline Version) Attachment D - August 15, 2017 Staff Report Attachment E - City of Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study 296 Attachment “A” Draft Ordinance No. 17-XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADDING CHAPTER 14.02 TO THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT THE CITY’S TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM WHEREAS, Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) enables cities to charge fees for transportation facilities; and WHEREAS, the City adopted an amended General Plan known as "General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040" (The General Plan) on December 4, 2014; and WHEREAS, the General Plan identifies the buildout land use and growth projections and is based on a horizon year of 2040; and WHEREAS, the General Plan identifies impacts on transportation and traffic impacts from the potential future development associated with the 2040 buildout ; and WHEREAS, the City has retained Economic Planning Systems, Inc. to develop the Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study provides the City of Cupertino with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of a new Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Title 14 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 14.02, the “Transportation Impact Fee Program” to be numbered and entitled to read as shown in Exhibit 1, which is incorporated herein by reference as part of this ordinance. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to 297 Attachment A 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 Cupertino City Council the 19th day of September 2017 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on this 3rd day of October 2017 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 298 Attachment A-Exhibit 1 CHAPTER 14.02 -TRANSPORTATION IMPA CT FEE PROGRAM SECTION 1. The Title of this Chapter shall be known as “The Transportation Impact Fee Program.” SECTION 2. Chapter 14.02 is hereby added to the Cupertino Municipal Code as set forth below: 14.02.010 Purpose 14.02.020 Definitions 14.02.030 Authority 14.02.040 Applicability 14.02.050 Transportation Impact Fee Program 14.02.060 Exemptions 14.02.070 Fee Credit 14.02.080 Disposition of TIF Program Revenue and TIF Capital Project Construction 14.02.010 Purpose The City recognizes that new development, additions to existing structures or change in use within the City will create additional demand on the City’s existing transportation infrastructure and identifies the implementation of a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Program as a mitigation measure. The purpose of the TIF Program is to generate revenue that the City can use as a funding source for the costs of the transportation improvements required to serve new development. 14.02.020 Definitions Unless otherwise defined in this section, all terms used in this Chapter shall be as defined as in Chapter 19.08, Definitions. A. “Transportation Impact Fee” or “TIF” means the fee established pursuant to this Chapter 14.02. Impact fees are one-time charges on new development, additions to existing structures, change in use, or similar construction activity that requires a building permit, collected and used by the City to cover the cost of capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new growth. B. “Transportation Impact Fee Program” or “TIF Program” means the impact fee established by this Chapter and the process and programmatic steps for appropriating and applying TIF funds for the purposes intended. 299 Attachment A-Exhibit 1 C. “TIF Capital Project” means any one of the list of projects identified in the “TIF Nexus Study” to be funded through the TIF Program required to mitigate new growth. D. “TIF Nexus Study” means the most current Technical Report prepared pursuant to California Government Code, Section 66000 et seq., the Mitigation Fee Act, to support the adopted TIF. E. “New development” means any construction activity that requires a building permit and creates additional impacts on the City’s transportation infrastructure once completed (e.g., through additional travel demand or “trips”). 14.02.030 Authority A. This chapter is enacted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government code Section 66000 et seq. B. The Director of Public Works, or his/her designee, is authorized to levy and collect the TIF and make all determinations required by this Chapter. 14.02.040 Applicability Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Chapter, the TIF required hereunder shall be payable prior to building permit issuance, for all new development, additions to existing structures, changes in land use within the city for which building permits or other entitlements are required, consistent with the authority provided under this Chapter. Any increase in square footage and/or change in land use or development type shall pay the established applicable fee rate on the new use based on the net increase. 14.02.050 Transportation Impact Fee Program A. Establishment of Fee: The amount of the TIF shall be established by land use type and shall be adopted by separate resolution of the City Council, as amended from time to time. B. The TIF amount shall be automatically adjusted on an annual basis at the beginning of each fiscal year (July 1) based on the Cupertino Construction Cost index. The Cupertino Construction Cost index is developed based upon Construction Cost 300 Attachment A-Exhibit 1 Index (CCI) cost indices for San Francisco produced by Engineering News Record (ENR) and reported on the ENR website. Cupertino’s CCI is calculated by taking the average percent change (%CHG) of each month from the prior year (January through December). C. TIF Capital Projects may be modified to provide for the use of additional Federal, State and local funds; to account for unexpected revenues, whether greater or lesser; to modify, add, or delete a project from the TIF Program, consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act; to maintain consistency with the City’s General Plan; or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances, including, without limitation, circumstances that may come to light as a result of subsequent CEQA environmental review. 14.02.060 Exemptions The following shall be exempt from the TIF Program Fee: A. The rehabilitation, reconstruction and/or expansion of any legal, residential unit and/or the replacement of a previously existing legal dwelling unit that does not cause the addition of vehicular trips as defined by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. B. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of non-residential units where there is no net increase in square footage and/or change in development type/land use (e.g. office to retail). C. Residential accessory buildings as defined in Chapter 19.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. D. Cupertino public facilities, including but not limited to, buildings, structures and outdoor recreational areas. 14.02.070 Fee Credit A. A fee credit may be granted to developers who fund and construct TIF Capital Projects, subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works. The fee credit may not exceed the most current cost estimate of the TIF Capital Project (as defined by annual cost review or other recent evaluation of cost) regardless of the actual cost to construct or the actual costs of construction of the TIF Capital Project. 301 Attachment A-Exhibit 1 14.02.080 Disposition of TIF Program Revenue and TIF Capital Project Construction All fees collected hereunder shall be deposited in a TIF Account/Fund. The TIF Fund and any interest income earned shall be used exclusively to finance TIF Capital Projects and pay for incidental administrative and programmatic costs. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Chapter. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that one or more other sections, subsections, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 302 Attachment B RESOLUTION NO. 17-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE AND AMENDING SCHEDULE B OF THE 2017-18 FEE SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE THE TRANSPORATION IMPACT FEE WHEREAS, Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) enables cities to charge new development impact fees for transportation facilities; and WHEREAS, the City adopted an amended General Plan known as "General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040" (The General Plan) on December 4, 2014; and WHEREAS, The General Plan identifies the buildout land use and growth projections and is based on a horizon year of 2040; and WHEREAS, The General Plan identifies impacts on transportation and traffic impacts from the potential future development associated with the 2040 buildout ; and WHEREAS, Economic Planning Systems, Inc. and Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., who were retained by the City, have prepared a “City of Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study” dated August 2017 (the “TIF Nexus Study”); and WHEREAS, the TIF Nexus Study provides the City of Cupertino with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of a new Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program and establishes the nexus between the imposition of the transportation impact fees and the estimated reasonable cost of providing the improvements for which the fees are charged; and WHEREAS, the City adopted the TIF Nexus Study on August 15, 2017; and WHEREAS, immediately prior to consideration of this resolution, the City Council of the City of Cupertino Waived the First Reading and Introduced an Ordinance adding Chapter 10.02, to the Cupertino Municipal Code (the “TIF Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, Government Code section 66001 requires that, in any action establishing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project, a local agency shall: 303 Attachment B (1) Identify the purpose of the fee. (2) Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. (3) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (4) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (5) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 66016, the TIF Nexus Study was made available for public review and comment at least 10 days prior to this meeting; and WHEREAS, the TIF Nexus Study substantiates the need for the transportation impact fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt this proposed impact fee in accordance with the calculations and recommendations contained in the TIF Nexus Study; and WHEREAS, in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000 et seq.), the City Council opened a public hearing on the proposed update of the impact fees on September 19, 2017, and took public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby takes the following actions: Section 1. Findings. A. The City Council finds and determines that the TIF Nexus Study complies with California Government Code section 66001, and as to the proposed transportation impact fee to be imposed on new development: (1) Identifies the purpose of the fee; (2) Identifies the use to which the fee will be put; (3) Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed; (4) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed; and 304 Attachment B (5) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. B. The City Council hereby determines that the fees imposed pursuant to this Resolution shall be used solely to finance the public facilities described or identified in Appendix A of the TIF Nexus Study. C. The City Council has considered the specific public facilities and cost estimates identified in Appendix A of the TIF Nexus Study, and hereby approves such public facilities and cost estimates and further finds that the cost estimates serve as a reasonable basis for calculating and imposing the development impact fees for such public facilities. D. The City Council further finds that the public facilities and fee methodology identified in the TIF Nexus Study are consistent with the City's General Plan and, in particular, those policies that require new development to mitigate its share of the transportation impacts to City infrastructure. E. The City Council further finds that adoption of this resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that they are not a "project." Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause a significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a "project" under CEQA. 2. Adoption of Transportation Impact Fee. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the transportation impact fees as set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The transportation impact fees set forth in Exhibit 1 are consistent with the TIF Nexus Study. In accordance with Chapter 14.02 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the amount of the development impact fees shall be modified automatically on an annual basis each July 1 based on Cupertino’s Construction Cost index as defined in Chapter 14.02. 3. Amendment of Fee Schedule. The City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves the amendment to Schedule B of the 2017-18 Fee Schedule as set forth in Exhibit 1 to this resolution. 305 Attachment B 4. Effective Date. Pursuant to Government Code 66017, this resolution shall be effective upon the adoption of the TIF Ordinance. PASSED AND AMENDED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19th day of September, 2017 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 306 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-___ Fees Effective ________, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering Attachment B-Exhibit 1 FY2017-18 FEE DESCRIPTION FEE Encroachment Permits - Minor Encroachment Permits (Local Streets) $437.97 - Minor Encroachment Permits (Utility)$302.36 - Major Encroachment Permits (Arterials and Collectors)$753.66 - Work without Permit Double the permit cost Street Cuts Miscellaneous - Minor Street Cuts $1,207.20 - Major Street Cuts $2,436.63 5% of Project Costs and/or $80 per inspection - <10,000 s.f. lot $931.52 - 10,000 s.f or greater Greater of $2,825 min. or 6% of cost of improvement Parcel Map/Tract Map (Map Checking Fee) - Parcel Map (1-4 lots)$5,527.90 - Tract Map (> 4 lots)$9,076.21 Plan Check and Inspection - Review of Building Permit Only $823.70 Additional Plan Review - 3 or more reviews (Each)$183.41 Review of Public/Private Improvement Plans: greater of $3,648 min. or 5% of cost of improvement greater of $6,825 min. or 6% of cost of improvement Geotechnical Review *Cost of review + City Administrative Fee Structural Review *Cost of review + City Administrative Fee *Per Outside Agency Review/Services on Schedule A - General Public Works Confirmation $365.72 Annexation (plus County filing fee)$1,995.32 Certificates of Compliance $1,711.86 Lot Line Adjustment $2,753.43 Transportation Permit (State Regulated Fee) - Single $17.79 - Annual Utility Company $100.04 - Additional Engineering Investigation or Coordination $183.41 Banners - Large Banners Across Stevens Creek Boulevard $499.11 - Small Banners on Light Poles (for 20 poles)$1,266.11 Special Events/Parades $3,061.35 Block Party No Charge - Special Major Permit (projects in excess of $30,000 or over 15 working days) Grading permit - Residential - Commercial 307 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-___ Fees Effective ________, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering Attachment B-Exhibit 1 FY2017-18 FEE DESCRIPTION FEE Vacation of Public Street ROW/PUE - Summary Vacation $2,092.03 - Full Vacation $3,253.65 Rural/Semi-Rural Classification Application - Application Phase $1,704.08 - Implementation phase $1,042.68 Certificate of Correction $781.45 Floodplain Evaluation/Elevation Certificate Review $183.41 Permit Parking Study - Application Phase $1,042.68 - Implementation phase $852.60 - Permit Parking Bi-annual Fee No Charge Streamside Permit $334.59 Master Storm Drain Area Fees: $3,723.86/dwelling unit $5,057.78/acre $3,629.37/acre+ $274.57/unit* *Maximum chargeable dwelling units of 20 units per acre. Commercial and Industrial $9,770.96/acre Public Educational Uses $3,723.86/acre Public Facility Uses $1,880.83/acre Stormwater Permit Inspections - Commercial Initial Inspection No charge Re-Inspection for Violations $266.78 Storm Management Plan Fee $1,342.81 Public Works Staff Time $190/hr New Public Tree Cost Schedule: Public Tree Planting Cost: 24" Street Tree $386.84 36" Street Tree or Larger Actual costs Low-Density Residential (Less than one dwelling unit per acre hillside zoning only) Multiple Family greater than 5.2 dwelling units per acre Single-Family Residential greater than one dwelling unit per acre and less than 5.2 dwelling units per acre 308 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-___ Fees Effective ________, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering Attachment B-Exhibit 1 PUBLIC TREE DAMAGE OR REMOVAL FEE SCHEDULE: This fee schedule is defined in Chapter 14.12 and establishes the fee to be paid to the City for damage to and/or removal of public trees. Repeat offenders, intentional actors and professionals, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to the following fees: Public Tree Damage Fee: Public Tree Removal Fee: FEE = UNMODIFIED TREE VALUE x SPECIES RATING x CONDITION RATING For inputs, use the following values: UNMODIFIED TREE Refer to Unmodified Tree Value Table SPECIES RATING Refer to Species Rating Table CONDITION RATING Good = 1.00, Fair = 0.75, Poor = 0.50 The fee for trees less than 4 inches in diameter shall not be reduced by species or condition rating. No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming or replanting will apply. 1st time offenders, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to a fee of 10% of the Public Tree Damage Fee or 10% of the Public Tree Removal Fee as defined below or $600, whichever is higher, per public tree damaged and/or removed. No additional costs, such as stump removal trimming or replanting will apply $100 per cumulative diameter inch of branch or root plus, if any, the actual costs incurred for immediate corrective pruning plus, if any, the calculated costs for future corrective pruning, as may be required to maintain the health of the tree. The fee for each tree removed shall be based upon the unmodified value of the tree removed (based upon diameter), multiplied by the species rating, multiplied by the condition rating. Trees larger than 40” shall have the fee determined by the most recent edition of the 'Guide for Plant Appraisal', published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, using the trunk formula method. 309 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-___ Fees Effective ________, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering Attachment B-Exhibit 1 Unmodified Tree Value Table: Tree size (diameter of trunk) 1” to 2” $348 2” to 3” $348 3” to 4” $1,039 4” to 5” $1,039 5” to 6” $1,404 6” to 7” $1,851 7” to 8” $2,378 8” to 9” $2,987 9” to 10” $3,677 10” to 11”$4,449 11” to 12” $5,301 12” to 13” $6,235 13” to 14” $7,249 14” to 15” $8,345 15” to 16” $9,522 16” to 17” $10,780 17” to 18”$12,120 18” to 19” $13,540 19” to 20” $15,042 20” to 21” $16,625 21” to 22” $18,290 22” to 23” $20,036 23” to 24” $21,862 24” to 25”$23,769 25” to 26” $25,758 26” to 27” $27,829 27” to 28” $29,980 28” to 29” $32,212 29” to 30” $34,527 30” to 31” $36,920 31” to 32”$39,396 32” to 33” $41,954 33” to 34” $44,593 34” to 35” $47,312 35” to 36” $50,113 36” to 37” $52,995 37” to 38” $55,958 38” to 39”$59,003 39” to 40”$62,128 Measurement shall be measured 4.5 feet above the ground level and rounded down to the nearest whole inch. If the tree is multi-trunk, use 1.5 times the diameter of the largest trunk to determine fee. If the tree is removed to the ground, tree inventory data will be used to determine the trunk diameter. If there is tree damage 4-5 feet above the ground, trunk diameter is to be measured 1 foot above ground level and 1 inch is to be subtracted from the diameter to determine fee. 310 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-___ Fees Effective ________, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering Attachment B-Exhibit 1 Common Name Species Rating% Acacia ACACIA 60 Blackwoodacaia ACACIA MELANOXYLON 60 Trident maple ACER BUERGERIANUM 90 Big leaf maple ACER MACROPHYLLUM**100 Japanese maple ACER PALMATUM 90 Red maple ACER REBRUM 70 Silver maple ACER SACCHARINUM 80 California buckeye AESCULUS CALIFORNICA**100 Red hoursechesnut AESCULUS X CARNEA 90 Tree of heaven AILANTHUS ALTISSIMA 0 Silk tree ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN 50 Black Alder ALNUS GLUTINOSA 80 Strawberry madrone ARBUTUS MARINA 90 Madrone ARBUTUS MENZIESII 100 Hong Kong orchid BAUHINIA BLAKEANA 75 Birch BETULA ALBA 60 Incense cedar CALOCEDRUS DECURRENS 80 Horsetail tree CASUARINA EQUISETIFOLIA 75 Blue atlas cedar CEDRUS ATLANTICA**100 Deodora cedar CEDRUS DEODARA**100 Chinese hackberry CELTUS SINENSIS 65 Carob tree CERATONIA SILIQUA 70 Redbud(eastern)CERCIS CANADENSIS 75 Camphor tree CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA 70 Citrus CITRUS SP 40 English hawthorn CRATAEGUS LAEVIGATA 70 Cypress CUPRESSACEAE 80 Italian cypress CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIREN 80 Japanese persimmon DIOSPYROS KAKI 40 Loquat ERIOBOTRYA DEFLEXA 60 Blue gum tree EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUS 70 Eucalyptus EUCALYPTUS SP 60 Misson fig FICUS CARICA 40 Autumn purple ash FRAXINUS AMERICANA 80 Raywood ash FRAXINUS ANGUSTIFOLIA 'RAYWOOD'80 Moraine ash FRAXINUS HOLOTRICHA 80 Shamel ash FRAXINUS UHDEI 80 Modesto ash FRAXINUS VELUTINA 'MODESTO'80 Australian willow GEIJERA PARVIFOLIA 80 Maidenhair GINKO BILOBA 80 Honey locust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 70 Silk oak tree GREVILLEA ROBUSTA 70 English holly ILLEX AQUIFOLIUM 40 Jacaranda JACARANDA MIMMOSIFOLIA 70 Walnut JUGLANS 70 Species Rating Table 311 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-___ Fees Effective ________, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering Attachment B-Exhibit 1 Common Name Species Rating% Black walnut JUGLANS HINDSII 70 Chinese flame tree KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA 80 Muskogee crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'MUSKOGEE'80 Nanchez crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'NANCHEZ'80 Tuscarora crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'TUSCARORA'80 Sweet bay LAURUS NOBILIS 80 Japanese privit LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 30 American sweetgum LIQUIDAMBER STYRACIFLUA 40 Tulip tree LIRIODENDRON 60 Brisbane box tree LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS 90 Magnolia MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA RUSSET 75 Magnolia (dwarf)MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA ST MARY 75 Saucer magnolia MAGNOLIA SOLINGIANA 75 Crabapple tree MALUS FLORIBUNDA 90 Apple MALUS SP 40 Mayten tree MAYTENUS 70 Malaleuca(broad leaf)MELALEUCA LEUCADENDRA 60 Malaleuca(narrow leaf)MELALEUCA LINARIFOLIA 60 Dawn redwood METASAQUOIA GLYPTOSTROBOIDES 100 Fruitless mulberry MORUS ALBA 40 Black mulberry MORUS NIGRA 40 Myoprum MYOPORUM LAETUM 70 Oleander tree NERIUM OLEANDER 40 Olive OLEA EUROPAEA 70 Devilwood OSMANTHUS AMERICANUS 0 Palm PALM*40 Avocado PERSEA AMERICANA 60 Red leaf photinia PHOTINIA GLABRA 60 Spruce PICEA 80 Colorado spruce PICEA PUNGENS 80 Colorado blue spruce PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA'80 Italian stone pine PINUS PINEA 90 Pine PINUS SP 30 Chinese pistacio PISTACIA CHINENSIS 80 Lemonwood tree PITTOSPORUM EUGENIOIDES 40 Japanese cheesewood PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 40 London plane 'colombiana'PLATANUS COLUMBIANA 95 Western Sycamore PLATANUS RACEMOSA**100 London plane 'bloodgood'PLATANUS X HISPANICA 'BLOODGOOD'95 Yew pine PODOCURPUS MACROPHYLLUS 75 Poplar POPULUS 60 Flowering cherry PRUNUS AKEBONO 80 Wild Plum PRUNUS AMARACANA 40 Almond tree PRUNUS ALMOND 50 Apricot tree PRUNUS APRICOT 40 Species Rating Table 312 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-___ Fees Effective ________, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering Attachment B-Exhibit 1 Common Name Species Rating% Fruiting cherry PRUNUS AVIUM 0 Carolina cherry PRUNUS CAROLINIANA 60 Purple leaf plum PRUNUS CERASFERA KRAUTER VESUVIUS 70 Peach tree PRUNUS PERSICA 40 Douglas fir PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII 80 Guava PSIDIUM GUAJAVA 40 Pomegranate PUNICA GRANATUM 40 Aristocrat Flowering pear tree PYRUS CALLERYANA 'ARISTOCRAT'75 Bradford flowering pear PYRUS CALLERYANA 'BRADFORD'75 Chanticleer flowering pear PYRUS CALLERYANA 'CHANTICLEER'75 Evergreen flowering pear PYRUS KAWAKAMII 75 Asian pear PYRUS PYRIFOLIA 40 Oak QUERCUS 90 Coast live oak QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA**100 White oak QUERCUS ALBA 90 Texas red oak QUERCUS BUCKEYI 90 Sierra oak QUERCUS CAMBII 90 Blue oak QUERCUS DOUGLASII**100 Forest green oak QUERCUS FRAINETTO 90 Holly oak QUERCUS ILEX 90 Black oak QUERCUS KELLOGGII**100 Valley oak QUERCUS LOBATA**100 Red oak QUERCUS SUBER 90 Cork oak QUERCUS SUBER 90 Southern live oak QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 100 Interior live oak QUERCUS WISLIZENI**100 African sumac RHUS LANCIA 70 Weeping willow SALIX BABYLONICA 40 Wild willow SALIX SCOULERIANA 0 California pepper tree SCHINUS MOLE 40 Brazilian pepper tree SCHINUS TEREBINTHEFOLIUS 40 Coast redwood SEQUIOA SEMPRIVIRONS 95 Giant sequioa SEQUOIADENDRON GIGANTEUM 80 Japanese pogoda SOPHORIA JAPONICA 70 Chinese tallow TRIADICA SEBIFERA 50 Water gum TRISTANIA LAURINA 70 Bosque chinese elm ULMAS PARVIFOLIA 'BOSQUE'90 Chinese elm ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 70 Siberian elm ULMUS PUMILA 60 Bay laurel UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA**100 Mexican fan palm WASHINGTON ROBUSTA 0 Spanish dagger yucca YUCCA GLORIOSA 0 Zelkova ZELKOVA SERRATA 65 *All palms on Palm Avenue are protected heritage trees and will be rated @ 100% **Protected tree species Species Rating Table 313 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-___ Fees Effective ________, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering Attachment B-Exhibit 1 FY2017-18 FEE DESCRIPTION FEE Transportation Impact Fee - Single Family $5,968/Unit - Multi-Family $3,700/Unit Includes apartments, condos and townhomes - Retail $9.60/sqft. - Office $16.81/sqft - Hotel $3,272/room - Other (per PM trip)$6,025/trip 314 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-052 Fees Effective August 18, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering FY2017-18 FEE DESCRIPTION FEE Encroachment Permits - Minor Encroachment Permits (Local Streets)$437.97 - Minor Encroachment Permits (Utility)$302.36 - Major Encroachment Permits (Arterials and Collectors)$753.66 - Work without Permit Double the permit cost Street Cuts Miscellaneous - Minor Street Cuts $1,207.20 - Major Street Cuts $2,436.63 5% of Project Costs and/or $80 per inspection - <10,000 s.f. lot $931.52 - 10,000 s.f or greater Greater of $2,825 min. or 6% of cost of improvement Parcel Map/Tract Map (Map Checking Fee) - Parcel Map (1-4 lots)$5,527.90 - Tract Map (> 4 lots)$9,076.21 Plan Check and Inspection - Review of Building Permit Only $823.70 Additional Plan Review - 3 or more reviews (Each)$183.41 Review of Public/Private Improvement Plans: greater of $3,648 min. or 5% of cost of improvement greater of $6,825 min. or 6% of cost of improvement Geotechnical Review *Cost of review + City Administrative Fee Structural Review *Cost of review + City Administrative Fee *Per Outside Agency Review/Services on Schedule A - General Public Works Confirmation $365.72 Annexation (plus County filing fee)$1,995.32 Certificates of Compliance $1,711.86 Lot Line Adjustment $2,753.43 Transportation Permit (State Regulated Fee) - Single $17.79 - Annual Utility Company $100.04 - Additional Engineering Investigation or Coordination $183.41 Banners - Large Banners Across Stevens Creek Boulevard $499.11 - Small Banners on Light Poles (for 20 poles)$1,266.11 Special Events/Parades $3,061.35 Block Party No Charge - Special Major Permit (projects in excess of $30,000 or over 15 working days) Grading permit - Residential - Commercial Attachment C 315 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-052 Fees Effective August 18, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering FY2017-18 FEE DESCRIPTION FEE Vacation of Public Street ROW/PUE - Summary Vacation $2,092.03 - Full Vacation $3,253.65 Rural/Semi-Rural Classification Application - Application Phase $1,704.08 - Implementation phase $1,042.68 Certificate of Correction $781.45 Floodplain Evaluation/Elevation Certificate Review $183.41 Permit Parking Study - Application Phase $1,042.68 - Implementation phase $852.60 - Permit Parking Bi-annual Fee No Charge Streamside Permit $334.59 Master Storm Drain Area Fees: $3,723.86/dwelling unit $5,057.78/acre $3,629.37/acre+ $274.57/unit* *Maximum chargeable dwelling units of 20 units per acre. Commercial and Industrial $9,770.96/acre Public Educational Uses $3,723.86/acre Public Facility Uses $1,880.83/acre Stormwater Permit Inspections - Commercial Initial Inspection No charge Re-Inspection for Violations $266.78 Storm Management Plan Fee $1,342.81 Public Works Staff Time $190/hr New Public Tree Cost Schedule: Public Tree Planting Cost: 24" Street Tree $386.84 36" Street Tree or Larger Actual costs Low-Density Residential (Less than one dwelling unit per acre hillside zoning only) Multiple Family greater than 5.2 dwelling units per acre Single-Family Residential greater than one dwelling unit per acre and less than 5.2 dwelling units per acre Attachment C 316 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-052 Fees Effective August 18, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering PUBLIC TREE DAMAGE OR REMOVAL FEE SCHEDULE: This fee schedule is defined in Chapter 14.12 and establishes the fee to be paid to the City for damage to and/or removal of public trees. Repeat offenders, intentional actors and professionals, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to the following fees: Public Tree Damage Fee: Public Tree Removal Fee: FEE = UNMODIFIED TREE VALUE x SPECIES RATING x CONDITION RATING For inputs, use the following values: UNMODIFIED TREE Refer to Unmodified Tree Value Table SPECIES RATING Refer to Species Rating Table CONDITION RATING Good = 1.00, Fair = 0.75, Poor = 0.50 The fee for trees less than 4 inches in diameter shall not be reduced by species or condition rating. No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming or replanting will apply. 