02-20-2018 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
3:30 PM
10300 Torre Avenue and 10350 Torre Avenue
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Special Meeting Non-televised Closed Session (3:30) and Televised Study Session (4:00); followed
by 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, February 20, 2018, commencing at 3:30
p.m. for a closed session in City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino, CA 95014 and a study session at 4:00 p.m. in Community Hall Council
Chamber, 10350 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 - 3:30 PM
City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue
CLOSED SESSION
1.Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code Section 54957).
Title: City Attorney
2.Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code Section 54957).
Title: City Manager
STUDY SESSION - 4:00 PM
Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue
Page 1
1
February 20, 2018City Council AGENDA
3.Subject: Study Session on the fiscal year 2018-2019 City Work Program
Recommended Action: Review and provide direction on the fiscal year 2018-2019
City Work Program
Staff Report
A - 2018-2019 City Work Program
B - 2017-2018 City Work Program Updates
C - Memo on Proposed Planning Commission Work Program FY2018-19
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 PM
Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
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
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.
1.Subject: Approve the February 6 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the February 6 City Council minutes
A - Draft Minutes
Page 2
2
February 20, 2018City Council AGENDA
2.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 12, 2018
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 18-011 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending January 12, 2018
A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
3.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 19, 2018
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 18-012 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending January 19, 2018
A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
4.Subject: Second Amendment to the Funding Agreement between the City of
Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the I-280/Wolfe
Road Interchange Improvements Project
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute the Second
Amendment to the Funding Agreement with VTA to identify their respective
obligations in regard to the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project.
Approve a budget appropriation in the amount of $260,000 in Fund 100-88-844
900-964 for the Second Amendment to the Funding Agreement between the City of
Cupertino and VTA for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project.
Staff Report
A - Draft Amendment
5.Subject: Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Alta Planning + Design,
Inc. for professional design services to prepare and deliver the Union Pacific
Railroad Trail Feasibility Study
Recommended Action: Approve an Agreement between the City of Cupertino and
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $259,889 from the date of
execution through June 30, 2019, and authorize the Director of Public Works to
negotiate and execute all necessary documents to carry out all consultant services for
the Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility Study
Staff Report
A - Draft Agreement
Page 3
3
February 20, 2018City Council AGENDA
6.Subject: Authorize Funding Amount to the 2011 Contract Sweeping Services, Inc,
Contract
Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 18-013 to increase the authorized
amount for the 2011 Contract Sweeping Service, Project No. 2011-02, to Contract
Sweeping Service, Inc., from the previously authorized annual amount of $137,097,
to the annual amount of $198,000, and approve a an annual contingency of $10,000
to cover extra sweeping as may be required, for a total of $208,000, and;
2. Approve FY 17/18 Budget Adjustments in the amount of $42,542 in the Resource
Recovery Envorinmental Programs account number 520-81-801 700-702 and
$28,361 in the Environmental Management Clean Creek Storm Drain Non-Point
Source account number 230-81-802 700-702.
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - June 6, 2011 Staff Report
C – April 27, 2016 letter to Contract Street Sweeping to extend five years
D - September 27, 2017 Lehigh Hanson Letter
7.Subject: Accept offer of dedication and waiver of future reimbursement related to
the McClellan Road Sidewalk Improvements - Phase 2 Project
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 18-014 accepting the offer of
dedication and waiver of future reimbursement from four property owners for the
construction of the McClellan Road Sidewalk Improvements - Phase 2 Project
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
8.Subject: Second reading for an ordinance to amend regulations in Title 2,
Administration and Personnel of the Municipal Code Chapter 2.80, to allow up to
six (6) members for the Fine Arts Commission
Recommended Action: That the City Council conduct the second reading and enact
Ordinance No. 18-2171: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
amending regulations in Title 2, Administration and Personnel of the Municipal Code
Chapter 2.80, to allow up to six (6) members for the Fine Arts Commission"
Staff report
A - Ordinance No. 18-2171
B - Redline Draft Ordinance
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
Page 4
4
February 20, 2018City Council AGENDA
9.Subject: Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2018 Cupertino
Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 18-015 adopting the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
10.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
ADJOURNMENT
Page 5
5
February 20, 2018City 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.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal
Code 2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council,
Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as
supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are
accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You are
hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written
communications to the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall
constitute a waiver of any privacy rights you may have on the information provided to
the City.
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
Page 6
6
February 20, 2018City Council AGENDA
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 7
7
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-3672 Name:
Status:Type:Closed Session Conducted
File created:In control:2/12/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/20/2018 2/20/2018
Title:Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code Section 54957). Title: City Attorney
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
ConductedCity Council2/20/2018 1
Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code Section 54957). Title: City
Attorney
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™8
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-3673 Name:
Status:Type:Closed Session Conducted
File created:In control:2/12/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/20/2018 2/20/2018
Title:Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code Section 54957). Title: City Manager
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
ConductedCity Council2/20/2018 1
Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code Section 54957). Title: City
Manager
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™9
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:117-3365 Name:
Status:Type:Study Session Conducted
File created:In control:11/30/2017 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/20/2018 2/20/2018
Title:Subject: Study Session on the fiscal year 2018-2019 City Work Program
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - 2018-2019 City Work Program
B - 2017-2018 City Work Program Updates
C - Memo on Proposed Planning Commission Work Program FY2018-19
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
ConductedCity Council2/20/2018 1
Subject: Study Session on the fiscal year 2018-2019 City Work Program
Review and provide direction on the fiscal year 2018-2019 City Work Program
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™10
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-7603 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Staff Meeting: February 20, 2018
Subject
City Work Program for fiscal year 2018-2019
Recommended Action
Review and provide direction on City Work Program for fiscal year 2018-2019.
Discussion
The City’s Work Program guides the major efforts of City staff for the upcoming fiscal year. The
Work Program ensures that resources are aligned with and driven by the Mayor and Council,
and thus, the community. This approach keeps the City transparent and holds the organization
accountable to focus resources on strategies that best serve our community’s needs and
aspirations. Each year staff reports on the progress of the City’s Work Program assignments and
proposes new projects for Council consideration.
In previous years, Work Program projects have been organized by department. However, for the
upcoming fiscal year, the Work Program includes several projects that are coordinated by
multiple departments. In order to better reflect City priorities that require multi-departmental
coordination, the Work Program is now organized based on themes. The following five themes
emerged as priorities in the Work Program:
Smart City
Financial Sustainability
Public Engagement and Transparency
Community Livability and Sustainable Infrastructure
Operational Efficiency
Public and Private Partnerships
The detailed Work Program lists specific projects, objectives, progress, next steps, current status,
and the lead staff/department. Given the formatting change, we are presenting Council with two
Work Program documents for your review. The 2017-2018 City Work Program reports on 21
completed projects, 67 projects that are in progress, 13 projects that are scheduled but have not
begun, and 8 projects that are on hold or have been cancelled. The new 2018-2019 Work Program
11
reports on 12 proposed projects, 32 projects that are in progress, 9 projects that are scheduled, and
1 project on hold. Beginning next year, there will only be one Work Program document.
Additionally, we have attached a memo with proposed 2018-2019 Work Program items
recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff will add items to the Work Program as directed
by Council.
Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact of proposed projects and assignments in the City Work Program will be
brought forward as part of the FY 2018-2019 Proposed Budget in May.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Toni Oasay-Anderson, Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Reviewed by: Jaqui Guzmán, Deputy City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A. 2018-2019 City Work Program
B. 2017-2018 City Work Program
C. Memo: Proposed Planning Commission Work Program FY2018-19
12
Smart City
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead Department
Wireless Master Plan Update the City's wireless policies and
goals to ensure a comprehensive build
out of facilities.
The City will initiate a Request for
Proposals in Winter 2018.
Request proposals from interested
consultants.
Scheduled November 2018 Chad
Mosley/Bill
Mitchell
Public Works/IT
Water System Asset Management Plan
(AMP) / Valuation
1) Quantify system condition and
projected needs / costs to sustain industry
standard; and 2) Value system to
determine appropriate lease rate or sale
price after 2022.
Agreement with consultant executed with
completed work product due in August
2018.
Coordinate with SJWC and consultant an
AMP that is mutually beneficial to both
parties.
In Progress August 2018 Roger Lee Public Works
Municipal Water System Ensure lessee (San Jose Water Co.) is
maintaining and operating system to
industry standard.
SJWC investment in system has
increased. Negotiations ongoing to define
capital investments through 2022.
Continue negotiations.In Progress December 2018 Timm
Borden/Roger
Lee
Public Works
Emergency Services Continuity of
Government Plan
Complete plan to resume operations of
the City after a major emergency.
Previous plan was written in 2004. That
plan will be evaluated and a new plan will
be developed.
Emergency Services Coordinator will
research and coordinate with Santa Clara
County and other partners to write a plan
for City Council review and adoption.
In Progress September 2018 Clare
Francavilla
Recreation &
Community
Services
Wireless Upgrade - Public Space Build wirelss "hot spots" at various public
locations w/in Cupertino
Determining best location and associated
solution(s).
Seismic modeling of selected "hot-spot"
locations. Budget allocation for
FY18/FY19
In Progress FY2018/FY19 Bill Innovation &
Technology
13
Financial Sustainability
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead Department
BMR linkage fees update Consider increasing linkage fees for
residential and non-residential projects to
provide funding for BMR affordable units
To begin in Summer 2017 after requested
funding for nexus study is authorized as
part of FY 2018-19 budget
Prepare nexus study Proposed Winter 2018-19 Kerri Heusler Community
Development
Employer-based revenue measures Explore employer-based revenue
measures to address issues such as
traffic congestion
Proposed TBD David Brandt CMO
Explore storm water ballot initiative with
grassroots group(s) with input from
Sustainability Commission.
Explore feasibility and potential steps to
conduct property owner mail-in election
for authorization to adjust stormwater fees
from 1992 level to current.
Note: General Fund subsidizes Cupertino
Stormwater Program to meet legal
obligations, fund pollution prevention
programs, and provide robust
environmental education and outreach to
residents, businesses, and Cupertino
School District.
Mayor sent support letter for SB 231
(enacted 10/17) relaxing legal restrictions
on storm water fees. Staff have discussed
steps taken by Palo Alto to achieve a
succussful election outcome.
Explore feasability of an election in
Cupertino. Solicit input from Sustainability
Commission and local grassroots groups.
Discuss topic with Sustainability
Commission before July 2018; conduct
outreach and focus groups by July 2019.
Develop plan for potential property owner
mail-in election by December 2019.
In Progress December 2019 Cheri Donnelly Public Works
Consider policies and related Code and
Specific Plan amendments to implement
policies in the Economic Development
Strategic Plan.
EDSP adopted by City Council in late
2016. Hired consultant to work on
implementation of key objectives
including: Identified several policies for
forward-looking economic development
including:1. Consider allowing
incubator/co-working uses to replace
underperforming retail. 2. Consider
creating office allocation in the General
Plan specifically for mid-to-small size
companies. 3. Identify and develop
regulations for an Innovation/Arts district
in the City. 4. Create a policy to allow
mobile uses (including food trucks) in the
City.
Identified several policies for forward-
looking economic development including:
1. Consider allowing incubator/co-working
uses to replace retail on sites that have
underperforming retail and meet specific
criteria. 2. Consider creating office
allocation in the General Plan specifically
for mid-to-small size companies. 3.
Identify and develop regulations for an
Innovation/Arts district in the City. 4.
Create a policy to allow mobile uses
(including food trucks) in the City. This
could include identifying areas where
such uses could be allowed.
In Progress End of 2018-19 Angela Tsui Community
Development
Sustainable calpers funding strategy Identify a long term funding strategy to
fund rising costs related to retirement
Presentation to Council as part of Mid
Year Budget (March 6) and present to
Fiscal Strategic in Late March/Early
April Cost of strategy to Council as part of
Proposed Budget Hearing
In Progress June 2018 Kristina Adminstrative
Services
14
Public Engagement and Transparency
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead Department
Strategic Plan for Equity and Access to
Recreation Programs
Provide greater access to programs and
activities for individuals with disabilities by
completing and launching a strategic plan.
The plan will address ADA requirements,
inclusion opportunities and special
programs.
Create a task force within the department
to create a strategy and begin
coordinating opportunities.
Proposed June 2019 Christine Hanel Recreation &
Community
Services
Senior Engagement Review the City's engagment strategy
with seniors, including the role of the
Senior Citizen Advisory Council
Proposed Jaqui Guzman
Jeff Milkes
CMO
Recreation &
Community
Services
I heart Cupertino - Teen Design Challenge Build a sense of community by launching
a Cupertino swag store with an fun youth
design project
Project team is developing project charter Request buy-in from local schools and
businesses
Scheduled October 2018 Jaqui Guzman
Colleen Letire
Danny Meztizo
CMO
Recreation &
Community
Services
Volunteer Fair Promote a sense of community and good
will in Cupertino by encouraging
volunteerism
The volunteer fair has been scheduled for
May 5th at Civic Center Plaza
Outreach plans are being developed Scheduled May 2018 Colleen Lettire CMO
Economic Development Website Streamline city web content for new
businesses. Develop an integrated
approach for outreach and marketing to
brokers, business owners, and others as
a center for innovation and the heart of
Silicon Valley.
Valuable content and links on existing
site.
Will continue to assess the needs of
businesses and add helpful resources.
Work with the City's Public
Affairs/Communications team to redesign
the Economic Development webpages
within the Citywide website enhancement.
In Progress 2018 Angela Tsui Community
Development
Citywide Branding Strategy Train staff on City branding standards,
create secondary logos, and a City tag
line
Branding standards have been developed
and training for staff is scheduled
Work with consultant to develop
secondary logos
In Progress February 2018 Brian Babcock CMO
Citywide Community Engagement Develop strategies for better engaging
with the public on City issues and provide
staff with tools and training
Four staff members participated in ILG's
TIERS community engagement training.
City has also contracted with Open Town
Hall (formerly known as Peak Democracy)
and training for staff has been scheduled.
Pilot TIERS strategy for Junipero Sierra
Trail feasibility study. Pilot Open Town
Hall.
In Progress December 2018 Jaqui Guzman
Brian Babcock
Bill Mitchel
Jennifer Chiu
CMO
I&T
PW
15
Community Livability and Sustainable Infrastructure
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead Department
Incentives to build Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Provide incentives to build ADUs (which
provide affordable housing opportunities)
by reviewing ordinance and reducing fees
The Council asked staff to add this item to
the work program in late 2017.
Project will begin in Summer 2018 Proposed 2018 Gian Community
Development
Update the Municipal Code to Provide Parking Incentives for
Electric Vehicles and Encourage Outdoor Seating in
Restaurants
The Planning Commission requested
these items to be added to the work
program to provide incentives for green
infrastructure and enhance pedestrian-
oriented character of developments
To begin after Council authorizes it in the
work program
Proposed TBD Piu Ghosh Community
Development
Public Art in Developments Review and consider amending the
$100,000 maximum for Public Art in
Developments.