1st time offenders, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to a fee of 10% of the Public Tree Damage Fee or 10% of the Public Tree Removal Fee as defined below or $600, whichever is higher, per public tree damaged and/or removed. No additional costs, such as stump removal trimming or replanting will apply $100 per cumulative diameter inch of branch or root plus, if any, the actual costs incurred for immediate corrective pruning plus, if any, the calculated costs for future corrective pruning, as may be required to maintain the health of the tree. The fee for each tree removed shall be based upon the unmodified value of the tree removed (based upon diameter), multiplied by the species rating, multiplied by the condition rating. Trees larger than 40” shall have the fee determined by the most recent edition of the 'Guide for Plant Appraisal', published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, using the trunk formula method. Attachment C 317 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-052 Fees Effective August 18, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering Unmodified Tree Value Table: Tree size (diameter of trunk) 1” to 2” $348 2” to 3” $348 3” to 4” $1,039 4” to 5” $1,039 5” to 6” $1,404 6” to 7” $1,851 7” to 8” $2,378 8” to 9” $2,987 9” to 10” $3,677 10” to 11” $4,449 11” to 12” $5,301 12” to 13” $6,235 13” to 14” $7,249 14” to 15” $8,345 15” to 16” $9,522 16” to 17” $10,780 17” to 18” $12,120 18” to 19” $13,540 19” to 20” $15,042 20” to 21” $16,625 21” to 22” $18,290 22” to 23” $20,036 23” to 24” $21,862 24” to 25” $23,769 25” to 26” $25,758 26” to 27” $27,829 27” to 28” $29,980 28” to 29” $32,212 29” to 30” $34,527 30” to 31” $36,920 31” to 32” $39,396 32” to 33” $41,954 33” to 34” $44,593 34” to 35” $47,312 35” to 36” $50,113 36” to 37” $52,995 37” to 38” $55,958 38” to 39” $59,003 39” to 40” $62,128 Measurement shall be measured 4.5 feet above the ground level and rounded down to the nearest whole inch. If the tree is multi-trunk, use 1.5 times the diameter of the largest trunk to determine fee. If the tree is removed to the ground, tree inventory data will be used to determine the trunk diameter. If there is tree damage 4-5 feet above the ground, trunk diameter is to be measured 1 foot above ground level and 1 inch is to be subtracted from the diameter to determine fee. Attachment C 318 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-052 Fees Effective August 18, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering Common Name Species Rating% Acacia ACACIA 60 Blackwoodacaia ACACIA MELANOXYLON 60 Trident maple ACER BUERGERIANUM 90 Big leaf maple ACER MACROPHYLLUM**100 Japanese maple ACER PALMATUM 90 Red maple ACER REBRUM 70 Silver maple ACER SACCHARINUM 80 California buckeye AESCULUS CALIFORNICA**100 Red hoursechesnut AESCULUS X CARNEA 90 Tree of heaven AILANTHUS ALTISSIMA 0 Silk tree ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN 50 Black Alder ALNUS GLUTINOSA 80 Strawberry madrone ARBUTUS MARINA 90 Madrone ARBUTUS MENZIESII 100 Hong Kong orchid BAUHINIA BLAKEANA 75 Birch BETULA ALBA 60 Incense cedar CALOCEDRUS DECURRENS 80 Horsetail tree CASUARINA EQUISETIFOLIA 75 Blue atlas cedar CEDRUS ATLANTICA**100 Deodora cedar CEDRUS DEODARA**100 Chinese hackberry CELTUS SINENSIS 65 Carob tree CERATONIA SILIQUA 70 Redbud(eastern)CERCIS CANADENSIS 75 Camphor tree CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA 70 Citrus CITRUS SP 40 English hawthorn CRATAEGUS LAEVIGATA 70 Cypress CUPRESSACEAE 80 Italian cypress CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIREN 80 Japanese persimmon DIOSPYROS KAKI 40 Loquat ERIOBOTRYA DEFLEXA 60 Blue gum tree EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUS 70 Eucalyptus EUCALYPTUS SP 60 Misson fig FICUS CARICA 40 Autumn purple ash FRAXINUS AMERICANA 80 Raywood ash FRAXINUS ANGUSTIFOLIA 'RAYWOOD'80 Moraine ash FRAXINUS HOLOTRICHA 80 Shamel ash FRAXINUS UHDEI 80 Modesto ash FRAXINUS VELUTINA 'MODESTO'80 Australian willow GEIJERA PARVIFOLIA 80 Maidenhair GINKO BILOBA 80 Honey locust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 70 Silk oak tree GREVILLEA ROBUSTA 70 English holly ILLEX AQUIFOLIUM 40 Jacaranda JACARANDA MIMMOSIFOLIA 70 Walnut JUGLANS 70 Species Rating Table Attachment C 319 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-052 Fees Effective August 18, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering Common Name Species Rating% Black walnut JUGLANS HINDSII 70 Chinese flame tree KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA 80 Muskogee crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'MUSKOGEE'80 Nanchez crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'NANCHEZ'80 Tuscarora crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'TUSCARORA'80 Sweet bay LAURUS NOBILIS 80 Japanese privit LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 30 American sweetgum LIQUIDAMBER STYRACIFLUA 40 Tulip tree LIRIODENDRON 60 Brisbane box tree LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS 90 Magnolia MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA RUSSET 75 Magnolia (dwarf)MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA ST MARY 75 Saucer magnolia MAGNOLIA SOLINGIANA 75 Crabapple tree MALUS FLORIBUNDA 90 Apple MALUS SP 40 Mayten tree MAYTENUS 70 Malaleuca(broad leaf)MELALEUCA LEUCADENDRA 60 Malaleuca(narrow leaf)MELALEUCA LINARIFOLIA 60 Dawn redwood METASAQUOIA GLYPTOSTROBOIDES 100 Fruitless mulberry MORUS ALBA 40 Black mulberry MORUS NIGRA 40 Myoprum MYOPORUM LAETUM 70 Oleander tree NERIUM OLEANDER 40 Olive OLEA EUROPAEA 70 Devilwood OSMANTHUS AMERICANUS 0 Palm PALM*40 Avocado PERSEA AMERICANA 60 Red leaf photinia PHOTINIA GLABRA 60 Spruce PICEA 80 Colorado spruce PICEA PUNGENS 80 Colorado blue spruce PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA'80 Italian stone pine PINUS PINEA 90 Pine PINUS SP 30 Chinese pistacio PISTACIA CHINENSIS 80 Lemonwood tree PITTOSPORUM EUGENIOIDES 40 Japanese cheesewood PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 40 London plane 'colombiana'PLATANUS COLUMBIANA 95 Western Sycamore PLATANUS RACEMOSA**100 London plane 'bloodgood'PLATANUS X HISPANICA 'BLOODGOOD'95 Yew pine PODOCURPUS MACROPHYLLUS 75 Poplar POPULUS 60 Flowering cherry PRUNUS AKEBONO 80 Wild Plum PRUNUS AMARACANA 40 Almond tree PRUNUS ALMOND 50 Apricot tree PRUNUS APRICOT 40 Species Rating Table Attachment C 320 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-052 Fees Effective August 18, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering Common Name Species Rating% Fruiting cherry PRUNUS AVIUM 0 Carolina cherry PRUNUS CAROLINIANA 60 Purple leaf plum PRUNUS CERASFERA KRAUTER VESUVIUS 70 Peach tree PRUNUS PERSICA 40 Douglas fir PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII 80 Guava PSIDIUM GUAJAVA 40 Pomegranate PUNICA GRANATUM 40 Aristocrat Flowering pear tree PYRUS CALLERYANA 'ARISTOCRAT'75 Bradford flowering pear PYRUS CALLERYANA 'BRADFORD'75 Chanticleer flowering pear PYRUS CALLERYANA 'CHANTICLEER'75 Evergreen flowering pear PYRUS KAWAKAMII 75 Asian pear PYRUS PYRIFOLIA 40 Oak QUERCUS 90 Coast live oak QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA**100 White oak QUERCUS ALBA 90 Texas red oak QUERCUS BUCKEYI 90 Sierra oak QUERCUS CAMBII 90 Blue oak QUERCUS DOUGLASII**100 Forest green oak QUERCUS FRAINETTO 90 Holly oak QUERCUS ILEX 90 Black oak QUERCUS KELLOGGII**100 Valley oak QUERCUS LOBATA**100 Red oak QUERCUS SUBER 90 Cork oak QUERCUS SUBER 90 Southern live oak QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 100 Interior live oak QUERCUS WISLIZENI**100 African sumac RHUS LANCIA 70 Weeping willow SALIX BABYLONICA 40 Wild willow SALIX SCOULERIANA 0 California pepper tree SCHINUS MOLE 40 Brazilian pepper tree SCHINUS TEREBINTHEFOLIUS 40 Coast redwood SEQUIOA SEMPRIVIRONS 95 Giant sequioa SEQUOIADENDRON GIGANTEUM 80 Japanese pogoda SOPHORIA JAPONICA 70 Chinese tallow TRIADICA SEBIFERA 50 Water gum TRISTANIA LAURINA 70 Bosque chinese elm ULMAS PARVIFOLIA 'BOSQUE'90 Chinese elm ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 70 Siberian elm ULMUS PUMILA 60 Bay laurel UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA**100 Mexican fan palm WASHINGTON ROBUSTA 0 Spanish dagger yucca YUCCA GLORIOSA 0 Zelkova ZELKOVA SERRATA 65 *All palms on Palm Avenue are protected heritage trees and will be rated @ 100% **Protected tree species Species Rating Table Attachment C 321 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 17-052 Fees Effective August 18, 2017 Schedule B - Engineering FY2017-18 FEE DESCRIPTION FEE Transportation Impact Fee - Single Family $5,968/Unit - Multi-Family $3,700/Unit Includes apartments, condos and townhomes $9.60/sqft. $16.81/sqft $3,272/room - Retail - Office - Hotel - Other (per PM trip)$6,025/trip Attachment C 322 Attachment D 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: August 15, 2017 Subject Adoption of City of Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study. Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 17-______, adopting the Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study. Direct Staff to draft ordinance to implement City Wide Traffic Impact Fee to be presented to City Council at the September 19, 2017 Council meeting. Background The need for transportation infrastructure improvements needed to support the growth of new development has traditionally been determined through traffic impact analyses (TIA’s) performed for individual development projects during the entitlement process. The TIA would evaluate the traffic impacts to the street network resulting from trips generated by the specific project and, if certain thresholds of delay or volume-to- capacity ratio were exceeded that resulted in a substandard Level of Service (LOS) to intersections or street segments, the project would be required to mitigate the impact to raise the LOS to an acceptable level. While this approach is effective in ensuring the necessary improvements are completed, it is inequitable in that only the development project which ultimately trips the LOS threshold is responsible for funding and completing the improvement, regardless of their relative contribution to traffic congestion, while earlier development projects that potentially generated a greater number of trips would not be responsible for contributing funding merely because they developed sooner and did not exceed any LOS threshold at the time. The establishment of a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) eliminates these inequities by requiring all new development projects to contribute funding for transportation infrastructure improvements in relation to their actual contribution to traffic congestion (based on trip generation). The contributions are held in an account to be managed by the City, and used (along with other funding) to complete the infrastructure improvements in time as they are needed. 323 Attachment D The Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study provides the City of Cupertino with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of a new Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program. The City of Cupertino General Plan (General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040), adopted on December 4, 2014, specifically identifies the need to implement a TIF to help fund transportation improvements necessary to accommodate and mitigate the impacts of future development in the City. Impact fees are one-time charges on new development collected and used by the City to cover the cost of capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new growth. As such impact fees must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. Impact fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure. In addition, impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover the cost of existing needs/deficiencies in the City transportation capital improvement network. To support the TIF program, the City must prepare a Nexus Study that will provide a legal basis for requiring development impact fees consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code Section 66000 et seq.). The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to adopt, by resolution or ordinance, the Transportation Impact Fee consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in the Nexus Study. In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project, Government Code 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify how the fee is to be used; 3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of development project for which the fee is being used; 4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed; and 5. Show the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility. Discussion The Fee Program described in the Nexus Study is based on land use, growth projections and transportation infrastructure requirements identified in the General Plan and supporting documents (e.g., Environmental Impact Report). The Nexus Study quantifies the potential allocation of the proposed transportation improvements to new 324 Attachment D growth in the City and calculates the maximum allowable transportation impact fee schedule by land use category. Impact fees are derived from a list of specific capital improvement projects and associated costs that are needed in part or in full to accommodate new growth. The existing and future land use estimates used in the TIF are based on Table LU-1 of the Land Use and Community Design Element the General Plan. These land use estimates are used to estimate future travel demand, or trips, based on a variety of assumptions related to trip rates and lengths by land use category. Capital transportation improvement projects included in the list cover the intersections/segments where significant impact(s) were identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (December 2014). In addition, the projects identified in the City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan are also included in the list. Transportation projects that have been identified as mitigations in CEQA documents for specific projects (e.g., Apple Campus 2, Marina Plaza, Hamptons) have been excluded from the TIF. The TIF nexus analysis allocates costs based on (1) the amount attributable to new versus existing development and (2) the amount covered by secured funding sources. Overall, this nexus analysis allocates approximately $59.35 million in transportation improvement cost to the TIF. The amount represents about 31% of the approximately $193.5 million in future transportation infrastructure costs considered in the analysis. The following table calculates the maximum TIF for each land use category, and includes a 2 percent charge needed to cover the administrative cost of administering the TIF program. These are the fee levels that would generate sufficient fee revenues to cover the full TIF cost allocation of $59.35 million. Decisions to charge fees below the maximum fee would result in funding gaps that would need to be covered by other funding sources. Maximum TIF Schedule Land Use Cost Per Trip Trip Demand Factor1 Raw Fee Admin Charge2 Total TIF per Unit Residential Single Family $5,907 0.99 $5,851 2% $5,968 / unit Multi-Family3 $5,907 0.61 $3,627 2% $3,700 / unit Non-residential Retail $5,907 1.59 $9.41 2% $9.60 / sqft. Office $5,907 2.79 $16.48 2% $16.81 / sqft. Hotel $5,907 0.54 $3,207 2% $3,272 / room Other $5,907 1.00 $5,907 2% $6,025 / trip [1] PM Trips per dwelling unit, per 1,000 building square feet, or per hotel room. 325 Attachment D [2] Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for legal, accounting, and other administrative costs (e.g. revenue collection, mandated public reporting, and Nexus Analysis). [3] Includes apartments, condos, and townhomes. Staff recommends that City Council direct staff to draft an Ordinance to adopt the maximum allowable traffic impact fee as shown in the table above. The fee would be due at issuance of building permit. Additionally, staff recommends that the fee apply to all new development and redevelopment, with the following exemptions: 1. Tenant improvement projects, unless the project results in an intensification of land use; 2. Structures that have been vacant for less than one year; 3. Public facilities; 4. New or intensified development may be subject to a credit for development existing on the site and not vacant for more than one year. Public Outreach Two community meetings were held by staff in order to inform the public regarding the benefits of the TIF, answer questions, and solicit feedback. These meetings were noticed through the city website, Cupertino Courier, and NextDoor. Additionally, information and project updates were given to the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action Committee on three separate occasions. Sustainability Impact There is no impact to sustainability. Fiscal Impact The traffic impact fee program necessarily doesn’t cover 100% of the costs for the improvements designated (and the statutory authority of AB 16000 requires a rational nexus so that new development only cover their “fair share” of costs). Additionally, the impact fee nexus study does not identify all other funding sources (and typically these other sources are not totally secured prior to approval of the fee program since the designated improvements are likely to be required over a very long time horizon, such as build-out of a General Plan). Therefore, the City will need to identify supplemental funding sources, such as General Fund, grants, or individual developer contributions through avenues such as Developer Agreements, to provide the balance of the funding to complete the designated improvements. 326 Attachment D _____________________________________ Prepared by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Draft Resolution B – City of Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study 327 Report City of Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Prepared for: City of Cupertino Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. and Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. August 2017 EPS #161085 328 Table of Contents 1. STUDY OVERVIEW AND RESULTS ................................................................................ 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 Legal Context ........................................................................................................... 1 Maximum Allowable Fee Schedule ............................................................................... 2 Key Issues and Assumptions ...................................................................................... 3 2. LAND USE AND GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................... 4 Land Use Assumptions and Forecast ............................................................................ 4 Travel Demand Assumptions and Forecasts .................................................................. 5 3. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS ............................................................... 7 Project Selection Criteria ............................................................................................ 7 Project List ............................................................................................................... 7 Facility Cost Estimates ............................................................................................... 8 4. NEXUS ANALYSIS AND MAXIMUM FEE .......................................................................... 9 Overview of Nexus Findings ....................................................................................... 9 Travel Demand Model and Cost Allocation .................................................................. 10 Maximum Fee Calculation ........................................................................................ 14 5. TIF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION ............................................................... 16 Approval Process .................................................................................................... 16 Fee Amount and Collection ....................................................................................... 16 Fee Credits, Reimbursements, and Exemptions ........................................................... 17 Annual Review, Accounting, and Updates ................................................................... 19 Securing Supplemental Funding ................................................................................ 20 Appendices APPENDIX A: Detailed TIF Project List and Costs Estimates 329 List of Tables Table 1 Maximum Allowable Transportation Impact Fee ..................................................... 3 Table 2 General Plan Land Use Assumptions and Forecasts ................................................ 4 Table 3 Trip Generation Assumptions .............................................................................. 5 Table 4 Trip Generation Projections ................................................................................ 6 Table 5 Summary of TIF Projects and Costs ..................................................................... 8 Table 6 TIF Travel Demand Assumptions ....................................................................... 12 Table 7 TIF Cost Allocation Assumptions and Calculations ................................................ 14 Table 8 Maximum Fee per Trip ..................................................................................... 14 Table 9 Maximum TIF Schedule .................................................................................... 15 330 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx 1. STUDY OVERVIEW AND RESULTS Introduction This Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study (Nexus Study) provides the City of Cupertino (City) with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of a new Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program (TIF Program). Impact fees are one-time charges on new development collected and used by the City to cover the cost of capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new growth.1 The fees are typically collected upon issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy. The City adopted an amended General Plan known as "General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040" (The General Plan) on December 4, 2014. The General Plan specifically identifies the need to implement a TIF to fund needed transportation improvements necessary to accommodate and mitigate the impacts of future development in the City. To support the TIF program, the City must prepare a Nexus Study that will provide a legal basis for requiring development impact fees consistent with Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code Section 66000 et seq.). The Fee Program described in this Nexus Study is based on growth projections and transportation infrastructure requirements identified in the General Plan and supporting documents (e.g., Environmental Impact Report). This Nexus Study quantifies the potential allocation of the proposed transportation improvements to new growth in the City and calculates the maximum allowable transportation impact fee schedule by land use category. The City may decide to adopt fees below the maximum supportable level based on economic or policy considerations. Such fee reductions should be considered in conjunction with the availability of alternative sources of capital improvement funding. Legal Context This Nexus Study is designed to provide the necessary technical analysis to support a schedule of transportation impact fees to be established by an Impact Fee Act Fee Ordinance and Resolution. The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to adopt, by resolution, the Transportation Impact Fee consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling ordinance. Impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of constructing capital and infrastructure improvements required to serve new development and growth in the City. As such impact fees must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. Impact fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and 1 New development includes any construction activity that requires a building permit and creates additional impacts on the City’s transportation infrastructure once completed (e.g., through additional travel demand or “trips”). 331 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx infrastructure. In addition, impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover the cost of existing needs/ deficiencies in the City transportation capital improvement network. In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project, Government Code 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify how the fee is to be used; 3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of development project for which the fee is being used; 4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed; and 5. Show the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility. These statutory requirements have been followed in establishing this TIF, as documented in subsequent chapters. Chapter 4 summarizes the specific findings that explain or demonstrate this nexus. If the transportation impact fee is adopted, this Nexus Study and the technical information it contains should be maintained and reviewed periodically by the City to ensure Impact Fee accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent that transportation improvement requirements, costs, and development potential changes over time, the Fee Program will need to be updated. Further information on the implementation and administration of the TIF program is provided in Chapter 5. Maximum Allowable Fee Schedule Table 1 shows the City’s maximum transportation impact fee schedule by land use consistent with nexus requirements and the associated analysis contained in this Technical Report. These transportation impact fees apply to new residential and nonresidential development and cover the transportation improvement costs required to support new development after existing deficiencies and known other funding sources have been taken into account. The fee estimates also include a 2 percent fee program administration fee, consistent with Mitigation Fee Act program administrative costs in many other California jurisdictions.2 The fees apply to all new development, except those exempted by the Ordinance of other means, such as approved under the terms of a Development Agreement.3 2 The 2 percent administration cost is designed to cover expenses for preparation of the development impact fee study and subsequent updates as well as the required reporting, auditing, collection and other annual administrative costs involved in overseeing the program. Development impact fee programs throughout California have applied similar administrative charges. 3 These individual Development Agreements specify the specific transportation improvements/ contributions to be made by these individual developments. 332 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx The adoption of the recommended fee schedule would result in fee revenues of about $59.8 million in today’s dollar terms assuming full build-out of the General Plan consistent with current land use designations. An additional $134 million in revenues will be required from other funding sources to cover the full cost of the transportation facilities included in the fee calculations. In other words, the TIF is estimated to generate about 31 percent of the revenue needed to cover the future transportation improvements and facilities costs identified to mitigate growth impacts associated with build-out of the General Plan. Table 1 Maximum Allowable Transportation Impact Fee Key Issues and Assumptions The results of this analysis are based on a variety of conditions and assumptions regarding facility costs, service standards, growth projections, and facility demand. Assumptions are covered in detail in later chapters, though some of the key issues are summarized below:  Future Development and Trips. The fee calculations were based on residential and nonresidential development projections, and associated trip generation. The most recently approved General Plan was the starting source for this information. In addition, the Cupertino Travel Demand model was utilized to conduct travel demand analysis.  Capital Improvement Program. The list of transportation improvements included in the Fee Program focus on projects identified in existing City planning documents and supporting studies. As such, the Consultant Team will not seek to identify or plan entirely new transportation projects in the City.  Cost Estimates. Stantec has developed or verified cost estimates for all of the transportation improvement projects identified herein. The cost estimates were based on assumptions about the planned right-of-way, roadway cross-sections, and landscaping treatments for each corridor. Assumptions were based on similar existing corridors within the City of Cupertino and the City’s roadway design standards, and have been reviewed and confirmed by City staff.  Cost Allocation. Transportation analysis conducted by Stantec (including Select Link Analysis) was used to determine the portion of transportation improvements costs to be included in the fee program. Only transportation improvement costs specifically required to support new development are included in the transportation impact fee calculation. In addition, funding for the identified transportation improvement projects from other sources was subtracted from the gross cost estimates. Land Use Residential Single Family $5,968 / unit Multi-Family $3,700 / unit Non-residential Retail $9.60 / sqft. Office $16.81 / sqft. Hotel $3,272 / room Other $6,025 / trip Total TIF per Unit 333 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx 2. LAND USE AND GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS This chapter documents the land use and growth assumptions and forecasts that underlie the TIF calculations. These factors drive the traffic generation and attraction in the City of Cupertino and, in turn, are critical factors in determining how to allocate new transportation improvement costs between existing and new development and between different land uses. Land Use Assumptions and Forecast The existing and future land use estimates used in the TIF are based on the General Plan: Community Vision 2015 – 2040, approved in December 2014. Specifically, the land use assumptions summarized in Table 2 were derived from Table LU-1 of the Land Use and Community Design Element and are categorized as follows: Table 2 General Plan Land Use Assumptions and Forecasts  Single-Family Residential: This category refers to detached single-family homes. Traffic impact fees for new single-family residential development are applied on a per unit basis.  Multifamily Residential): This category covers apartments, townhomes, condos, duplexes and other multifamily housing in which walls are shared among units. Traffic impact fees for new construction of this type of residential development are applied on a per unit basis. The break-out between single-family and multifamily development is based on the Cupertino Travel Demand model.  Retail: Retail development can include shopping centers, discount stores, nurseries, factory outlets, car sale lots, convenient stores, and specialty stores. Traffic impact fees for new construction of this type of development are applied on a square footage basis. 2014 2040 Residential Units Single Family 15,117 16,172 1,055 Multi-Family1 6,295 7,122 827 Subtotal 21,412 23,294 1,882 Non-residential Retail (1,000 Sq. Ft.)3,632 4,431 799 Office (1,000 Sq. Ft.)8,916 11,470 2,554 Hotel (rooms)1,116 1,429 313 Growth (2014 - 2040) [1] Multi-family Includes apartments, condos, duplexes and townhomes. The breakdown between single-and multi-family based on estimated from the Cupertino Travel Demand Model. Sources: City of Cupertino Community Vision 2040, Table LU-1. Cupertino Travel Demand Model YearLand Use 334 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx  Office: This category covers general offices, including professional and medical office development, government offices, and post offices. Traffic impact fees for this type of development are applied on a square footage basis.  Hotel: This category includes hotels, motels, and other lodging facilities. Traffic impact fees for this type of development are applied on a per room basis.  Other: This category is included as a catch-all to cover all other development activity in Cupertino that generates new travel demand or trips but is not included in one of the above categories. For example, it could include churches, private schools, entertainment venues (e.g., cinemas) and other development that is not easily categorized. Travel Demand Assumptions and Forecasts The land use forecasts documented above are used to estimate future travel demand, or trips, based on a variety of assumptions related to trip rates and lengths by land use category. These assumptions are summarized in Table 3. Table 3 Trip Generation Assumptions Table 4 combines the travel demand assumptions presented in Table 3 with the growth estimates summarized in Table 2 to estimate the total growth in trips through build-out of the General Plan. As shown, this approach results in an estimated growth of 10,120 PM peak hour trips per day, which represents a 20 percent increase over existing levels. Land Use Primary Trips1 Diverted Trips1 Total Excluding Pass-by1 Avg. Trip Length2 Adjustment Factor3 ITE Category Avg. PM Trips4 Trip Demand Factor5 Residential Single Family 86% 11% 97% 6.77 0.99 Single Family Detached (210) 1.00 0.99 Multi-Family 86% 11% 97% 6.77 0.99 Apartment (220)0.62 0.61 Non-residential Retail 47% 31% 78% 3.65 0.43 Shopping Center (820) 3.71 1.59 Office 77% 19% 96% 12.93 1.87 General Office Building (710) 1.49 2.79 Hotel 58% 38% 96% 6.25 0.90 Hotel (310)0.60 0.54 [1] Percent of total trips. Primary trips are trips with no midway stops, or "links." Diverted trips are linked trips whose di stance adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass-by trips are links that do not add more than one mile to the total trip. [2] In miles. Residential based on Home-Based "Total, personal travel", Retail based on "Home-Based Shop/Other", Hotel based on "Non-Home Based" trip lengths and Office based on "Home-Based Work High Income" trip length form City of Cupertino Travel Demand Model Year 2040 Travel forecasts. [3] The trip adjustment factor equals the percent of non-pass-by trips multiplied by the average trip length and divided by the systemwide average trip length of 6.63 miles. [4] Trips per dwelling unit, room or per 1,000 building square feet. [5] The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the average PM trips. Sources: San Diego Association of the Goverments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Regions, April 2002; Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition; Stantec. 335 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx Table 4 Trip Generation Projections Units Trips Units Trips Units Trips Residential Units Single Family 0.99 15,117 14,973 16,172 16,018 1,055 1,045 Multi-Family2 0.61 6,295 3,866 7,122 4,374 827 508 Subtotal 21,412 18,839 23,294 20,392 1,882 1,553 Non-residential Retail (1,000 Sq. Ft.)1.59 3,632 5,786 4,431 7,059 799 1,273 Office (1,000 Sq. Ft.)2.79 8,916 24,872 11,470 31,997 2,554 7,125 Hotel (rooms)0.54 1,116 606 1,429 776 313 170 Subtotal 31,264 39,832 8,568 Total 50,103 60,223 10,120 Trip Demand Factor1 Sources: Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040; Stantec. [2] Includes apartments, condos, duplexes, and townhomes. Land Use 2014 2040 Growth (2014 - 2040) [1] PM Trips per dwelling unit, per 1,000 building square feet, or per hotel room (see Table 3) 336 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx 3. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS This chapter describes the major roadway improvement projects required in the City of Cupertino as well as their cost estimates. The following chapter discusses the nexus-based cost allocations. Project Selection Criteria Development impact fees are derived from a list of specific capital improvement projects and associated costs that are needed in part or in full to accommodate new growth. Consequently, the capital improvements included in the fee program need to be described in sufficient detail to generate cost estimates. However, impact fee programs do not, in themselves, represent actual approval of a City plan or capital project (and as such do require clearance through the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA). Given the above consideration, the TIF Consultant Team recommends that as a baseline criterion, all transportation projects identified in existing City planning documents be considered for inclusion in the fee program. As such, the Consultant Team will not seek to identify or plan entirely new transportation projects in the City. Existing planning documents relied upon by the Consultant Team will include, without limitation, the recently approved General Plan: Community Vision 2015 – 2040, the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, and other project related or area- specific planning documents. The list of transportation projects identified in existing City planning documents will be further refined as follows:  The TIF program will exclude any projects that are outside the City of Cupertino.  The TIF program will exclude any projects where secured and dedicated funding source have already been established to cover the full cost. Project List As part of the Cupertino TIF and Nexus Study, Stantec has prepared a preliminary conceptual improvement list, as shown in Table 5. The improvements included in the list cover the intersections/segments where significant impact(s) were identified in the General Plan: Community Vision 2015 – 2040 Draft Environmental Impact Report (December 2014). In addition, the projects identified in the City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan are also included in the list, as shown in Appendix A. Transportation projects that have been identified as mitigations in CEQA documents for specific projects (e.g., Apple Campus 2, Marina Plaza, the Hamptons) have been excluded from the TIF. The completion of mitigations identified in these project specific EIR's would be placed as a condition upon, and paid by, the developer separate from the TIF. None of the projects included in the TIF addresses existing deficiencies. Rather, they are a response to new development and limited to intersections currently operating at a level of service (LOS) within City’s acceptable standards, but are expected to deteriorate to levels below City standards with proposed new developments. The Citywide sidewalk and bicycle facility 337 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx installations are also in response to new development and a need to encourage shifts to modes such as walking and biking so that the roadway system is not overtaxed. Table 5 Summary of TIF Projects and Costs Facility Cost Estimates The cost estimates shown in Table 5 above are based on assumptions about the planned right- of-way, roadway cross-sections, and landscaping treatments for each corridor. Assumptions were based on similar existing corridors within the City of Cupertino and the City’s roadway design standards, and have been reviewed and confirmed by City staff. Detailed cost estimate sheets for each project are attached to this report as Appendix A. 1 SR 85 NB Ramps and Stevens Creek Blvd.Community Vision 2015 – 2040 $536,000 2 Stelling Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd.Community Vision 2015 – 2040 $1,318,000 3 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Rd. / De Anza Blvd. / Homestead Rd.Community Vision 2015 – 2040 $3,210,000 4 De Anza Blvd. and I-280 Ramps Community Vision 2015 – 2040 $1,840,000 5 De Anza Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. Community Vision 2015 – 2040 $145,000 6 De Anza Blvd. and McClellan Rd. / Pacifica Dr. Community Vision 2015 – 2040 $9,707,000 7 Wolfe Rd. and Homestead Rd. Community Vision 2015 – 2040 $7,131,000 8 Wolfe Rd. and I-280 NB & SB Ramps Community Vision 2015 – 2040 $76,300,000 9Wolfe Rd.‐Miller/Ave. and Stevens Creek Blvd. Community Vision 2015 – 2040 $153,000 10 North Tantau Ave./Quail Ave. / Homestead Rd. Community Vision 2015 – 2040 $145,000 11 Tantau Ave. and Stevens Creek Blvd. Community Vision 2015 – 2040 $145,000 12 Monta Vista Sidewalk (Orange and Byrne) Community Vision 2015 – 2040 $4,000,000 13 Monta Vista Sidewalk (McClellan) Community Vision 2015 – 2040 $2,040,000 14 Bicycle Projects - Tier 1 Bicycle Transportation Plan $38,611,000 15 Bicycle Projects - Tier 2 Bicycle Transportation Plan $15,399,500 16 Bicycle Projects - Tier 3 Bicycle Transportation Plan $33,168,500 Total - Citywide Transportation Projects $193,849,000 SourceTIF #Project Name Project Cost1 [1] See Appendix A for detailed project cost estimates. 338 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx 4. NEXUS ANALYSIS AND MAXIMUM FEE This chapter presents the nexus analysis and calculations for the maximum allowable TIF based on the land use projections and transportation improvements described previously. Overview of Nexus Findings A “nexus” or relationship between new development in City of Cupertino and transportation improvements and their costs must be established before incorporating transportation improvement costs into a transportation impact fee calculation. To determine the appropriate costs to include in the new transportation fee calculation, it is necessary to conduct a series of steps:  Identify Total Costs of Transportation Improvements. The identification of the required transportation improvement projects and their associated costs is the first step (conducted in prior chapter)  Remove Existing Deficiencies. Next, it is necessary to evaluate whether there is an existing deficiency at any of the project locations, and if so, the magnitude of that deficiency. Existing deficiencies are accounted for by reducing the project cost that is included in the Fee Program with funding required from other sources.  Determine Proportionate Allocation to New Development. Once existing deficiencies are identified, it is necessary to determine the proportion of the remaining project cost that is attributable to new development in Cupertino, and therefore can be the subject of a fee program.  Account for Known Funding. To the extent there is dedicated funding for any of the transportation improvements, this portion of costs should not be included in the transportation fee calculation. For this TIF calculation, funding from Measure B has been excluded. The technical calculations described above and further detailed in subsequent sections establish the following nexus findings, consistent with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Purpose The fee will help maintain adequate levels of transportation service in Cupertino. Use of Fee Fee revenue will be used to fund City transportation improvements, including roadway, intersection, interchange, and traffic signal improvements, as well as the reimbursement of upfront investments from other City funds for transportation improvements required to serve future growth. The list of eligible transportation projects and costs are summarized in Chapter 3 and further detailed in the Appendix A. 339 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx Relationship New development in the City of Cupertino will increase demands for and travel on the City’s transportation network. Transportation fee revenue will be used to fund additional transportation capacity necessary to accommodate growth. New development will benefit from the increased transportation capacity. Need Each new development project will add to the incremental need for transportation capacity and improvements. The transportation improvements considered in this study are considered necessary to meet the City's future transportation needs. Proportionality The fee levels are tied to fair share cost allocations to new Citywide development based on the transportation model developed by VTA and adapted for this study purpose by Stantec. Travel Demand Model and Cost Allocation Travel Demand Assumptions and Methodology In order to allocate TIF program costs equitably, the City of Cupertino General Plan travel demand model was applied to this nexus study. The City of Cupertino General Plan travel demand model was developed using the Santa Clara VTA countywide travel demand model with refined land use estimates for the City of Cupertino. The VTA model is a mathematical representation of travel demand based on the buildout of all of the cities within Santa Clara County, including Cupertino. The model uses socioeconomic data, such as number of jobs and households, for different geographic areas (transportation analysis zones) to predict the expected travel between places in the future. The model is validated for the current socioeconomic data to predict current traffic volume, which is matched with the actual existing counts to calibrate the model. The calibrated model is then utilized to forecast future travel conditions based on the expected changes in the socioeconomic conditions in the future. The City of Cupertino General Plan model has 54 transportation analysis zones within the model to represent City. The 2040 socioeconomic data are generated by the ABAG and refined by VTA based on input from the City Planning Department. In this nexus study, Stantec has used this model to derive both average citywide and link-specific characteristics of vehicle travel demand including the following:  Internal (trips that start and end in Cupertino)  Internal/External (trips that have one end either beginning or ending in Cupertino)  Through (trips that pass completely through Cupertino without stopping) Only the trips starting or ending in Cupertino (i.e., Internal trips and Internal/External trips) would be responsible for the TIF program costs. 340 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx Table 6 illustrates the average citywide characteristics of vehicle travel demand. These methodologies would be applied to determine the percentage of the project costs that could be funded through the TIF program. Generally, two allocation methodologies were applied as follows:  Citywide Average - the cost allocation would be based on the average citywide characteristics of vehicle travel demand, which were determined for all the roadway segments within the City of Cupertino boundary as an average. The City-wide average is used where the traffic model does not provide sufficient detailed to estimate the origin and destination of trips associated with a particular transportation facility or improvement. As shown in Table 6, this method would be applied for all the freeway interchange projects, sidewalk projects, and bicycle projects.  Select Link - the cost allocation would be based on link-specific characteristics of vehicle travel demand for the project-related links (I.e., all the approaching and departure roadway segments of the intersection). This methodology is applied where the traffic model can be used to estimate specific travel demand characteristics associated with particular transportation facilities and improvements. As shown in Table 6, this method is applied for all the City-owned intersection projects. 341 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx Table 6 TIF Travel Demand Assumptions As shown, approximately 49.8 percent of the trips using Cupertino roadway facilities would pass through Cupertino completely without stopping. Therefore, approximately 50.2 percent of the project costs would be funded through the TIF program using the Citywide Average approach described above. This allocation percentage is applied for all the freeway interchange intersection projects, sidewalk projects, and bicycle projects. As shown, for the Select Link analysis, the proportion of transportation improvement costs allocated to new development varies by facility or improvement. Generally, approximately 14.5 percent to 38.4 percent of the trips using the approaching or departure roadway segments of the intersection would pass through Cupertino without stopping. For the three intersections along Homestead Road on the north border of Cupertino, such percentage goes up to between 52.9 percent and 61.1 percent. In summary, approximately 38.9 percent to 85.5 percent of the project costs would be funded through the TIF program for the city-owned intersection projects. TIF # Project Name Cost Allocation Methodology I-I I-X X-I X-X 1 SR 85 NB Ramps and Stevens Creek Blvd.Citywide Avg. 5.7% 22.9% 21.5% 49.8% 50.2% 2 Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Blvd. Select Link 13.1% 32.5% 39.9% 14.5% 85.5% 3 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Rd./De Anza Blvd. and Homestead Rd.Select Link 2.3% 20.3% 24.5% 52.9% 47.1% 4 De Anza Blvd. and I-280 Ramps Citywide Avg. 5.7% 22.9% 21.5% 49.8% 50.2% 5 De Anza Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. Select Link 9.9% 30.5% 33.4% 26.2% 73.8% 6 De Anza Blvd. and McClellan Road/Pacifica Dr.Select Link 6.4% 25.9% 29.3% 38.4% 61.6% 7 Wolfe Road and Homestead Road Select Link 1.1% 19.8% 18.7% 60.4% 39.6% 8 Wolfe Road and I-280 NB & SB Ramps 2 Citywide Avg. 5.7% 22.9% 21.5% 49.8% 50.2% 9 Wolfe Road‐Miller/Ave. and Stevens Creek Blvd.Select Link 7.1% 39.3% 31.5% 22.1% 77.9% 10 North Tantau Ave./Quail Ave. and Homestead Rd.Select Link 0.1% 19.6% 19.2% 61.1% 38.9% 11 Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd. Select Link 3.3% 40.2% 34.8% 21.7% 78.3% 12 Monta Vista Sidewalk (Orange and Byrne)Citywide Avg. 5.7% 22.9% 21.5% 49.8% 50.2% 13 Monta Vista Sidewalk (McClellan) Citywide Avg. 5.7% 22.9% 21.5% 49.8% 50.2% 14 Bicycle Projects - Tier 1 Citywide Avg. 5.7% 22.9% 21.5% 49.8% 50.2% 15 Bicycle Projects - Tier 2 Citywide Avg. 5.7% 22.9% 21.5% 49.8% 50.2% 16 Bicycle Projects - Tier 3 Citywide Avg. 5.7% 22.9% 21.5% 49.8% 50.2% [3] Excludes through trips (X-X), or those that do not originate or end in Cupertino. Trip Type1, 2 [2] Travel demand analysis is documented in Stantec November, 2016 memo, "Land Use Projections, Traffic Analysis, Costs Estimates, and Travel Demand Model Analysis for Cupertino Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) / Nexus Study. [1] I-I = trips that start and end in Cupertino, I-X = trips that originate in Cupertino and end elsewhere, X-I = trips that originate elsewhere but end in Cupertino, X-X = trips that pass-through Cupertion but do not end or originate there. Share Allocated to New Development3 342 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx TIF Cost Allocation The TIF nexus analysis allocates costs based on (1) the amount attributable to new versus existing development, (2) the proportion of trips with at least one trip end in the City (i.e. excludes through trips), and (3) the amount covered by secured funding sources. As described in Chapter 3, none of the projects included in the TIF addresses existing deficiencies. Rather, they are a response to new development and limited to intersections currently operating at a level of service (LOS) within City’s acceptable standards, but are expected to deteriorate to levels below City standards with proposed new developments. The Citywide sidewalk and bicycle facility installations are also in response to new development and a need to encourage shifts to modes such as walking and biking so that the roadway system is not overtaxed. Consequently, the entire TIF project list was selected to only include improvements attributable to new development. The cost allocated to new development is based on the analysis described above and summarized in Table 6. In addition, the analysis assumes that the Santa Clara County Transportation Infrastructure Tax, approved by the voters in November 2016, and private developer funding will cover 100 percent of the costs for the Wolfe Road/I-280 interchange improvements. Consequently, the costs of these improvements, estimated to be about $76.3 million, have been excluded from the TIF calculation. Table 7 illustrates the net impact of the cost allocations described above. As shown, overall this nexus analysis allocates approximately $59.78 million in transportation improvement cost to the TIF. The amount represents about 31 percent of the approximately $193.9 million in future transportation infrastructure costs considered in this analysis. 343 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx Table 7 TIF Cost Allocation Assumptions and Calculations Maximum Fee Calculation Table 8 shows the maximum supportable transportation impact fee per trip. The maximum fee per trip is calculated by dividing the aggregate fee program cost of $59.78 million (see Table 7) by the total number of trips generated by new development, or 10,120 (see Table 4). The results in an average TIF per peak hour trip of $5,907. Table 8 Maximum Fee per Trip 1 SR 85 NB Ramps and Stevens Creek Blvd.$536,000 50.2% $268,809 2 Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Blvd.$1,318,000 85.5% $1,126,890 3 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Road/De Anza Blvd. and Homestead Rd.$3,210,000 47.1% $1,511,910 4 De Anza Blvd. and I-280 Ramps $1,840,000 50.2% $922,777 5 De Anza Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd.$145,000 73.8% $107,010 6 De Anza Blvd. and McClellan Road/Pacifica Dr.$9,707,000 61.6% $5,979,512 7 Wolfe Road and Homestead Road $7,131,000 39.6% $2,823,876 8 Wolfe Road and I-280 NB & SB Ramps 2 $76,300,000 0.0%$0 9Wolfe Road‐Miller/Ave. and Stevens Creek Blvd.$153,000 77.9% $119,187 10 North Tantau Ave./Quail Ave. and Homestead Rd.$145,000 38.9%$56,405 11 Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd.$145,000 78.3% $113,535 12 Monta Vista Sidewalk (Orange and Byrne)$4,000,000 50.2% $2,006,038 13 Monta Vista Sidewalk (McClellan)$2,040,000 50.2% $1,023,079 14 Bicycle Projects - Tier 1 $38,611,000 50.2% $19,363,783 15 Bicycle Projects - Tier 2 $15,399,500 50.2% $7,722,995 16 Bicycle Projects - Tier 3 $33,168,500 50.2%$16,634,318 Total - Citywide Transportation Projects $193,849,000 30.8% $59,780,125 [1] See Table 5 and Appendix A. [2] Since the costs of these projects are to be covered entirely by Measure B, they are excluded from the traffic impact fee calculationsremoved from the Impact Fee Calculations. Total Project Cost1 Share Allocated to New Development Cost Allocated To TIF ProgramTIF # Project Name Fee Program Share of Planned Transportation Facility Costs a $59,780,125 Growth in PM Trips b 10,120 Cost per Trip = a / b $5,907 Source: EPS and Stantec. FormulaCategory Amount 344 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx Finally, Table 9 calculates the maximum TIF for each land use category specified in the General Plan. The maximum allowable fee by land use includes a 2 percent charge needed to cover the administrative cost of administering the TIF program. The maximum supportable fees are the fee levels that would generate sufficient fee revenues to cover the full TIF cost allocation of $59.78 million. As discussed below, decisions to charge fees below the maximum fee will result in funding gaps that would need to be covered by other funding sources. Table 9 Maximum TIF Schedule Land Use Cost Per Trip Trip Demand Factor1 Raw Fee Admin Charge2 Residential Single Family $5,907 0.99 $5,851 2%$5,968 / unit Multi-Family $5,907 0.61 $3,627 2%$3,700 / unit Non-residential Retail $5,907 1.59 $9.41 2%$9.60 / sqft. Office $5,907 2.79 $16.48 2%$16.81 / sqft. Hotel $5,907 0.54 $3,207 2%$3,272 / room Other $5,907 1.00 $5,907 2%$6,025 / trip [1] PM Trips per dwelling unit, per 1,000 building square feet, or per hotel room. [2] Administrative charge of 2.0 percent of "raw" TIF for legal, accounting, and other administrative costs (e.g. revenue collection, mandated public reporting, and Nexus Analysis). Total TIF per Unit 345 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx 5. TIF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION This chapter describes implementation and administrative issues and procedures to be addressed in the TIF Ordinance and Nexus Study. It addresses matters related to TIF approval, program administration (e.g., fee amount, collection and accounting procedures, exemptions, etc.), and securing supplemental funding. Approval Process The TIF and corresponding fee schedule will need to be adopted by City Resolution and Ordinance. The City TIF Ordinance will allow the City Council to adopt a fee schedule consistent with supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Ordinance approach to setting the TIF fee will allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling Ordinance. The TIF Ordinance will clearly define the TIF program policies and procedures as discussed further below. The TIF program policies and procedures may differ from other City development impact fees (e.g., the Parks Fee and Affordable Housing fee). Fee Amount and Collection As noted, the actual fee levels by land use will need to be approved by the City Council but cannot exceed the maximum allowable fees calculated herein. Other fee collection considerations are described below. Applicable Land Uses All new development that occurs within the City of Cupertino, except as specifically exempted by the TIF Ordinance, shall pay the TIF based on an approved Fee Schedule made available by the City and updated periodically. The amount will vary by land use, as described in the Nexus Study. While the maximum fee amount will be determined by the AB 1600 Nexus Study, the City may elect to charge less for a variety of reasons. It is possible that certain projects may not fit neatly into the land use categories defined in the fee schedule (see Table 9). In cases where such ambiguity exists, the City Manager or an authorized representative will need to make a determination as to the applicable fees. The Fee Ordinance can articulate guidelines for resolving discrepancies and/or disputes. For example, it may include the option for applicants to furnish information or analysis that will justify their project’s inclusion in a particular land use category and/or a lower fee based on verifiable trip generation rates or other factors. Fee Escalation The City Fee Ordinance will allow for an automatic adjustment of the TIF to keep pace with inflation adjusted increases in construction cost. This allows the fee level to keep pace with inflation without requiring an annual approval process. This adjustment is based on cost indices published by the Engineering News Record (ENR), a source widely used in the construction industry, and by many jurisdictions as a basis for making annual inflation adjustments to 346 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx their development impact fees. ENR’s CCI has been published consistently every month since 1913 for 20 U.S. cities and a national average of the 20 cities. As such it is one of the most reliable and consistent indices that track trends in construction costs. Timing of Payment While the City TIF Ordinance will specify the timing for TIF payments, the generally accepted practice in Cupertino, and most other California cities, is to have the fee payment due upon issuance of a building permit, unless otherwise indicated or allowed. Fee Credits, Reimbursements, and Exemptions Impact fee programs frequently allow developers subject to the fee to obtain fee credits, reimbursements, and/or adjustments under certain and limited circumstances as determined by the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance. Fee credits, reimbursements, or adjustments are generally not allowed by right but rather should be subject to discretionary review and approval by the City to ensure that they are warranted and appropriate. Fee Credits Impact fee ordinances frequently allow for fee credits if a developer provides a particular facility or improvement that replaces facilities that would have otherwise been funded in whole or in part by the TIF. For example, the City may elect to offer a fee credit to developers who provide transportation related improvements, consistent with those specified in the current TIF program. The fee credit is usually equal to the most current cost estimate of the infrastructure item (as defined by annual cost review or other recent evaluation of cost) regardless of the actual cost to construct. The City’s Ordinance will allow for fee credits under specific terms. Fee Reimbursements Fee reimbursements are typically considered for developers who contribute more funding and/or build and dedicate infrastructure items that exceed their proportional obligation, especially if the project funded is a priority project. Such reimbursements should be provided as fee revenue becomes available and should include a reasonable factor for interest earned on the reimbursable amount. It should not compromise the implementation of other priority capital projects. A provision for including such interest payments as additional costs in subsequent fees can also be included in the Ordinance. Fee Exemptions and Other Adjustments The City may elect not to impose fees for certain categories of development or on project by project basis, though alternative funding sources to offset a loss in fee revenue should be considered in this context. Likewise, the City may enter into a Development Agreement that specifically exempts or adjusts all or a portion of the City fees, including its application. Generally speaking, cities consider waiving all or portions of a fee if it can be determined that a proposed project will have minimal or no impact on the improvements or facilities for which the Fee is collected. Additionally, cities sometimes allow for fee exemptions for certain types of uses such as projects developed for use by not-for-profit organizations or other public benefits (e.g., affordable housing). By way of example, jurisdictions often exempt or adjust fees for the following types of projects, subject to City review and approval. 347 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx 1. Any internal or external alteration or addition to an existing structure that increases total floor area (including outside storage) by more than a specified percent (e.g. 10). This exemption may not apply when the alteration or addition facilitates a change to more intensive use (e.g. one that generates additional vehicle trip). Some jurisdictions have further specified the number of expansions permitted under this exemption (e.g. no more than one expansion may qualify for this exemption in any ten (10) year period). 2. Any replacement or reconstruction of any structure that is damaged or destroyed as a result of fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, riot, or other calamity or act of God. This exemption would not apply to the portion of a building replaced or reconstructed that exceeds the documented total floor area or change the use at the time of its destruction. 3. Any structure has been vacant for less than a specified period of time (e.g., one to three years), assuming the new tenant(s) are of a similar nature in terms of their impact on capital facilities. 4. New development that replaces existing development may be eligible for a Fee adjustment to the extent that the facilities to be funded by the new development are already provided to the existing development provided the existing development has not been removed more than one year. For example, a 20,000 square foot office building that is replaced by a 40,000 square foot office building could receive up to a 50 percent credit in the Fee (20/40 = 50%). City staff will determine the amount of the Fee credit at the time a site plan is submitted to the City. If a structure is replaced with a denser land use, such as replacing single family residences with a commercial building, an incremental fee will generally apply. 5. Any replacement of a structure and use, in kind, providing that the property owner can document that the structure was legally in existence at the time the Fee was adopted. 6. Residential accessory structures, as defined by the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC). 7. Public facilities, as defined by the CMC. 8. Any temporary structure approved in accordance with the CMC for a period not to exceed a specified period (e.g. thirty (30) days in any calendar year). In some cases, temporary buildings that are authorized for more than thirty (30) days in any calendar year shall be required to pay the Fee. But when the building is removed at a later date, the Fee, or a portion thereof, may be refunded or credited to a permanent structure in the Project Area. All refunds are subject to a deduction of appropriate administration fees. 9. Upon approval by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, a portion of the fee may be reduced for housing development approved for very low-income occupants, as defined by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in accordance with CMC (affordable housing incentives). The following are examples of times that the Fee may be collected for land uses that could be potentially classified as exempt from the fees. 1. Any project listed as exempt but which nonetheless, in the opinion of the City Manager, increases the demand upon city facilities funded by the Fee. The City Manager may pro-rate 348 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx the amount of the fee based upon the project’s anticipated impact upon the subject facility or facilities. 2. Illegal facilities and buildings, constructed prior to the adoption of the Fee, which consequently obtain a building permit to legitimize the facility or building, shall pay the applicable Fee. 3. Accessory residential structures that are converted to a separate residential dwelling unit shall pay the Fee for multifamily development as long the primary residence remains on the property. Annual Review, Accounting, and Updates Annual review This Nexus Study and the technical information it contains should be maintained and reviewed periodically by the City as necessary to ensure TIF accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent that improvement requirements, costs, or development potential changes over time, the TIF will need to be updated. Specifically, AB 1600 (at Gov. C. §§ 66001(c), 66006(b)(1)) stipulates that each local agency that requires payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year. This information includes the following:  A description of the type of fee in the account  The amount of the fee  The beginning and ending balance of the fund  The amount of fees collected and interest earned  Identification of the improvements constructed  The total cost of the improvements constructed  The fees expended to construct the improvement  The percent of total costs funded by the fee If sufficient fees have been collected to fund the construction of an improvement, the agency must specify the approximate date for construction of that improvement. Because of the dynamic nature of growth and infrastructure requirements, the City should monitor development activity, the need for infrastructure improvements, and the adequacy of the fee revenues and other available funding. Formal annual review of the Fee Program should occur, at which time adjustments should be made. Costs associated with this monitoring and updating effort are included in the Impact Fee as an administrative charge. Surplus Funds AB 1600 also requires that if any portion of a fee remains unexpended or uncommitted in an account for five years or more after deposit of the fee, the City Council shall make findings once each year: (1) to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put, (2) to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, (3) to identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements, and (4) to designate the approximate dates on which the funding identified in (3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate fund. 349 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx If adequate funding has been collected for a certain improvement, an approximate date must be specified as to when construction on the improvement will begin. If the findings show no need for the unspent funds, or if the conditions discussed above are not met, and the administrative costs of the refund do not exceed the refund itself, the local agency that has collected the funds must refund them. Internal Loaning of Funds Inter-fund loans may be used from time to time to facilitate the construction of TIF facilities. Any such loan shall be made in accordance with applicable law, as interpreted by the City Attorney of the City of Cupertino, and all funds shall be placed in separate accounts on either a facility or geographic basis. The additional following requirements are also placed on inter-fund loans:  Funds may be transferred between accounts to expedite the construction of critical projects/facilities.  A mechanism to repay accounts shall be established.  Inter-fund loan repayments shall take precedence over reimbursements to developers. Five-Year Update Fees will be collected from new development within the City immediately; however, use of these funds may need to wait until a sufficient fund balance can be accrued. Per Government Code Section 66006, the City is required to deposit, invest, account for, and expend the fees in a prescribed manner. The fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the Fee account or fund, and every five years thereafter, the City is required to make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended:  Identify the purpose for which the fee is to be put;  Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;  Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements; and  Designate the approximate dates on that the funding referred to in the above paragraph is expected to be deposited in the appropriate account or fund. Once sufficient funds have been collected to complete the specified projects, the City must commence construction within 180 days. If they fail to do this, the City is required to refund the unexpended portion of the fee and any accrued interest to the then current owner. Securing Supplemental Funding The Impact Fee is not appropriate for funding the full amount of all capital costs identified in this Fee Study. The City will have to identify funding and pay for improvements related to existing and new developments and improvements not funded by the Fee Program or any other established funding source. Indeed, as part of the adoption of the fee, the City is likely to adopt a finding that it will obtain and allocate funding from various other sources for the fair share of 350 Cupertino Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Report 8/08/17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 P:\161000s\161085CupertinoTIF\Report\NexusStudy80817.docx the costs of improvements identified in this Report that are not funded by the Fee Program. Examples of such sources include the following:  Assessments and Special Taxes. The City could fund a portion of capital facilities costs using assessments and special taxes. For example, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District would allow the City to levy a special tax to pay debt service on bonds sold to fund construction of capital facilities or to directly fund capital facilities.  Federal, State or reginal Funds. The City might seek and obtain grant of matching funds from Federal, State and/or regional sources to help offset the costs of required capital facilities and improvements. For example, the current TIF assumes Measure B revenue will be used to cover the costs of I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange even though a portion of these are attributable to new development. As part of its funding effort, the City should research and monitor these outside revenue sources and apply for funds as appropriate.  General Fund Revenues. In any given year, the City could allocate a portion of its General Fund revenues for discretionary expenditures. Depending on the revenues generated relative to costs and City priorities, the City may allocate General Fund revenues to fund capital facilities costs not covered by the Fee Program or other funding sources.  