The FAC requested that this project be
added to the upcoming work program in
2016. Council authorized this in 2017.
Project will be initiated in Summer 2018 Proposed TBD Catarina Kidd Community
Development
Lawn Buster Drought Tolerant Planting Pilot Develop a program that allows residents
to easily elect water-wise turf conversion,
including pre-set landscape plans, pre-
approved contractors, and fixed prices
Research has begun to evaluate best
options for a city-wide pilot
Collect data and research similar
programs
Proposed June 2019 Misty Mersich CMO
Healthy Cities Initiative Revise smoking and water access policies
and regulations to meet HCI standards
Proposed December 2018 Jaqui Guzman CMO
Shuttle Bus Service Study Study the feasibility of an east-west
shuttle bus service that connects to
Caltrain
Proposed TBD Senior
Transportation
Planner
Public Works
Penalties for Violation of Conditions of Approval Consider increasing maximum penalty of
$100K for violations of conditions of
approval.
Requested by Councilmember.Issue will be reviewed with related
municipal code updates.
Scheduled TBD Phillip Wilkomm Community
Development
Teen Stress Work with the Teen Commission and
Cupertino 95014 on events that address
teen stress in Cupertino
Cupertino 95014 has agreed to study the
issue of teen stress in Cupertino and
propose an event to highlight the problem
and potential solutions
The Teen Commission is working on a
teen stress-relief event as part of thier
workplan
Scheduled TBD Brian Babcock
Danny Meztizo
CMO
Recreation &
Community
Services
Short Term Rentals Develop a regulatory program to regulate and
collect TOT from STRs
Study session on Feb. 6, 2018 Sign collection agreements with Airbnb
and other large STR platforms. Draft Muni
Code regualtions for STRs with public
input.
Scheduled June 2019 Jaqui Guzman
Ben Fu
CMO
Community
Development
Regnart Road – analysis of maintenance responsibilities 1) Research and determine adjacent
property owner and City maintenance
responsibilities; and 2) Receive owner
input and educate regarding
responsibilities; and 3) Complete City
work.
Drainage evaluation complete.Obtain land use general counsel, review
findings and conduct public meeting(s).
Investigative work and meeting with
owners complete by summer 2018.
In Progress June 2019. Chad Mosley /
Roger Lee
Public Works
Lawrence Mitty Acquire a parcel at Lawrence Expwy and
Mitty Ave for trail expansion and park
development
City has worked with SJWC and County
to secure a three-way transaction but was
not able to reach agreement with SJWC
County is taking the lead on negotiations
with SJWC. If property is secured, funding
allocation for conceptual design will be
proposed with 2018-19 CIP.
In Progress TBD Jaqui Guzman
Timm Borden
Jeff Milkes
CMO
Public Works
Recreation &
Community
Services
Vallco Specific Plan Create a community-based vision and
objective standards for development at
Vallco
Consultants hired and initial community
ourtreach started
Prepare Draft EIR and Specific Plan after
community outreach
In Progress Fall 2018 Catarina Kidd
and Piu Ghosh
Community
Development
Community Garden Improvements Renovate the community gardens at
McClellan Ranch, and implement a new
process and procedures for a more
effective, community-driven gardens
program.
Multiple stakeholder meetings have been
held to develop better procedures and
appropriate enforcement policies. A
capital project is in progress, working with
a consultant to develop a clear concept
and vision for the gardens. A second
capital project has been proposed for
2018/19 to renovate the gardens. The
new rules and enforcement process will
be implemented as garden plots are
assigned.
Complete public involvement process and
propose recommended alternative to City
Council for garden renovation.
In Progress Summer 2019 Kim Calame Recreation &
Community
Services
16
Community Livability and Sustainable Infrastructure
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead Department
Strategic Plan for Neighborhood Special Events Complete strategic planning to implement
recreational activities in neighborhood
parks.
Research and a draft report are in
progress.
Complete research into equipment,
staffing, objectives, and organize
neighborhood task forces to assist with
program planning. Hire part time
Recreation staff to complete planning to
implement a pilot program in Summer
2018.
In Progress October 2018 Jeff Milkes/
Rachelle
Sander
Recreation &
Community
Services
Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Create a 20+ year community-driven plan
to meet future parks, open space and
recreation needs through establishing
goals and priorities and enhancing or
expanding facilities and programs.
Council authorized consultant contract in
January 2017. Consultant and staff have
evaluated existing park and recreation
systems, formed an advisory group,
developed a vision statement and goals,
identified prioritization criteria and
identified preliminary opportunities.
Community outreach explored best use of
park spaces to identify needs for different
events, activities and goals. The plan is
anticipated to come before City Council in
Fall 2018, depending upon additional
public input and results of upcoming
workshops.
Upcoming Council and Parks &
Recreation Commission study session to
review large project items for the Master
Plan. Public input and workshops will
occur, and project list, scoping, and
budget information will be developed from
the results.
In Progress Fall 2018 Gail Seeds Recreation &
Community
Services
Solid Waste Characterization Studies and Waste Audits 1) Complete tonnage audit and waste
characterization studies of pertinent
streams of City facilities, residential
curbside, and commercial waste; and
2) Analyze effectiveness of neighboring
agency programs and emerging
technology as it might apply in Cupertino
in diverting recyclable content from
landfill.
Collected contract and waste
characterization information from
neighboring agencies. Began review of
potential auditors and consultants.
Execute consultant agreements and begin
work.
In Progress June 2018 Cheri Donnelly/
Roger Lee
Public Works
Teacher Housing Evaluate a “Teacher Housing” project in
partnership with a non‐profit developer try
to identify and develop surplus school
property as a teacher housing project.
In March 2016, the Planning Commission
recommended adding a goal of providing
100 senior or "teacher" housing units per
year for the next five years and/or provide
incentive and priority for Cupertino
residents. The priority system was
implemented as part of the BMR
Administrative Manual update in
September 2016.
Continue to explore opportunities in
collaboration with the school districts
In Progress TBD Kerri Heusler
Heart of the City Plan Amend the Heart of the City Specific Plan:
(1) for clarifications to the minimum street
side setback requirements, and (2) to
review street tree requirements to allow
larger trees, increase diversity of tree type
and encourage drought-tolerant and
native tree types.
To be revised during the next Heart of the
City Specific Plan update
On Hold Erick Serrano Community
Development
Library Community Room Addition Continue design and implementation of
library community room addition
Preferred alternative was adopted by City
Council in 2015. Funding was pledged by
Irvine Company in development
agreement for Hamptons development
pending issuance of building permits.
Initiate architectural design On Hold TBD Timm Borden Public Works
17
Operational Efficiency
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead Department
Alternative Commute Pilot for Staff Pilot to encourage employees to use
alternative modes of transportation such
as walking, biking, transit, and carpool to
relieve road congestion, reduce harmful
emissions and improve employee health.
Exploring programs from surrounding
cities and writing a draft proposal
Develop policy, implementation
measures, and determine appropriate
incentive levels.
Proposed June 2019 Misty Mersich CMO
American Public Works Association (APWA) Accreditation To objectively evaluate, verify and
recognize compliance with recommended
management practices.
Reviewing / amending current practices
and beginning self-assessment process.
Complete update of current practices and
schedule onsite evaluation.
Scheduled FY2019/2020 Roger Lee Public Works
Workforce Planning Use data in the City's ERP system and
several city documents such as the
budget, CIP and Council Work Program to
identify key positions needed and how to
attract, retain or train to ensure the
availabiltiy of those positions when
needed.
None Begin identifying key positions. Formulate
training/recrutiment/retention strategy for
those positions.
Scheduled June 2019 Kristina Admin Services
Labor Negotiations Negotiate equitable long term contracts
with all bargaining units
Current contract expires in June 2019. Begin preparation for negotiations in
January 2019
Scheduled June 2019 Kristina Admin Services
Disaster recovery plan Provide network/data resiliency thru the
use of offsite and out of region data
centers
Simplified network/data infrastructure to
allow for easy migration to offsite data
center
1) Move current City Hall data center
infrastructure elements to local colocation
facility. 2) Build second infrastructure
environment at distant, out-of-region
colocation facility.
In Progress FY2018/FY19 Bill Innovation &
Technology
Applications Deploy applications to enhance
operational efficiency.
In process of implementing various
enterprise applications including Accela
Land Management, GovInvest, Peak
Democracy and Zonar 3D
1) Finalize implementation of applications
in flight. 2) Continue to research cost
effective solutions to current business
problems.
In Progress FY2018 Bill Innovation &
Technology
Public Building Condition and Use Assessment 1) Determine priority assessment of
buildings for future improvements; and, 2)
Analyze selected buildings for facility use
efficiency
Notice to proceed issued.Facilitate consultants work by retrieving
needed documents and facilitating on-site
inspections.
In Progress August 2018 Roger Lee Public Works
Staffing Level Evaluation Analyze work load of various staff to
insure community expectations are met
and ordinance requirements are enforced.
Various deficiencies have been identified. Complete evaluation within department
and discuss coordination with other
departments as applicable and needed.
In Progress FY2019/20 Timm
Borden/Roger
Lee
Public Works
Weekend Work Program Ensure efficiency of program.reviewing current practices and gathering
data from staff
Complete evaluation within the
department and determine the value of
labor received from participants vs. the
value of full-time employees to monitor
the program.
In Progress January 2019 Carl Valdez Public Works
Civic Center Master Plan - Design dev/space prog. Begin Design Development and
Programming for new preferred
alternative from 2015 Civic Center Master
Plan
Working with Architectural Consultant to
develop options and estimates.
Upon approval from City Council to move
forward, negotiate design contract for
architectural services.
In Progress January 2019 Timm Borden Public Works
Roll Out of Addiltional ERP Modules Fully utilize ERP system to automate and
simplify business processes
Fixed Asset module is in data verifcation
stage. CAFR Builder is in contract
negotiations.
Review contract module and requested
time off capabilities in the City's online
timesheet/benefits portal
In Progress June 2020 Kristina Admin Services
Roll Out of Open Gov Platform (maps and additional reports) Fully utilize OpenGov Software Sucessfully began using and integrating
open budget portion of OpenGov
Build out additional reports and view on
the City's transparency portal
In Progress June 2020 Kristina Admin Services
Integration of Workplan and Other Long/Short Term
Documents to Develop 5 Year Business Plan for City.
Comprehensive Business Plan that
encompases all workplan items ensuring
adequate funding and staffing resources.
Goal of 80-100% funded in the next 20
years.
Pending work plan approval. Strategies:
a) Establish a 115 Trust and funding
strategy; b) 20 year amortization; c) 6%
discount rate; d) Long Term staffing costs
projections including negotiated increase
using GovInvest
Ensure costs associated with items
approved in workplan are included in the
FY19 budget. Ensure future costs of
items in the workplan are included in the
Long Term Financial forecast
In Progress June 2020 Kristina Admin Services
18
Operational Efficiency
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead Department
Accreditation of the Recreation & Community Services
Department
National accreditation by the Commission
for Accreditation of Park and Recreation
Agencies to inform policy makers, staff,
and community members that the parks
and recreation agency has been
independently evaluated against
established benchmarks for delivering a
high level of quality service.
The City has been accepted as a
candidate for national accreditation in
2019. A committee of front-line staff,
supervisors and managers are addressing
each of the 151 national standards. All
Recreation staff have been trained in the
process. The Department is on schedule
to be reviewed in early 2019 and
potentially accredited in October, 2019.
Complete self evaluation addressing the
151 national standards. This requires
wide-ranging tasks includin creating a
department marketing plan, risk
assessment plan, and a review of all
department policies.
In Progress October 2019 Jeff Milkes Recreation and
Community
Services
Implement ActiveNet Registration Software System Replace the current recreation registration
software with a cloud-based software
version to enhance service at the Quinlan
Community Center, Sports Center, Senior
Center and other recreation facilities as
appropriate.
Staff have negotiated a contract with
ActiveNet and the start of implementation
is planned for Spring 2018. The project is
anticipated to be live by Fall 2018.
Complete Contract and coordinate
implementation schedule
In Progress Fall 2018 Project Lead,
Rachelle
Sander. Project
Manager, Bill
Mitchell
Recreation and
Community
Services, with
Innovation &
Technology
Cross Platform System Integration Leverage new technology aqcuisitions to
create integrated systems
Idenitfied integration possibilities between
the City's ERP Logos and Land
Management Software, Recreation
Software, Project Works and Recrutiment
software. Finance division working with
Land Management software on integration
specifications
Explore and implement integration In Progress Summer 2018
and Ongoing
Kristina All
19
Public and Private Partnerships
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead Department
Support the Creation of a Film Society To increase art opportunities in the City.
The goal is to support the creation of a
film society based on a request by
interested citizens
NA Explore opportunities upon authorization Proposed TBD Angela Tsui and
Catarina Kidd
Community
Development
Small Business Dev. Center Explore the viability of establishing a small
business development center within the
City of Cupertino.
This is an action item in the EDSP as a
resource to retain and grow small and
midsize businesses.
Continue to explore opportunities. In Progress TBD Angela Tsui Community
Development
Library Lease Sign a new lease with the Library JPA for
use of the City's Library facility
Staff has begun meeting with Library staff
to discuss terms for the new lease
Negotiate and complete lease In Progress June 2018 Jaqui Guzman
Rocio Fierro
Jeff Milkes
Roger Lee
CMO
CAO
RCSD
PW
Strategic Partnerships with Nonprofits Create strategic partnerships with
nonprofits to improve effectiveness of
Recreation & Community Services
Programs. Objectives include coordination
of programs with the Cupertino Library,
YMCA, West Valley Community Services,
School Districts, etc.
Proposed Develop MOU with Library addressing
program opportunities, and continue
discussions with West Valley Community
Services to provide greater support for
Case Managers.
In Progress June 2019
(ongoing)
Kim Calame,
Kim Frey,
Christine Hanel
Recreation &
Community
Services
20
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
Alternative Fuel
Siting Plan
Develop a citywide alternative fuel
(including charging stations) siting plan.
Siting plans will identify appropriate
locations for Level 1 (slow charge), Level 2
(fast charge) and Level 3 and DC (rapid
charge) stations in the community (CAP
Measure C-T-7 and M-F-1).
The City's Sustainability Division in
partnership with SCC received a grant to
develop an alternative fuel a siting plan for
the City, along with fleet and personal
vehicle policy and incentive proposals to
be advanced at a regional scale. Siting
plan was completed.
Planning is underway to implement the
siting plan
Completed June 2018 Misty Mersich
Anti-Hate
Resolution
To make a statement that Cupertino is an
inclusive city that celebrates diversity,
respects human rights, and rejects all
forms of hate and discrimination against
protected groups
Worked with Cities Association on a model
resolution adopted by Council on May 2,
2017
Completed May 2017 Katy Nomura &
Jaqui Guzman
Biennial
Community
Survey
To gather data from residents regarding
City services
Council accepted report on...Completed May 2017 Jaqui Guzman &
Katy Nomura
CCE Launch and participate in a regional
Community Choice Energy Program (CAP
Measure C-E-7).