Other Grants and Contributions. A variety of grants or contributions from private donors could help fund a number of capital facilities. For example, private foundations and/or charity organizations may provide money for certain bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 351 APPENDIX A: Detailed TIF Project List and Costs Estimates 352 Memo To: Julie Chiu From: Joy Bhattacharya Associate Civil Engineer City of Cupertino Stantec Consulting Ltd. File: Technical Memorandum – Cost Estimate for Cupertino Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)/Nexus Study Date: July 18, 2017 Reference: Technical Memorandum – Cost Estimate for Cupertino Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)/Nexus Study The City of Cupertino adopted an amended General Plan known as "General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040." on December 4, 2014. The City is also in the process of developing the TIF Program to fund the roadway infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts to accommodate future growth. To support the TIF program, the City needs to prepare a Nexus Study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600 legislation. As part of the Cupertino TIF and Nexus Study, a TIF project list has been proposed. The projects included in the list cover the intersections / segments where significant impact(s) were identified in the General Plan: Community Vision 2015 – 2040 Draft Environmental Impact Report (December 2014). In addition, the projects identified in the City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan are also included in the list. The list of transportation projects identified in these existing planning documents was further refined as follows: • The TIF program excluded any projects that are outside the City of Cupertino • The TIF program excluded any projects where secured and dedicated funding source have already been established to cover the full cost (e.g. projects identified as mitigation in CEQA documents for Apple Campus 2, Marina Plaza and the Hamptons). Stantec conducted a cost estimate for each proposed TIF project. The cost includes all of the elements and activities necessary to complete the project (e.g. engineering, property acquisition, construction). Table 1 shows the proposed TIF projects along with the cost estimates. Appendix illustrates the cost estimate details for each proposed TIF project. As part of the Project No. 4 in Table 1, a significant impact was identified at the intersection of De Anza Boulevard and I-280 SB Ramps in the General Plan: Community Vision 2015 -2040 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) under the 2040 plus Project conditions. However, no mitigation measures were provided in the DEIR. By using the volumes provided in the DEIR, Stantec developed the mitigation measures for this intersection and included it as part of the overall cost estimates. 353 July 18, 2017 Julie Chiu Page 2 of 4 Reference: Technical Memorandum – Cost Estimate for Cupertino Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)/Nexus Study Table 1 – Cupertino TIF & Nexus Study Project List Project No. Intersection General Plan Mitigation Measures Construction Cost 1 SR 85 NB Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard 1 Add an exclusive northbound left-turn lane. $536,000 2 Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard 1 Add a second exclusive eastbound left-turn lane; right-turns would share the bike lane. $1,318,000 3 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road 1 Widen De Anza Blvd to 4 lanes in each direction or install triple left-turn lanes. $3,210,000 4 De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Ramps 1 De Anza Boulevard and I-280 NB Ramps: Restripe De Anza Blvd in the SB direction to provide room for right-turn vehicles to be separated from through traffic; paint a bike box at the front of lane. De Anza Boulevard and I-280 SB Ramps: Add a second eastbound left-turn lane and two additional eastbound right-turn lanes on the I-280 SB off-ramp. $1,840,000 5 De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard 1 Restripe westbound Stevens Creek to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated from through traffic; paint a bike box at the front of the lane. $145,000 6 De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive 1 Realign (currently offset) such that McClellan Rd and Pacifica Dr legs are across from each other; double left-turn lanes may be required to be added to De Anza Blvd. $9,707,000 7 Wolfe Road and Homestead Road 1 Add a third southbound through lane and a southbound exclusive right-turn lane; add a third westbound though lane, an addition of a westbound exclusive right-turn lane, and an additional westbound exclusive right-turn lane; add an additional eastbound through lane, an additional eastbound receiving lane on Homestead, and a second eastbound exclusive left-turn lane. $7,131,000 8 Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramp & SB Ramp 2 Add a third northbound through lane and extended north of the interchange; may pursue a redesign of the interchange to go from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond design. $76,300,000 354 July 18, 2017 Julie Chiu Page 3 of 4 Reference: Technical Memorandum – Cost Estimate for Cupertino Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)/Nexus Study Table 1 – Cupertino TIF & Nexus Study Project List Project No. Intersection General Plan Mitigation Measures Construction Cost 9 Wolfe Road‐ Miller/Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard 1 Restripe the westbound leg to provide room so that right turn vehicles could be separated from through vehicles; paint a bike box at the front of the lane. $153,000 10 North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road 1 Restripe the southbound leg to provide a separate left turn lane; require the removal of on-street parking near the intersection. $145,000 11 Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard 1 Add a separate left-turn lane to northbound Tantau Ave. $145,000 12 Monta Vista Sidewalk (Orange and Byrne) 4 $4,000,000 13 Monta Vista Sidewalk (McClellan) 4 $2,040,000 14 Bicycle Projects Tier 1 3 $38,611,000 15 Bicycle Projects Tier 2 3 $15,399,500 16 Bicycle Projects Tier 3 3 $33,168,500 Total $193,849,000 Notes: 1. Based on Stantec’s ballpark opinion of cost estimate using the industry standards. 2. Based on cost estimates included in the I-280 and Wolfe Road Alternative Analysis Study Report, October 4, 2016. 3. Based on cost estimates included in the City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, Appendix F and revised by City of Cupertino. 4. Based on cost estimates provided by the City of Cupertino. Source: Stantec, 2017 355 Memo Appendix – Cost Estimates 356 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: Project Name: SR 85 NB Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard Left-Turn Lane Prepared by: A. Ha Date: October 20, 2016 Item Work Description Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 45,000.00$ $45,000 2 Traffic control LS 1 45,000.00$ $45,000 3 Demolition, clearing & grubbing LS 1 20,000.00$ $20,000 4 Remove existing AC SF 1,000 $5.00 $5,000 5 Install new curb ramps EA 1 $4,100.00 $4,100 6 New PCC curb & gutter LF 50 $37.00 $1,850 7 New AC SF 7,000 $10.00 $70,000 8 New PCC S/W SF 200 $11.00 $2,200 9 Roadway Excavation LS 1 20,000.00$ $20,000 10 Striping & Signing LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 11 Traffic signal modifications LS 1 35,000.00$ $35,000 12 Irrigation & Landscaping Modifications LS 1 10,000.00$ $10,000 13 Imported Borrow CY 1,560 50.00$ $78,000 SUBTOTAL:$351,150 Subtotal-- Bid Items $351,150 Construction Contingency (assume 15%)15%$52,672.50 Testing, Staking 5%$17,557.50 Construction Management 13%$45,649.50 Subtotal: Construction $115,879.50 Design 12%$42,138.00 Engineering Studies 3%$10,534.50 Environmental 3%$10,534.50 Construction Engineering 1.5%$5,267.25 $68,474.25 TOTAL PROJECT $535,504 Proposed CIP Budget Amount $536,000 Total Design & Admin $184,353.75 Assumptions: Future demand for Left-turn lane is 500' long by 12' wide New curb return, sidewalk, and curb ramp to be installed Relocate existing 1-B pole with ped signal and ped push button Imported borrow of 6 feet in depth over proposed left-turn lane 357 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: Project Name: Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard Left-Turn Lane Prepared by: A. Ha Date: October 20, 2016 Item Work Description Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 50,000.00$ $50,000 2 Traffic control LS 1 45,000.00$ $45,000 3 Demolition, clearing & grubbing LS 1 20,000.00$ $20,000 4 Remove existing AC SF 400 5.00$ $2,000 5 Relocate luminaire/utility pole EA 3 10,000.00$ $30,000 6 PG&E Coordination LS 1 5,000.00$ $5,000 7 New PCC median SF 3,000 11.00$ $33,000 8 New AC SF 4,800 10.00$ $48,000 9 Relocate overhead utilities LS 1 50,000.00$ $50,000 10 Roadway Excavation LS 1 20,000.00$ $20,000 11 Striping & Signing LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 12 Traffic signal modifications LS 1 150,000.00$ $150,000 13 Irrigation & Landscaping Modifications LS 1 20,000.00$ $20,000 14 Right-of-Way Take LS 1 500,000.00$ $500,000 Total Construction Cost $488,000 SUBTOTAL:$988,000 Subtotal-- Bid Items $988,000 Construction Contingency (assume 15%)15%$73,200.00 Testing, Staking 5%$24,400.00 Construction Management 13%$63,440.00 Subtotal: Construction $161,040.00 Design 12%$58,560.00 Engineering Studies 3%$14,640.00 Environmental 3%$14,640.00 Construction Engineering 1.5%$7,320.00 PG&E Design 15.0%$73,200.00 $168,360.00 TOTAL PROJECT $1,317,400 Proposed CIP Budget Amount $1,318,000 Total Design & Admin $329,400.00 Assumptions: Future demand for Left-turn lane is 400' long by 12' wide Modify median Relocate luminaires/utility poles and overhead utility lines Traffic signal modification 358 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: Project Name: Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road Add 2 Lanes Prepared by: A. Ha Date: October 20, 2016 Item Work Description Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 45,000.00$ $45,000 2 Traffic control LS 1 45,000.00$ $45,000 3 Demolition, clearing & grubbing LS 1 45,000.00$ $45,000 4 Remove existing AC SF 1,000 5.00$ $5,000 5 Install new curb ramps EA 4 4,100.00$ $16,400 6 New PCC curb & gutter LF 2,000 37.00$ $74,000 7 New AC SF 24,000 10.00$ $240,000 8 New PCC S/W SF 10,000 11.00$ $110,000 9 Storm Drain Improvements LS 1 40,000.00$ $40,000 10 Roadway Excavation LS 1 30,000.00$ $30,000 11 Striping & Signing LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 12 Traffic signal modifications LS 1 $380,270.00 $380,270 13 Irrigation & Landscaping Modifications LS 1 35,000.00$ $35,000 14 Relocate luminaire EA 6 5,000.00$ $30,000 15 Relocate utilities LS 1 10,000.00$ $10,000 16 Right-of-way take SF 6,000 250.00$ $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL (CONSTRUCTION):$1,120,670 SUBTOTAL (WITH ROW):$2,620,670 Subtotal-- Bid Items $2,620,670 Construction Contingency (assume 15%)15%$168,100.50 Testing, Staking 5%$56,033.50 Construction Management 13%$145,687.10 Subtotal: Construction $369,821.10 Design 12%$134,480.40 Engineering Studies 3%$33,620.10 Environmental 3%$33,620.10 Construction Engineering 1.5%$16,810.05 $218,530.65 TOTAL PROJECT $3,209,022 Proposed CIP Budget Amount $3,210,000 Total Design & Admin $588,351.75 Assumptions: NB lane is 400' long; SB lane is 600' long New curb & gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramp to be installed Traffic signal modification Right-of-way take 359 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: Project Name: De Anza Boulevard and I-280 NB Ramp Right- Turn Lane Prepared by: A. Ha Date: October 20, 2016 Item Work Description Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 30,000.00$ $30,000 2 Traffic control LS 1 30,000.00$ $30,000 3 Demolition, clearing & grubbing LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 4 Remove existing AC SF 500 5.00$ $2,500 5 New AC SF 6,000 10.00$ $60,000 6 New PCC curb & gutter LF 500 37.00$ $18,500 7 Roadway Excavation LS 1 10,000.00$ $10,000 8 Striping & Signing LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 9 Irrigation & Landscaping Modifications LS 1 10,000.00$ $10,000 10 Signal Modifications LS 1 50,000.00$ $50,000 SUBTOTAL:$241,000 Subtotal-- Bid Items $241,000 Construction Contingency (assume 15%)15%$36,150.00 Testing, Staking 5%$12,050.00 Construction Management 13%$31,330.00 Subtotal: Construction $79,530.00 Design 12%$28,920.00 Engineering Studies 3%$7,230.00 Environmental 3%$7,230.00 Construction Engineering 1.5%$3,615.00 $46,995.00 TOTAL PROJECT $367,525 Proposed CIP Budget Amount $368,000 Total Design & Admin $126,525.00 Assumptions: Right-turn lane is 950' long Modify 500' of median to fit proposed striping No ulititly conflicts Traffic signal equipment upgrade 360 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: Project Name: De Anza Boulevard and I-280 SB Ramp 1 EB Left- Turn Lane, 2 EB Right-Turn Lane Prepared by: A. Ha Date: November 2, 2016 Item Work Description Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 45,000.00$ $45,000 2 Traffic control LS 1 45,000.00$ $45,000 3 Demolition, clearing & grubbing LS 1 20,000.00$ $20,000 4 Remove existing AC SF 1,000 $5.00 $5,000 5 Install new curb ramps EA 3 $4,100.00 $12,300 6 New PCC curb & gutter LF 100 $37.00 $3,700 7 New AC SF 24,200 $10.00 $242,000 8 New PCC S/W SF 200 $11.00 $2,200 9 Roadway Excavation LS 1 50,000.00$ $50,000 10 Striping & Signing LS 1 20,000.00$ $20,000 11 Traffic signal modifications LS 1 200,000.00$ $200,000 12 Irrigation & Landscaping Modifications LS 1 50,000.00$ $50,000 13 Imported Borrow CY 5,400 50.00$ $270,000 SUBTOTAL:$965,200 Subtotal-- Bid Items $965,200 Construction Contingency (assume 15%)15%$144,780.00 Testing, Staking 5%$48,260.00 Construction Management 13%$125,476.00 Subtotal: Construction $318,516.00 Design 12%$115,824.00 Engineering Studies 3%$28,956.00 Environmental 3%$28,956.00 Construction Engineering 1.5%$14,478.00 $188,214.00 TOTAL PROJECT $1,471,930 Proposed CIP Budget Amount $1,472,000 Total Design & Admin $506,730.00 Assumptions: 1 EB Left-turn & 2 EB Right-turn lanes are 550' Modify in Caltrans Right of Way No ulititly conflicts Traffic signal equipment upgrade Note: Used Hot Mix AC SF unit price from 2013 Caltrans Cost Data pp. 155 Item Code #394090. Note: Estimated Imported Borrow unit price from 2013 Caltrans Cost Data pp. 93-94 Item Code #198010. 361 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: Project Name: De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard Right-Turn Lane Prepared by: A. Ha Date: September 30, 2016 Item Work Description Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 2 Traffic control LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 3 Striping & Signing LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 4 Traffic signal modification LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000 SUBTOTAL:$95,000 Subtotal-- Bid Items $95,000 Construction Contingency (assume 15%)15%$14,250.00 Testing, Staking 5%$4,750.00 Construction Management 13%$12,350.00 Subtotal: Construction $31,350.00 Design 12%$11,400.00 Engineering Studies 3%$2,850.00 Environmental 3%$2,850.00 Construction Engineering 1.5%$1,425.00 $18,525.00 TOTAL PROJECT $144,875 Proposed CIP Budget Amount $145,000 Total Design & Admin $49,875.00 Assumptions: Right-turn lane is 350' long Striping includes Green Lanes and Bike Box Signal Modification include equipment upgrades 362 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: Project Name: De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive Re-alignment Prepared by: A. Ha Date: October 20, 2016 Item Work Description Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 80,000.00$ $80,000 2 Traffic control LS 1 75,000.00$ $75,000 3 Demolition, clearing & grubbing LS 1 200,000.00$ $200,000 4 Remove existing AC SF 12,500 $5.00 $62,500 5 Install new curb ramps EA 4 $4,100.00 $16,400 6 New PCC curb & gutter LF 700 $37.00 $25,900 7 New AC SF 9,400 $10.00 $94,000 8 New PCC S/W SF 12,900 $11.00 $141,900 9 Roadway Excavation LS 1 200,000.00$ $200,000 10 Striping & Signing LS 1 20,000.00$ $20,000 11 Traffic signal modifications LS 1 250,000.00$ $250,000 12 Irrigation & Landscaping Modifications LS 1 50,000.00$ $50,000 13 Relocate luminaire EA 2 5,000.00$ $10,000 14 Relocate utilities LS 1 150,000.00$ $150,000 15 Backfill CY 6,700 40.00$ $268,000 16 Right-of-way take SF 18,000 400.00$ $7,200,000 SUBTOTAL (CONSTRUCTION):$1,643,700 SUBTOTAL(WITH ROW):$8,843,700 Subtotal-- Bid Items $8,843,700 Construction Contingency (assume 15%)15%$246,555.00 Testing, Staking 5%$82,185.00 Construction Management 13%$213,681.00 Subtotal: Construction $542,421.00 Design 12%$197,244.00 Engineering Studies 3%$49,311.00 Environmental 3%$49,311.00 Construction Engineering 1.5%$24,655.50 $320,521.50 TOTAL PROJECT $9,706,643 Proposed CIP Budget Amount $9,707,000 Total Design & Admin $862,942.50 Assumptions: Re-alignment of Pacifica Dr; 300' adjusted New curb & gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramp to be installed Traffic signal modification Right-of-way take Gas Station and parking lot; Unit cost based on adjacent price/sq ft lot area 363 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: Project Name: Wolfe Road and Homestead Road Add 5 Lanes Prepared by: A. Ha Date: October 20, 2016 Item Work Description Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 75,000.00$ $75,000 2 Traffic control LS 1 75,000.00$ $75,000 3 Demolition, clearing & grubbing LS 1 60,000.00$ $60,000 4 Remove existing AC SF 1,100 $5.00 $5,500 5 Install new curb ramps EA 8 $4,100.00 $32,800 6 New PCC curb & gutter LF 1,800 $37.00 $66,600 7 New AC SF 30,600 $10.00 $306,000 8 New PCC S/W SF 9,000 $11.00 $99,000 9 Roadway Excavation LS 1 50,000.00$ $50,000 10 Striping & Signing LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 11 Traffic signal modifications LS 1 300,000.00$ $300,000 12 Irrigation & Landscaping Modifications LS 1 30,000.00$ $30,000 13 Relocate luminaire EA 7 5,000.00$ $35,000 14 Relocate utilities LS 1 100,000.00$ $100,000 15 Right-of-way take SF 15,900 250.00$ $3,975,000 SUBTOTAL (CONSTRUCTION): $1,249,900 SUBTOTAL (WITH ROW):$5,224,900 Subtotal-- Bid Items $6,474,800 Construction Contingency (assume 15%)15%$187,485.00 Testing, Staking 5%$62,495.00 Construction Management 13%$162,487.00 Subtotal: Construction $412,467.00 Design 12%$149,988.00 Engineering Studies 3%$37,497.00 Environmental 3%$37,497.00 Construction Engineering 1.5%$18,748.50 $243,730.50 TOTAL PROJECT $7,130,998 Proposed CIP Budget Amount $7,131,000 Total Design & Admin $656,197.50 Assumptions: SB Right-Lane 300'; WB Thru-Lane 350'; WB Right-Lane 200'; EB Thru-Lane 300'; EB Left-Lane 400' New curb & gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramp to be installed Traffic signal modification Right-of-way take 364 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: Project Name: Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramp Diamond Interchange Prepared by: A. Ha Date: October 20, 2016 Item Work Description Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price 1 Diamond Interchange LS 1 38,150,000.00$ $38,150,000 SUBTOTAL:$38,150,000 Subtotal-- Bid Items $38,150,000 Construction Contingency (assume 15%)15% Testing, Staking 5% Construction Management 13% Subtotal: Construction Design 12% Engineering Studies 3% Environmental 3% Construction Engineering 1.5% TOTAL PROJECT $38,150,000 Proposed CIP Budget Amount $38,150,000 Total Design & Admin $0.00 Assumptions: Estimate for Partial Cloverleaf = $76.3 Million (from I-280 Wolfe Alter Analysis Report 10/4/16) 365 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: Project Name: Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramp Diamond Interchange Prepared by: A. Ha Date: October 20, 2016 Item Work Description Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price 1 Diamond Interchange LS 1 38,150,000.00$ $38,150,000 SUBTOTAL:$38,150,000 Subtotal-- Bid Items $38,150,000 Construction Contingency (assume 15%)15% Testing, Staking 5% Construction Management 13% Subtotal: Construction Design 12% Engineering Studies 3% Environmental 3% Construction Engineering 1.5% TOTAL PROJECT $38,150,000 Proposed CIP Budget Amount $38,150,000 Total Design & Admin $0.00 Assumptions: Estimate for Partial Cloverleaf = $76.3 Million (from I-280 Wolfe Alter Analysis Report 10/4/16) 366 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: Project Name: Wolfe Road‐Miller/Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard Right-Turn Lane Prepared by: A. Ha Date: October 20, 2016 Item Work Description Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 2 Traffic control LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 3 Striping & Signing LS 1 20,000.00$ $20,000 4 Traffic signal modification LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000 SUBTOTAL:$100,000 Subtotal-- Bid Items $100,000 Construction Contingency (assume 15%)15%$15,000.00 Testing, Staking 5%$5,000.00 Construction Management 13%$13,000.00 Subtotal: Construction $33,000.00 Design 12%$12,000.00 Engineering Studies 3%$3,000.00 Environmental 3%$3,000.00 Construction Engineering 1.5%$1,500.00 $19,500.00 TOTAL PROJECT $152,500 Proposed CIP Budget Amount $153,000 Total Design & Admin $52,500.00 Assumptions: Right-turn lane is 450' long Striping includes Green Lanes and Bike Box Signal Modification include equipment upgrades 367 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: Project Name: North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road Left-Turn Lane Prepared by: A. Ha Date: October 20, 2016 Item Work Description Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 2 Traffic control LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 3 Striping & Signing LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 4 Signal Modifications LS 1 50,000.00$ $50,000 SUBTOTAL:$45,000 Subtotal-- Bid Items $95,000 Construction Contingency (assume 15%)15%$14,250.00 Testing, Staking 5%$4,750.00 Construction Management 13%$12,350.00 Subtotal: Construction $31,350.00 Design 12%$11,400.00 Engineering Studies 3%$2,850.00 Environmental 3%$2,850.00 Construction Engineering 1.5%$1,425.00 $18,525.00 TOTAL PROJECT $144,875 Proposed CIP Budget Amount $145,000 Total Design & Admin $49,875.00 Assumptions: Left Turn lane can be added in existing pavement width Signal Modifications for southbound movement 368 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: Project Name: Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard Left-Turn Lane Prepared by: A. Ha Date: October 20, 2016 Item Work Description Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 2 Traffic control LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 3 Striping & Signing LS 1 15,000.00$ $15,000 4 Signal Modifications LS 1 50,000.00$ $50,000 SUBTOTAL:$95,000 Subtotal-- Bid Items $95,000 Construction Contingency (assume 15%)15%$14,250.00 Testing, Staking 5%$4,750.00 Construction Management 13%$12,350.00 Subtotal: Construction $31,350.00 Design 12%$11,400.00 Engineering Studies 3%$2,850.00 Environmental 3%$2,850.00 Construction Engineering 1.5%$1,425.00 $18,525.00 TOTAL PROJECT $144,875 Proposed CIP Budget Amount $145,000 Total Design & Admin $49,875.00 Assumptions: Left Turn Lane can be placed in existing width. Signal modifications to add left turn lane signal head. 369 Cuptertino Traffic Impact Fee & Nexus Study Project List - Bicycle Projects Project No. Project Location Start End Notes Miles Total Score Rounded Cost Source Tier 1 1 Class IV Protected Bikeway Stevens Creek Blvd Foothill Blvd Tantau Ave --3.43 91 $7,200,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 2 Class IV Protected Bikeway McClellan Rd Byrne Ave De Anza Blvd --1.43 80 $5,000,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 3 Grade Separated Crossing Study Highway 85 Crossing Grand Ave Mary Ave --0 71 $20,000,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 4 Class I Path Union Pacific Trail Prospect Rd SBtlvedvens Creek --2.1 71 $1,678,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 5 Class IV Separated Bikeway Finch Ave Phil Ln Stevens Creek Blvd --0.45 69 $1,090,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 6 Class I Path I-280 Channel Bike Path Mary Ave/Meteor Dr Tantau Ave/Vallco Pkwy --2.87 61 $2,293,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 7 Bike Boulevard Implementatio n Phase 1 $1,350,000 City of Cupertino Tier 2 8 Class II Buffered Bike Lane De Anza Blvd Homestead Rd Bollinger Rd --1.73 65 $242,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 9 Class IV Separated Bikeway Stelling Rd Prospect Rd 250 South of McClellan Rd --1.45 65 $580,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 10 Class IV Separated Bikeway Stelling Rd 250 South of McClellan Rd Alves Dr --0.71 64 $1,714,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 11 Class IV Separated Bikeway Blaney Ave Bollinger Rd Homestead Rd --1.91 64 $766,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 12 Class IV Separated Bikeway Stevens CreekBlvd Foothill Blvd St Joseph Ave --0.62 63 $248,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 13 Class IV Separated Bikeway Stelling Rd Alves Dr Homestead Rd --0.84 63 $248,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 14 Class I Path Amelia Ct/Varian Way Connector Amelia Ct Varian Way --0.05 63 $100,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 15 Grade Separated Crossing Study Carmen Rd Stevens Creek Blvd - South Side Stevens Creek Blvd - North Side --0 62 $10,000,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 16 Class II Bike Lane Vista Dr Forest Ave SBtlvedvens Creek --0.24 60 $15,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 17 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Bollinger Rd De Anza Blvd Lawrence Expy --2 56 $278,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 18 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Mary Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Meteor Dr --0.71 55 $100,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 19 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Miller Ave Bollinger Rd Calle de Barcelona --0.48 54 $67,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 20 Configure Intersection Infinite Loop Merritt Dr -- Improve signage/striping to delineate bike/ped space in connector 0 54 $2,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 21 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Homestead Rd Mary Ave Wolfe Rd --1.97 52 $276,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 22 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Prospect Rd De Anza Blvd Stelling Rd --0.42 49 $59,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 23 Configure Intersection McClellan Rd Rose Blossom Dr -- Facilitate through bike travel to De Anza 0 49 $20,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 24 Trail Crossing Homestead Rd Mary Ave -- Redesign intersection of Homestead at Mary to better facilitate bicycles exiting Mary Ave bridge path 0 49 $10,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 25 Class III Bike Route Hyde Ave Bike Route (#6) Hyde Ave at Shadygrove Dr Hyde Ave at Bollinger Rd --0.24 49 $500 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 370 Cuptertino Traffic Impact Fee & Nexus Study Project List - Bicycle Projects Project No. Project Location Start End Notes Miles Total Score Rounded Cost Source 26 Class I Path Regnart Creek Path Pacifica Dr Estates Dr --0.83 48 $664,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 27 Reconfigure wall/fence Wheaton Dr Perimeter Rd -- Connect bike blvd to proposed bike path on Perimeter road, requires creating gap in existing wall 0 47 $10,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Tier 3 28 Class II Bike Lane Rainbow Dr Bubb Rd Stelling Rd --0.5 46 $33,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 29 Class I Path Perimeter Rd Stevens Creek Blvd I-280 Channel Bike Path --0.59 44 $470,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 30 Class III Bike Route mary Ave to Vallco Mall Bike Route (#7) Memorial Park End of Wheaton Dr --1.77 44 $4,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 31 Class III Bike Route Tantau Ave Bike Route (#9) Tantau Ave at Bollinger Rd Tantau Ave at Barnhart Ave --0.41 44 $500 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 32 Class III Bike Route Rose Blossom/Hun tridge BikeRoute (#8) Rose Blossom Dr at McClellan Rd Huntridge Ln at De Anza Blvd --0.41 43 $1,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 33 Class I Path Wilson Park Rodrigues Ave Wilson Park Path --0.03 42 $50,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 34 Class III Bike Boulevard Stevens Creek Bike Blvd (#6) San FernandoAv e at OrangeAve Carmen Rd atStevens CreekBlvd --1.12 42 $47,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 35 Configure Intersection Blaney Ave Wheaton Dr -- Enhance bicycle crossing across Wheaton 0 41 $50,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 36 Class II BufferedBike Lane Foothill Blvd Stevens CreekBlvd McClellan Rd --0.55 41 $77,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 37 Configure Intersection Stelling Rd Rainbow Dr -- Study removal of slip lanes, study potential for protected intersection 0 40 $150,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 38 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Homestead Rd Wolfe Rd Tantau Ave --0.49 40 $69,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 39 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek Blvd I-280 Channel Bike Path --0.4 39 $56,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 40 Class I Path Jollyman Park Stelling Rd Dumas Dr --0.15 39 $119,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 41 Reconfigure wall/fence Imperial Ave Alcazar Ave -- Create gap in fence to connect bike routes 0 39 $20,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 42 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd I-280 N Offramp --0.96 39 $135,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 43 Class III Bike Boulevard Foothill toStevens Creek Bike Blvd (#3) Foothill Blvd at Starling Dr Carmen Rd at Stevens Creek Blvd --0.99 38 $50,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 44 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Lazaneo Dr Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd --0.09 38 $13,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 45 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Wolfe Rd Perimeter Rd Homestead Rd --0.62 38 $86,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 46 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Bubb Rd McClellan Rd Stevens Creek Blvd --0.53 37 $74,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 47 Grade Separated Crossing Study UPRR West Cupertino Crossing Hammond Snyder Loop Trail Stevens Creek Blvd --0 37 $15,000,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 48 Bike/Ped Bridge Enhancement Mary Ave Ped Bridge I280 -- Improved signage/stripingto delineate bike/ped space on Mary Ave bridge 0 37 $20,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 49 Class I Path Developmen t Bike Path SBtlvedvens Creek Mary Ave --0.13 35 $102,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 50 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Miller Ave Calle de Barcelona Stevens Creek Blvd --0.39 35 $54,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 51 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Tantau Ave Stevens CreekBlvd Pruneridge Ave --0.65 35 $91,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 371 Cuptertino Traffic Impact Fee & Nexus Study Project List - Bicycle Projects Project No. Project Location Start End Notes Miles Total Score Rounded Cost Source 52 Trail Crossing McClellan Rd Union Pacific Railroad Path -- Coordinate crossing with signal.0 34 $10,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 53 Class II Bike Lane Pacifica Dr De Anza Blvd Torre Ave --0.17 33 $11,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 54 Freeway interchange enhancement Wolfe Rd I-280 Overpass -- Add green paint tointerchange approaches, stripe bike lane through interchange intersection 0 30 $15,000,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan & City of Cupertino 55 Class I Path Aquino Creek Trail Sterling/Bar nhart Park Calvert Dr --0.37 30 $294,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 56 Class I Path Aquino Creek Trail South of I280 Stevens Creek Blvd --0.17 30 $138,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 57 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Vallco Pkwy Tantau Ave Perimeter Rd --0.3 30 $42,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 58 Class II Bike Lane Dr/Stevens Creek Blvd Connector Campus Dr Stevens Creek Blvd --0.11 30 $7,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 59 Class III Bike Route Stevens CreekBlvd Bike Route (#5) Grand Ave atAlhambra Ave Peninsula Ave atStevens Creek Blvd --0.19 30 $1,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 60 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Rainbow Dr De Anza Blvd Stelling Rd --0.57 28 $79,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 61 Class III Bike Route Civic Center to Creekside Park Bike Route (#2) Torre Ave at Rodrigues Ave Estates Dr at Creekside Park Path --1.24 28 $3,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 62 Class III Bike Route Garden Gate EMleemmoe rnitaal rPy atrok Bike Route (#4) GArnene nAlrebaof r DDrr at Memorial Park --0.42 26 $1,500 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 63 Freeway interchange enhancement De Anza Blvd Hwy 85 Overpass -- Add green paint tointerchange approaches, stripe bike lane through interchange intersection 0 26 $40,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 64 Trail Crossing Bubb Rd Union Pacific Railroad Path -- Coordinate crossing with signal.0 25 $10,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 65 Freeway interchange enhancement Stevens Creek Blvd Hwy 85 Overpass -- Add green paint to interchange approaches, stripe bike lane through interchange intersection 0 25 $40,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 66 BCilkase s LIIa nBeuffered Tantau Ave Pruneridge Ave Homestead Rd --0.37 25 $52,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 67 Freeway interchange enhancement De Anza Blvd I-280 Overpass -- Add green paint tointerchange approaches, stripe bike lane through interchange intersection 0 24 $40,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 68 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Stevens Canyon Rd McClellan Rd Rancho Deep Cliff Dr --0.23 24 $33,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 69 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Bollinger Rd 200 feet East of Westlynn Way De Foe Dr --0.18 24 $26,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 70 Class I Path Linda Vista Park/Deep Cliff Golf Course Linda Vista Park Parking Lot off Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd --0.46 24 $366,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 71 Class II Buffered Bike Lane Pruneridge Ave Tantau Ave City Limits - East --0.07 22 $9,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 72 Configure Intersection Portal Ave Wheaton Dr -- 2015 Bike Plan Update, study roundabout conversion 0 20 $150,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 372 Cuptertino Traffic Impact Fee & Nexus Study Project List - Bicycle Projects Project No. Project Location Start End Notes Miles Total Score Rounded Cost Source 73 Class II Bike Lane Cristo Rey Dr 150 feet East of Cristo Rey Pl Roundabout --0.57 19 $37,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 74 Class III Bike Route Westlynn/Fall enleaf Bike Route (#11) Bollinger Rd at Westlynn Way Fallenleaf Ln at De Anza Blvd --0.37 18 $1,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 75 Class III Bike Route Foothill Blvd Bike Route (#3) Palm Ave at Scenic Blvd Lockwood Dr at Stevens Creek --0.81 16 $1,500 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 76 Class III Bike Route Union Pacific to Hwy 85 Bike Route (#10) September Dr at McClellan Rd Jamestown Dr at Prospect Rd --1.48 13 $5,000 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan 373 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2863 Name: Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/26/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Service Center Administration Building with Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Feasibility Study and Facility Master Plan Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A – Service Center Feasibility Study Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council9/19/2017 1 Subject: Service Center Administration Building with Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Feasibility Study and Facility Master Plan Receive the Service Center Administration Building with Emergency Operations Center Feasibility Study and Facility Master Plan CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™374 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: September 19, 2017 Subject Service Center Administration Building with Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Feasibility Study and Facility Master Plan. Recommended Action Receive the Service Center Administration Building with Emergency Operations Center Feasibility Study and Facility Master Plan (Attachment A). Background Over the last 50 years the Cupertino Service Center site has been developed and functioned as the City’s maintenance and operations yard. In 1968 the city improved a small portion of the Service Center site, located at 10555 Mary Ave., with two metal buildings for maintenance functions. Those buildings are still in use today. In 1977 the City improved about two -thirds of the site with the addition of the current administration building and warehouse, the fueling station, and paving. Over the years since, the site has reactively been built piecemeal with various temporary structures in response to evolving service demands. This construction has resulted in space and performance inefficiencies due in part to the improvised and ad hoc organization of the site. This has included the addition of various metal buildings for shops and transport storage containers for materials and equipment. Evaluating the Service Center site for ways to yield more efficient use of space within the existing boundaries of the property is warranted due to a variety of issues that include a growing maintenance backlog, difficulty in prioritizing investments around multiple failing facilities, funding temporary work arounds but not investing to fix the problem. The 2016-17 Adopted Capital Improvement Program Budget includes a project entitled Service Center-New Administration Building Feasibility Study with a scope to conduct a feasibility study to develop design options and cost estimates for building a new administration building at the Service Center, including an EOC. 375 Discussion The process of studying the administration building required looking at the entire site to ensure that the Administration building and the other elements would be optimally sized and located to improve efficiency for today and into the future. The city engaged Bartos Architecture to provide the professional services required for the project. The goal of the project is to study options for better utilization of this existing city property, to meet increasing service demands that require more space and people, and improve site circulation, along with studying the specific location, space needs and options for the administration building. Staff and consultant worked together to study options for accomplishing the following:  Optimize the use of the site by the efficient organization of the various functions;  Modify the existing administration building or build a replacement building in which to perform the administrative responsibilities of the Service C enter, allowing for 10% staff growth;  Consider consolidation of some service center operations such as offices and workspaces into the administration building;  Include an EOC, providing space and facilities for planning, activation, communication and coordination of emergency responses;  Include office work space for 1-3 work groups (10 people) currently assigned to City Hall, whose responsibilities are a good fit for co -location with the Service Center operation; allowing for reduction of the staff population at City Hall; and  Plan for upgrading the Service Center shops for safe, efficient, and reliable performance. While the current facilities are functioning, staff believes that upgrading them is prudent to gain greater value out of the existing site, especially given the trend of increasing functions assigned to the Service Center operation. There is no expectation that completely starting over with a clean site is necessary to achieve the goals. A challenge with yielding more useful space out of the ex isting site, while adding more staff, is striking a balance between their requisite space requirements for those staff, especially personal vehicle parking, that take away from the goal of greater flexible, adaptable space and circulation at the site. Recommended Option Through the planning process various options were studied, with differing organization of the Center functions, with the merits and faults of each considered. The Master Plan and Feasibility Study for Cupertino Service Center reports on the study process, 376 site and use considerations, and the various options that were studied. It identifies the staff Recommended Site Plan Option, Option 1, and includes Potential Phasing Diagrams and a Preliminary Rough Order of Magnitude budget cost estim ate for that option. A major goal for the Master Plan and component of the proposed option is the addition of an EOC to the City at the Service Center Admin building. Without having police and fire services performed by the City, emergency responses are primarily PW field actions, making the Service Center an ideal location of the EOC. Recreation and Community Services staff also play a major role in the EOC organization, so the proximity of the Mary Avenue site to their offices at the Quinlan Center a lso is favorable over the former City Hall EOC location. The current City Hall building was not built with the resiliency to meet essential services facility code requirements to support a true EOC. The EOC that is currently included in the preferred alt ernative of the Civic Center Master Plan would meet this resiliency standard. With the Civic Center Master Plan on hold, staff presented the recommendation to include the EOC with a new Service Center Administration Building to the Disaster Council at its April, 2017 meeting, which was held at the Service Center. The Disaster Council, and specifically members representing CARES and the County of Santa Clara Office of Emergency Services were very much in favor of the plan. To maximize the use of the site and achieve the stated goals, staff recommends council consider Option 1 as the preferred scenario. This option proposes the following: Administration Building Replace existing 7,100 square foot building with a new resilient administration and EOC building of approximately 13,500 square feet located just eastward of the existing building, nearer to Mary Avenue. The building is recommended to have the following attributes:  A two story, with a partial ground floor and full 2nd floor, and parking under one- third of the 2nd floor  Flexible ground floor space serving as the EOC when required, otherwise being used as a staff meeting and lunch/break room  Second floor: Service Center administration and other related city functions that can be relocated from City Hall. 377 Service Center Shops Consolidate the shops into a new single metal building located where the existing administration building is currently located. Sustainability Impact Any new construction and/or addition would comply with the City’s applicabl e ordinances and Council policies. Fiscal Impact This report was included as a CIP Project within the 2016 -17 Adopted Budget. The estimated cost for full implementation of this master plan is approximately $15 million. Upon completion of this study in April 2017, staff was anticipating recommending that this phased implementation be included in the 2017-18 budget. However in order to take a conservative fiscal position with the changing financial impacts from CalPERS’ estimated investment returns, the project was included as an Unfunded Project in the 2017-18 CIP entitled, Service Center – Replacement Administration Building with EOC. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Service Center - New Administration on Building and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Feasibility Study 378 City of Cuper no - Service CenterNew Administra on Building and Emergency Opera ons Center (EOC) Feasibility StudyBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper no, CACity of Cuper no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version379 380 Introduc on Page 03Exis ng Site Plan and Context Page 06Goals & Scope Page 13Site Plan Op ons Page 21Conceptual Floor Plans & Building Sec ons Page 26Poten al Phasing Diagrams: (With exis! ng buildings used for temporary facili! es) Page 36Preliminary Rough Order of Magnitude: (Cost Es! mates) Page 47Appendix Page 54CONTENTSBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper no, CACity of Cuper no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version381 382 5Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterIntroduc onIn the autumn of 2016, the City of Cuper! no asked Bartos Architecture to assist in developing a feasibility study for a new administra! on building at the Service Center located at 10555 Mary Avenue. The ini! al goal of this process was to determine the condi! on of the exis! ng building and to develop poten! al facility improvement strategies, including the poten! al to locate an Emergency Opera! ons Center (EOC) at this loca! on. Although the project was originally focused on the administra! on building, it became necessary to look at the en! re Service Center holis! cally. Two factors in the decision making process are :• Develop a long range vision to ensure that the various elements that comprise the Service Center are op! mally located • Future improvements to the site fi t within a master plan that is consistent and supports the City’s long term goalsThis report includes a summary of the needs and goals iden! fi ed by the key stakeholders for the Services Center, along with poten! al plans, order of magnitude costs, and poten! al phasing plan. If the City determines that it makes sense to move forward with improvements, more detailed work will be required including poten! al CEQA requirements, close collabora! on with Planning. Geotechnical, Civil, Landscape, Structural, Electrical, Mechanical issues are not considered here.ComponentsThis Master Plan consists of the following components: • Exis! ng Condi! ons Summary• Summary of City Goals as developed in stakeholders mee! ngsScope Master Site Plan development• Area and adjacency requirements of buildings • Overall Site Plans indica! ng planning op! ons• New building fl oor plan op! onsPoten! al PhasingOrder of Magnitude CostsAppendix• Mee! ng Notes• Key pages from EOC program• Recycle/ Truck info citySourcesSources Consulted:• Original Corpora! on yard Drawings – 1977• Driveway Installa! on – 1979• Parking Lot Resurfacing – 1982• Fuel Tank Replacement – 1999• Solar Panels Installa! on – 2014• Parking Lot Modifi ca! on - 2016• Emergency Opera! on Center Commi$ ee Program• Historical PhotosExecu ve SummaryThe exis! ng facili! es are an aggrega! on of buildings/facili! es/components that have been incrementally constructed, over the past 50 years, in order to meet city services needs over ! me. Although the facili! es in general could serve adequately, they do not serve in the most effi cient manner possible and they are approaching the end of their useful life. Furthermore, many of the structures, are at a point where renova! ons or ad hoc modifi ca! ons are no longer represent the most prac! cal and cost eff ec! ve solu! on, and a larger more comprehensive solu! on is warranted. The ini! al City goal as described was to replace the exis! ng Administra! on Building with a new facility including an Emergency Opera! on Center (EOC) and new shed structure for materials. As the mee! ngs, discussions and research progressed, the goals shi’ ed as follows:• Validate, the current proposed loca! on of the replacement Materials Storage Shed• Replace Exis! ng Administra! on Building, with a new single story building. • Moderniza! on of the exis! ng Shop Building was deemed imprac! cal and that the best solu! on would be to replace them and consolidated the various shops under one roof. With the excep! on of the Mechanic Shop Building, which had diff erent access requirements.Spring 2017 Version383 ProcessThe overall process was led by Katy Jensen and Alex Acenas, and facilitated by Bartos Architecture. The team reviewed the exis ng site condi ons with Chris Mertens. Chris Mertens and Chris Orr played key roles in providing site walks and explana ons of how the staff and facili es currently func on. Subsequent to our tours of the site, the team of key stakeholders met fi ve mes reviewing drawings/ sketches to brainstorm ideas/concepts. All stakeholder input was considered, gathered and recorded in mee ng notes. During the mee ngs concepts were discussed as to best op ons for site improvements. The mee ngs were very collabora ve and construc ve. The team was very suppor ve and considered the issues from all poten al points of view. All par cipants were cognizant and considerate of each member’s goals, desires and technical input.This process resulted in diagramma c concepts, “bubble” / adjacency diagrams, poten al phasing concepts, and related rough order of magnitude costs. The design teams inten on is to provide the City with an outline of ideas for discussion in order to assist with determining the best way to proceed with upgrades to this forty year old facility.In addi on to stakeholder mee ngs, separate research was done with the City Planning and Building Departments in order to gain general understanding and consensus as to likely acceptable approaches.Par cipantsCity of Cuper no - Public Works Department• Timm Borden, Director• Roger Lee, Assistant Director• Chris Mertens, Superintendent, (re red) • Katy Jensen, CIP Manager• Brad Alexander, Public Works Supervisor• Jonathan Ferrante, Public Works Supervisor• Brian Gathers, Public Works Supervisor• Chris Orr, Public Works Supervisor• Cheri Donnelly, Environmental Programs Manager• Alex Acenas, Public Works Project ManagerFacilitator: Bartos Architecture• Mark Bartos, Architect• Laszlo Petrik, Project Manager • Neal Sellers, Project ManagerStakeholder Mee ngs• Mee ng 01: 12 December 2016• Mee ng 02: 10 January 2017• Mee ng 03: 25 January 2017• Mee ng 04: 02 March 2017• Mee ng 05: 30 March 2017 6Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper no, CACity of Cuper no Service CenterBubble DiagramsAdjacency MatrixArea DiagramHand SketchesCAD DiagramsSelect PreferenceDevelopPreferenceSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionBubble DiagramsAdjacency MatrixArea DiagramSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 Version384 The Exis ng Facili esAdmin Building• The current Administra on Building (1977) is inadequate for mee ng current staffi ng levels. Its size is not adequate and func onal spaces are ght. The building in general does not meet current California Building Code, including Accessibility requirements. Shops Buildings• Exis ng shops buildings at the center of the site are metal structures that have been constructed in various confi gura ons over me. Safety is an issue.Exis ng Wash Sta on• The wash sta on is rela vely new and is expected to stay in place.Exis ng Fueling Sta on• The fueling Sta on is rela vely new and is expected to stay in place at its current loca on.Exis ng Materials Shed• Material shed is beyond its useful life and in need of replacement. Preliminary designs have been developed (refer to appendix). Boom Truck Garage• Recently Constructed. There will be an aerial li" storage space added.Storage Building• Recently constructed at South end and is expected to remain. 7Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper no, CACity of Cuper no Service Center !"#$ %&’’(()"$ !(*+# ,-.!!’$) ,/0/0)$ ,-.-*$1 ,-.23-4((55#"$ ,-.6- ’$ ,-.6)""$Spring 2017 VersionRecently constructed at South end Recently constructed at South end and is expected to remain.and is expected to remain.385 386 9Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterExis ng Site Plan and ContextSpring 2017 Version387 388 11Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service Center195619681980198719982009Historic Aerials Provided by NetronlineSpring 2017 VersionProvided by NetronlineProvided by Netronline389 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEE 12 A B C D E F G H J KExis" ng SiteMaterials ShedNurseryHazmat StorageBoom Truck GarageStorage Solar StucturesAdministra on BuildingFuel IslandShop BuildingWelding GarageBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N G A B C D E H F J KSpring 2017 Version390 Key Plan 13Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Images of Exis ng Structures Materials ShedNurseryHazmat Storage A B C A A A B B C CMaterial Shed to be demolishedand replacedCar Washing Sta! on to remainPropane Tank to remainNursery looking SouthEnlarge and provide dirt areaNursery looking NorthHazmat Storage looking West towards Highway 280Hazmat Storage looking Southwest towards Highway 280 C B A BNursery looking North CHazmat Storage 2.Near Welding garageSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 Version391 14 DF EKey PlanBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017 D DBoom Truck storage looking North. Add one bay at North endImages of Exis! ng Structures Boom Truck GarageTo remainStorage BuildingTo remainSolar StructuresTo remain DBoom Truck garage approach. Looking East from Admin Building EStorage looking Southeast EStorage Building E EAdjacent to building, looking South FSolar Structure to remain. Looking Northwest FSolar Structures to remain. Looking Northeast FSolar Structures to remain. Looking Easat F DBoom Truck garage. Looking SouthSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSSSSSSppppppppppppppppppppppppppppSSSSSpppSpring 2017 VersionppppSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 Versionpiiiiiiiiiiiinnnngggggg2222222222200000000000111111111117777777777777 VVig 2017 VV7 7 110100022 2 2ggggngniipprrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriririprrprrrrrrrrrrprprprrprSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 Versionririing 2017 ing 2017 7 7 11010100222 2ggggngniirririririSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 Versionrrirriri392 15Key PlanBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017 G GAdministra! on Building.Looking Northwest GAdministra! on Building.Looking South from Fuel Island GAdministra! on Building.Looking SoutheastImages of Exis! ng Structures Administra! on BuildingTo be demolishedFuel IslandTo remainShop BuildingTo be demolished H HFuel Island. Looking Northeast HFuel Island. Looking Southeast JShop Building. Looking South JShop Building. Looking Southeast JShop Building. Looking Northwest J HFuel Island. Drive Entry from Mary Ave G H JSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 Version393 16Key PlanBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Images of Exis ng Structures Welding GarageTo be demolished K KWelding Garage. Looking Southwest KWelding Garage. Looking Southeast KWelding Garage. Inside KSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 Version394 GoalsIden fi ed GoalsPlease refer to mee ng notes, summaries and addi onal informa on included in the appendix.The general goals that the City has iden fi ed for the Service Center includes:• Consider consolida on of some service center opra ons such as offi ces and workspaces into a new administra ve building – including and Emergency Opera ons Center (EOC) • Consider addi onal offi ce space for poten al growth in administra on building• Determine likely size (area) of a replacement Administra ve Building• Determine op mal loca on for the Admininstra on Building• Ensuring that the current proposed loca on of the replacement Materials Storage Shed is appropriate• Be" er overall site organiza onVarious issues iden fi ed by City staff are iden fi ed and described in the following pages. Concepts for poten al improvements or modifi ca ons that address the needs and goals are shown.ScopeThe overarching goal of this report is to provide the City with a long-term vision for the Service Center, while valida ng the confi gura on and loca on of the Materials Storage Shed. Determining the feasibility of building a new Administra on Building which includes an EOC, and examines the possibility of consolida ng the various shop func ons under one roof. This process considers and includes city and stakeholder visionary op ons to seek out the most appropriate and/ or consensus driven design. Based on our discussions the following buildings/structures to remain: storage building, fuel sta on, truck li% storage, solar panel canopies, and car washing sta on. 17Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper no, CACity of Cuper no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version395 Summary of Mee ngsPlease refer to appendix for all mee ng notes.Mee ng 01: 12 December 2016Stakeholders considered the following:• Probable size, loca on and spaces required in a new administra on building• Incorpora on of an Emergency Opera on Center in to the Admin Building• Probable/General Adjacency requirements• The components of an EOC.• Poten al for a Separate EOC or having the EOC be part of Admin (Preferred op on)Emergency Opera on Center ComponentCurrently, the City of Cuper no does not provide a centrally located fi re or police sta ons. Therefore, it would like to explore the opportunity to include an Emergency Opera ons Center (EOC) in this newly designed building.An EOC would be required to be an “Essen al Services Facility”. An essen al services building is designed and constructed to be capable of providing essen al services to the public a er a disaster. The poten al for a new essen al service building will require special building requirements including separate protected u li es and more stringent building code requirements. Ancillary buildings and facili es that are essen al to the func on of the new essen al services facility are not exempt from the same regula ons. Essen al services facili es are under the jurisdic on local authori es and must be reviewed for approval under the Essen al Services Seismic Safety Act of 1986. Due to the nature of occupancy, essen al service centers require designing to the highest category risk factor.Separately from this group, and previous to this process, the Cuper no Disaster Council formed a subcommi ee from members of the assembly (select individuals from the Emergency Response Opera ons Team, and city, the County, ci zen volunteers, and private business) to create a guideline that could be used for the planning and design of an ideal EOC for the City of Cuper no.The consensus is that the City will need to incorporate an eff ec ve, resilient, and fl exible EOC that conforms to the California Building Code standards for essen al services facility. Based on further review and discussion, it is recommended that any building(s) designed are considered essen al service buildings.The Disaster Council commi ee report dated Feb 11, 2016 will be incorporated by reference into this document.Mee ng 02: 10 January 2017Stakeholders considered the following:• Need for greater effi ciency and be er overall use of the site• Maximize free area on the site, minimize building footprint• The replacement of more than the Administra on Building and Material Storage Shed • Project phasing to accomplish overall goals• Poten al need to provide temporary facili es/housing during construc on (not desired)• Incorporate a single facility to serve as an essen al services building for the communityUpon reviewing poten al op ons for the site and buildings, the stakeholders iden fi ed more issues related to the exis ng condi ons and need for greater effi ciency and be er overall use of the site. The site is bound on all areas, thus a desire to maximize free area on the site, and minimize building footprint was raised by the group as a major goal. Thus poten al for replacing more than the Admin Building and Materials shed entered the discussion in order to maximize effi ciency and increase open area on the site. Also discussed was likely project phasing in order to accomplish the overall goals. In order to replace the Administra on Building at its exact current loca on, special temporary facili es would have to be provided during construc on. Although technically feasible, the cost of temporary facili es is not a desired expenditure if it can be avoided. Thus op ons to build a new Administra on building, while the current facility is under use were considered. The incorpora on of EOC into the new administra on building as an essen al services facility will require the en re building to be designed accordingly. Stakeholders agree that this should be incorporated into the master plan document as a single facility that will serve as an essen al services building for the community.(Mee ng Summary Con nued) 18Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper no, CACity of Cuper no Service CenterSpring 2017 Versionthe Essen al Services Seismic Safety Act of 1986. Due the Essen al Services Seismic Safety Act of 1986. Due 396 Mee ng 03: 25 January 2017Stakeholders considered the following:• The en re Administra on Building and Service Facility should be an essen al service facility• More open offi ce area (bullpen style) to maximize current staff (15 offi ces/cubicle space required)• Space programming was discussed: • Single occupancy public toilet rooms • Breakroom and toilet rooms should be included in service building • Lobby should have a secure desk to control public entry • Warehouse facility to handle mutliple types of deliveries and storage • Single occupancy public toilet rooms • 4,000 square feet is an ample size Mechanic’s ShopIt was in general agreement that the en re administra ve and service facility should be an essen al service facility as all services will need to be opera on at the me of a crisis. An ini al es mate of 20% cost increase was given to design and build to the current code requirements for essen al service buildings. An op on for a single two story building was discussed but was in general agreement that it was not preferred by the current staff . Noise and equipment will be an issue and mi ga on is not needed if facili es are kept separately.From the previous discussions, it was agreed that more “bullpen” (open offi ce) area and offi ces are needed to accommodate current staffi ng. At least 15 offi ces and cubicles should be incorporated into administra on building for supervisors and current staff . The IT room and key room are very important to be incorporated correctly into the building design.Public restrooms are not a priority and should be provided at a minimum with one single occupancy room if adequate. A break room and toilet rooms should be included in service building and a centralized loca on for showers will provide safety and easy access. The lobby entry should have a secure desk and check out sta on to control public entry. The exis ng front public parking lot contains approximately 46 spaces and is currently adequate. Only 4-5 spaces for public are needed. Employee parking can be considered in rear of yard (as City of Palo Alto) however some employees will con nue to park on the street.The warehouse facility should be used for mul ple types of deliveries and storage. It can be shared by the service center and administra on building. It should contain a separate area for a fork li to use for truck deliveries. The fl eet shop should contain all interior work areas and should maximize covered exterior space. High bay cranes for welding and mower li s are needed to service all equipment currently used.Truck repair and service is a major opera on at the service facility. Fuel access upon entry of the yard is essen al and access to both high and low bay drive thrus for truck maintenance is key. Ample facility would be approximately 4000 sf and contain aerial li s and pit. Tandem parking inside the new bays will allow for wai ng trucks to not intrude on driveway space. In new shop and storage spaces, mezzanine spaces are preferred for storage and poten al expansion. If phasing is needed to relocate service center into new building it was agreed that the exis ng warehouse could serve as a temporary mechanics shop. Mee ng 04: 02 March 2017 Stakeholders considered the following:• Provide effi cient use of service center yard and maximize open space• A separate Service Building should be considered due to noise and debris • Consider the op on to separate the Mechanic’s Shop from the Service Building• Consider acquiring a por on of Mary Avenue to include off -street parking as part of property• Employee parking should not be located inside the Service Center yard• Minimize the number of columns on Material’s Storage Shed to avoid collision and repairsIt was in general agreement that reorganiza on of the site to provide more effi cient use of the service center yard and provide the most open, fl exible useable space should be considered for all future projects. A separate building should be provided for Service Center Maintenance opera ons due to noise and debris generated by the everyday ac vi es. While a two story building allows for more useable site area, it is not preferred by the stakeholders. A er some discussion the a! endees agreed that also separa ng the vehicle maintenance shops from other maintenance opera ons would be func onal and provide poten al phasing solu ons for new construc on. Should temporary housing be needed, a solu on to u lize unoccupied private property off site or near the service (Mee ng Summary Con nued Next Page) 19Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper no, CACity of Cuper no Service Centeradministra on building for supervisors and current administra on building for supervisors and current 397 center was considered. In an interim discussion between mee ngs, the city asked that Bartos Architecture study the addi onal op on including space for addi onal admin staff .Occupancy of the new spaces was discussed expanding the size of the new offi ce spaces could poten ally house more employees and alleviate any exis ng crowding. This will allow for future growth of staff and expansions from other with the expansion of the building sizes, effi ciency of the exis ng site area is s ll very important for the Service Center. Acquiring current street parking and landscape area outside of exis ng site boundary could be u lized to expand site area.The master plan site op ons have been narrowed down to poten ally two site plan op ons. Both op ons have separate buildings for maintenance and administra on. To transi on from exis ng buildings into the new structures, site phasing diagrams will be included in the master planning document. The use of temporary buildings should be considered to be able to provide a more effi cient future site. Noise genera ng ac vi es should be concentrated towards the wall at the freeway towards the West edge of the site and should be moved away from the South edge facing the apartment complex. Employee parking should not be moved inside the corpora on yard but should be located near the new offi ce spaces. Public parking should be kept to a minimum. Research and calcula ons should be provided to verify that adequate parking for staff is provided given that the new building areas will be increasing. Access for fi re department should also be verifi ed and provided. An open, fl exible yard is the most preferred use of space gained in the reorganiza on of the service center yard. For emergency situa ons where public parking is needed, off -site street parking can be used.Material shed design op ons were discussed. It was preferred that fewer structural columns be used to avoid collisions and future maintenance. Providing solar panels at new shed was discussed and decided that they were not needed as current u lity cost are already off set by current solar system.Interim DiscussionIn the interim between mee ng 4 and 5 the City asked Bartos Architecture to study the op on of including addi onal space for administrave staff .Mee! ng 05: 30 March 2017 Stakeholders considered the following:• A two story Administra on Building with grade parking below to provide the necessary parking requirement• Employee/Public parking will be increased to 122 stalls worse case, down to 97 stalls best case• Approximately 80 parking stalls would be adequate based on stakeholders input• The Service and Mechanic’s shops can be constructed of prefabricated metal buildings• Construc on delivery method design-bid-build.