Staff was instrumental in launching Silicon
Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA in
March 2016. Cupertino was the first City to
join the JPA. To date, 10 cities and the
County have joined. SVCE launched
electricity service for customers in April
2017.
Completed July 2017 Misty Mersich
Communication
Assessment
Implement recommendations of the
Communications Assessment.
Most recommendations have been
implemented, including creation of a
citywide Communication Working Group,
creation of a central inventory of all
communications platforms and channels
and training key staff.
City branding standards have been
completed, including a style guide for
internal and external communications,
which will be presented to staff on
February 15th
Completed December 2017 Brian Babcock
Legislative
Agenda
Develop a Legislative Agenda with the
Legislative Action Committee for the
upcoming CA legislative session to allow
for nimble response to advocacy requests
Draft legislative agenda was presented in
February
Completed February 2018 Jaqui Guzman
Climate Action
Plan
Implement the City’s Climate Action Plan
(CAP).
Staff has developed annual metrics for the
Sustainability Commission and City
Council. Public and private projects have a
CAP component. GHG Inventory update
completed June 2017.
CAP Implementation will follow the timeline
and framework provided in Appendix C of
the document.
In Progress 2020 Misty Mersich &
Gilee Corral
Tools for
Community
Engagement
Explore uses for Peak Democracy as a tool
for community engagement
The City will reactivate the licensing
agreement with Peak Democracy in FY 17-
18. Contract negotiations are still
underway.
Identify a project to utilize the tool In Progress February 2018 Brian Babcock
Teen Incubator
Project
Explore a partnership with FUSD to
establish a teen tech incubator program.
This will be an ongoing annual program.
New Project Design program in partnership with FUSD
and community/industry volunteers. (iMake
Center idea)
In Progress August 2018 David Brandt &
Jeff Milkes
Administration
2017-2018 Work Program Update
21
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
Administration
Cupertino Green
Team
Reinvigorate staff on workplace
environmental actions and related CAP
measures through employee centered
sustainability campaigns related to zero
waste events, reducing energy use,
greening transportation and employee
commute.
Increase information on sustainability
activities and utilize internal online intranet
to disseminate information to staff on
commuter benefits, bike fleet, electric pool
vehicles, environmental purchasing policy,
bike lockers, and other sustainability
related programs for city staff. ( CAP
Measure M-VF-1 & 3)
Revisit green team initiative and additional
forums/tools to rally staff support and
engagement to elevate behavior change
focused action across the agency.
In Progress Ongoing Misty Mersich
Energy & Water
Efficiency
Redesign GreenBiz and residential energy
efficiency and water conservation
programs to reflect current industry best
practices (i.e. behavior change,
sustainability and resilience activities) and
achieve CAP objectives (CAP Measure C-
E-1, 2, 3).
The City is working to evaluate its current
residential energy efficiency and water
conservation programs and will develop a
proposal that will remodel these services to
take advantage of current rebates and
financing options, regional partnerships,
and new hardware and software
applications. GreenBiz is also undergoing
redesign through in-house staff to make
sure the program continues to serve the
community and help reduce energy and
water usage.
Work to identify behavior change
motivations for Cupertino residents to
encourage home energy and water retrofits
using Community Based Social Marketing
techniques. Once possible behaviors are
identified,staff will work to re-define current
programs. Continue to expand the number
of businesses certified in the GreenBiz
program, targeting new business tenants,
and local community daycares and pre-
schools.
In Progress August 2018 Misty Mersich
Social Media
Presence
Enhance Community Engagement through
social media tools.
Staff has implemented Trello, a
communications tool that departments can
use to request marketing support from
Communications. Staff is also utilizing paid
advertising on certain social media
platforms.
Staff continues to use data analytics to
improve communications practices
In Progress Ongoing Colleen Letire
Utility
Management
Software
Grow CAP-related data gathering and
analysis by fully developing the utility
consumption and cost accounting program
(CAP Measure M-F-3).
In June 2016, the City contracted with
Lucid Design Group to provide their utility
management software called Building,
a SaaS platform that automates utility data
entry, offers analysis tools, and produces
dashboards.
This will allow the City to improve tracking
of municipal energy and water data by
developing an system to track consumption
data by site (CAP Measure M-F-3).
Working with Lucid to create a usable
format for data reporting that allows AP
and Sustainability staff to streamline
workload
In Progress August 2018 Katy Nomura
Gun Safety Implement a gun safety ordinance in
Cupertino to reduce gun-related injuries
and crimes. Encourage residents to
participate in gun safety courses.
Staff drafted proposed language based on
Council direction and sent it to CAO for
review. Staff has also compiled research
on gun safety ordinances adopted by other
Bay Area cities.
Awaiting CAO review In Progress TBD Jaqui Guzman
Lawrence-Mitty Acquire a parcel at Lawrence Expy and
Mitty Ave to allow for the expansion of the
City's trail network and development of a
new park and trail expansion
City has reached a tentative deal with the
County and is waiting on the County to
complete negotiations with SJW.
On Hold TBD Jaqui Guzman
2017-2018 Work Program Update
22
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
City Channel
Upgrade
Technology refresh for City Channel
Control Room
Installation phase complete - currently
documenting, programming, and fine
Final pre-rollout stage Completed March 2017 Peter
Coglianese
CityWorks
Expansion
Expanding Cupertino’s GIS-centric asset
management system to include the Parks
We have completed the asset inventories
for Grounds, including all park and
Completed June 2018 Teri Gerhardt
Community Hall
AV Upgrade
Technology refresh for Community Hall
control room, Council dias and podium
Most equipment procured, dais complete Working on audiovisual equipment,
podium, and control system installation.
Completed November 2017 Peter
Coglianese
Data
Transparency
Enhance Data Transparency to staff and
public
Procured Building Eye application that
allows City Permit data to be visualized by
Building Eye Complete FY17. Completed June 2017 Teri Gerhardt
Enhance
Cybersecurity
Strengthen security for the City's computer
data, networks, and compute devices
1) Replaced email security product 2)
procured endpoint security product 3)
1) Implement endpoint security product
April 2017 2) Implement SIEM April 2017
Completed April 2017 Bill Mitchell
Fiber Network
Expansion
Extend fiber to the Service Center.The Service Center is one of the last
remaining city facilities not interconnected
by fiber optics.
IS is working with PW staff on
design/implementation
Completed January 2018 John
Raaymakers
Fuel
Management
System
Fuel Management System (FMS)
procurement, implementation and data
migration
System procured, implemented and data
migrated. Currently fixing minor issues
Final pre-rollout stage Completed March 2017 Nidhi Mathur
GIS
Enhancement
Enhance GIS data resources and
information access for employees and
community.
Replaced MapGuide (internal City-wide
mapping application) and public Property
Information application with an updated
Property Information App and Magnet.
Splitting the new Property Information
application to offer more to internal users
over what is currently available to both the
public and staff. We will be including Public
Works projects and Planning projects as
well as some additional property info fields.
Completed April 2017 Teri Gerhardt
Laserfiche Rio Provide trusted document repository with
workflow and forms capability
1) IS partnered with City Clerk to develop
requirements, review options and procure
solution
Continue work with City Clerk to implement
Rio product by July 2017
Completed July 2017 Nidhi Mathur
Network
Upgrade
Technology refresh for network server and
storage area network
Procured Simplivity hyper converged
solution.
Installation by May 2017 Completed May 2017 Bill Mitchell
Radio Cupertino
Upgrade
Upgrade the Emergency Alert Radio
Station with updated
hardware/software/backup power
Installed new hardware and battery
system.
Currently working on software
configuration.
Completed March 2017 Peter
Coglianese
Strategic Plan Implement a new Technology Plan.1) A FY2016-17 tactical work plan has
been developed and being implemented 2)
Currently working with consultant on 3 year
strategic plan
1) Continue progress on tactical plan 2)
Consultant interview staff, Council and TIC
Commission on desired strategic IT
initiatives
Completed July 2017 Bill Mitchell
Website
Redesign
Redesign of www.cupertino.org Brand new external website with the
updated backend content management
system currently used by 40 active content
editors
Continue content addition to CMS.
Complete by June 2017
Completed June 2017 Nidhi Mathur
VDI
Implementation
Implement Virtual Desktop or Virtual
Private Network software. (VDI)
VDI being replaced by VPN solution. 95% Move CAO from VDI to VPN In Progress February 2018 Benny Hsieh
3D Modeling Improve City Planning, architecture, and
design by virtual 3D visualization
Aerial mapping and LiDAR data acquired.
Currently working with ESRI on 3D
visualization. ESRI unable to meet
timeline - switched vendor to Zonar
Implement solution for Planning Division -
July 2018
In Progress July 2017 Teri Gerhardt
Information Services
2017-2018 Work Program Update
23
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
Information Services
Enhanced Cell
Coverage
Develop a strategy for improving cell
phone coverage (with PW).
1) Verizon Tower has been installed -
power still outstanding. 2) TIC
Commission reviewed RootMetric's
solution for a Cell Coverage/Capacity
Study.
1) Power applied to Verizon Tower 2)
Discussion with ATT on colocating on
Verizon tower 3) TIC Commission review
at least one more solution for cell
coverage/capacity study
In Progress July 2017 Chad Mosely
Land
Management
System
Implement "paperless" permit application
land management system (LMS).
Paperless permit process for land
management implemented in January
2016. Current LMS (Magnet) determined
not be be best fit to fill existing and future
needs for system updates. Currently
reviewing two other LMS solutions.
Implementation of updated LMS system
expected to be completed in FY2017-18
In Progress June 2018 Bill Mitchell
Local Area
Network
Upgrade
Upgrade existing network architecture with
advanced solution.
Performed network discovery and currently
reviewing vendor solutions
Procure in FY2016-17 - Complete
implementation in FY2017-18
In Progress May 2018 Benny Hsieh
WAN Upgrade Review existing telecom circuits and
modify as necessary
Defined preferred design and soliciting bids
from vendors to enhance service yet at a
reduced price. WAN links to CAO, BBF,
McCellan Ranch upgraded to 100MB
circuit. Monte Vista School in permittting
for Comcast service.
Implement new design by July 2018 In Progress March 2018 Benny Hsieh
PerfectMind Replace disparate recreation applications
with one solution which provides enhanced
functions
Contract Cancelled. ActiveNet implementation - go live
November 2018
Cancelled December 2017 Nidhi Mathur
2017-2018 Work Program Update
24
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
Single Story
Overlay
Develop regulations to allow the
establishment of single story overlay zones
in R1 zoning districts.
Council directed staff to initiate the project
in June 2016. Outreach meeting
conducted. Draft regulations currently in
development. Ordinance amendments
adopted in May 2017.
City Council approved the new regulations
in May 2017.
Completed May 2017 Erick Serrano
Non-Medical
Marijuana
Establish regulations regarding non-
medical marijuana use, distribution,
delivery, cultivation and commercial
activities.
Regular ordinance adopted in December
2018.
Council adopted the amendments in
December 2017
Completed December 2017 Piu Ghosh
Economic
Development
Website
Streamline city web content for new
businesses. Develop an integrated
approach for outreach and marketing to
brokers, business owners, and others as a
center for innovation and the heart of
Silicon Valley.
Valuable content and links on existing site.Will continue to assess the needs of
businesses and add helpful resources.
Work with the City's Public
Affairs/Communications team to redesign
the Economic Development webpages
within the Citywide website enhancement.
In Progress Summer/Fall 2018 Angela Tsui
EDSP
Implementation
Consider policies and related Code and
Specific Plan amendments to implement
policies in the Economic Development
Strategic Plan.
EDSP adopted by City Council in late
2016. Identified several policies for forward-
looking economic development including:1.
Consider allowing incubator/co-working
uses to replace retail on sites that have
underperforming retail and meet specific
criteria. 2. Consider creating office
allocation in the General Plan specifically
for mid-to-small size companies. 3. Identify
and develop regulations for an
Innovation/Arts district in the City. 4.
Create a policy to allow mobile uses
(including food trucks) in the City. This
could include identifying areas where such
uses could be allowed.
Develop work program and budget
(completed). Consultants chosen and
proceeding with work, including site
assessments and stakeholder meetings.
In Progress Late Summer/Fall
2018
Angela Tsui
Small Business
Dev. Center
Explore the viability of establishing a small
business development center within the
City of Cupertino.
This is an action item in the EDSP as a
resource to retain and grow small and
midsize businesses.
Continue to explore opportunities.In Progress TBD Angela Tsui
Small Business
Saturday
Celebration
Promote shopping and dining locally as
part of the American Express Small
Business Saturday campaign. A
community celebration will be held on the
Saturday after Thanksgiving.
Work with commercial property owners to
identify a suitable venue for the event to be
held from 11:00am-3:00pm.
Continue annually In Progress Fall 2018 Angela Tsui
Small Business
Workshops and
Events
Sponsor and host workshops and events
for local small businesses.
Working with the Chamber, Cupertino
Library, and Silicon Valley SBDC to identify
collaboration opportunities to combine
resources.
Drafting list of events.In Progress Ongoing Angela Tsui
Cupertino
Business Buzz e-
Newsletter
Publish quarterly newsletter to include
helpful business resources and news
updates.
Ongoing.Ongoing.In Progress Ongoing Angela Tsui
Planning and Community Development
2017-2018 Work Program Update
25
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
Planning and Community Development
Housing and
Human Services
Grant Funding
Issuance of Annual Notice of Funds
Available (NOFA) / Request for Proposals
(RFP).
FY 18/19 NOFA/RFP issued in December,
2017 with a deadline of February, 2018.
Award funds to eligible grantees.In Progress Spring 2018 Kerri Heusler
Housing Activity
Reporting
Complete required housing activity
reporting.
CA Housing and Community Development
Annual Performance Report in progress
(due April 1). CA Department of Finance
Housing Unit Survey completed January,
2018
Complete annually.In Progress Spring 2018 Kerri Heusler
BMR Rental and
Ownership
Program
Create annual waitlist for BMR rental and
ownership units.
Continue to provide information and
resources to the public.
BMR workshop scheduled for September,
2018. BMR waitlist opens in October, 2018.
In Progress December 2018 Kerri Heusler
Teacher
Housing
Evaluate a “Teacher Housing” project in
partnership with a non profit developer try
to identify and develop surplus school
property as a teacher housing project.
In March 2016, the Planning Commission
recommended adding a goal of providing
100 senior or "teacher" housing units per
year for the next five years and/or provide
incentive and priority for Cupertino
residents. The priority system was
implemented as part of the BMR
Administrative Manual update in
September 2016.
Continue to explore opportunities in
collaboration with the school districts
In Progress TBD Kerri Heusler
Public
Document E-
Library
Create a digital on-line library of current
and historical Planning, Building and Public
Works documents.
Document digitization ongoing. 39%
increase in online documents YTD over
FY2016-17. Public Works has a 41%
increase in online documents YTD over
FY2016-17.
Continue process until all documents are
digitized
In Progress 2019 Ari Lattanzi
Apple Campus 2 Apple Campus 2 Development Project.Visitor center opened in November 2017.Phased cccupancy for main building
continues. Ancillary buildings expected to
be completed by 2018.
In Progress 2018 Catarina Kidd
Marina Plaza Marina Plaza Mixed Use Development
Project (188 units, 23Ksf retail, 122 room
hotel). (Housing Element site)
Project approved in September 2016 with a
Development Agreement (5 years).
Applicant is delaying project to 2nd quarter
of 2018.
In Progress 2020 Erick Serrano
Charities
Housing
Develop an 18-unit low income senior
housing project and one manager's unit for
total of 19-unit project
Project approved in 2017. Applicant
received Measure A funding from the
County of Santa Clara
Applicant is securing other funding and has
applied for building permits.
In Progress Winter 2019 Gian Martire
Cupertino
Village Hotel
Construct a new 165-room hotel that needs
general plan amendments, which was
authorized to submit formal applications for
general plan amendments, in August 2018,
by the City Council.
Applicant has submitted formal
applications in December 2017 and the
plans are under review.
Environmental and project review ongoing.
Expected to be be presented for Planning
Commission and City Council review in
Winter 2018.
In Progress Winter 2018 Erick Serrano
Hamptons Hamptons Apartments Development
Project. 942 units. (Housing Element site)
Approved in June 2016 with a
Development Agreement (10 year term).
Applicant has delayed project by 18
months.
In Progress TBD Catarina Kidd
2017-2018 Work Program Update
26
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
Planning and Community Development
Hotel on
Goodyear Tire
site
Construct a new 156-room, five-story hotel,
with conference space and restaurant at
the Good Year Tire site which needs
general plan amendments and was
authorized to submit formal applications for
general plan amendments by the City
Council in August 2018.
GPAAuth-2017-01 was approved by
Council at its August 1, 2017 meeting.
Applicant expected to make an application
for General Plan Amendments and
development approval by Spring 2018.
In Progress Gian Martire
Main Street Main Street Development Project (130Ksf
retail, 260Ksf office, 180 room hotel, 120
apartments + public park)
Hotel, Park and Loft apartments under
construction. All other components
complete.
Hotel has been completed with the
conference and restaurant portions to be
finalized in Spring 2018. The
Lofts apartment project will be completed
by Spring of 2018.
In Progress June 2018 Gian Martire
The Forum Construct 25 new independent living villas
and an ~39,000-square-foot memory care
building with 26 beds, add 10 new beds to
the existing skilled nursing facility, and
renovate/add ~27,000 square feet to
shared facilities (dining, fitness and multi-
purpose room).
Draft EIR was circulated to the public in
December 2017.
Planning Commission and City Council
public hearings are expected in February
and March of 2018, respectively.
In Progress Spring 2018 Catarina Kidd
Vallco Vallco Special Area Specific Plan (Housing
Element site)
Authorization to execute contracts for
specific plan and EIR consultants was
approved by Council at its November 21,
2017 meeting, followed by consultant
public presentation on December 19, 2017.
Community outreach has begun and will be
ongoing throughout 2018. EIR background
work has commenced.
In Progress Fall 2018 Catarina
Kidd/Piu Ghosh
General Plan
Authorization
Implement General Plan Authorization
Process
Three projects received for the first cycle of
2018 - Good Year Tire site (hotel),
Cupertino Village (hotel) and Oaks
Shopping Center (Westport mixed use
alternatives).
Council authorized the two hotels and did
not authorize the proposed alternatives at
the Oaks. A revised project was withdrawn.
Process General Plan Authorization
applications as received. The deadline for
accepting applications for the 2018 Second
Cycle is May 14, 2018 with the Council
meeting anticipated in late Summer/early
Fall.
Ongoing Ongoing Piu Ghosh
Front Counter Improve public access to planning &
project update information and promote
existing tools
Planners present at Creekside Farmers
Market in summer and fall 2017 as a pilot
program and will return on a monthly basis
starting in February 2018.
Continue to explore outreach tools, website
improvements and increase e-
subscriptions
Ongoing Ongoing Catarina Kidd
2017-2018 Work Program Update
27
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
Planning and Community Development
Heart of the City
Plan
Amend the Heart of the City Specific Plan
to:
a. Amend the street tree list to allow
alternative trees of a larger canopy and
defer the tree type to the city arborist
(Public Works)
b. Clarify the minimum street side setback
requirements
(a) recommended by Planning Commission
in March 2016. (b) Requested by City
Council
To be reviewed with future update of Heart
of the City Specific Plan. Project will be
initiated in FY2018-19.
Project
Approved
TBD TBD
Conceptual
Plans
Convert Conceptual Plans to digital format
(North De Anza and South De Anza).
Project delayed due to staffing need.Project will be initiated in FY2017-18.
FY2019-2020.
On Hold Piu Ghosh
Parking
Incentive
Explore parking incentives for projects
providing more than the required electric
vehicle parking, charging stations and
alternative transportation methods.
Recommended by Planning Commission in
March 2016.
To be reviewed along with any future
update of the parking ordinance.
Project
Approved
TBD TBD
Penalties for
violation of
Conditions of
Approval
Consider increasing maximum penalty of
$100K for violations of conditions of
approval.
Requested by Councilmember.Issue will be reviewed with related
municipal code updates.
Project
Approved
TBD Phillip Wilkomm
Restaurant
outdoor seating
Update the General Commercial (CG)
Ordinance to remove restriction and/or
streamline process for allowing outdoor
seating that exceeds 20% of indoor
seating.
Recommended by Planning Commission in
March 2016.
To be reviewed in conjunction with any
future update to the General Commercial
(CG) ordinance.
Project
Approved
TBD TBD
Public Art in
Developments
Review and consider amending the
$100,000 maximum for Public Art in
Developments.
In 2016 the FAC requested that this project
be added to the upcoming work program.
Project will be initiated in Summer 2018 Project
Approved
Winter 2018 Catarina Kidd
2017-2018 Work Program Update
28
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
Event/Festival
Coordination
Improve coordination of events/festivals to
ensure success.
Developed special event application,
prepared a more comprehensive City
events calendar and evaluated and
made changes to fee schedule.
Developed exclusive use permit for events.
None Completed December 2017 Mariah Dabel
Community
Outreach
Increase marketing and community
outreach using Block Leader Program to
provide "grass roots" notification to
residents for Recreation and other City
programs. Increase use of social media
marketing.
Over 6,000 residents use NextDoor and
Neighborhood Watch Coordinator provides
regular updates via NextDoor and Yahoo
eCAP group. Block Leaders were tapped to
provide feedback for the Recreation
Master Plan as well as the Parklet pilot
program. The department hired social
media expert in limited-term two-year
position.
Staff recommending a permanent social
media/marketing specialist in the 2018/19
budget process
In Progress June 2018 Mariah Dabel
Community
Swimming Pool
Study
Determine community support for a year-
around aquatics facility
Survey data from the Parks & Recreation
System Master Plan has demonstrated the
long term desire for additional aquatics
facilities. The Master Plan may
recommend an additional aquatic facility.
Incorporate into the Parks & Recreation
System Master Plan
In Progress October, 2018 Gail Seeds and
Jeff Milkes
Accreditation of
the RCS Dept
National accreditation by the Commission
for Accreditation of Park and Recreation
Agencies to assure policy makers,
staff, Cupertino community members and
taxpayers that the parks and recreation
agency has been independently evaluated
against established benchmarks as
delivering a high level of quality of service.
The city has been accepted as a candidate
for national accreditation in 2019. A
committee of front line, supervisors and
managers are addressing each of the
standards. All Recreation and Community
Services full time staff have been trained in
the process. The Department is on
schedule to be reviewed in early 2019 and
accredited in October, 2019.
Complete Self Evaluation addressing the
151 steps. This also requires a public
invovement plan, marketing plan, risk
assessment plan, and a review of all
department policies
In Progress October, 2019 Jeff Milkes
Lawrence-Mitty
Park
Plan and Design Lawrence-Mitty property
for park use, subject to City acquisition
Pending City acquisition. Public
involvement, tours, etc.
Depends of acquisition.In Progress TBD Gail Seeds and
Jeff Milkes
Recreation and Community Services
2017-2018 Work Program Update
29
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
Recreation and Community Services
Citywide Park
Master Plan
Create a 20+ year community-driven vision
plan to best meet current and future parks,
open space & recreation needs, through
establishing goals & priorities and building
upon, enhancing or expanding
infrastructure & programs.
Council authorized consultant contract Jan.
2017. Program schedule developed
February 2017. Consultant and staff have
evaluated existing park and recreation
system, formed advisory group, develop
vision & goals, identified prioritization
criteria and identified gaps in service.
Community outreach explored best use of
existing & future park spaces to identify
needs for different events, activities, cricket
pitch, etc. The plan is within budget to
come before council in fall, 2018 for
adoption.
Upcoming council and Parks & Recreation
Commission study session. Public Input,
workshops, project list, scope, costs, etc.
In Progress October 2018 Gail Seeds
Replace
Recreation
Software
Investigate and replace the recreation
registration software with a cloud based
software version to be accessed at any
City facility.
The PerfectMind contract was cancelled
and a new agreement with Active Net has
been negotiated. This system will provide
community members real time
opportunities to register for activities and
classes at the Sports Center, Quinlan
Community Center and the Senior Center.
Implementation takes place in March. The
project is on schedule to be up and running
in a live environement in November, 2018.
In Progress November 2018 Mariah Dabel
Partnerships Explore potential of partnerships with the
Library, YMCA, Rotary and other groups to
enhance/expand programs.
Initial outreach meetings started in
2/15. Library Staff and City Staff met
several times in 2016 and 2017 to discuss
facility usage guidelines for Community
Hall as well as program partnership
opportunities. Recreation & Library
partnered to bring library programs to
Memorial Park in summer 2017 with four
children's performers at the Amphitheatre.
Continue discussions with YMCA, West
Valley Community Services, etc.
In Progress Ongoing Christine Hanel
Blacksmith Shop Prepare for the grand
opening/programming of the Blacksmith
Shop.
The forge was installed and additional
exhaust work needs to be completed.
Complete physical installation In Progress May 2018 Kim Calame
Disaster Council Increase participation from other City
departments
The entire Emergency Management
process has been reviewed by the City's
Emergency Services
Coordinator. Emergency Services
Coordinator focused on readiness and
Emergency Management.
Emergency Services Coordinator to
reinvigorate the process .
In Progress April 2018 Clare
Francavilla
Disaster Council Identify local stakeholders and encourage
them to participate in Disaster Council.
Have been gathering input/feedback Emergency Services Coordinator to
reinvigorate the process and council.
In Progress April 2018 Clare
Francavilla
2017-2018 Work Program Update
30
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
Recreation and Community Services
Office of OES Explore options for enhanced Emergency
Services in Cupertino
Emergency Services Coordinator position
created and filled. Planning, training and a
two year work plane created to implement
the city's Emergency Management
Program.
Hazard Mitigation Plan to be presented to
council for adoption in Spring, 2018. A
state of readiness evaluation as well as a
continity of government plan is under
development expected to be completed in
Spring, 2018.
In Progress June 2018 Clare
Francavilla
Creek Corridor
Master Plan
Develop a master plan for lands along
Stevens Creek from Stevens Creek Blvd.
to McClellan Road (includes Stockmeir
Ranch, BBF Golf Course, BBF Park and
picnic-swim areas, McClellan Ranch
Preserve, McClellan Ranch West)
Community Outreach complete. 3 concepts
were presented to the P&R Commission &
City Council. A preferred concept was
presented to P&R Commission in March
2016 & to City Council April 2016.
Coordinate next steps with progress on
the Parks & Recreation System Master
Plan to allow choices for Stevens Creek
Corridor to be coordinated with city wide
needs and goals.
On Hold TBD Gail Seeds
Restore
Stocklmeir
Ranch
Continue to restore the Stocklmeir Ranch Parks and Recreation Commission
reviewed on 2/2/17 to consider renovations
to the Stocklmeir house by the Rotary
Club, with the intent of the building being
utilized for non-profit meeting space.
The City and Rotary were unable to reach
agreement and the project is on hold.
On Hold TBD Jeff Milkes
BBF Splash Pad Install a splash pad at Blackberry Farm
pool area. (see also in Public Works tab)
None On hold pending completion of the Corridor
Master Plan.
On Hold TBD Gail Seeds
2017-2018 Work Program Update
31
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
OpenGov
Budget Builder
OpenGov Budget Builder beta program.
Department directors and staff will submit
proposals and narratives in OpenGov,
manage approvals and comments online,
and create a consolidated view of the
budget.
City used the Budget Builder for the 2016-
17 First Quarter and Mid-Year Reports and
the FY 2017-18 Proposed Budget. We will
be using the Budget Builder for the FY
2018-19 Proposed Budget as well.
Staff has been continuing to meet with
OpenGov to discuss the software and
collaborate on possible enhancements.
In Progress June 2018 Thomas Leung
OpenGov
Transparency
OpenGov Platform to increase budgetary
transparency and public engagement.
City automated the posting of financial data
after monthly closes to have close to real
time financial data for continued
transparency and public engagement.
Staff has been continuing to meet with
OpenGov to discuss the software and
collaborate on possible enhancements.
In Progress June 2018 Thomas Leung
NeoGov Simplify and streamline the City's hiring
process and consolidate job description,
salary and benefit information.
This is a new project that is anticipated to
be completely rolled out in FY2018-19
Implementation of new software by
September 2018. Phase 1, Applicant
Tracking, Phase 2, Onboarding
In Progress September 2018 Laura
Miyakawa and
Thomas Leung
CAFR Builder To increase the efficiency as well as the
internal and external transparency of the
City's financial reporting.
This is a new project that is anticipated to
be implemented and fully utilized in
FY2018-19.
Implementation of new software and
training/testing
In Progress July 2018 Beth Viajar and
Zach Korach
Staff Training Allow for a well trained staff in all areas of
Administrative Service including but not
limited to, Human Resources, Finance,
ERP and Budget.
Attended New World Systems (NWS)/
Tyler Technologies trainings on FM and
HR modules, attend online trainings. Sent
Administrative Services, Departmental and
Technical staff to annual Tyler conference.
HR Staff attended annual HR Conference
and Finance and other administrative
services has attended other GFOA and
CSMFO trainings.
Continued staff training and development
through webinars and training through
CalPERS, the Government Finance
Officers Association (GFOA), NWS/Tyler,
and CalPelra that will increase staff
knowledge and skills in order to enhance
customer service for the community.
In Progress Ongoing Kristina Alfaro
and Zach
Korach
Employee
Engagement
Measure employee's engagement level
and sustain and or increase that level of
engagement
This is a new project that is anticipated to
be rolled out in FY 2018-2019
On hold On Hold July 2019 Kristina Alfaro
and Karen
Bernard-Guerin
HR Portal
Enhancement
Explore and implement the Leave Request
portion of the City's HR Portal
This is a new project that is anticipated to
be rolled out in FY2018-19
HR Staff to receive training and set up the
Leave Request portion of the site
Project Approved June 2018 Karen Bernard-
Guerin and
Thomas Leung
Laserfiche
Integration
As part of a citywide laserfiche integrations,
the Human Resources division will move to
electronic employee files. The Finance
Division will move all financial data
documents to laserfiche.