• Staff requested a 3-D model of the proposed two story Administra on Buildign with podium parking belowIn this mee ng, four op ons were discussed for site development and placement of the new buildings for the service center and administra on buildings. It was in general agreement that a two story administra on building with at grade parking below should be built to allow for effi cient adequate parking on the site. A cost analysis will be provided for addi onal of second story and podium parking. Due to the signifi ca on cost of underground parking, the op ons including it were not favored.Based on occupancy and parking analysis, it was determined that with increase in building sizes to accommodate growth and poten al relocated city hall staff , parking would need to be increased. At the mee ng it was determined that City owned proper es would have fl exibility for required parking counts and that a reasonable number of stalls could be determined. It was agreed that approximately 80 stalls would be adequate. It was also clarifi ed that the parking on Mary Ave was included in parking counts and land gained from property acquisi on at Mary does not remove street parking. An urgency to expand or modify City hall was discussed by staff . By increasing the size of the Service Center administra on building and reloca ng City Hall staff , some of the crowding and pressure is relieved un l future projects can be addressed. The an cipated capacity was calculated at the mee ng including 60 current staff , 10% growth, 10 addi onal city hall employees, and 4 visitors totaling approximately 80 people.The standard and preference for Emergency Opera on center is at ground level in the administra on building. The daily use for the EOC space will be mee ng, mul purpose or break room. Modular construc on was discussed as a cost saving alterna ve but typical prefabricated construc on will not meet the stringent code design standards needed for Essen al Services facili es. These could poten ally The service center shop buildings and mechanics garage construc on type should be a “butler” style metal building with high ceilings. The construc on delivery method for future projects was discussed including pre-qualifi ed contractors and using a conven onal design-bid-build approach.At this mee ng Bartos Architecture provided the penul mate dra! of the master planning document. In addi on to the plan site diagrams that are being developed, the staff requested that a 3D diagram of the proposed two story building with podium parking be provided in the fi nal document and presenta on. 20(Mee! ng Summary Con! nued)Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper no, CACity of Cuper no Service Centerpreferred that fewer structural columns be used to preferred that fewer structural columns be used to avoid collisions and future maintenance. Providing avoid collisions and future maintenance. Providing 398 ! !"!##$%$&’()*’$&’$$’’$!’$’$*’$*+’’$’%’,*’()’!’#’%!-./-.’$$0’*’$$0’,-.’*$-."’$$-. % %"!##$%$&’()*’$&’$$’’$!’$’$*’$*+’’$’%’,*’()’!’#’%!-./-.’$$0’*’$$0’,-.’*$-."’$$-. 21Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterAdjacency MatrixRoom Adjacencies developed based on exis! ng condi! ons, stakeholder input and architect’s reviewSpring 2017 Version399 Building Area AnalysisExis ng and proposed areas: !"! #$ #%$ &’ ’(%%)*+’(%%,*+’,""-+%!.&%$%!##!##%!./!0%1$($’##$$##$$23’##$$//’4’’! 5%(6##!(+’($,",", !"! #$ #%$ &’ ’(%%)*!$!$’##$’**""##$*%%+&*$$,*!!)*)-’’’*"!"!’’.’’"/"/0’)’%%12’##$12’##’!!+’//3’’’.#’+&%"4%**),’5’,)!!**),’5’0$!!)&*67’**$!$!+’$/$"/ !"#$%"%&%"%&’(!%!")*’%!"&+%$’ ,,,-!#!"#$.%/0!.%/0!*’0"!"#$,1#!!"!"#$,-2"’ 3!&,0!#) 22Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper no, CACity of Cuper no Service CenterArea analysis providing a square footage comparison of the exis! ng and proposed spaces to be incorporated into the facili! es based on stakeholder input and architect’s reviewSpring 2017 Version-2"’ 3!-2"’ 3!400 Service CenterAdministra on BuildingSpacial Rela onship/Adjacency DiagramThis diagram provides the areas & poten al size of space needed for each space.Separate Building 23These diagrams were developed in conversa! on and collabora! on with stakeholdersBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper no, CACity of Cuper no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version401 402 25Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSite Plan Op onsSpring 2017 Version403 404 Op on 1 Showing 1st Floor PlanReplace both Adminstra on and Service Buildings in current loca ons with offi ce space above por on of parking. Separate Mechanic’s Shop Building Materials ShedNurseryNursery/ Pes! cide StorageBoom Truck GarageStorage New Administra! on BuildingFuel IslandSolar StructuresNew Service CenterMechanics ShopPes! cides / Irriga! on StorageHazmat StorageComment:MARY AVENUE 27 27Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Bartos Architecture, Inc.2550100N Flex U! lity Space(E) Truck ParkingNew BayEmployee ParkingMaintenance Driveway Open Work AreaEmployee/ Visitor ParkingParking w/ Offi ce Above G H J F D E L M K BC AStorage(E) CarWashParking AnalysisNon Accessible 72Accessible 8(Van Accessible- 4) A B D E F G H JC K L MSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 Version405 Op on 1 Showing 2nd Floor Plan Replace both Adminstra on and Service Buildings in current loca ons with parking below por on of offi ce space. Separate Mechanic’s Shop Building Materials ShedNurseryNursery/ Pes! cide StorageBoom Truck GarageStorage New Administra! on BuildingFuel IslandSolar StructuresNew Service CenterMechanics ShopPes! cides / Irriga! on StorageHazmat StorageComment:MARY AVENUE 28 28Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Bartos Architecture, Inc.2550100N A B D E F G H JC K L M G H J F D E M LNew BayEmployee ParkingMaintenance Driveway Open Work AreaEmployee/ Visitor Parking Flex U! lity Space(E) Truck ParkingStorage K BC A(E) CarWashSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 Version406 Op on 2 Showing 1st Floor PlanReplace both Adminstra on and Service Buildings in current loca ons with parking on the north end of the Administra on Building. Separate Mechanic’s Shop Building Materials ShedNurseryNursery/ Pes! cide StorageBoom Truck GarageStorage New Administra! on BuildingFuel IslandSolar StructuresNew Service CenterMechanics ShopPes! cides / Irriga! on StorageHazmat StorageComment:MARY AVENUE 29 29Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Bartos Architecture, Inc.2550100N Flex U! lity Space(E) Truck ParkingNew BayEmployee ParkingMaintenance Driveway Open Work AreaEmployeeParkingParking G H J F D E L M K BC AStorage(E) CarWashParking AnalysisNon Accessible 72Accessible 8(Van Accessible- 4) A B D E F G H JC K L MSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 Version407 Op on 2 Showing 2nd Floor Plan Replace both Adminstra on and Service Buildings in current loca ons with parking on the north end of the Administra on Building. Separate Mechanic’s Shop Building Materials ShedNurseryNursery/ Pes! cide StorageBoom Truck GarageStorage New Administra! on BuildingFuel IslandSolar StructuresNew Service CenterMechanics ShopPes! cides / Irriga! on StorageHazmat StorageComment:MARY AVENUE 30 30Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Bartos Architecture, Inc.2550100N A B D E F G H JC K L M G H J F D E M LNew BayEmployee ParkingMaintenance Driveway Open Work AreaEmployee Parking Flex U! lity Space(E) Truck ParkingStorage K BC A(E) CarWashSpring 2017 VersionSpring 2017 Version408 31Conceptual Floor Plans & Building Sec onsBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version409 410 33Standard 9Accessible 2(Van Accessible- 1)RoofBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017NAdministra on BuildingFloor Plans - Op! on 1Break RoomStorage/ MechanicalIT Room/ ElectricalConference RoomKey Storage/ IT RoomCopyroomBullpenPublic Unisex ToiletLobbyEmergency Opera! on CenterMul! purpose RoomStairsElevatorElevator MechanicalUnisex ToiletFlex Offi ceWork Program SupplyEmergency Opera! ons Center Off .123456789101112131415161718First Floor5,650 SFSecond Floor7,500 SFBBAACC251718641515913 141210 / 111213 1413 14121213 1441616326171515 9161616169Future GrowthExis! ng NeedCity Hall Move1610Spring 2017 Version411 34Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017NAdministra on BuildingFloor Plans - Op! on 2Break RoomStorage/ MechanicalIT Room/ ElectricalConference RoomKey Storage/ IT RoomCopyroomBullpenPublic Unisex ToiletLobbyEmergency Opera! on CenterMul! purpose RoomStairsElevatorElevator MechanicalUnisex ToiletFlex Offi ceWork Program SupplyEmergency Opera! ons Center Off .123456789101112131415161718First Floor7,500 SFSecond Floor7,500 SFBBAACC251718641515913 141210 / 111213 1413 14121213 1441616326171515 9161616169Future GrowthExis! ng NeedCity Hall Move161031616Spring 2017 Version412 35Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017NAdministra on BuildingConceptual Sec! ons- Op! on 1Flex Offi ce BullPenPodium Parking Copy RoomEmergency Opera! on CenterLobby 12345621254325366Concept Building Sec! on A C BConcept Building Sec! onConcept Building Sec! onSpring 2017 Version413 36Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017NAdministra on BuildingConceptual Sec! ons- Op! on 2Flex Offi ce BullPenPodium Parking Copy RoomEmergency Opera! on CenterLobby 1234563212512566Concept Building Sec! on A C B61Concept Building Sec! onConcept Building Sec! onSpring 2017 Version414 37Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017PassthroughAccess from Mechanics Pit BelowService Building11,800 SFMechanics Garage8,000 SfService Building & Mechanic ShopFloor PlansVehicle CenterWelding ShopMetal StorageUnisex ToiletVehicle Offi ceTire StorageBa# ery StorageMower Li$ WarehouseWood StorageWood ShopWomen’s Toilet/ Locker RoomMen’s Toilet/ Locker RoomHazmat StorageBreakroomElectrical RoomPlo# er/ Copy RoomConference RoomMechanical RoomSign StorageShign ShopStreet Light StorageStreet Light ShopROW StorageROW Shop12345678910111213141516171819202122232425101116192224141518212325445 81 9 131238392367NNABCDSpring 2017 Version415 38Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017NService BuildingConceptual Sec! ons- Op! on 1Street Light StorageCorridorStreet Light Shop ROW StorageStreet Light StorageMechanics Room Electrical RoomCorridorWood ShopWood Storage Warehouse12345678910111284 59 10 116 73Concept Building Sec! on B A312Concept Building Sec! onSpring 2017 Version416 39Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017NService BuildingConceptual Sec! ons- Op! on 2Street Light StorageCorridorStreet Light Shop ROW StorageStreet Light StorageMechanics Room Electrical RoomCorridorWood ShopWood Storage Warehouse1234567891011128459 10 116 73Concept Building Sec! on B AConcept Building Sec! onSpring 2017 Version417 40112343124Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017NMechanic Shop Conceptual Sec! onsVehicle CenterWelding ShopMetal StorageMechanics Pit1234 CConcept Building Sec! on DConcept Building Sec! onSpring 2017 Version418 411Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Op! on 1:No Drive Thru (Preferred)Op! on 2:Drive ThruNMaterials Storage ShedFloor Plan and Exterior Eleva! on Op! ons Exis! ng Car WashDirt/ SoilSandTrashCompostablesWood ChipsMixed RecyclablesFlexCovered Nursery123456789234567 889Pass- ThruSpace8478235619BinsSpring 2017 Version419 420 43Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterPoten al Phasing DiagramsWith exis! ng buildings used for temporary facili! esSpring 2017 Version421 422 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEE 45Phase 1Build New Materials Storage ShedDemolish exis! ng shedPreserve Exis! ng Carwash Build a New Materials Shed• Metal structure• 8’-0” high concrete walls• Concrete pad• Double sided bays• Access on both sides of shed• DrainageRelocate Nursery• New ligh! ng and receptacles• New plant storage area• Possible covered structurePossibly extend site boundary • Acquire parking on Mary Ave12345Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N12345Spring 2017 Version423 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEE 46Phase 2Build New Administra on BuildingExis! ng administra! on building• Remains and is func onal during construc onBuild New administra! on building• Accessible toilet rooms• Open offi ce area (16 cubicles)• Administra ve offi ces• Copy Room• Electrical/ mechanical room• Key storage• conference roomsEmergency Opera! ons Center (EOC)/ Cafeteria• Raised fl ooring• Marker boards • Flexible space• Moveable furniture• Accousitcal panel walls• Breakout room• Map displays• Open ceiling• Supply room• Robust CAC system• Flexible network and electrical systems• Emergency generator12Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N12Spring 2017 Version424 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEE 47Phase 3Demolish Exis ng Administra on BuildingMove into new Administra! on BuildingDemolish exis! ng BuildingProtect New building in place• Construc on fencing• sound and dust controlDemolish exis! ng Building1234Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N1234Spring 2017 Version425 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEE 48Phase 4Build New Service BuildingExis! ng shops and welding garage to remain func! onal during construc! onProtect Surrounding Buildings from New Construc! on• Construc! on fencing• Sound and debris controlNew service building• Break Room• Woodshop and storage• Sign shop and storage• ROW Shop and storage• Street light shop and storage• Warehouse• Mens/ Womens locker rooms and toiletsAdd Bay to exis! ng boom truck garage• demolish exis! ng generator12345Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N11234Spring 2017 Version426 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEE 49Phase 5Par ally Demolish Exis ng Shops Building and Welding GarageMove shops and welding garage into new services buildingMove Welding Garage into Mechanics shopsDemolish exis! ng welding garage structuresProvide new temporary roll up doorsProtect surounding areas• Construc on Fencing• Sound and debris controlExtend site boundary • Acquire parking on Mary AvePave new parking lotInstall new landscaping and pedestrian walkwaysNew drive from Mary • access along south end of new administra on buildingExis! ng Mechanics ShopNew Service CenterNew Administra! ve Building123456789101112Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N3567898421111210Spring 2017 VersionNew Administra! ve BuildingNew Administra! ve Building427 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEE 50Phase 6Build New Staff /Public ParkingNew mechanics garage• Mechanic’s shop with tandem vehicle garage• Vehicle li! s• Mechanic’s pit• Ba" ery storage• Tire storage• Mower storage with li! • Toilet RoomsProtect surrounding buildings during construc! on• Construc# on Fencing• Sound and debris controlMaintain opera! onal Shop building during construc! on1Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper# no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N12323Spring 2017 Version428 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEE 51Phase 7Demolish Exis ng Mechanics ShopMove into New BuildingDemolish Exis! ng BuildingProtect New building in place• Construc on Fencing• Sound and debris control123Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N213Spring 2017 Version429 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEE 52Phase 8Pave/Stripe Flex U lity Space & Open Work AreaNew Asphalt Yard• Open work area• Exis ng Designated parkingNew Flex U! lity Space• Striping• Concrete walkway• Landscaping12Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N12Spring 2017 Version430 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEE 53Comple! onMaterials ShedNurseryBoom Truck GarageStorage New Administra on BuildingFuel IslandSolar StructuresNew Service centerNew Mechanics Shop A B C D E F G H J KBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100NCorpora! on Yard A B D E F G H J KSpring 2017 Version431 K 54Massing StudyNew Materials Shed New NurseryNew Pes cides / HazmatExis ng Boom Truck GarageExis ng Storage New Administra on BuildingExis ng Fuel IslandExis ng Solar StructuresNew Service CenterNew Mechanics Shop A B C D E F G H J K A B D E F H J G CBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Spring 2017 Version432 55Preliminary Rough Order of Magnitude (Cost Es mates)Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper no, CACity of Cuper no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version433 434 57 !"#$%&#$’’(($)"#$$*+’*+, $"($%’$’)#$--’)$%#$’(’)$#$ !"), #$’’($-$)($’-"$(#$’%--$$"!%!!#$’’($-$%#$-)&&$’"#$&&$)$!#++$"##$&)#$’’$&$"’’$’$!. ! ! ! Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version435 58 !"#$%$%&’(’#$’!#)*+$,+-+$+-+’.’*+*$,+-+$+-+.#.//01.2#3$14.’0!.+*54(67777 $8 79:" 77$879.. 77877(6 !".%9$9%8%9$9%!!6#$;!/*%$8$$7.--6141,:.%#Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version436 59 !""#$#$ %%&"’#$ (#)* *+, ,!-)%.*!(#’%#-/! 0,!---.# .# -&( %$12345)6&#6&# .7 ’6%8! 6&#.7’6%-- 6&#76&#5) !" #- $% 7 $% )$9 ’&( .7 ..%#66. -00),2,:8-#%$Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version437 60 !"#$$%&’ ($&)!(* %+, -#./#$$$+, -#.#$’ ’#0##0 $( (%,1’2’2 3 $’4! ’23$’## ’2$3’2,1 !"# $%%#’552($3’552( 1$%6 2’52(3$&$5%#771/8/+4#%$&Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version438 61 !"#$%& ’()!(* +&,- .%/0%+++,- .%/%+(1 (1%#%%# +(& &-2&+*&+* (3 ’&"! &+*(3’&%% &+*+3&+*-2 !"# % &*1’ +3&*1’ 2$4 1((5+ (3+&1’6 %772080,"%Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version439 62 !"#"$%"&&&&’&&’!()** +, +-." *+,+-&& *,*() !" &/0,/0!!)1!$0+,2+&33)%4%5.&Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version440 63Appendix:• Diagrams (Based on Stakeholder Discussions)• Bubble Diagrams• Collabora on Team Sketches• Ini al Study Sketches• “Also Studied”• Poten al Phasing: Op on 2• Mee ng Notes & Program Matrix• Report on Desirable Design Elements for a Cuper no EOC Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper no, CACity of Cuper no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version441 442 DiagramsBased on stakeholder discussionsBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version443 444 MARY AVENUESolar PanelsFuelIslandShedPublic ParkingOpen SpaceNurseryIrriga on/ Pes cideCar WashAdmin BuildingService BuildingOp-Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterOp on with off set admin building and all inclusive service buildingSpring 2017 Version445 MARY AVENUESolar PanelsFuelIslandShedAdmin BuildingService BuildingPublic ParkingOpen SpaceNurseryIrriga on/ Pes cideCar WashShedNuIrriga on/ ShedNurseryIrriga on/ Pes cideCar WashOp-Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterOp on with administra on building aligning with service building. Provides large open work areaSpring 2017 Version446 MARY AVENUESolar PanelsFuelIslandAdmin BuildingService BuildingPublic ParkingEmployee ParkingShedNurseryIrriga on/ Pes cideCar WashShedNuIrriga on/ ShedNurseryIrriga on/ Pes cideCar WashOp-Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterOp on with service building perpendicular to admin building. Admin building located at Northeast corner of exis ng parking lotSpring 2017 Version447 MARY AVENUESolar PanelsFuelIslandAdmin BuildingServiceBuildingParkingShedNurseryIrriga on/ Pes cideCar WashShedNuIrriga on/ ShedNurseryIrriga on/ Pes cideCar WashBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterOp on with service building perpendicular to admin building. Admin building located in southeast exis ng parking lot Spring 2017 Version448 Bubble DiagramsBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version449 450 Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterArea Bubble Diagram| Stakeholders Mee! ng | 25 January, 2017Spring 2017 Version451 Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterConcept Bubble Diagrams| Stakeholders Mee! ng | 25 January, 2017Spring 2017 Version452 Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterArea Bubble Diagram| Stakeholders Mee! ng | 25 January, 2017Spring 2017 Version453 454 Collabora on Team SketchesBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version455 456 ŝƚǇŽĨƵƉĞƌƟŶŽϭϬϱϱϱDĂƌǇǀĞŶƵĞͮƵƉĞƌƟŶŽ͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂͮϮϬϭϳǆŝƐƟŶŐBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterExis! ng Site Plan Sketch| Stakeholders Mee! ng |13 December, 2016Spring 2017 Version457 ŝƚǇŽĨƵƉĞƌƟŶŽϭϬϱϱϱDĂƌǇǀĞŶƵĞͮƵƉĞƌƟŶŽ͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂͮϮϬϭϳKƉƟŽŶϮKƉƟŽŶϯBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterNew Building Loca! on Sketches| Stakeholders Mee! ng |13 December, 2016Spring 2017 Version458 Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterNew Site Plan Sketch| Stakeholders Mee! ng |10 January, 2017Spring 2017 Version459 Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterNew Site Plan Sketch| Stakeholders Mee! ng |10 January, 2017Spring 2017 Version460 Ini al Study SketchesBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version461 462 Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version463 464 Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterAlso StudiedThe following op ons were chosen for further refi nement and study. However the teams preferred op on is indicated previously.Spring 2017 Version465 466 Service Building on Mary AvenueOff set Administra on Building & Maintenace CenterMaterials ShedNurseryNursery/ Pes cide StorageBoom Truck GarageStorage New Administra on BuildingFuel IslandSolar StructuresNew Service centerComment:Shown for informa on only- Not Recommended A B D E F G H JCMARY AVENUEVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Bartos Architecture, Inc.2550100N H G F B J A D E CPublic ParkingEmployee ParkingMaintenance Driveway(E) Truck Parking(E) CarWashNew BayStorageSpring 2017 Version467 MARY AVENUEBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Bartos Architecture, Inc.2550100N H G F A D E C BOp! on 5Service Center with drivethroughMaterials ShedNurseryNursery/ Pes! cide StorageBoom Truck GarageStorage New Administra! on BuildingFuel IslandSolar StructuresNew Service centerComments:This op on allows construc on of Administra on Building while exis ng facility is occupied.Service Center and Administra on are adjacent for effi ciency of func on.Site area id freed up for other uses A B D E F G H JC JPublic ParkingEmployee Parking/ Work AreaMaintenance Driveway(E) Truck ParkingDrive Through(E) CarWashStorageNew BayPoten! al SolarSpring 2017 Version468 MARY AVENUEBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Bartos Architecture, Inc.2550100NOp on 5aSercive Center with drivethrough & nursery at frontMaterials ShedNurseryNursery/ Pes! cide StorageBoom Truck GarageStorageNew Administra! on BuildingFuel IslandSolar StructuresNew Service CenterComments:This op on adjusts loca on of garage so that vehicles can easily drive through.Smaller public parking provided on south side. A B D E F G H JC H G F B J A D E CDrive ThroughMaintenance Driveway(E) Truck Parking(E) CarWashNew BayStorageEmployee Parking/ Work Area469 AMARY AVENUEBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Bartos Architecture, Inc.2550100N H G F B J A D E COp on 5bService Center with drivethrough plus hazmat storageMaterials ShedNurseryNursery/ Pes! cide StorageBoom Truck GarageStorageNew Administra! on BuildingFuel IslandSolar StructuresNew Service centerHazmat StorageComment:This op on adjusts loca on of garage so that vehicles can easily drive through. B D E F G H JC K KDrive ThroughPublic ParkingEmployee ParkingMaintenance Driveway(E) Truck Parking(E) CarWashNew BayStorageSpring 2017 Version470 Op on 6Off set Administra on Building & Maintenace CenterMaterials ShedNurseryNursery/ Pes cide StorageBoom Truck GarageStorageNew Administra on BuildingFuel IslandSolar StructuresNew Service centerComment:Shown for informa on only- Not Recommended A B D E F G H JCMARY AVENUEVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Bartos Architecture, Inc.2550100N H G F B J A D E CPublic ParkingEmployee ParkingMaintenance Driveway(E) Truck Parking(E) CarWashNew BayStorageSpring 2017 Version471 MARY AVENUEBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Bartos Architecture, Inc.2550100NCombined Admin & Service BuildingMaterials ShedNurseryNursery/ Pes! cide StorageBoom Truck GarageStorage New Administra! on Building (Second Floor)Fuel IslandSolar StructuresNew Service center (First Floor)`Comments:This op on was consideredIntegra! ng Service & Administra! on will complicate overall daily func! onal use: Noise, etc...This story consisted of 2 stories, however, it minimaizes the possibility of growth for adminis on offi ces and workers. A B D E F G H JC H G F B J A D E CPublic ParkingEmployee ParkingMaintenance Driveway(E) Truck Parking(E) CarWashNew BayStorageEmployee ParkingSpring 2017 Version472 MARY AVENUEMARY AVENUEBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017Bartos Architecture, Inc.2550100N H G F B J A D E CPublic ParkingEmployee ParkingMaintenance Driveway(E) Truck Parking(E) CarWashNew BayStorageEmployee ParkingCombined Admin & Service Building Varia" onMaterials ShedNurseryNursery/ Pes! cide StorageBoom Truck GarageStorage New Administra! on Building Fuel IslandSolar StructuresNew Service center A B D E F G H JCSpring 2017 Version473 A d m i n B u i l d i n gS e r v i c e C e n t e rM a t e r i a l s S h e dDRAFTBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterPreliminary Floor Plans| Stakeholders Mee! ng | 25 January, 2017Spring 2017 Version474 Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 2017First FloorSecond Floor23411678Service CenterFloor Plan: Op! on CVehicle CenterMower Li" MechanicalElectricalWood StorageWood ShopHazmat StorageWarehouseHazmat Offi ceStreet Light StorageSign StorageROW StorageFemale Toilet/ Locker RoomsMen Toilet/ Locker RoomsVehicle Offi ceBatery StorageTire StorageBreak RoomROW Offi ceSign Offi ceStreetlight Offi ceStorageIT RoomConference RoomKey StorageOffi ceCopyroomBullpenPublic Unisex ToiletLobbyEmergency Opera! on CenterCafeteriaStairsElevatorElevator MechanicalUnisex ToiletFlex Offi ceWork Program SupplyEmergency Opera! ons Center Off .123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839Spring 2017 VersionUnisex ToiletUnisex ToiletFlex Offi ceFlex Offi ce475 476 Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterPoten al Phasing Diagrams: Op on 2With temporary facility on siteSpring 2017 Version477 478 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEEPhase 1Build New Materials ShedDemolish exis! ng shedPreserve Exis! ng Carwash Build a New Materials Shed• Metal structure• 8’-0” high concrete walls• Concrete pad• Double sided bays• Access on both sides of shed• DrainageBuild new Irriga! on & Pes! cides Building• Possible alternate loca! on. See Phase 8 diagramPossibly extend site boundary • Acquire parking on Mary Ave12345Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N12345Spring 2017 Version479 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEEPhase 2Demolish Exis ng BuildingInstall Temporary Portable Buildings (6)Move into Temporary Portable Buildings• Poten ally share warehouse space with Service centerDemolish exis! ng BuildingContain demoli! on area • Construc on fencing• sound and dust control1234Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N3412Spring 2017 Version480 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEEPhase 3New Administra on BuildingBuild New administra! on building• Accessible toilet rooms• Open offi ce area (16 cubicles)• Administra ve offi ces• Copy Room• Electrical/ mechanical room• Key storage• conference rooms• Emergency Opera ons Center (EOC)/ CafeteriaProtect Area of Work• Construc on fencing• Sound and Debris ControlNew Parking Lot• New paving and driveway• New Landscaping• New hardscape and ligh ng123Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N123Spring 2017 Version481 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEEPhase 4Demolish Welding GarageMove into new admin buildingMove service center shops and offi ces to portable buildingsMove Welding Garage into Shop offi cesDemolish exis" ng welding garage structuresProtect surounding areas and shop building• Construc! on Fencing• Sound and debris controlExis" ng Shops Building• Protect in place• To remain opera! onal123456Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N134523Spring 2017 Version482 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEEPhase 5Demolish Exis ng Mechanics Garage & Build Par al New Shop BuildingMove Mechanics Shops into Sign ShopProtect adjacent shop building during construc! on and demoli! on• Construc on Fencing• Sound and debris controlBuild Shops and Offi ces por! on of new service center building• Mower li! • Toilet / Shower rooms• Mechanical / Electrical• Vehicle offi ce• Breakrooms• Shops and Offi cesExis! ng Shop Building• Remain func onal during construc on• Provide doors and wall for temporary mechanics shop1234Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N31214Spring 2017 Version483 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEEPhase 6Build Remainder of Service Center (Mechanics Shops)Move Shops from Exis! ng building into new buildingProtect New shop building during construc! on and demoli! on• Construc! on Fencing• Sound and debris controlDemolish exis! ng Shops BuildingBuild Remainder of Service Center Building(Mechanics Garages)12345Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N2134Spring 2017 Version484 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEEPhase 7Comple on of New Service Center Building and YardMove from portable building into new Service Center buildingControl new yard construc! on• Construc on Fencing• Sound and debris control• Protect new service center building• Protect exis ng solar structuresPave and ladscape new yard area• Provide adequade parking facilityRemove Portable Buildings• New employee parking with landscaping• Op onal Nursery loca on1234Bartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N21134Spring 2017 Version485 MMMMAAAARRRRYYYY AAAAAVVVVEEEENNNNNUUUUUEEEEEComple! onMaterials ShedNurseryBoom Truck GarageStorage New Administra on BuildingFuel IslandSolar StructuresNew Service centerIrriga on/ Pes cide Storage A B C D E F G H J KBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 20172550100N A B D E F L G H JCoorpora! on YardParkingSpring 2017 Version486 Mee ng Notes & Program MatrixBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper! no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper! no, CACity of Cuper! no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version487 488 16-013 Service Center- Master Plan PROGRAMMING MATRIX PAGE 1 PROGRAMMINGMATRIX PROJECT Service Center – Master Plan and Feasibility Study DATE REVISED 30 March 2017OWNER City of Cupertino PROJECT NUMBER 16-013 Project Scope Summary The project scope will result in an overall master plan, including feasibility and order of magnitude cost estimates. This will include project phasing, initial project programs and conceptual building layouts. The development of the Service center will incorporate better overall organization, options for a new administration building- likely possibly (1/22/2017) two stories, a new Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and consolidation of some exterior outbuilding elements. The goal of this process will consider and include City and stakeholder visionary options to seek out the most appropriate and/ or consensus driven design. Program Development History This document is the result of the following collaboration meeting between the Architect and City Representatives 13 DECEMBER 2016 Meeting held at City Hall Assembly Room at 10300 Torre Ave- Cupertino, CA Attendees: Bartos Architecture- Mark Bartos, Laszlo Petrik, Neal Sellers City of Cupertino Public Works- Katy Jensen, Alex Acenas, Chris Mertens, Ty Bloomquist, Roger Lee, Timm Borden Discussions and input about a new Administrative and Service center facility determined three initial potential building options. A large single building incorporating all facilities, two separate buildings- one housing administrative offices and one housing service center operations or three building buildings with the third being a detached separate EOC which could be used as an essential services facility. An essential services building as designed and constructed shall be capable of providing essential services to the public after a disaster. The potential for a new essential service building will require special building requirements including separate protected utilities and more stringent building code requirements. Ancillary buildings and facilities that are essential to the function of the new essential services facility are not exempt from the same regulations. Essential services facilities are under the jurisdiction local authorities and must be reviewed for approval under the Essential Services Seismic Safety Act of 1986. Due to the nature of occupancy, essential service centers require designing to the highest category risk factor. Buildings and other structures designated as essential services facilities including but not limited to: o Fire, rescue, ambulance and police stations and emergency vehicle garages o Designated earthquake, hurricane or other emergency shelters o Designated emergency preparedness, communications and operations centers and other facilities required for emergency response o Power generating stations and other public utility facilities required as emergency backup for risk category IV structures Disaster Council EOC committee report dated Feb 11, 2016 will be incorporated by reference into this document. 