This is a new project that is anticipated to
be rolled out in FY 2018-2019
Citywide kickoff and development of a
laserfiche committee
Project Approved January 2019 Zach Korach
and Maria
Jimenez
Administrative Services
2017-2018 Work Program Update
32
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
Develop strategy to advance sidewalk
improvements and right of way acquisition
ahead of development.
Reimbursement ordinance amended.
Neighborhood meetings expected to occur
2016.
Completed February 2016 David Stillman
Consider Safe Routes to School and other
funding sources.
Completed May 2016 David Stillman
Complete a Safe Routes to Schools map
noting sidewalk gaps
Alta study is underway.Completed May 2016 David Stillman
Update Pedestrian Transportation Plan Hired Toole Design Group to complete
plan. Work began in February 2017.
Completed 2/20/18 In Progress Complete David Stillman
Regnart Road –
analysis of
maintenance
responsibilities
1) Research and determine adjacent
property owner and City maintenance
responsibilities; and
2) Receive owner input and educate
regarding responsibilities; and
3) Complete City work.
Drainage evaluation complete.Obtain land use general counsel, review
findings and conduct public meeting(s).
Investigative work and meeting with
owners complete by summer 2018.
Corrective work completed FY18/19.
In Progress June 2019 Chad
Mosley/Roger
Lee
Wireless Master
Plan
Update the City's Wireless Master Plan Begin work in Winter of 2018 In Progress Fall 2018 Chad Mosley
EOC
Alternatives
Develop an alternative for an Emergency
Operations Center at a facility other than
City Hall in conjunction with Service Center
Admin Building Feasibility Study
Identify potential annex to Service Center Staff will present alternative EOC as a
potential CIP for FY2017-18 - see above.
Coordinate meeting and tour of Service
Center facility with Disaster Council
In Progress May 2017 Alex Acenas
Pavement
Management
Implement programs to preserve and
enhance pavement condition throughout
the City.
Approval of recommended funding over
the last several fiscal years has increased
the overall pavement condition index of the
street network to 80 out of a possible 100.
Annual funding request of $4M is
anticipated to achieve and maintain a
pavement condition of 82 PCI.
In Progress Ongoing Roger Lee
The Forum The Forum Redevelopment and
construction of new villas.
Coordinate and assist Community
Development with the planning
process. Permitting of construction
plans and ongoing construction
monitoring and coordination.
In Progress Summer 2019 Chad Mosley
Vallco Vallco Development Project and Vallco
Shopping District Specific Plan.
Coordinate and assist Community
Development with processing of the project
EIR and Specific Plan Documents.
In Progress Fall 2018 Chad Mosley
Traffic Impact
Fee Program
The Mobility Element of the General Plan,
Policy M-10.1 and M-10.2 directs staff to
develop and implement a citywide
transportation improvement plan and to
enact a transportation impact fee for new
development.
Funding approved.Completed fall 2017.Scheduled Complete David Stillman
Lease Agmt. for
Library Bldg
Negotiate new lease agreement with
County of Santa Clara for new library
building
Current agreement expires December
2019
Pending commencement of negotiations in
FY2017-18
Project Approved June 2018 Roger Lee
Public Works
Ped.
Transportation
Plan
2017-2018 Work Program Update
33
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
Public Works
Local Transit Address local transit needs for schools and
seniors
New project FY2017-18 Proposing limited term Transit Planner in
FY2017-18. This position will work with
VTA and local groups on current needs
and issues, including Ride-Sharing
programs, as well as coordinate with other
cities for potential ballot measures. This
position would also work on solutions for
corporate buses.
Project Approved TBD
Municipal Water
System
Ensure lessee (San Jose Water Co.) is
maintaining and operating system to
industry standard.
City directed audit of system was
completed in December 2016. Consultants
are being solicited to complete an asset
management plan and system valuation.
Staff is negotiating with San Jose Water
Co. to define system improvements for
remaining term of lease and to
establish/implement an asset management
plan. Current lease agreement expires
2022.
Project Approved December 2018 Roger Lee
Public Bldg
Condition
Assess.
Determine priority assessment of buildings
for future improvements.
Consultant selected and work began in
February 2018. City Hall is priority facility.
Coordinate with consultant site inspections
and facility use surveys.
In Progress September 2018 Roger Lee
Storm Water
Funding Ballot
Increase funding of storm water pollution
prevention to cost recovery.
None. Increase requires 2/3 majority vote.Evaluate Godbe survey findings, learn from
success of Palo Alto and determine
feasibility of proceeding with ballot
initiative.
Project Approved TBD Roger Lee
Civic Center
Improvements
Design and Construct improvements at
the civic center to (1) address building and
operational deficiencies at City Hall, (2)
add parking to the site, and (3) add a
community room at the Library.
On 2/20/18, Council to consider moving
forward with conceptual design reduced
scope alternative to perferred alternative
from 2015 Master Plan.
In Progress TBD Michael
Zimmermann
2017-2018 Work Program Update
34
Project Title Project Objective Progress to Date Next Steps Current Status Completion Date Staff Lead
Foothill/Cupertino Road Storm Drain All improvements completed.Close out project.Completed Completed John
Raaymakers
Monta Vista area sidewalk improvement
projects:
1-Pasadena Ave. Public Improvements
2- McClellan Rd. Sidewalk Improvement-
Ph. 2
3- Orange & Byrne Sidewalk
Improvements
Pasadena project is complete.
McClellan project is in design phase and
communication with impacted residents
has begun.
Further discussion with residents and
property owners impacted by McClellan
project. Development of construction
contract documents for McClellan.
In Progress John
Raaymakers
Fiber Optic at Service Center: Extend fiber
optic communications to the City Service
Center on Mary Ave.
Project is included in FY2016-17 CIP.
Consultant selection is underway.
Initiate design and develop construction
contract documents for bidding. Anticipate
construction in fall 2017. Complete
In Progress Complete John
Raaymakers
McClellan Ranch West-Green Parking Install durable pervious surface - meadow-
esque, for supplemental parking capacity
for staff and park users. Planning and
design began in spring 2016.
Anticipate summer-fall 2017 construction,
upon appropriation of additional funds for
construction. Delayed due to redesign and
raptor nesting season
In Progress Fall 2018 Alex Acenas
Storm Drain Master Plan Update Survey of existing system and data
collection is complete.
Anticipate start of master plan calculations
in summer 2017 with goal of completion by
end of CY 2017.
In Progress April 2018 Chad Mosley
City Bridge Maintenance Repairs Routine periodic repairs to six bridges.
Partially grant funded. Agreement with
grantor and selection of consultants is
complete.
Preliminary design and environmental
clearance process. Anticipate construction
over spring/summer 2018.
In Progress October 2018 John
Raaymakers
Retaining Wall Repair/Replacements at
Cordova & Regnart Rds.
Background research and
design/engineering work is has started.
Develop construction contract documents.
Anticipate construction complete prior to
start of 2017 rainy season.
In Progress December 2017 John
Raaymakers
Recreation Facilities Monument Signs Replace failing monument signs at 5
facilities with new signs consistent with
approved signage convention.
Initiate project spring 2017 Scheduled Summer 2018 Michael
Zimmermann
Storm Drain Improvements-Byrne &
Stevens Creek Blvd.
Scheduled in 5-year CIP Proposed 2018 project. Project deleted
from CIP due to lower priority in draft Storm
Drain Master Plan.
Scheduled TBD Michael
Zimmermann
Blackberry Farm-Splash Pad Subject to the outcome of the Stevens
Creek Corridor Master Plan.
Subject to the outcome of the Stevens
Creek Corridor Master Plan.
On Hold
Public Works
CIP Projects
2017-2018 Work Program Update
35
At the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on February 13, 2018, the
Commission discussed the upcoming fiscal year 2018-2019 work program. The
Commission expressed the need for civility, communication, collaboration, and
consensus. As a result, the Commission approved a motion to recommend for the
consideration of the City Council additional projects to be included in the upcoming
fiscal year work program. The projects include the following items:
1. Conduct study sessions/forums on the following topics:
- Introduction to form-based codes/design;
- State of traffic conditions in Cupertino and how traffic is measured +
Transition from LOS to VMT;
- Update and summary of State Housing bills.
2. Reconsider and reassess the City’s allocation system and process.
3. Reevaluate the Heart of the City plan and objectives to be consistent with the rest
of the city, state and local planning and design trends.
4. Introduce a higher design threshold to promote complete streets, connectivity of
new developments, and compliance to the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
5. Consider the installation of parking meters as a design tool for parking and
traffic control and alleviation.
To: David Brandt, City Manager
From: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Date: February 14, 2018
Re: Proposed Planning Commission Work Program FY2018-19
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
36
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:117-3298 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/13/2017 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/20/2018 2/20/2018
Title:Subject: Approve the February 6 City Council minutes
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
AcceptedCity Council2/20/2018 1
Subject: Approve the February 6 City Council minutes
Approve the February 6 City Council minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™37
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Darcy Paul called the Regular City Council meeting to order in the Cupertino
Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Darcy Paul, Vice Mayor Rod Sinks, and Councilmembers Barry Chang, Steven
Scharf, and Savita Vaidhyanathan. Absent: None.
Mayor Paul reordered the agenda to take up item number three (3) under Ceremonial Matters and
Presentations.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
3. Subject: Commendations for 2018 Cupertino Spelling Bee Winners
Recommended Action: Present certificates to the 2018 Cupertino Spelling Bee Winners
Mayor Paul presented certificates to the 2018 Cupertino Spelling Bee winners.
Mayor Paul continued the agenda with item number one (1) under Study Session.
STUDY SESSION
1. Subject: Provide update regarding status of Bicycle Boulevard Project Implementation
Recommended Action: Receive update regarding status of Bicycle Boulevard Project
Implementation
Written communications for this item included an email to Council and staff presentation.
Transportation Manager David Stillman reviewed the staff report.
38
City Council Minutes February 6, 2018
Mayor Paul opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Geoff Paulsen (Cupertino resident)
Jennifer Shearin (Cupertino resident) on behalf of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
Byron Rovague (Cupertino resident) on behalf of Walk Bike Cupertino
Jennifer Griffin
Pete Heller (Cupertino resident) on behalf of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
Connie Cunningham (Cupertino resident)
Peggy Griffin
Mayor Paul closed public comment.
Council received the update regarding the status of the Bicycle Boulevard Project
Implementation.
Mayor Paul reordered the agenda to take up item number four (4) under Ceremonial Matters and
Presentations.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS - Continued
4. Subject: Present awards for the 2017 Young, Emerging, and Distinguished Artists
Recommended Action: Present awards for the 2017 Young, Emerging, and Distinguished
Artists
Written Communications for this item included a presentation.
In conjunction with members of the Cupertino Fine Arts Commission, Mayor Paul
presented awards for the 2017 Young, Emerging, and Distinguished Artists.
Mayor Paul continued the agenda with item number two (2) under Study Session.
STUDY SESSION – Continued
2. Subject: Study Session regarding short-term rental compliance
Recommended Action: Provide direction on regulation and enforcement of short-term
rentals in Cupertino.
Written Communications for this item included a staff presentation.
39
City Council Minutes February 6, 2018
Deputy City Manager Jaqui Guzman reviewed the staff report.
Mayor Paul opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Jennifer Griffin
Rhoda Fry
Tara Sreekrishnan (Cupertino resident)
Mayor Paul closed public comment.
Council concurred to direct staff to move forward with an ordinance regulating
enforcement of short-term rentals in Cupertino including possible agreement with Airbnb,
adjusting number of guests and type of home rental, limiting number of nights allowed, etc.
Mayor Paul continued the agenda with item number five (5) under Ceremonial Matters and
Presentations.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS - Continued
5. Subject: Present proclamation recognizing David Stillman, Transportation Manager, for his
efforts in earning a Gold Level Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) award for the City of
Cupertino by the League of American Bicyclists
Recommended Action: Present proclamation recognizing David Stillman, Transportation
Manager, for his efforts in earning a Gold Level Bicycle F riendly Community (BFC) award
for the City of Cupertino by the League of American Bicyclists
Mayor Paul presented a proclamation recognizing David Stillman, Transportation
Manager, for his efforts in earning a Gold Level Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) a ward
for the City of Cupertino by the League of American Bicyclists.
POSTPONEMENTS - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Richard Adler (Cupertino resident) talked about SB100 regarding renewal energy.
Tara Sreekrishnan (Cupertino resident) talked about SB100 regarding renewal energy.
Jennifer Griffin talked about retail shopping in Cupertino.
40
City Council Minutes February 6, 2018
Richard McMurtry (Los Gatos resident) on behalf of Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition talked
about fish migration (distributed written comments).
Alan Ross (Santa Clara resident) on behalf of Friends of Stevens Creek Trail talked about trails,
wildlife corridor, and Stevens Creek fish passage.
Eric Schaefer (Cupertino resident) talked about Nextdoor (distributed written comments).
Connie Cunningham (Cupertino resident) talked about the recent Vallco Special Area Specific
Plan meeting and affordable housing in Cupertino.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chang moved and Scharf seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented.
Ayes: Paul, Sinks, Chang, Scharf, and Vaidhyanathan. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent:
None.
6. Subject: Approve the January 16 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the January 16 City Council minutes
7. Subject: Approve the January 22 City Council minutes (Commission Interviews)
Recommended Action: Approve the January 22 City Council minutes (Commission
Interviews)
8. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending November 22, 2017
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 18-009 accepting Accounts Payable for the
period ending November 22, 2017
9. Subject: Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter Ending December, 2017
Recommended Action: Accept the Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter Ending
December, 2017
10. Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Haidilao Restaurant Group, Inc. (dba
Haidilao Hot Pot), 19409 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 100
Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control of the application for Haidilao Restaurant Group, Inc. (dba Haidilao Hot
Pot), 19409 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 100
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES – None
41
City Council Minutes February 6, 2018
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
11. Subject: Ordinance to amend regulations in Title 2, Administration and Personnel of the
Municipal Code Chapter 2.80, to allow up to six (6) members for the Fine Arts Commission.
Recommended Action: That the City Council conduct the first reading of Ordinance
No. 18-2171: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending
regulations in Title 2, Administration and Personnel of the Municipal Code Chapter 2.80, to
allow up to six (6) members for the Fine Arts Commission."
Senior Planner Catarina Kidd reviewed the staff report.
City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance.
Chang moved and Scharf seconded to read Ordinance No. 18-2171 by title only and that
the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Paul, Sinks,
Chang, Scharf, and Vaidhyanathan. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
12. Subject: Legislative Advocacy Policy and 2018 Legislative Platform
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 18-010 establishing a Policy for Legislative
Advocacy and adopt the City’s proposed 2018 Legislative Platform
Deputy City Manager Jaqui Guzman reviewed the staff report.
Mayor Paul opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Jennifer Griffin
Mayor Paul closed public comment.
Sinks moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 18-010 establishing a Policy for
Legislative Advocacy and adopt the City’s proposed 2018 Legislative Platform with an
amendment to explicitly include protection for Community Choice Energy at all regulatory
bodies. The motion carried unanimously.
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
13. Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
42
City Council Minutes February 6, 2018
City Manager David Brandt noted the following dates regarding the Vallco Specific Plan:
Feb 5 - first public workshop was held
Feb 22 - EIR scoping meeting
Mar 13 – meeting regarding existing issues and conditions at Vallco site
Apr 9 - first 4-day design charrette program which will include presentations and
open house for the public
Apr 24 - open house for consultants to publish results of charrette and possible
options
May 21 - second 4-day design charrette where public can weigh-in on different
options
Late Summer - Planning Commission and City Council meetings
Councilmembers highlighted the activities of their committees and various community
events.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:57 p.m., Mayor Paul adjourned the meeting.
________________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
43
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-3602 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/31/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/20/2018 2/20/2018
Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 12, 2018
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
AdoptedCity Council2/20/2018 1
Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 12, 2018
Adopt Resolution No. 18-011 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending January 12,
2018
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™44
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN
THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED
FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING
January 12, 2018
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: _____________________________
Zach Korach, Finance Manager
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino this 20th day of February, 2018, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ __________________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Darcy Paul, Mayor, City of Cupertino
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-3603 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/31/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/20/2018 2/20/2018
Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 19, 2018
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
AdoptedCity Council2/20/2018 1
Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 19, 2018
Adopt Resolution No. 18-012 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending January 19,
2018
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™74
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN
THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED
FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING
January 19, 2018
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: _____________________________
Zach Korach, Finance Manager
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino this 20th day of February, 2018, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ _________________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Darcy Paul, Mayor, City of Cupertino
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-3511 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Approved
File created:In control:1/8/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/20/2018 2/20/2018
Title:Subject: Second Amendment to the Funding Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Amendment
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
ApprovedCity Council2/20/2018 1
Subject: Second Amendment to the Funding Agreement between the City of Cupertino and
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange
Improvements Project
Authorize the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the Funding Agreement with
VTA to identify their respective obligations in regard to the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange
Improvements Project.
Approve a budget appropriation in the amount of $260,000 in Fund 100-88-844 900-964 for the
Second Amendment to the Funding Agreement between the City of Cupertino and VTA for the
I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™84
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 20, 2018
Subject
Second Amendment to the Funding Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the I-280/Wolfe Road
Interchange Improvements Project
Recommended Action
Authorize the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the Funding
Agreement with VTA to identify their respective obligations in regard to the I -
280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project (the “Project”).
Approve a budget appropriation in the amount of $260,000 in Fund 100-88-844 900-964
for the Second Amendment to the Funding Agreement between the City of Cupertino
and VTA for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project.
Background
In anticipation of increasing traffic demands and the need for enhanced multi-modal
connectivity along Wolfe Road across I-280, in 2017 VTA completed a Project Study
Report/Project Initiation Document (PSR/PID) for the purpose of identifying
alternatives for a new interchange on Wolfe Road at I-280. Following completion of the
PSR/PID, VTA initiated and is in the process of completing the Project
Approval/Environmental Document (PAED), with the goal being final Plans,
Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) and ultimately construction of a new interchange.
In the absence of funding constraints, construction of a new interchange could begin by
2020.
On November 17, 2015, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a funding
agreement with VTA to identify their and the City’s respective obligations in regards to
the Project. The funding agreement, in essence, provided for a contribution of $1,200,000
from the City for completion of the PSR/PID (comprised of a $1,000,000 contribution
from Apple and a $200,000 contribution from the Irvine Company).
85
On May 2, 2017, the City Council authorized an amendment to the funding agreement
to increase the City’s contribution to the Project from $1,200,000 to $1,700,000, to include
a one-time contribution of $500,000 from Cupertino Property Development II, LLC,
developers of the Hyatt Hotel project at 10380 Perimeter Road.
Discussion
As one of their required traffic mitigations, Apple was required to complete
improvements to the Wolfe Road/I-280 interchange that would enhance the pedestrian
environment at the southbound Wolfe Road-to-southbound I-280 on-ramp. Because the
Project will ultimately result in an upgrade or replacement of the entire structure, city
staff and Apple subsequently agreed that, in lieu of completing improvements that
would be a temporary fix to an aging structure, Apple would complete a cost estimate
of the improvements required by the mitigation and contribute those funds instead to
ensuring progress of the Project until Measure B funds became available. This cost of
the mitigation work is estimated at $260,000. The Second Amendment to the Funding
Agreement modifies the Agreement to increase the City’s contribution to the Project
from $1,700,000 to $1,960,000 to include this $260,000. It is VTA’s intent that this
additional funding will be applied towards the PAED phase of the Project. Additional
funding for the PAED phase will likely come from Measure B sales tax revenue.
Sustainability Impact
N/A
Fiscal Impact
The City received the additional amount to be appropriated in January 2018 from
Apple, Inc. as part of the development agreement for the Apple Campus 2 project.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A - Draft Second Amendment to Funding Agreement between the City of Cupertino
and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the I-280/Wolfe Road
Interchange Improvements Project
86
1
3fd7b2f8-dc49-4617-8cb2-763019d11e96
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
FUNDING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FOR THE I-280/WOLFE ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
This FUNDING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT No. 2 (“Second Amendment”)
dated __________, 2018, for purposes of reference, is made and entered into by and
between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation of the State of California
("CITY"), and SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public
agency organized as a special district under California law ("VTA"). Hereinafter, CITY
and VTA may be individually referred to as "Party" or collectively referred to as
"Parties". Except as otherwise modified by the First Amendment and this Second
Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Funding Agreement dated January 25,
2016, shall remain in full force and effect.
I. RECITALS
A. On January 25, 2016, Parties entered into an agreement (“FUNDING
AGREEMENT”) setting their respective obligations in regard to the modifications to the I-
280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project (“PROJECT”).
B. CITY initially contributed an amount of one million two hundred thousand
($1,200,000) dollars to the PROJECT under the terms of the FUNDING AGREEMENT
for the development and completion of the Project Initial Document (“PID”) phase.
C. The PROJECT’s PID phase, including the conceptual alternative analysis
activity, was completed on June 9, 2017.
D. On May 3, 2017, Parties entered into a FUNDING AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT No. 1 (“First Amendment”) for an additional five hundred thousand
($500,000) of CITY’s contribution, increasing the CITY's contribution from $1,200,000 to
$1,700,000 to continue project development into the Project Approval/Environmental
Document ("PAED") phase.
E. The Parties recognize the need for the continuation of project development of
the PROJECT.
F. The Parties wish to amend the FUNDING AGREEMENT, as amended, to
increase the CITY’s contribution from $1,700,000 to $1,960,000 to continue project
development for the PAED phase.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree to amend the FUNDING AGREEMENT as
follows:
II. AMENDED AGREEMENT
87
2
3fd7b2f8-dc49-4617-8cb2-763019d11e96
1. SECTION II, PARAGRAPH 2 CITY’s Financial Contribution for PROJECT, is hereby
amended to increase CITY’s Contribution by two hundred sixty thousand ($260,000)
dollars. The first sentence shall be restated as follows:
“CITY shall contribute to the PROJECT an amount not to exceed one million nine
hundred and sixty thousand ($1,960,000) dollars (hereinafter, “CITY’s Contribution”)
towards the development and completion of the PID and the development of the PAED
phase.”
2. SECTION II, PARAGRAPH 14 Notice, is hereby amended update VTA’s address for
notices and shall be restated as follows:
“14. Notice. Any notice required to be given by either Party, or which either party
may wish to give, shall be in writing and served either by personal delivery or sent by
certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
To VTA: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Carolyn Gonot, Director of Engineering and Program Delivery
3331 North First Street, Bldg. A
San Jose, CA 95134-1906
To CITY: City of Cupertino
Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Department of Public Works
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Notice shall be deemed effective on the date personally delivered or, if mailed, three
(3) days after deposit in the United States mail.”
88
3
3fd7b2f8-dc49-4617-8cb2-763019d11e96
WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF the day and year first hereinabove set forth.
“CITY”
City of Cupertino
a municipal corporation
By:
David Brandt
City Manager
“VTA”
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
a public agency
By:
Nuria Fernandez
General Manager
Date: ___________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Randolph Hom
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Megan Gritsch
Staff Attorney II
89
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-3512 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Approved
File created:In control:1/8/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/20/2018 2/20/2018
Title:Subject: Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Alta Planning + Design, Inc. for professional
design services to prepare and deliver the Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility Study
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Agreement
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
ApprovedCity Council2/20/2018 1
Subject: Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Alta Planning + Design, Inc. for
professional design services to prepare and deliver the Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility
Study
Approve an Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Alta Planning + Design, Inc. in the
amount not to exceed $259,889 from the date of execution through June 30, 2019, and
authorize the Director of Public Works to negotiate and execute all necessary documents to
carry out all consultant services for the Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility Study
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™90
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 20, 2018
Subject
Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Alta Planning + Design, Inc. for
professional design services to prepare and deliver the Union Pacific Railroad Trail
Feasibility Study.
Recommended Action
Approve an Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Alta Planning + Design, Inc.
in the amount not to exceed $259,889 from the date of execution through June 30, 2019,
and authorize the Director of Public Works to negotiate and execute all necessary
documents to carry out all consultant services for the Union Pacific Railroad Trail
Feasibility Study.
Description
In June 2016, City Council adopted the “City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation
Plan” (Bike Plan). This Plan identified a prioritized list of recommended improvement
projects to support and promote bicycling in Cupertino, including a s eries of multi-use
paths that, when joined together, would form the “Cupertino Loop Trail”. One of the
Tier 1 high-priority recommended Cupertino Loop Trail network segments identified in
the Bike Plan is a trail along the Union Pacific Railroad between the Hammond-Snyder
Loop Trail and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
This agreement was considered previously by the City Council on August 15, 2017.
Council continued the item to a future meeting after staff has met with the Union
Pacific Railroad regarding trail feasibility. Staff has had communication with UPRR and
has determined that within their trail guidelines, it is likely that a trail would be feasible
at this location. Additional study is necessary, of which Alta would provide under this
contract, to determine if the conditions and requirements of UPRR would be acceptable
to the City to move the project forward to design and construction.
Discussion
Staff completed a qualifications-based selection process in June 2017, in accordance with
State and City codes. In response to a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the City,
two (2) proposals were received from firms, which were evaluated for relevant skills
and experience.
91
Staff recommends that the Agreement be awarded to Alta Planning + Design, Inc.
(Alta). Alta was selected for their experience with feasibility studies for pedestrian-
bicycle trails, particularly along railroad tracks, and their experiences working with
various key agencies and stakeholders.
The Agreement defines a maximum compensation to be authorized under the
Agreement. This includes an allowance for additional services that were requested by
the City as part of the RFP and accounts for the potential need for additional surveying
boundary work where available right-of-way information is insufficient and/or
additional topographic surveys at crossings and structures.
Basic Services $211,080
Additional Services $48,809
Maximum Compensation $259,889
Sustainability Impact
Not applicable.
Fiscal Impact
No appropriation is required for this action. Subject to Council approval of this
Agreement between the City and Alta, the requisite funds will be encumbered from the
2016 Bicycle Plan Implementation budget in the Council-adopted 2017/18 Capital
Improvement Program.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Department
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft Agreement
92
Design Professional Agreement (single) /Rev. Dec. 2017
Page 1 of 10
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (SINGLE)
WITH
1. PARTIES
This Agreement is made and entered into as of ___________________________________________
(“Effective Date”), by and between the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation (“City”), and
_____________________________________________________________________ (“Consultant”),
a for__________________________________________________________
(“Project”).
2.SERVICES
2.1 Basic Services.Consultant agrees to provide the Basic Services for the Project, which are set
forth in detail in the Scope of Services, attached here and incorporated as Exhibit A, and as further
specified in Consultant’s written Proposal as approved by City, except for any provision in the
Proposal which conflicts or is inconsistent with this Agreement and the Exhibits hereto, or as
otherwise expressly rejected by City.
2.2 Additional Services. City may request at any time during the Contract Time that Consultant
provide additional services for the Project, which are not already encompassed, expressly or implicitly,
in the Agreement, the Scope of Services, or the Proposal (“Additional Services”). Additional Services
must be authorized in writing by City and Consultant will not be paid for unauthorized Additional
Services rendered. Additional Services are subject to all the provisions applicable to Basic Services,
except and only to the extent otherwise specified by City in writing.
All references to “Services” in the Agreement include Basic Services and Additional Services, unless
otherwise stated in writing. The Services may be divided into separate sequential tasks, as further
specified in this Agreement, the Scope of Services, and Consultant’s Proposal.
Consultant is solelyresponsible for its errors and omissions and those of its subconsultants, and must
promptly correct them at its sole expense. Consultant must take appropriate measures to avoid or
mitigate any delay,liability, and costs resulting from its errors or omissions.
3.TIME OF PERFORMANCE
3.1 Term.This Agreement begins on the Effective Date and ends on _____________________,
unless terminated earlier as provided herein (“Contract Time”).
3.2 Schedule of Performance.All Services must be provided within the times specified in Exhibit
B, Schedule of Performance, attached and incorporated here. Consultant must promptly notify City of
any actual or potential delay in providing the Services as scheduled to afford the Parties adequate
opportunity to address or mitigate delays. If the Services are divided by tasks, Consultant must begin
work on each separate task upon receiving City’s Notice to Proceed (“NTO”), and must complete each
WDVNZLWKLQWKHWLPHVSHFLILHGLQ([KLELW%
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alta Planning + Design, Inc., a California Corporation
the Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility Study
December 31, 2019
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN, INC.
Corporation
City Project Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility Study
93
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design Professional Agreement (single) /Rev. Dec. 2017
Page 2 of 10
3.3 Time is of the essence for the performance of all the Services. Consultant must have sufficient
time, resources, and qualified staff to deliver the Services on time.
4.COMPENSATION
4.1 Maximum Compensation. City will pay Consultant for satisfactory performance of the Basic
Services and Additional Services, if approved, a cumulative total amount that will be capped so as not
to exceed $ _______________ (“Contract Price”), as specified in Exhibit C, Compensation, attached
and incorporated here. The Contract Price includes all expenses and reimbursements and will remain in
place even if Consultant’s actual costs exceed the capped amount. No extra work or payment is
permitted in excess of the Contract Price.
4.2 Basic Services.City will pay Consultant $__________________ (“Lump Sum Price”) for
the complete and satisfactory performance of the Basic Services in accordance with Exhibit C. The
Lump Sum Price is inclusive of all time and expenses, including, but not limited to, subConsultant’s
costs, materials, supplies, equipment, travel, taxes, overhead and profit. If the Basic Services are not
fully completed, Consultant will be compensated a percentage of the Lump Sum Price proportionate
to the percentage of Basic Services that were completed to City’s reasonable satisfaction.