489 16-013 Service Center- Master Plan PROGRAMMING MATRIX PAGE 2 10 JANUARY 2017 Meeting held at City of Cupertino Service Center 10555 Mary Ave- Cupertino, CA Attendees: Bartos Architecture- Mark Bartos, Laszlo Petrik, Neal Sellers City of Cupertino Public Works- Katy Jensen, Alex Acenas, Chris Mertens, Chris Orr, Roger Lee, Timm Borden, Jonathan Ferrante, Brian Gathers, Brad Alexander After considering the options for new buildings that were presented, the biggest concerns for redeveloping the site are about efficiency and use of the existing site. The potential for land expansion is not realistic so minimizing building footprints and utilizing building heights for storage and potential future expansion is important. This can be accomplished through the use of shared spaces in both administrative and service areas. On site utilities allow for flexible placement of the new buildings and location other than where the existing buildings are located. Maximizing site circulation space with vehicular traffic and deliveries is critical. Using temporary facilities to relocate from the existing to new building should be considered as this will be a large added cost for the project. Potentially six standard (24’ x 40’- 960sf) portable buildings will need to be rented and brought on and off site to accommodate the staff should the new building location involve the demolition of existing structures before new facilities are constructed. Phasing options will be incorporated in the Master planning documents outlining relocation for different building and site configurations as well as considering transition costs. The incorporation of EOC into the new admin building as an essential services facility will require the entire building to be designed accordingly. Attendees agree that this should be incorporated into the master plan document as a single facility that will serve as an essential services building for the community as there are no centrally located fire or police stations in Cupertino. 25 JANUARY 2017 Meeting held at City of Cupertino Service Center 10555 Mary Ave- Cupertino, CA Attendees: Bartos Architecture- Mark Bartos, Laszlo Petrik, Neal Sellers City of Cupertino Public Works- Katy Jensen, Alex Acenas, Chris Mertens, Chris Orr, Roger Lee, Timm Borden, Jonathan Ferrante, Brian Gathers, Brad Alexander It was in general agreement that the entire administrative and service facility should be an essential service facility as all services will need to be operation at the time of a crisis. An initial estimate of 20% cost increase was given to design and build to the current code requirements for essential service buildings. An option for a single two story building was discussed but was in general agreement that it was not preferred by the current staff. Noise and equipment will be an issue and mitigation is not needed if facilities are kept separately. From the previous discussions, it was agreed that more bullpen area and offices are needed to accommodate current staffing. At least 15 offices and cubicles should be incorporated into administration building for supervisors and current staff. The IT room and key room are very important to be incorporated correctly into the building design. Public restrooms are not a priority and should be provided at a minimum with one single occupancy room if adequate. A break room and toilet rooms should be included in service building and a centralized location for showers will provide safety and easy access. The lobby entry should have a secure desk and check out station to control public entry. The existing front public parking lot contains approximately 46 spaces and is currently adequate. Employee parking can be considered in rear of yard (as City of Palo Alto) however some employees will continue to park on the street. The ware house facility should be used for multiple types of deliveries and storage. It can be shared by the service center and administration building. It should contain a separate are for a fork lift to use for truck deliveries. The fleet shop should contain all interior work areas and should maximize covered exterior space. High bay cranes for welding and mower lifts are needed to service all equipment currently used. Coordination with Caltrans will be needed if any buildings will be near the Highway 280 sound wall. Existing propane tank has been approved by Caltrans but required setbacks should be researched at existing wall. It is a possibility that as part of the “complete streets” program an extension of the property boundaries could be utilized into Mary Avenue The Nursery facility should not cause drainage issues for the site. Permeable surfaces should be used to allow tree and plant watering drainage. An extra bay should be added to the boom truck garage and abandoned generator should be removed. The new bay can be used as a small engine shop. Truck repair and service is a major operation at the service facility. Fuel access upon entry of the yard is essential and access to both high and low bay drive thrus for truck maintenance is key. Ample facility would be approximately 4000 sf and contain aerial lifts and pit. Tandem parking inside the new bays will allow for waiting trucks to not intrude on driveway space. In new shop and storage spaces, mezzanine spaces are preferred for storage and potential expansion. If phasing is needed to relocate service center into new building it was agreed that the existing warehouse could serve as a temporary mechanics shop. 490 16-013 Service Center- Master Plan PROGRAMMING MATRIX PAGE 3 2 MARCH 2017 Meeting held at City of Cupertino Service Center 10555 Mary Ave- Cupertino, CA Attendees: Bartos Architecture- Mark Bartos, Laszlo Petrik, Neal Sellers City of Cupertino Public Works- Katy Jensen, Alex Acenas, Chris Orr, Roger Lee, Timm Borden, Jonathan Ferrante, Brian Gathers It was in general agreement that reorganization of the site to provide more efficient use of the service center yard and provide the most open, flexible useable space should be considered for all future projects. A separate building should be provided for Service Center Maintenance operations due to noise and debris generated by the everyday activities. While a two story building allows for more useable site area, it is not preferred by the stakeholders. After some discussion the attendees agreed that also separating the vehicle maintenance shops from other maintenance operations would be functional and provide potential phasing solutions for new construction. Should temporary housing be needed, a solution to utilize unoccupied private property off site or near the service center was considered. In an interim discussion between meetings, the city asked that Bartos Architecture study the additional option including space for additional admin staff. Occupancy of the new spaces was discussed expanding the size of the new office spaces could potentially house more employees and alleviate any existing crowding. This will allow for future growth of staff and expansions from other with the expansion of the building sizes, efficiency of the existing site area is still very important for the Service Center. Acquiring current street parking and landscape area outside of existing site boundary could be utilized to expand site area. The master plan site options have been narrowed down to potentially two site plan options. Both options have separate buildings for maintenance and administration. To transition from existing buildings into the new structures, site phasing diagrams will be included in the master planning document. The use of temporary buildings should be considered to be able to provide a more efficient future site. Noise generating activities should be concentrated towards the wall at the freeway towards the West edge of the site and should be moved away from the South edge facing the apartment complex. Employee parking should not be moved inside the corporation yard but should be located near the new office spaces. Public parking should be kept to a minimum. Research and calculations should be provided to verify that adequate parking for staff is provided given that the new building areas will be increasing. Access for fire department should also be verified and provided. An open, flexible yard is the most preferred use of space gained in the reorganization of the service center yard. For emergency situations where public parking is needed, off-site street parking can be used. Material shed design options were discussed. It was preferred that fewer structural columns be used to avoid collisions and future maintenance. Providing solar panels at new shed was discussed and decided that they were not needed as current utility cost are already offset by current solar system. 30 MARCH 2017 Meeting held at City of Cupertino Service Center 10555 Mary Ave- Cupertino, CA Attendees: Bartos Architecture- Mark Bartos, Laszlo Petrik, Neal Sellers City of Cupertino Public Works- In this meeting, four options were discussed for site development and placement of the new buildings for the service center and administration buildings. It was in general agreement that a two story administration building with at grade parking below should be built to allow for efficient adequate parking on the site. A cost analysis will be provided for additional of second story and podium parking. Due to the signification cost of underground parking, the options including it were not favored. Based on occupancy and parking analysis, it was determined that with increase in building sizes to accommodate growth and potential relocated city hall staff, parking would need to be increased. At the meeting it was determined that City owned properties would have flexibility for required parking counts and that a reasonable number of stalls could be determined. It was agreed that approximately 80 stalls would be adequate. It was also clarified that the parking on Mary Ave was included in parking counts and land gained from property acquisition at Mary does not remove street parking. An urgency to expand or modify City hall was discussed by staff. By increasing the size of the Service Center administration building and relocating City Hall staff, some of the crowding and pressure is relieved until future projects can be addressed. The anticipated capacity was calculated at the meeting including 60 current staff, 10% growth, 10 additional city hall employees, and 4 visitors totaling approximately 80 people. The standard and preference for Emergency Operation center is at ground level in the administration building. The daily use for the EOC space will be meeting, multipurpose or break room. Modular construction was discussed as a cost saving alternative but typical prefabricated construction will not 491 16-013 Service Center- Master Plan PROGRAMMING MATRIX PAGE 4 meet the stringent code design standards needed for Essential Services facilities. These could potentially The service center shop buildings and mechanics garage construction type should be a “butler” style metal building with high ceilings. The construction delivery method for future projects was discussed including pre-qualified contractors and using a conventional design-bid-build approach. At this meeting Bartos Architecture provided the penultimate draft of the master planning document. In addition to the plan site diagrams that are being developed, the staff requested that a 3D diagram of the proposed two story building with podium parking be provided in the final document and presentation. Facility Inventory & Potential Facility 492 16-013 Service Center- Master Plan PROGRAMMING MATRIX PAGE 5 Administrative Existing Area (SF)Proposed Area (SF)Warehouse/ Receiving 1,610 1,600Assembly Room/ EOC 504 1,500Conference Room 1 111 300Conference Room 2 300Checkout Counter 172 200Men’s Toilet Room (with showers)722 800Women’s Toilet Room (with showers)184 400IT160250Break Room 230 250Office 1 660 150 Office 2 150 Bullpen (open office area)590 1,200 Lobby 370 300 Facility Office 360 360 Sign Office 360 360 Hazmat Office 360 360 Support/ Utility 150 Corridors 270 General Office 571 Total 7,384 8,480 Service Center Wood Shop 530 530 Facility Office 360 Facility Supplies 410 410 Sign Office 360 Sign Shop 1,200 1,200 Truck Shop 1,300 3,560 Mechanics Shop 1,560 1,560 Welding Shop 600 600 Welding Garage 600 600 Street lighting Shop 450 450 Street Lighting Storage 480 480 Pesticide Storage 120 120 Hazmat Office 360 Haz mat Office/ Storage 500 500 Tire Storage 180 180 Battery Storage 100 100 Aerial Lift Trucks (ROW)1,200 1,400 Nursery (ROW)1,600 2,000 Supplies and Mtl's Storage Medians (ROW)650 650 Supplies and Mtl's Storage WWP (ROW)350 150 Secured Workshop (ROW)600 900 Irrigation Supplies (ROW)350 350 Total 13,860 15,740 493 16-013 Service Center- Master Plan PROGRAMMING MATRIX PAGE 6 Adjacency Matrix AdministrativeWarehouse/ ReceivingAssembly Room- EOCConference Room 1Conference Room 2Check Out CounterMen's Toilet RoomWomen's Toilet RoomIT RoomBreak RoomOffice 1Office 2BullpenLobby/ ReceptionFacility OfficeSign OfficeHazmat OfficeService CenterWood ShopFacility SuppliesSign ShopTruck ShopMechanics ShopWelding ShopWelding GarageStreet lighting ShopStreet Lighting StoragePesticide StorageHaz mat Office/ StorageTire StorageBattery StorageAerial Lift Trucks (ROW)Nursery (ROW)Supplies & Material Storage MediansSupplies & Material Storage WWP (ROW)Secured Workshop (ROW)Irrigation Supplies (ROW)WarehouseAdministrative Warehouse/ Receiving ■ ■■■ ■ Assembly Room- EOC ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ Conference Room 1 ■■ ■ ■ Conference Room 2 ■■ ■ Check Out Counter ■ ■ Men's Locker Room ■ ■ ■ Women's Locker Room ■ ■ IT Room ■ Break Room ■ Office 1 ■ Office 2 ■ Bullpen ■ ■ ■ ■ Lobby/ Reception Facility Office ■ ■ Sign Office ■ Hazmat Office Service Center Wood Shop ■■ ■■■ ■ Facility Supplies ■■ ■■ ■ ■ Sign Shop ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ Truck Shop ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■ Mechanics Shop ■ ■■ ■ ■ Welding Shop ■■ ■ ■■ ■ Welding Garage ■ ■ ■■ ■ Street lighting Shop ■■ ■ ■ Street Lighting Storage ■■ ■ ■■ Pesticide Storage ■ ■ ■ ■ Haz mat Storage ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Tire Storage ■ ■■ ■ Battery Storage ■ ■ ■■ Aerial Lift Trucks (ROW)■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Nursery (ROW)■ Supplies & Material Storage Medians ■ ■ ■ Supplies & Material Storage WWP (ROW)■ ■ Secured Workshop (ROW)■ Irrigation Supplies (ROW)■ Warehouse 494 16-013 Service Center- Master Plan PROGRAMMING MATRIX PAGE 7 New Administrative Spaces The following are to be determined during detailed program development. Assembly- Multipurpose Room / Emergency Operations Center (EOC) EOC should conform to the “Murphy Bed” Concept incorporating moveable multipurpose furniture to allow flexibility of spaces. This will potentially be an essential services center. AREA/SIZE ~1,500 sf(20-25sf per person)ADJACENCIES LIGHTING Emergency lighting, indirect general lighting IT ELECTRICAL Alternate power source, generator CASEWORK FINISHES CEILING No ceiling tiles, high ceilings, enable hanging of section signs FURNITURE Space between seating to facilitate flow, wide aisles, no pinch points, armless chairs with wheels and five legs, movable filing cabinets, avoid stadium style seating, ACOUSITC Sound dampening panels DOOR/ WINDOW Access through controlled door, high security, no windows or impact glazing, no public facing entries FLOOR Possible raised floor for network flexibility SPECIALTIES Large city map including parcels on wall behind safety glass, wall mounted binder clips for maps, numerous whiteboards- magnetic, matte surface, large television mounted above eye level, Smart boards Warehouse / Receiving Existing facility area is adequate. Possible that more storage is needed. New facility to be larger AREA/SIZE ~1,600 sf ADJACENCIES Conference Room 1 AREA/SIZE ~300 sf ADJACENCIES Bullpen Conference Room 2 AREA/SIZE ~300 sf ADJACENCIES Bullpen Check-Out Counter AREA/SIZE ~200 SF ADJACENCIES Men’s Toilet / Locker Room Needs to be larger than existing facility. More lockers are needed. Approx 2 toilets, 1 urinal and 2 lavatories required AREA/SIZE ~800 sf ADJACENCIES Lobby/ Women’s Locker Women’s Toilet / Locker Room Needs to be larger than existing facility. More lockers are needed. Approx 4 toilets and 2 lavatories required AREA/SIZE ~400 sf ADJACENCIES Lobby/ Men’s Locker 495 16-013 Service Center- Master Plan PROGRAMMING MATRIX PAGE 8 IT Room AREA/SIZE ~250 sfADJACENCIES Break Room/ Training Room AREA/SIZE ~250 sfADJACENCIES Office 1 Office space to be shared by department supervisors and staff. 15 total AREA/SIZE ~150 sf ADJACENCIES Bullpen Office 2 Office space to be shared by department supervisors and staff. 15 total AREA/SIZE ~150 sf ADJACENCIES Bullpen Bullpen Contain work spaces and cubicles. Shared by entire staff for collaboration AREA/SIZE ~1200 sf ADJACENCIES Office 1 and 2, Conf Rm 1 and 2 Lobby/ Reception Small area for telephones and seating and reception. Possible that Lobby area will not be needed AREA/SIZE ~300 sf ADJACENCIES Facility Office Relocate from existing building to new admin building. Dedicated to facility supervisors AREA/SIZE ~360 sf ADJACENCIES Sign Office Relocate from existing building to new admin building. Dedicated to sign supervisors AREA/SIZE ~360 sf ADJACENCIES Hazmat Office Relocate from existing building to new admin building. Dedicated to hazmat supervisors. No hazardous materials will be handled or stored in the new admin building AREA/SIZE ~360 sf ADJACENCIES 496 16-013 Service Center- Master Plan PROGRAMMING MATRIX PAGE 9 Existing Service Center Spaces Wood Shop AREA/SIZE ~530 sfADJACENCIES Facility Supplies AREA/SIZE ~410 sfADJACENCIES Sign Shop AREA/SIZE ~1200 sf ADJACENCIES Truck Shop AREA/SIZE ~1300 sf ADJACENCIES Mechanic Shop AREA/SIZE ~1560 sf ADJACENCIES Welding Shop AREA/SIZE ~600 sf ADJACENCIES Welding Garage Welding Garage AREA/SIZE ~600 sf ADJACENCIES Welding Shop Street Lighting Shop AREA/SIZE ~450 sf ADJACENCIES Street Lighting Storage Street Lighting Storage AREA/SIZE ~480 sf ADJACENCIES Street Lighting Shop Pesticide Storage AREA/SIZE ~120 sf ADJACENCIES Hazmat Storage AREA/SIZE ~500 sf ADJACENCIES Tire Storage Battery Storage AREA/SIZE ~180 sf 497 498 ReportDesirable Design Elements for a Cuper no EOCBartos Architecture, Inc.City of Cuper no - Service Center | Feasibility Study: 26 April 201710555 Mary Ave - Cuper no, CACity of Cuper no Service CenterSpring 2017 Version499 500 City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 PH: (408) 777-3354 FX: (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT February 11, 2016 Subject: Report on Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC The Cupertino Disaster Council requested that members of the assembly form a subcommittee to create a guideline that could be used for the planning and design of an ideal Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for the City of Cupertino. The subcommittee was formed of individuals from various areas of an emergency response operations team, including the members from the City, the County, Citizen Volunteers and Private Business. The subcommittee visited other EOC facilities in and around the Bay Area, including Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Mountain View and the County of Santa Clara, to acquire information on the various design elements of these facilities. The subcommittee further collected the opinions of the facility operators on what aspects of their EOCs worked best and what they felt they would have changed. Additionally, the subcommittee reviewed and modeled much of its report on “ASTM Designation E2668-10: Standard Guide for Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Development”. The exercise was focused on creating recommendations that would be presented to a qualified EOC design consultant to use to plan, layout, furnish and equip an emergency operations center. Additionally, coordination meetings should be initiated between the EOC design consultant and the subcommittee to ensure the intent of the report and key factors are being incorporated into the final design. The focus of the subcommittee was to provide recommendations for a new EOC that would be constructed integrally with a new City Hall, and consequently the EOC would conform to the latest California Building Code standards for essential facilities (Risk Category IV per table 1604A.5 of the California Building Code). Therefore, this report does not strictly address these compliance issues. The subcommittee reaffirms that an effective and resilient EOC facility is a necessity for the City, and that even though the new City Hall project has been placed on hold indefinitely, the City should strive to establish an EOC that conforms to the California Building Code standards for essential facilities. Further, even though the report states it in numerous instances, the subcommittee feels it is essential to reiterate that the EOC have ability to be flexible. This flexibility includes the capacity to be modified in layout and to easily incorporate additional or new technologies. This will allow for the EOC to be more easily configured for any scenario, as well as allow for the EOC to remain up to date and effective. 501 Report on Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC February 11, 2016 Page 2 Finally, the subcommittee would like to thank the Cupertino Disaster Council for giving us the opportunity to provide our input towards this endeavor. We hope our efforts aid in the creation of an Emergency Operations Center which will provide resiliency and effective service and support during a disaster. Sincerely, Chad Mosley City of Cupertino Public Works Department 502 Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 1 of 26 February 11, 2016 Disaster Council EOC Design Committee: Ideal EOC Report on Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC February 11, 2016 503 Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 2 of 26 February 11, 2016 Table of Contents Desirable / recommended EOC design elements .................................................................................................. 4 Space and layout ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Technology ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Traffic Operations............................................................................................................................................. 7 Food and Water ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Power ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Security ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 6.2.1 Hazard / threat identification and assessment .............................................................................................. 9 6.2.2.1 Vulnerability Assessment for the EOC ................................................................................................ 9 6.2.3.2 EOC Capability Assessment ............................................................................................................... 10 6.2.3.4 Vision ................................................................................................................................................. 12 6.2.3.5 Mission (themes) ................................................................................................................................ 12 6.2.3.6 Facility Occupancy ............................................................................................................................. 12 6.2.3.7 Facility Use ......................................................................................................................................... 13 6.2.3.8 Facility Functionality .......................................................................................................................... 13 6.4 Design ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 6.4.1 Refined Vision ........................................................................................................................................... 13 6.4.2 Continuity of Government ......................................................................................................................... 13 6.4.3 Identify services to be performed at the EOC ............................................................................................ 13 6.4.4 Align Hazard Threat Identification and Assessment ................................................................................ 14 6.4.5 Align Risk Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 14 6.4.6 Space Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 15 6.4.6.1 – Space for External and non-Jurisdictional entities .......................................................................... 15 6.4.6.2 – Space for Public Information Office / Joint Information Center (PIO/JIC) .................................... 15 6.4.6.3 – Space for working a virtual EOC System ........................................................................................ 15 6.4.6.4 – Efficient Use of Space ..................................................................................................................... 16 6.4.6.5 – Space for Meetings .......................................................................................................................... 16 6.4.6.6 – Space required for Equipment ......................................................................................................... 16 6.4.6.7 – Space Optimization .......................................................................................................................... 16 6.4.6.8 – Break Area and Recreational Space ................................................................................................ 16 6.4.6.9 – Space requirements for Survivability and Operability .................................................................... 16 6.4.6.10 – Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ....................................................................................... 17 6.4.6.11 – HVAC and Utility Systems. .......................................................................................................... 17 6.4.6.12 – Utility Design ................................................................................................................................ 17 6.4.6.13 – Shared Facility Functional Areas ................................................................................................... 17 504 Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 3 of 26 February 11, 2016 6.4.6.14 – Security Systems and Security Personnel ...................................................................................... 17 6.4.6.15 – Potential Medical Needs ................................................................................................................ 17 6.4.6.16 – Personal Hygiene Areas (Showers, Laundry, Basic Supplies) ...................................................... 17 6.4.6.17 – Sleep Areas .................................................................................................................................... 18 6.4.6.18 – Supplies adequate for Continual Operation for up to 30 days ....................................................... 18 6.4.6.19 – Amateur Radio Considerations ...................................................................................................... 18 6.4.6.20 – Other Trained Volunteers (ARC, CERT, SAR, SEER, MRC) ...................................................... 18 6.4.6.21 – Partners such as Corporations aiding logistics .............................................................................. 18 6.4.6.22 – Records Retention .......................................................................................................................... 18 6.4.6.23 – Facility Logistics ........................................................................................................................... 18 6.4.6.24 – Laws, Ordinances, Standards, and Operating Procedures Required for Facility ........................... 18 6.4.7 Technology ............................................................................................................................................... 19 6.4.7.1 – Communications Analysis ............................................................................................................... 19 6.4.7.2 – Technology Decision Tree Review ................................................................................................. 20 6.4.7.3 – Computer and Software Checklist ................................................................................................... 20 6.4.7.4 – Communications Oversight/control ................................................................................................. 20 6.4.7.5 – Information Exchange ..................................................................................................................... 21 6.4.7.6 – Remote Operations .......................................................................................................................... 21 6.4.7.7 – Interoperable and Integrated Communications ................................................................................ 21 6.4.7.8 – Transportable Communications Capability ..................................................................................... 21 6.4.7.9 – Laws, Ordinances, Standards, and Operating Procedures for Required Technology ...................... 21 6.4.7.10 – Internal/External Warning Systems ............................................................................................... 21 6.4.7.11 – Intentionally Left Blank ................................................................................................................. 21 6.4.7.12 – Additional Equipment .................................................................................................................... 22 Table 1. Emergency Support Functions Required for Handling Hazards Faced by Cupertino ......................... 23 Figure 1. Emergency Operations Center Organizational Chart ......................................................................... 24 Figure 2. EOC Staffing Positions ....................................................................................................................... 25 505 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 4 of 26 February 11, 2016 Process Steps for establishing the "Ideal" EOC · Research & define criteria for the "ideal" · Identify sites within Cupertino – (City Hall, Mary Avenue Service Center) · Assess for structural requirements, etc. · Obtain approval for EOC location · Establish, construct and equip new EOC Team Members City County Industry Volunteers: CARES & CERT Timm Borden Ken Foot Tracey Scott, Apple Jim Oberhofer Chad Mosley Louay Toma Bob Cascone Ken Ericksen Steve Hill Desirable / recommended EOC design elements Space and layout Furniture in the EOC needs to have space between it to facilitate the flow of people between workstations and sections. The layout of workstations and sections should be based upon linking in the same vicinity people and groups who coordinate most with each other. This is called an adjacency analysis. Aisles should be wide enough to facilitate roaming and face-to-face conversations. There should not be pinch points between workstations. Logistics tends to be a noisy work area because of so many telephone calls. Operations requires the largest amount of real estate in the room. Do not underestimate the space required for each position. People need enough room to work with paper next to their keyboards and should not be located so close together that they interfere with each other. Workstations need room for paper and writing in addition to a keyboard, laptop and a second monitor. Do not use chairs with arms. Arms require additional space and can inhibit a person sitting at the station. Chairs should have wheels and five legs, as required by OSHA. The Gilroy workstations or sections each have a ‘roll around’, a three-drawer filing cabinet on wheels. Two drawers contain materials needed for that position such as JIT binders, pens etc. The third drawer is used to hold and file paperwork during an incident, keeping the workstation clear. 506 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 5 of 26 February 11, 2016 i. Range of options 1. Minimum EOC: paper, pencils, phones, radios 2. Ideal: single space, isolated mounts, dedicated to the EOC Purpose ii. Cupertino’s existing “EOC” space does not have sufficient space; there no breakout rooms (for management & other sections). iii. Santa Clara County EOC: 1. Considering moving some people out of the EOC to DOCs located somewhere else (drive space considerations) 2. County is looking at different display capabilities, not projectors. 3. Video display wall, multiple monitors (50” monitors). 4. “Can never have too many whiteboards.” 5. For the Sierra LaMar event: would have reconfigured the EOC to support it, but could not. Took logistics section and turned into the “TIP” line. Doing a multi-purpose room supports flexibility. iv. Cupertino Considerations: 1. Provide for Fire Department presence: for a Cupertino only event, we may get a Battalion Chief 2. Design as a multi-function room 3. Need raised floor to support flexibility for network cables, power supply and telecom cables 4. People will be there 12 hrs. and more; space needs to be comfortable; lighting is important (indirect lighting is recommended) 5. Sound: EOCs get loud; minimize hard surfaces 6. Space for press conferences that is located away from the EOC; Community Hall? v. Stadium style layout did not work out for Alameda County. The team that manages sheltering needs work stations/chairs for affiliated agencies such as the Salvation Army and Red Cross. EOC workers should be encouraged to talk face-to-face instead of via telephone. A large map of Cupertino should be placed on the wall and overlaid by Plexiglas. The map should be large enough to display individual parcels. The Plexiglas enables the team to write over the map during an incident. Plan for a lot of space to display information for the team. Televisions should be no smaller than 60 inches, and there should be numerous whiteboards. Mount large ‘binder’ type clips to the walls that could hold large maps that also serve as a backup if teams need to revert to paper. Wall-mounted white boards should be magnetic and have a matte surface. • Using strong magnets, large paper maps can be placed atop the whiteboards. • The matte finish enables whiteboards to be used as a screen for a projector without the attendant glare. It would be desirable to ring the room with whiteboards. The EOC should have a portable, dual-sided whiteboard on wheels that can be flipped. It should be magnetic so that maps or other charts can be attached to it. The EOC should have an appropriate amount of fire extinguishers. The EOC room should not have ceiling tiles which could fall on people during a shake or aftershock. 