4.3 Additional Services. City has the discretion, but not the obligation, to authorize Additional
Services up to an amount not to exceed $ _________________. Additional Services provided to City’s
reasonable satisfaction will be compensated on a lump sum basis or based on time and expenses, in
accordance will the Hourly Rates and Reimbursable Expenses Schedules included in Exhibit C.If
paid on an hourly basis, Consultant will be compensated for actual costs only of normal business
expenses and overhead, with no markup or surcharge (“Reimbursable Expenses”). Consultant will not
be entitled to reimbursement for copying, printing, faxes, telephone charges, employee overtime, or
travel to City offices or to the Project site.
4.4 Invoices and Payments. Monthly invoices must describe the Services completed and the
amount due for the preceding month. City will pay Consultant within 30 days following receipt of a
properly submitted and approved invoice for Services. The invoice must separately itemize and
provide subtotals for Basic Services and Additional Services, and must state the percentage of
completion for each task, as specified in Exhibit C. City will notify Consultant in writing of any
disagreements with the invoice or the stated percentage of completion of tasks. If the disagreement is
unresolved, City will pay Consultant only for the undisputed portion of the Services. Disputed amounts
shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provision of this Agreement.
a.Time and Expenses.For Additional Services provided on an hourly basis, each invoice
must also include, for each day of Services provided: (i) name and title of each person
providing Services; (ii) a succinct summary of the Services performed by each person; (iii)
the time spent per person, in 30 minute increments; (iv) the hourly billing rate or Sub-
Consultant charge and payment due; and (v) an itemized list with amounts and explanation
for all permitted reimbursable expenses.
259,889.00
211,080.00
48,809.00
City Project Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility Study
94
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design Professional Agreement (single) /Rev. Dec. 2017
Page 3 of 10
b.Rates and Receipts. All hourly rates and reimbursable expenses must conform to the City-
approved rates set forth in Exhibit C, which will be in effect for the entire Contract Time.
Each invoice must attach legible, dated receipts for Reimbursable Expenses.
5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
5.1 Status. Consultant is an independent Consultant and not an employee, partner, or joint venture
of the City. Consultant is solely responsible for the means and methods of performing the Services and
shall exercise full control over the employment, direction, compensation and discharge of all persons
assisting Consultant in performing the Services. Consultant is not entitled to health benefits, worker’s
compensation, retirement, or any City benefit.
5.2 Qualifications and Standard of Care.Consultant represents on behalf of itself and its
subConsultants that they have the qualifications and skills to perform the Services in a competent and
professional manner, as exercised by design professionals performing similar services in the San
Francisco Bay Area. Services may only be performed by qualified and experienced personnel or
subconsultants who are not employed by City and do not have any contractual relationship with City
excepting this Agreement. All Services must be performed as specified to City’s reasonable satisfaction.
5.3 Permits and Licenses. Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and any subConsultants that they
are properly licensed, registered, and/or certified to perform the Services, as required by law, and that
they have procured a valid City Business License.
5.4 SubConsultants. Unless prior written approval from City is obtained, only Consultant’s
employees and subConsultants whose names are included in this Agreement and incorporated Exhibits
may provide Services under this Agreement. Consultant must require all subConsultants to furnish
proof of insurance for workers’ compensation, commercial liability, auto, and professional liability in
reasonable conformity to the insurance required of Consultant. The terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall be binding on all subConsultants relative to the portion of their work.
5.5 Tools, Materials and Equipment. Consultant will supply and shall be responsible for all tools,
materials and equipment required to perform the Services under this Agreement.
5.6 Payment of Taxes. Consultant must pay income taxes on the money earned under this
Agreement. Upon City’s request, Consultant will provide proof of payment and will indemnify City
for any violations pursuant to the indemnity provision of this Agreement.
5.7 Errors and Omissions. Consultant is solely responsible for its errors and omissions and those
of its SubConsultants, and must take prompt measures to avoid, mitigate, and correct them at its sole
expense.
6. PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
During the Contract Time Consultant may have access to private or confidential information owned or
controlled by the City, which may contain proprietary or confidential details, the disclosure of which to
third parties may be damaging to City. Consultant shall hold in confidence all City information and use
Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility StudyCity Project
95
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design Professional Agreement (single) /Rev. Dec. 2017
Page 4 of 10
it only to perform this Agreement. Consultant shall exercise the same standard of care to protect City
information as a reasonably prudent Consultant would use to protect its own proprietary data.
7. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS
7.1 Property Rights.Subject to City meeting its payment obligations for the Services, any interest
(including copyright interests) of Consultant in any product, memoranda, study, report, map, plan,
drawing, specification, data, record, document, or other information or work, in any medium, prepared
by Consultant under this Agreement (“Work Product”), will be the exclusive property of the City and
shall not be shown to a third-party without prior written approval by City
7.2 Copyright.To the extent permitted by Title 17 of U.S. Code, all copyrights to the Work
Product prepared/created by Consultant and its SubConsultants and all copyrights in such Work
Product shall constitute City property. If it is determined under federal law that the Work Product is
not “works for hire”, Consultant and SubConsultants hereby assign to City all copyrights to the Work
Product when and as created. Consultant may retain copyrights to its standard details, but hereby
grants City a perpetual, non-exclusive license to use such details.
7.3 Patents and Licenses. Consultant must pay royalties or license fees required for authorized
use of any third party intellectual property, including but not limited to patented, trademarked, or
copyrighted intellectual property if incorporated into the Services or Work Product of this Agreement.
7.4 Re-Use of Work Product. Unless prohibited by law and without waiving any rights, City may
use or modify the Work Product of Consultant and its SubConsultants to execute or implement any of
the following, but Consultant shall not be responsible or liable for City’s re-use of Work Product:
(a) For work related to the original Services for which Consultant was hired;
(b) To complete the original Services with City personnel, agents or other Consultants;
(c) To make subsequent additions to the original Services; and/or
(d) For other City projects.
7.5 Deliverables and Format. Electronic and hard copies of the Work Product constitute part of
the Deliverables required under this Agreement, which shall be provided to City on recycled paper and
copied on both sides, except for one single-sided original. Large-scale architectural plans and similar
items must be in CAD and PDF formats, and unless otherwise specified, other documents must be in
Microsoft Office applications and PDF formats.
8. RECORDS
8.1 Consultant must maintain complete, accurate, and detailed accounting records relating to the
Services and Compensation, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and
procedures. The records must include detailed information about Consultant’s performance,
benchmarks and deliverables. The records and supporting documents must be kept separate from other
files and maintained for a period of four years from the date of City’s final payment.
8.2 Consultant will provide City full access to Consultant’s books and records for review and audit,
to make transcripts or copies, and to conduct a preliminary examination of all the work, data,
documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. If a supplemental examination or
City Project Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility Study
96
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design Professional Agreement (single) /Rev. Dec. 2017
Page 5 of 10
audit of Consultant’s records discloses non-compliance with appropriate internal financial controls, a
contract breach, or a failure to act in good faith, City will be entitled to recover from Consultant the
costs of the supplemental examination. If this is a lump sum fee Agreement, City will be provided
access to records of reimbursable expenses and the instruments of service/deliverables for review and
audit. This Section survives the expiration/termination of this Agreement.
9. ASSIGNMENT
Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein,
directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City. Any
attempt to do so will be null and void. Any changes related to the financial control or business nature
of Consultant as a legal entity will be considered an Assignment subject to City approval, which shall
not be unreasonably withheld. For purposes of this provision, control means 50% or more of the voting
power of the business entity. This Agreement binds Consultant, its heirs, successors and assignees.
10. PUBLICITY / SIGNS
Any publicity generated by Consultant for the project under this Agreement, during the term of this
Agreement and for one year thereafter, will reference the City’s contributions in making the project
possible. The words “City of Cupertino” will be displayed in all pieces of publicity, including flyers,
press releases, posters, brochures, public service announcements, interviews and newspaper articles.
No signs may be posted, exhibited or displayed on or about City property, except signage required by
law or this Agreement, without prior written approval from the City.
11. INDEMNIFICATION
11.1 To the fullest extent allowed by law and except for losses caused by the sole or active
negligence or willful misconduct of City personnel, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless the City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, officials, employees, agents,
servants, volunteers and consultants (collectively, “Indemnitees”), as follows:
a. Indemnity Obligations Subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8. With respect to the
Services performed in connection with the Agreement, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless Indemnitees from and against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action, demands
or charges whatsoever against any Indemnitee, including any injury to or death of any person or
damage to property or other liability of any nature (collectively, “Liability”), that arise out of, pertain
to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officers, officials,
employees, agents or SubConsultants. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorney fees
for legal counsel of City’s choice, expert fees, and all other costs and fees of litigation. In addition to
its indemnity obligations, Design Professional will provide its immediate and active cooperation and
assistance to the City, at no additional cost to the City, in analyzing, defending, and resolving such
Liability.
b. Claims Involving Intellectual Property. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless Indemnitees from and against any claim involving intellectual property, infringement or
violation of a United States patent right or copyright, trade secret, trademark, or service mark or other
proprietary or intellectual property rights, which arises out of, pertains to, or relates to Consultant’s
Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility StudyCity Project
97
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design Professional Agreement (single) /Rev. Dec. 2017
Page 6 of 10
negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. Such costs and expenses will include reasonable
attorney fees for legal counsel of City’s choice, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation.
c. Claims for Other Liability.For all other liabilities not included in provisions “b” and
“c” above, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Indemnitees against any and all
liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever, including any injury to or death of
any person or damage to property, or other liability of any nature arising out of, pertaining to, or
relating to the performance of this Agreement by Design Professional, its employees, officers,
officials, agents or subconsultants, including liability based on breach of contract, obligations, or
warranties, or any unauthorized use or disclosure of City’s confidential and proprietary information.
11.2 Consultant will assist City, at no additional cost, in the defense of any claim, dispute or lawsuit
arising out of this Agreement. Consultant’s duties herein are not limited to or subject to the Contract
Price, to Workers’ Compensation claims, or to the Insurance or Bond limits and provisions. Nothing in
this Agreement shall be construed to give rise to an implied right of indemnity in favor of Consultant
against any Indemnitee.
11.3 If this Agreement is entered into or amended on or after January 1, 2018, Consultant's duty to
pay for any of Indemnitees’ defense related costs will be limited to its proportionate share of fault, as
determined by final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction, subject to any applicable exceptions
in Civil Code section 2782.8.
11.4 Consultant agrees to pay the reasonable costs City may incur in enforcing this provision related
to Consultant’s indemnification duties, including reasonable attorney fees, fees for legal counsel
acceptable to City, expert fees, and all other costs and expenses related to a claim or counterclaim, a
purchase order, another transaction, litigation, or dispute resolution. Without waiving any rights, City
may deduct money from Consultant’s payments to cover moneys due to City. Section 11 survives
expiration or termination of this Agreement.
12. INSURANCE
On or before the Contract Time commences, Consultant shall furnish City with proof of compliance
with City Insurance Requirements, attached and incorporated here as Exhibit D.City will not execute
the Agreement until Consultant has submitted and City has reasonably approved receipt of satisfactory
certificates of insurance and endorsements evidencing the type, amount, class of operations covered,
and the effective and expiration dates of coverage. Alternatively, City may terminate this Agreement or
in its sole discretion purchase insurance at Consultant’s expense and deduct costs from payments to
Consultant.
13. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
13.1 General Laws. Consultant shall comply with all laws and regulations applicable to this
Agreement. Consultant will promptly notify City of changes in the law or other conditions that may
affect the Project or Consultant’s ability to perform. Consultant is responsible for verifying the
employment authorization of employees performing the Services, as required by the Immigration
Reform and Control Act, or other federal or state law, rule or regulation.
Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility StudyCity Project
98
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design Professional Agreement (single) /Rev. Dec. 2017
Page 7 of 10
13.2 Labor Laws.Consultant shall comply with all labor laws applicable to this Agreement. If the
Services include a “public works” component, Consultant must comply with prevailing wage laws
under Labor Code Section 1720 and other labor laws. To the extent applicable, Consultant must
comply with City’s Labor Compliance Program and with state labor laws pertaining to working days,
overtime, payroll records and DIR Registration and Oversight. If the Contract Price is $30,000 or
more, Consultant must comply with the apprenticeship requirement in Labor Code Section 1777.5.
13.3 Discrimination Laws. Consultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, religious creed,
color, ancestry, national origin, ethnicity, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, age, sex,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, Acquired-Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), or any
other protected classification. Consultant shall comply with all anti-discrimination laws, including
Government Code Section 12900 and 11135, and Labor Code Section. 1735, 1777 and 3077.5.
Consistent with City policy prohibiting, Consultant understands that harassment and discrimination by
Consultant or any of its subConsultants toward a job applicant, an employee, a City employee, or any
other person is strictly prohibited.
13.4 Conflicts of Interest. Consultant shall comply with all conflict of interest laws and regulations
applicable to this Agreement and must avoid any conflict of interest. Consultant warrants that no
public official, employee, or member of a City board or commission who might have been involved in
the making of this Agreement, has or will receive a direct or indirect financial interest in this
Agreement in violation of California Government Code Section 1090 et seq. Consultant may be
required to file a conflict of interest form if Consultant makes certain governmental decisions or serves
in a staff capacity, as provided in Section 18700 of the California Code of Regulations and other laws.
Services may only be performed by persons who are not employed by City and who do not have any
contractual relationship with City, with the exception of this Agreement. Consultant is familiar with
and agrees to abide by the City’s rules governing gifts to public officials and employees.
13.5 Remedies. A violation of this Section constitutes a material breach and may result in City
suspending payments, requiring reimbursement, or terminating this Agreement. City reserves all its
rights and remedies under law and this Agreement, including the right to seek indemnification under
Section 11. Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold City harmless from and against any loss,
liability, and expenses arising from noncompliance with this Section.
14. PROJECT COORDINATION
14.1 City Project Manager. The City’s Project Manager for all purposes under this Agreement will
be ___________________________________, who shall have the authority to manage this Agreement
and oversee the progress and performance of the Services. City in its sole discretion may substitute
another Project Manager at any time and will advise Consultant of the new representative.
14.2 Consultant Project Manager. Subject to City’s reasonable approval, Consultant’s Project
Manager for all purposes under this Agreement will be ____________________________________,
who shall be the single representative for Consultant with the authority to manage compliance with this
Agreement and oversee the progress and performance of the Services. This includes responsibility for
coordinating and scheduling the Services in accordance with City instructions, service orders, and the
Schedule of Performance, and providing regular updates to the City’s Project Manager on the Project
status, progress, and any delays. City written approval is required prior to Consultant substituting a
new Project Manager, which shall result in no additional costs to City or Project delays.
Jennifer Chu
Heather Deutsch
Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility StudyCity Project
99
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design Professional Agreement (single) /Rev. Dec. 2017
Page 8 of 10
15. ABANDONMENT OF PROJECT
City may abandon or postpone the Project with thirty (30) calendar days written notice to Consultant.