507 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 6 of 26 February 11, 2016 The EOC ceiling should be higher than a normal room. A very large television screen should be able to be mounted on the wall of the EOC such that the bottom of the television is about 1 to 2 feet higher than a person stands. TV wall mounts should not be flexible or extendable. This ensures that the TV will not flung around during a shack or aftershock. There should be a break room with food and coffee. It is important that people be fed and watered during the incident and not get so wrapped up in their jobs they forget to eat and take fluids (this happened during the cable cut). There should be a supply room or cabinet with pens, paper etc. There should be a separate mapping room with a plotter and a map table. The table should be large enough to display an E-size drawing and have people stand around the table discussing what is depicts. Large maps can be attached to a wall using strong magnets and whiteboards or clips. A robust air-conditioning system is required to take away the heat load from a large number of people and IT hardware. The EOC should have emergency lighting that would turn on if the power goes off. Enable the hanging of section signs from the ceiling, similar to Sunnyvale. Include a station for a Business Liaison. The city should have a dedicated point of contact for businesses, especially Apple. Setup a separate room for the DOC. Monitors display: Live television stations (2) Twitter feeds (tweetdeck) Other social media sites pertaining to Cupertino Traffic (County congestion map, https://www.sccgov.org/sites/scc/Pages/SCC-Congestion-Map.aspx) The DOC should have a parallel set of wrap-around electrical and network panels. About 2 feet above the floor, one panel has two electrical sockets and one network jack about every 4 feet. The upper wrap- around is about 2 feet from the ceiling and has a pair of electrical sockets spaced about every 5 feet. These panels give a high degree of flexibility in room layout and minimize loose cords that might be a tripping hazard on the floor. Technology i. Communications 1. EOC to EOC radio; 2. County and field radio support; “radio rooms are never big enough” 3. T1 lines into the EOC, one T1 is equivalent to 24 telephone conversations 4. Some POTS, fax machines on plain copper back to the Central Office 5. Ideal EOC: split telephone connections; need a couple of alternate routes. Need redundancy. 6. County ECOM: microwave system to connect PSAPs. Adding VoIP. 508 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 7 of 26 February 11, 2016 7. Cupertino does not have the PSAP link (no dispatch here) 8. Investigate getting an ECOM drop. 9. Hand held radios for sheriff and fire communication ii. County has Internet survivability; has HughesNet satellite. iii. Conduits to the roof for coax needs to be sized bigger than needed for future flexibility. iv. Sunnyvale: has a Police DOC with TV display technology. Wireless printing should be enabled on all laptops, and all laptops should be configured to print on any printer and display on any monitor/projector. For backup purposes, the EOC needs to have analog telephones and VoIP phones (for internal calls). Have backup projection systems or display technology Breakout rooms should have printers, telephones, Ethernet cables, Wi-Fi, whiteboards and television screens. Two roof-mounted ham radio antennas should be Yagis with rotators. This enables the radio team to aim them in specific directions to get better line-of-sight communication. Television screens should be mounted to the walls with a tilt mount only so that they can be tilted down to face people. They should not be mounted with extendable mounts because during a shake the screen could extend from the wall and be shaken violently. The Wi-Fi system needs the ability to accommodate numerous laptops. It is critical that the Wi-Fi system have the ability to handle more laptops and devices than one might think. Bring in video feeds from the City cameras (including traffic signal cameras) to the EOC. Another idea for a video feed is ham cameras on a MESH network placed remotely to watch something such as a rising creek. Do not use desktop computers – they are space hogs and are not portable. The Gilroy EOC had dedicated laptops for each position. Connect telephone lines via ceiling drop downs. Install a wall clock that connects wirelessly to the atomic clock in Denver. Ensure it is visible throughout the room. A clock with both 1 through 12 and 1 through 24 numerals would assist staff working with the 24 hour time system. Include a plotter for printing large maps and signs. Traffic Operations i. Provide access to the City’s traffic cameras in the EOC. ii. Provide access from the EOC to the Traffic Operations Center’s servers for real time access and traffic signal management. iii. Consider drone technology to aid in real time traffic data collection, as well as for other real time field observation capabilities. 509 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 8 of 26 February 11, 2016 Food and Water I. Need to support immediate food and water supplies; close to a break room and kitchen The EOC needs to have a large amount of cash in small bills. During the cable cut, ATMs were down as well as gas stations and many retail stores. Cash was the only medium that could be used to buy food for the volunteers and the EOC. It would be helpful to have an MOU for food supplies from local restaurants and grocery stores. Power I. Alternate power source The EOC generator should be tested monthly and run for at least an hour. It should have the ability to power whatever equipment it would support during a power outage, plus 25% for incidentals. Security Security is critical for an EOC. Keep non-authorized people out. Access to the EOC should be via a controlled door. People not part of the team should not be allowed to simply roam into the room. Establish a viable backup to the main EOC. The backup should have ham radio masts and generating capacity. 510 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 9 of 26 February 11, 2016 Excerpts from the ASTM Standard Guide for Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Development 6.2.1 Hazard / threat identification and assessment Team assembled the list of published risks per the Cupertino EOP. These are: · Geological / Earthquake (> 5) · Fire, Wild land · Fire (High Density, Urban) · Hazardous materials · Flood hazards – Dam, heavy rain events · Terrorism · Public Health Emergency · Aviation Disaster · Civil Disturbance (Crime, Police action) · Extreme Weather / Storm, heat wave · Gas / Electricity, Utility Emergency · Transportation – Highway The probability (unlikely, likely, very likely) and seriousness (Low, Medium, High) of each was recorded using a combination of the ASTM document and the EOP. Additionally, each hazard was assessed against the Emergency Support Functions: · ESF1 Transportation · ESF2 Communications · ESF3 Public Works and Engineering · ESF4 Firefighting · ESF5 Emergency Management · ESF6 Mass Care, Housing, and Human Services · ESF7 Resources Support · ESF8 Public Health and Medical Services · ESF9 Urban Search and Rescue · ESF10 Oil and Hazardous Materials Response · ESF11 Agriculture and Natural Resources · ESF12 Energy · ESF13 Public Safety and Security · ESF14 Long-term Community Recovery and Mitigation · ESF15 External Affairs Table 1 on page 23 is expected to be fine-tuned over time. 6.2.2.1 Vulnerability Assessment for the EOC A first pass was made at looking at the vulnerability of the physical EOC. · Earthquake: Power - structural integrity; designed to the current EOC codes - waste water storage - Communications are vulnerable · Fire, Wildland: Embers on the roof, fire risk - power · Hazardous Materials: if downwind of a plume - ventilation implications. · Extreme Weather / Storm, heat wave: Power - Regnart Creek is sized for the 100 year flood. (Implication: generator and fuel should not be located in the basement) 511 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 10 of 26 February 11, 2016 6.2.3.2 EOC Capability Assessment A capability assessment reviews the ability of a government, individual or company to address identified hazards. ESF means Emergency Support Function. 1. ESF1 Transportation Support a. Clarify, report on open routes of travel b. Road closures, directions c. Clear city roads d. Directing traffic e. Manage/control the flow of traffic f. Provide capability to observe traffic cams g. Coordination with CalTrans, County on their road activities 2. ESF2 Communications a. Internal (within the City) i. Trunk Radio system to manage the field response of city employees ii. Breakout rooms for information sharing iii. Need runners to help push paperwork, pass requests within the EOC iv. Amateur Radio communications with CCC (voice, packet, ARKnet) v. EOC Intranet, networking, access; webpages, file shares. REQUIREMENT: accommodation for Guests, access to the outside world vi. NEED: 1. investigate number of Trunk Radio frequency pairs (we only have one pair) 2. telephone system duplication. RECOMMENDATION: VoIP primarily b. External i. City with Citizens 1. PIO – (Rick Kitson) a. Social Media (Twitter, Facebook) b. City Website c. City TV d. Radio Cupertino (1670) e. CAS f. Media relations (and where to put them) 2. AlertSCC – SO 3. NEED: Outside Public Notice board 4. CCC ARKs 512 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 11 of 26 February 11, 2016 ii. City with agencies 1. POTS lines 2. Radio a. Amateur Radio with County, others (voice, packet) b. EOC to EOC c. IntraLink (SCEWN) 3. Liaison in the EOCs a. SO b. SCCFD c. Apple d. Business e. De Anza College f. School Districts 3. ESF3 Public Works and Engineering a. See Transportation b. Logistics, resources, material movement c. City facility inspections d. Manpower/resource pool 4. ESF4 Firefighting / Rescue / Paramedic a. SCCFD provides these services b. Liaison to EOC 5. ESF5 Emergency Management a. EOC Facility, plus a viable backup EOC b. City Staff for the EOC c. Liaisons from different agencies d. Link to County EOC e. Alerts thru CAS 6. ESF6 Mass Care, Housing, and Human Services a. Provide Facilities i. Quinlan Center as Shelter ii. Cooling Stations (Library, Senior Center, Quinlan Center) b. Initial Shelter setup c. NEED: tents for the parks as a backup / MOUs for Sanitation 7. ESF7 Logistics Management and Resources Support a. See above, plus: b. NEED: MOUs with vendors for tools, supplies, services 8. ESF8 Public Health and Medical Services a. See County EMS 9. ESF9 Urban Search and Rescue a. See SCCFD b. Engage CCC as necessary 513 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 12 of 26 February 11, 2016 10. ESF10 Oil and Hazardous Materials Response a. See SCCFD b. See DPW 11. ESF11 Agriculture and Natural Resources a. Not Applicable to Cupertino 12. ESF12 Energy a. Coordinate, monitor 13. ESF13 Public Safety and Security a. See SCCSO 14. ESF14 Long-term Community Recovery and Mitigation a. Coordination to get things up and running b. NEED: i. Finance knowledge for financial recovery (someone who understands FEMA reporting requirements) ii. Knowledge of FEMA rules iii. Relationship with FEMA reps to assist with the paperwork 15. ESF15 External Affairs a. See Communications 6.2.3.4 Vision 1. Ready, relevant, resilient, and responsible 6.2.3.5 Mission (themes) 1. OES mission: Provide comprehensive and integrated emergency management that coordinates resources to protect lives, property, and the environment through mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery from all natural and manmade hazards that we face. 2. Minimizes the loss of life and property for all-hazard events 3. Respond, coordinate (resource), and recover 4. Differentiate between OES and the EOC 6.2.3.6 Facility Occupancy 1. Due to space requirements, a shared facility/multi-use room 2. The ability to initiate a ‘Cold Start’ 3. Some dedicated infrastructure installed (tables, chairs, networking, file systems, etc.) 4. Radio room 5. Breakout rooms, includes Management, PIO, Policy room (city council), media room, Situational Status (monitor sit stat, social media, distill it down, vet the info, and pass to the EOC), general conferences 6. Kitchen, break area, food & water storage 7. Rest rooms, shower facilities, lockers 8. Map printer, printer room 9. Bunk room 514 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 13 of 26 February 11, 2016 6.2.3.7 Facility Use 1. If there is a disaster, City Hall would become the EOC 6.2.3.8 Facility Functionality 1. Wi-Fi (internal, public network), network access 2. White boards 3. Monitors a. Telecom (phones, radio) b. Sound dampening (minimize the hard surfaces) c. See the Gilroy visit list for more d. HVAC e. Others? 6.4 Design 6.4.1 Refined Vision 6.4.2 Continuity of Government 6.4.3 Identify services to be performed at the EOC What exactly will be done at the EOC? 1. Coordination of Logistics; supports… a. the staff in the EOC; office supplies, food, water, environment, b. the responders in the field (paid and volunteer) i. purchasing ii. transportation iii. facilities iv. personnel c. providing the communications technologies & equipment, not its operations 2. Coordination of External Communications / Public Information (PIO) a. Physical or virtual county JIC support b. Develop media messages, briefings to the press, press releases, ‘social media’ content release c. Perform media monitoring, includes social media d. Rumor Control 3. Coordination of Infrastructure 4. Coordination of Emergency Services 5. Largest Event anticipated: M 7.9 a. Ref: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/oes/PlansPublications/Documents/Mass_Transportation.pdf 6. Coordination of Planning & Intel a. Develop the Situational awareness / display the Situational awareness/ common operating picture b. Documentation and information storage (for re-imbursement and others) c. Advance Planning d. Resource Tracking 515 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 14 of 26 February 11, 2016 7. Coordination of Operations a. Support the field response (contact with the field) b. Bring intelligence back from the field c. Outbound information flow to the field 8. Policy and prioritization a. City Council 6.4.4 Align Hazard Threat Identification and Assessment 1. The site location is given 2. Earthquake construction standards 3. City Hall is located near Regnart Creek - need to account for flooding a. READ: don’t put the generator in the basement 6.4.5 Align Risk Analysis 1. Which hazards and threats are likely to occur and will potentially need to be managed at the EOC? a. Likely to Occur i. Geological / Earthquake (> 5) ii. Fire, Wild land iii. Hazardous materials (only if it gets into mass sheltering) iv. Extreme Weather / Storm, heat wave b. Less likely to Occur i. Fire (High Density/Urban; must be spectacular… only if it gets into mass sheltering) ii. Flood hazards – Dam, heavy Rain Events iii. Terrorism iv. Public Health Emergency v. Aviation Disaster vi. Civil Disturbance (Crime, Police action) vii. Gas / Electricity, Utility Emergency viii. Transportation – Highway 516 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 15 of 26 February 11, 2016 6.4.6 Space Requirements 1. Square footing per person… 20 to 25 SF per person. 2. Who do we anticipate in the EOC a. Will be there i. City Staff a. Management b. P&I c. Logistics d. Operations e. Finance ii. CCC DOC iii. Allied Agencies (seats for show-ups) iv. Sheriff’s Office Position (depends on the scope of the event, SO Rep or City Staff) v. County Fire Position (depends on the scope of the event, SCCFD Rep or City Staff) b. Will not be there i. PG&E ii. SJ Water, Cal Water iii. CuSD, Sunnyvale Sanitary District iv. Red Cross (depends on the magnitude, and locality) v. EMS, Public Health vi. Environmental Health vii. Telecom Companies 6.4.6.1 – Space for External and non-Jurisdictional entities 1. In the EOC; need extra seating to accommodate any number of the following: a. Apple, Inc. b. American Red Cross c. FUHSD d. CUSD e. De Anza College f. Chamber of Commerce Rep 6.4.6.2 – Space for Public Information Office / Joint Information Center (PIO/JIC) 1. In the EOC: PIO or designate (1 seat) 2. Separate PIO Work Room (social media, message development, rest of the team, 5-6 seats total) 3. Separate Briefing Room or Area (such as Community Hall) 4. JIC: Non-dedicated meeting room 6.4.6.3 – Space for working a virtual EOC System 1. Web EOC 517 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 16 of 26 February 11, 2016 6.4.6.4 – Efficient Use of Space 1. The approach is to have a non-dedicated EOC. Non-emergency use of this space could be used for city-staff meetings, training, general purpose use. 2. Floor space can be easily reconfigured to the EOC. Requires sufficient tables, chairs, white boards, overhead displays that are either fixed or easily deployed, phone-line, network drops, etc. 3. Close proximity store space must be allocated for EOC documentation, equipment, supplies, material, etc., that can be easily deployed. 6.4.6.5 – Space for Meetings 1. Non-dedicated meeting space needed for: a. Management Operational Room (4 permanent seats, includes telephones, white boards, on- wall monitors) b. Management meeting room (10-12 seats during meetings) c. PIO (referenced above) d. City Council / policy room e. Two (2) general purpose break-out rooms, (6-8 seats) 6.4.6.6 – Space required for Equipment 1. Needs of the EOC need to be considered in Data Center and Video Distribution planning 2. Remote data center at the EOC or spare IT rack space in City Hall Data Center for TBD EOC equipment (servers, display controllers) 3. Need spare network or A/V rack space in EOC for TBD EOC equipment (See City Channel team for details) 6.4.6.7 – Space Optimization 1. Lighting, indirect (eye comfort) 2. Sound dampening 3. Ample power outlets: wall, floor 4. Furniture a. Minimum 20 to 25 sq. ft. per person b. Desk space: 3’x4’ per person c. Need room for people movement and flow d. Tables, chairs – on rollers e. Chairs no arms f. Higher ceiling, no tiles (shaking hazard) g. Minimize swivel mounts for display technology 6.4.6.8 – Break Area and Recreational Space 1. Separate break room from the EOC, multi-use, doubles as the break room for the City Hall, sized to handle the city staff 2. Vending Machines 6.4.6.9 – Space requirements for Survivability and Operability 1. Buffer space (secured access) between the public space and the EOC. 2. Look at underground parking restrictions / constraints (policy decision?). 3. Locate the generator and fuel systems at or above ground level. Secured enclosure. 4. Fuel system with multiple sourced fuels (i.e.: natural gas and/or propane). 518 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 17 of 26 February 11, 2016 6.4.6.10 – Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 1. Covered in existing building codes. 6.4.6.11 – HVAC and Utility Systems. 1. Provisions to shut down HVAC in the event of Hazmat incidents (or filtering for hazards). 2. Oversize the HVAC for the EOC (extended heat load by people, PCs, etc., during an activation) 3. HVAC filtering for chemical, biological, radiological hazard 4. All air intakes on the roof (avoids walk-by tampering) 5. Redundant Power (PG&E and local generator, or external power connection) 6. Add external Power connection for mobile generator(s) 7. Water coolers with water bottle vendor 6.4.6.12 – Utility Design 1. Electrical a. PG&E, primary b. Generator, backup (size to building load plus 25%) with dual fuel source: natural gas and stored propane. c. Solar with stand-alone grid tie (hybrid inverter; meaning: if the grid “goes down,” solar disconnects from the grid and the power is available internally). d. Battery storage for solar reserves. 2. Water a. San Jose Water connection, primary b. Cal Water connection, Secondary c. On-site water storage tank, backup d. Bottled water or some other source of on-site water 3. Sewer a. Cupertino Sanitary District, primary b. Local sewage storage capacity c. Storage for emergency sanitary supplies (buckets, wag bags, etc.) 6.4.6.13 – Shared Facility Functional Areas 1. N/A 6.4.6.14 – Security Systems and Security Personnel 1. Secured access through internal spaces, no public facing doors. 2. Separation of public space in the building from secured office space, includes the EOC. 3. Add a small lobby or an alcove with work space to screen people prior to entering the EOC. 6.4.6.15 – Potential Medical Needs 1. First Aid Kit, AED in the EOC. 2. Consider a shared space (small conference rooms) for privacy, recovery, or medical evaluation. 6.4.6.16 – Personal Hygiene Areas (Showers, Laundry, Basic Supplies) 1. Include shower space within the City Hall (as it exists today) 519 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 18 of 26 February 11, 2016 6.4.6.17 – Sleep Areas 1. No named space identified within the City Hall. 2. Designated storage space within the Civic Center area for cots (not necessarily City Hall). 6.4.6.18 – Supplies adequate for Continual Operation for up to 30 days 1. Reset for 14 days continuous operation 2. Storage space for MREs (not freeze dried). Need budget to fund and replenish. 3. Storage space and use of water cooler bottles. Need budget for the service (water takes up a bit of space). 4. Storage is adjacent to the break room. 5. Storage closet for office supplies (pens, pencils, paper, plotter, ink). 6.4.6.19 – Amateur Radio Considerations 1. Dedicated Radio space 2. Space required for 3 workstations plus a supervisor. 3. Qty 8, 4” conduit runs from the radio room to the roof, as direct as possible, no bends. 4. Video Feed city channel with amateur radio video content. 5. Roof-top mast or antenna mounting structure. 6. ECOM, need mast on the roof or relay via some tall commercial building (Lease options may be negotiated). 7. Consider a mast if the roof is going solar or ‘green’. 6.4.6.20 – Other Trained Volunteers (ARC, CERT, SAR, SEER, MRC) 1. Position already allocated for the CCC DOC (CERT, MRC, CARES) and ARC) 6.4.6.21 – Partners such as Corporations aiding logistics 1. Private Sector Representative (MOUs to be determined with suppliers for logistics) 6.4.6.22 – Records Retention 1. Designate local storage space in or near the EOC as the incident unfolds (as simple as banker boxes or file holders) 2. Long term records retention to be rolled into the City’s general records storage policy and procedures. a. Follow state and federal guidelines for records retention for economic liability. 3. No shredder in the EOC. 6.4.6.23 – Facility Logistics 1. Janitorial, office, and kitchen supplies need to be sized to ensure 2 weeks of supply self-sufficiency (not just in time supplies). 6.4.6.24 – Laws, Ordinances, Standards, and Operating Procedures Required for Facility 1. Follow laws, ordinances, and standards (building code). 2. Building ordinance augmentation regarding technological and infrastructure enhancement. 520 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 19 of 26 February 11, 2016 6.4.7 Technology 6.4.7.1 – Communications Analysis 1. Specific RF Communications requirements a. Part 97 VHF, UHF, voice and packet b. Part 90 City Trunk Radio, City simplex, EOC-to-EOC c. ECOM / VoIP system (new from SCC) d. School District radios e. Additional space for Scanner in the Radio Room f. Multi-channel digital recorder for radio traffic 2. Specific Network Communications requirements a. Internet Access by City Channel; assumes it is accessible by the EOC i. AT&T drops (internal LAN, main, Fiber) ii. Business Class Comcast (Wi-Fi network, guest) iii. Exede (old Wild Blue) Satellite Internet Service, (Backup internet, 12Mb down, 3Mb up, gateway is in Riverside CA) iv. Infralink (SCEWN, 7Mb down) v. Verizon LTE for Cell… Need details b. Wired (CAT-6e or current spec) Network c. Wireless Access Points d. Servers for event data management (coordinate directly with IT) i. Share drives for OES, events, record management, event recovery, training, etc. 3. Specific Telephony Communications requirements a. Digital PBX for internal use, must be in the building b. Analog phone access (limited, in case VoIP has problems) i. One for backup/failsafe ii. Fax access (if not digital) c. Wired phone access d. Sat Phone, antenna on the roof e. Dedicated Cell Phone for certain positions, with GETS 4. Specific Broadcast Communications requirements (coordinate directly with City Channel) a. Radio Cupertino (1670) b. City Channel c. Over-the-air television d. AM broadcast (e.g., KLIV, KCBS, KGO) e. National Weather Service broadcast 5. Specific Social Media Communications requirements a. Space, power, and equipment (computer, monitors, servers, racks, switch-boxes, controllers, etc.) in SitStat for social media monitoring and response 521 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 20 of 26 February 11, 2016 6.4.7.2 – Technology Decision Tree Review 1. Voice communications (in priority, inside the City) a. Telephone b. City Trunk Radio c. Amateur Radio 2. Voice communications (in priority, outside the City) a. Telephone b. ECOM / VoIP system The ECOM/VoIP system exists, but Cupertino has yet to acquire it (this can be a requestable item to add to the list). c. Sat Phone d. EOC-to-EOC e. Amateur Radio 3. Digital (data) communications (in priority, inside the City) a. Email b. Amateur Radio Packet 4. Digital (data) communications (in priority, outside the City) a. Email b. WebEOC c. Fax d. ECOM / VoIP system? Does this exist? e. Amateur Radio 6.4.7.3 – Computer and Software Checklist 1. This topic requires coordination with City IT Department prior to implementation of equipment 2. ~30 Laptops (and or tablets) 3. Standard office productivity software (email, spreadsheets, documents, drawings) 4. Variety of browsers installed 5. Different emergency management and situational awareness software 6. Networked printers in the EOC 7. Networked scanners 8. Networked plotter, access to plotters managed by IT / GIS and Public Works 9. Video conferencing 10. City is moving to virtual desktop client (VDI) computing, not laptops. a. ACTION: what is the end user computing strategy for the city, specifically for the EOC?... IT or OES discussion. b. Cloud computing? Need data redundancy to ensure you can operate locally if the cloud is lost… Local Server 11. City should consider having backup EOC desktops/laptops in the event the VCC server is down. 12. It is understood that this will be a multi-use room so laptops to take in and out of drawers will be much more assistive & space conscious. However some software requires a great deal more visual real estate and a laptop monitor won’t suffice. So perhaps additional monitors in the EOC for the laptops to be plugged into, or specific sections who have use of desktops. 6.4.7.4 – Communications Oversight/control 1. Defer 522 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 21 of 26 February 11, 2016 6.4.7.5 – Information Exchange 1. This requires an OES Policy Discussion. 6.4.7.6 – Remote Operations 1. City-Hall -wide networking 2. Video conferencing 3. Distributed access to ECOM / VoIP phone network 4. VPN / Virtual Desktop (remote access to personal, EOC position desktop) 6.4.7.7 – Interoperable and Integrated Communications 1. See 6.4.7.2. 6.4.7.8 – Transportable Communications Capability 1. If this EOC goes down, need to operate from a different location (alternative EOC) as if we were still at the EOC. 2. Virtual Desktop Client that exists today supports this. However, this requires a hardening and redundancy of the VDC servers. VDC Servers store apps and data for the clients. 3. For telephone redirection: Today there is an analog hard-wired phone system in the EOC. Switching is unlikely. For the future, need a digital/VoIP phone system that offers phone number mobility. 6.4.7.9 – Laws, Ordinances, Standards, and Operating Procedures for Required Technology 1. Public records management and access; record retention. 2. SEMS standards call out communications requirements for information exchanges with the County EOC. SEMS guidelines: Section A. General System – Subsection 6. Overview of SEMS Response does state: “larger incidents may necessitate activation of the EOC. Local government will notify the operational area if the EOC is activated.” 3. Need review of the LOSOP for communications. 4. Coordinate with IT and PIO for their requirements. 6.4.7.10 – Internal/External Warning Systems 1. CAS – Cupertino Alert System (Everbridge system) a. Everbridge will do "Reverse 9-1-1" calls to phones that have not opted in to the registration. It does this through a separate database. b. Citizens enrolled in multiple alert systems may be a cause for potentially receiving multiple messages. Emergency managers have told Bob it is at best inconvenient when they receive a notification and, while listening to it, they receive another notification from a different database. 2. AlertSCC – Accessible by SO and SCCFD 3. On the subject of air raid sirens, the consensus of the people spoken with is that air raid sirens, although helpful and beneficial, could be counterintuitive if a community does not know what the siren is warning for. 6.4.7.11 – Intentionally Left Blank 1. … 523 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 22 of 26 February 11, 2016 6.4.7.12 – Additional Equipment 1. Building will be set to standards for AEDs 2. Radiological monitoring, weather station 3. All-inclusive office environment: printers, fax, copiers, stationary supplies, battery chargers, white boards, easels w/ flip charts + dry erase markers, roll-able/adjustable furniture, filing cabinets, PC projectors, public address system, indirect lighting. 4. Others as necessary 524 Disaster Council: EOC Design Committee Report Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 23 of 26 February 11, 2016 Table 1. Emergency Support Functions Required for Handling Hazards Faced by Cupertino ESF1 Transportation (safety, restoration, etc.) ESF2 Communications ESF3 Public Works and Engineering ESF4 Firefighting ESF5 Emergency Management ESF6 Mass Care, Housing, and Human Services ESF7 Resources Support (volunteers, logistics mgmt. and support) ESF8 Public Health and Medical Services ESF9 Search and Rescue (life-saving assistance) ESF10 Oil and Hazardous Materials Response ESF11 Agriculture and Natural Resources ESF12 Energy ESF13 Public Safety and Security (Police, etc.) ESF14 Long-term Community Recovery and Mitigation ESF15 External Affairs Hazard Probability Seriousness (EOP) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Geological / Earthquake (> 5) Likely M-H x x x SCCFD x CUP+ARC x SCC EMS SCCFD SCCFD none Coordinate SCCSO x x Fire, Wild land Likely Medium x x x SCCFD x CUP+ARC x SCC EMS none none none Coordinate SCCSO x x Fire (High Density, Urban) Less Likely L-M none x x SCCFD x CUP+ARC x SCC EMS none SCCFD none none SCCSO x x Hazardous materials Likely Medium none x x SCCFD x none x SCC EMS none SCCFD none none SCCSO none x Flood hazards – Dam, heavy Rain Events Less Likely L-M-H x x x x x CUP+ARC x SCC EMS SCCFD none none Coordinate SCCSO x x Terrorism Less Likely L-M-H x x x SCCFD x x x SCC EMS SCCFD SCCFD none Coordinate SCCSO x x Public Health Emergency Less Likely L-M-H none x x none x none x SCC PubH none none none none SCCSO none x Aviation Disaster Less Likely L-M x x x SCCFD x none x SCC EMS none SCCFD none none SCCSO x x Civil Disturbance (Crime, Police action) Less Likely Low none x x none x none none SCC EMS none none none none SCCSO x x Extreme Weather / Storm, heat wave Likely L-M none x x none x x x SCC EMS none none none Coordinate SCCSO x x Gas / Electricity, Utility Emergency Less Likely L-M-H none x x none x CUP+ARC x none none none none Coordinate SCCSO none x Transportation – Highway Less Likely L-M-H x x x none x none x none none none none none none x x 525 Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 24 of 26 February 11, 2016 Figure 1. Emergency Operations Center Organizational Chart 526 Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 25 of 26 February 11, 2016 Figure 2. EOC Staffing Positions (February 2016) Management Position Primary Secondary Third EOC Director David Brandt Timm Borden Carol Atwood Legal Officer Colleen Winchester Randolph Hom Cheryl Mannix-Smith Liaison Officer Karen Guerin Colleen Lettire Lauren Sapudar Public Information Officer Rick Kitson Grace Schmidt Kirsten Squarcia Safety & Security Officer Jeff Trybus Gulu Sakhrani OPEN Agency Representatives • American Red Cross • Fremont Union High School District • Cupertino Union School District • De Anza College • Apple, Inc. • Other TBA TBA Operations Position Primary Secondary Third Operations Section Chief Roger Lee Katy Jensen Chad Mosley Fire & Rescue Branch Coordinator Santa Clara County Fire Department Law Enforcement Branch Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office Public Works Coordinator Chad Mosley David Stillman Ryan Roman Care & Shelter Coordinator Kelsey Hayes Tom Walters David Jahns Citizen Corps CERT/MRC Ken Ericksen Bob Cascone Gerd Goette 527 Desirable Design Elements for a Cupertino EOC 26 of 26 February 11, 2016 Planning / Intelligence Position Primary Secondary Third Planning Section Chief Aarti Shrivastava Benjamin Fu Piu Ghosh Damage Assessment Branch Coordinator Albert Salvador Mike Wayne Gary Stream Documentation Branch Coordinator Erick Serano Kaitie Groeneweg Melissa Names Situation Status Branch Coordinator Gian Martire Piu Ghosh Jeff Greef Resource Status Branch Coordinator Julia Kinst Beth Ebben Melissa Names Demobilization Coordinator OPEN OPEN OPEN Logistics Position Primary Secondary Third Logistics Section Chief Chris Mertens Brad Alexander Jonathan Ferrante Communications Branch Coordinator City Channel / CARES CARES CARES Facilities Branch Coordinator Chris Orr Ty Bloomquist Rudy Lomas IT Branch Coordinator Mariyah Serratos Quinton Adams Larry Sacks GIS Mapping Branch Coordinator Teri Gerhardt Adam Araza Joanne Johnson Personnel / Volunteer Branch Coordinator May Sui Maria Jimenez Laura Miyakawa Supplies Branch Coordinator Brad Alexander Brian Gathers Jason Fauth Transportation Branch Coordinator David Stillman OPEN OPEN Finance/Administration Position Primary Secondary Third Finance Section Chief Kristina Alfaro Lisa Taitano Karen Guerin Purchasing Branch Coordinator Richard Wong Tina Mao May Sui Time Keeping Branch Coordinator Yulia Rumalean Jacqueline Guzman Chylene Osborne 528 529 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-2037 Name: Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready File created:In control:10/4/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:9/19/2017 Title:Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council9/19/2017 1 Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Report on Committee assignments and general comments CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 9/13/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™530