Consultant will be compensated for satisfactory Services performed through the date of abandonment
and will be given reasonable time to assemble the work and close out the Services. No close out work
shall be conducted without City reasonable approval of closure costs, which may not exceed ten
percent (10%) of the total time expended to the date of abandonment. All charges including job closure
costs will be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and within thirty (30) days of
Consultant’s final invoice reasonably approved by the City.
16. TERMINATION
City may terminate this Agreement for cause or without cause at any time, following reasonable
written notice to Consultant at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the termination date. Consultant
will be paid for satisfactory Services rendered through the date of termination, but final payment will
not be made until Consultant closes out the Services and delivers all Work Product to City. All charges
approved by City including job closure costs will be paid within 30 days of Consultant’s final invoice.
17. GOVERNING LAW, VENUE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of California, excepting any choice of law rules
which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. Any lawsuits filed related to this
Agreement must be filed with the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, State of California.
Consultant must comply with the claims filing requirements under the Government Code prior to filing
a civil action in court against City. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid
laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the
successors of those authorities). If a dispute arises, Consultant must continue to provide the Services
pending resolution of the dispute. If the Parties elect arbitration, the arbitrator’s award must be
supported by law and substantial evidence and include detailed written findings of law and fact.
18. ATTORNEY FEES
If City initiates legal action, files a complaint or cross-complaint, or pursues arbitration, appeal or other
proceedings to enforce its rights or a judgment in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party
will be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs. This Section survives the expiration/termination
of this Agreement.
19. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
There are no intended third party beneficiaries of this Agreement.
20. WAIVER
Neither acceptance of the Services nor payment thereof shall constitute a waiver of any contract
provision. City’s waiver of any breach shall not be deemed to constitute waiver of another term,
provision, covenant or condition, or a subsequent breach, whether of the same or a different character.
Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility StudyCity Project
100
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design Professional Agreement (single) /Rev. Dec. 2017
Page 9 of 10
21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement and all its Sections represent the full and complete understanding of the Parties, of
every kind or nature, and supersedes any and all other agreements and understandings, either oral or
written, between them. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if in writing and
signed by each Party’s authorized representative. No verbal agreement or implied covenant will be
valid to amend or abridge this Agreement. If there is any inconsistency between this main Agreement
and the attachments or exhibits thereto, the text of the main Agreement shall prevail.
22. INSERTED PROVISIONS
Each contractual provision or clause that may be required by law is deemed to be included and will be
inferred in this Agreement. Either party may request an amendment to cure any mistaken insertion or
omission of a required provision.
23. HEADINGS
The headings in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and in no
way affect, limit, or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement.
24. SEVERABILITY/PARTIAL INVALIDITY
If any term or provision of this Agreement, or their application to a particular situation, is found by the
court to be void, invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such term or provision shall remain in force and
effect to the extent allowed by such ruling. All other terms and provisions of this Agreement or their
application to specific situations shall remain in full force and effect.
25. SURVIVAL
All provisions which by their nature must continue after the Agreement ends, including without
limitation those referenced in specific Sections herein, survive this Agreement and shall remain in full
force and effect.
26. NOTICES
All notices, requests and approvals must be sent to the persons below in writing to the persons below,
and will be considered effective on the date of personal delivery, the delivery date confirmed by a
reputable overnight delivery service, on the fifth calendar day after deposit in the United States Mail,
postage prepaid, registered or certified, or the next business day following electronic submission:
To City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino CA 95014
Attention:___________________________
Email: ____________________________
To Consultant: ____________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
Attention: ______________________________
Email: _________________________________
Alta Planning + Design, Inc.
711 SE Grand Ave.
Portland, OR 97214
Jennifer Chu Greg Maher
jenniferc@cupertino.org gregmaher@altaplanning.com
Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility StudyCity Project
101
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design Professional Agreement (single) /Rev. Dec. 2017
Page 10 of 10
27. VALIDITY OF CONTRACT
This Agreement is valid and enforceable only if it complies with the contract provisions of Cupertino
Municipal Code Chapters 3.22 and 3.23, is signed by the City Manager or authorized designee, and is
approved for form by the City Attorney’s Office.
28. EXECUTION
The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant
has the right, power, and authority to enter into this Agreement and carry out all actions herein, and
that he or she is authorized to execute this Agreement, which constitutes a legally binding obligation of
Consultant. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each one of which is deemed an original
and all of which, taken together, constitute a single binding instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the Effective
Date stated earlier in this Agreement.
CONSULTANT CITY OF CUPERTINO
A Municipal Corporation
By ________________________ By __________________________
Name______________________Name _______________________
Title _______________________Title _________________________
Date_______________________Date _________________________
Tax I.D. No.: ________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RANDOLPH STEVENSON HOM
Cupertino City Attorney
ATTEST:
______________________________
GRACE SCHMIDT
City Clerk
Alta Planning + Design, Inc.
Greg Maher
Vice President, as duly authorized
68-0465555
Timm Borden
Director of Public Works
Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility StudyCity Project
102
Exhibit A – Scope of Services
Scope of Work
Task 1. Initiation and Project Management
Alta will review the existing resource documents that contain information related to the UPRR Trail
Feasibility Study and the City of Cupertino’s policies regarding trails. These documents include:
• Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040
• City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan
• Union Pacific Rail Trail Feasibility Study (October 15, 2001)
• Joint City Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study (September 2015)
• Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (November 14, 1995)
• Countywide Trails Prioritization and Gaps Analysis (March 17, 2015)
• VTA Bikeways Map D – Cupertino, Campbell, Saratoga and Los Gatos (May 2016)
• Alta will also review with the various agency standards and guidelines for developing trail design
concepts that may apply to this project and shall provide a list of documents this project will need
to adhere to. These standards and guidelines include:
• 1999 Santa Clara County Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use and Management Guidelines
• 2005 Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department Trail Maintenance Manual
• 2006 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Water Resources Protection Manual: Guidelines &
Standards for Land Use Near Streams
• 2012 California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual: Chapter 1000 Bicycle
Transportation Design
• 2013 Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines: Outdoor Developed Areas (and all
applicable latest ADA standards)
• VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines, December 2012
Task 1 Deliverables:
• Applicable agency standards and guidelines list
Task 2. Identify Ownerships and Jurisdictions
TASK 2.1. COLLECTION OF OWNERSHIP DOCUMENTS
The Alta team will collect publicly available documents including Title reports, maps, and other recorded
information that relates to properties within the vicinity of the proposed trail.
TASK 2.2. REVIEW OF OWNERSHIP DOCUMENTS
The Alta team will review available documents including Title reports, maps, and other recorded information
in order to determine owners of or in the vicinity to land proposed to be part of the trail.
TASK 2.3. IDENTIFY POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND CONSTRAINTS
Using the available documents related to ownership, the Alta team will identify potential impacts and/or
constraints that may exist including easements, exceptions, and other restrictions.
103
Task 2 Deliverables:
• Title reports for key property owners along property trail corridor
• Record boundary map
• Stakeholders and agency contact list
Task 3. Conduct Field Reconnaissance and Existing Facilities
Inventory/Analysis
Task 3.1. Data Collection and Base Mapping
The Alta team will create a series of comprehensive base maps for the project from available GIS and other
information such as existing exhibits, reports and mapping to create an interactive site driven series of base
maps for the project. Information contained on the base mapping will include:
• The foundation for the base mapping will be developed from publicly available high-resolution aerial
imagery
• Right-of-way and property line data for the base mapping will be based on latest public available
data
• Planning level topography will be based on available LIDAR to be provided by the City and County
With the foundation base mapping completed, we will refine and complete a comprehensive inventory,
including but not limited to:
• Property ownership
• Zoning, land use, specific plan considerations as applicable
• On-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities and crossings
• Connections to other modes of transportation
• Roadway, railroad, creeks and waterway crossings
• Bridges
• Trees (protected, native, and trees greater than or equal to 8-inches in diameter)
• Utilities (above and below ground)
• Drainage patterns
• Rights-of-way, easements, and encroachments
• Geological conditions
• Biological conditions
Alta will compile this information into an Existing Facilities Inventory Memorandum, which will later be
incorporated into the draft feasibility study. Existing facilities graphics will be produced in ArcGIS and Adobe
Illustrator in 11”x17” tabloid format at an easily readable scale (typically 1” = 200’ with enlargements for
constrained areas). The Memorandum will include a Photograph Log of the corridor.
Task 3.2. Site Reconnaissance
Prior to our site visits, the Alta team will coordinate with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), as identified in
Task 7.5, regarding anticipated trail work within the UPRR right-of-way and crossings under UPRR facilities.
We will build on our recent experience working on pathway/rail crossing and encroachments for Sonoma
Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) and the Cities of Mountain View and Davis to identify the type of work
and type of permits (crossing, encroachment or other) anticipated and review the concepts with UPRR
managers Kevin Yoder (Public Projects) or Peggy Ygbuhay (Special Projects) to identify significant issues
and potential solutions.
104
The Alta team will perform site visits to observe existing field conditions, verify trail alignment feasibility,
and gather pertinent data to be used during the opportunity and constraints analysis. All information that is
observed will be gathered and mapped based on opportunities for connectivity to existing trails and nearby
points of interest. Alta will also identify the constraints for the UPRR Trail development. These constraints
will include:
• Available land capacity
• Existing utilities
• Storm drainage infrastructure and drainage structure considerations
• Existing tree inventory
• Existing roadway conditions
• Existing underpasses and overpasses
• Retaining walls
• Biological resources
Alta will take a full inventory of all necessary roadway crossings, creek crossings, areas where structures
may be needed (bridges, overpasses, underpasses), areas where trail width may be constrained, and areas
in proximity to key infrastructure.
Task 3.3. Opportunity and Constraints Analysis
Using the data collected and site reconnaissance information attained in Tasks 3.1 and 3.2, the Alta team
will perform an opportunity and constraints analysis for the project area. This analysis will be summarized
is an opportunity and constraints report and map.
Task 3 Deliverables:
• Draft existing facilities inventory and opportunity and constraints analysis and maps
• Final existing facilities inventory and opportunity and constraints analysis and maps
Task 4. Develop Trail Alignments and Feasibility Criteria
Using the data from Tasks 1-3 and getting feedback from the agency and local business meetings
discussed in Task 7.5 and Task 7.6, Alta will identity and develop trail alignment alternatives based on
criteria set by the project team for a feasibility trail design. The proposed trail alignment will be a north-
south alignment along the UPRR between the Hammond-Snyder Loop Trail and Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road.
Task 4.1. Trail Feasibility Criteria
Alta will prepare illustrated design trail feasibility criteria specific to the anticipated users and settings
discussed in the 2016 City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan (2016 Plan). The guidelines will
reference applicable City, County, State, and Federal standards and policies, and will respond to the
opportunities and constraints identified in previous tasks. Illustrations will include typical and special trail
cross-sections and plan views, and design details. Alta literally “wrote the book” in the FHWA Rails-with-
Trails: Lessons Learned Federal Study on many aspects of trail design standards along active rail lines
both for accommodating different users, and for adapting to different trail settings such as:
• Trail types for specific users, and multi-use combinations
• Trails for specific environmental or land use settings
• Road and railroad crossings and adjacencies
• Trail parking and staging facilities - restrooms, rest areas, kiosks, and mapboards
• Fencing, gates, and styles
105
• Signage, including wayfinding, regulatory, and interpretive signs and elements
While developing the design criteria for the UPRR Channel corridor, Alta will take into account the following
design considerations as they relate to each alignment alternative:
• Adjust property/real estate and/or trail easement acquisition
• Overhead and underground utilities
• Intersection crossings
• Proximity to residences
• Proximity to railroad tracks
• Privacy considerations and solutions
• Access to nearby points of intersects
• Compliance with ADA requirements
• Safe connections with existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities
• Safety of trail users and residents adjacent to the proposed trail, including during evening hours
• Policing and preventing unauthorized trail access during evening hours
• Emergency vehicle access
• Maintenance and management
• Construction cost
The Alta team will be working will affected property owners and develop a list of key stakeholders and
contact persons for use throughout the project. Agency Engagement meetings will be held early with UPRR,
SCVWD, Santa Clara VTA, Caltrans, and PG&E to establish design criteria and project constraints. This
will be a crucial aspect in the process to understand the elements of design that will be allowed within each
agency jurisdiction.
The draft study will include an implementation and funding section with specific grant funding program
review and strategy for the recommended alignment. It will include a review of the steps and documentation
anticipated for project planning, design, approval and implementation, anticipating the particular challenges
unique to the project type and location.
Task 4.2. Develop Trail Alignments Alternatives and Connection/Crossing Concept
Designs
Once the feasible design criteria have been set, Alta will develop trail alignment alternatives and crossing
concept designs. The trail alternatives will provide information and recommendations that include the
following:
• Feasible trail type
• Typical sections of the trail that includes width and surface treatments
• Sketches of design solutions at areas where the width is constrained
• Exhibits showing the facility widths and design elements that would meet the varying grantors and
design standards listed in Task 1
Where appropriate, Alta will also explore and provide alternatives for over, under, and at-grade intersection
crossings, on-street and at-grade alternatives for any seasonal underpasses, and short-term and long-term
solutions that allow phased implementations of functional pathway segments. We will also identity access
point opportunities, staging areas where amenities (i.e. benches, shade structures, drinking fountains, etc.)
can be stationed, potential parking areas and enhancement opportunities to improve habitat value. In
coordination with BRG, we will be working with an arborist to address the potential impact to the existing
trees throughout the corridor.
106
During the phase of the project, Alta will conduct a special examination and create design concepts for the
street and trail connections and crossing along the corridor. These design concepts will illustrate each
crossing, intersection and proposed structure. Each design solution will be shown with enough detail to
confirm that adequate clearances can be provided. The following locations will be analyzed and illustrated:
• Connection to regional Stevens Creek Trail
• Connection to Hammond-Snyder Loop Trail
• Cristo Rey Drive Crossing
• Interstate 280 Northbouth on-ramp and off-ramp crossing
• Foothill Boulevard Crossing
• Stevens Creek Boulevard Crossing
• Bubb Road Crossing
• McClellan Road Crossing
• Regnart Creek Crossing
• Rainbow Drive Crossing
• Seven Springs Parkway Crossing
• Prospect Road Crossing
• Arroyo De Arguello/Via Roncole Crossing
• Prospect Creek Crossing
• Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Crossing
Task 4.3. Develop Technical Report for Trail Alignments and Connection/Crossing
Concept Designs
Along with developing trail alignment alternatives and creating design concepts for the above connections
and crossings, Alta will develop a recommendation for the trail alternatives to carry into an environmental
analysis of a future trail. We will evaluate each of the alternatives for desirability (low, medium, and high)
by creating a matrix evaluation criterion that will make alternatives more preferable than others.
Alta will prepare an administrative technical report with appropriate appendices presenting each trail
alignment alternative along with the connection and intersection concept design. The technical report will
include a summarized matrix that will evaluate each alternative by ranking them for desirability. The
administrative technical report will be present to City of Cupertino staff for review and comment.
After initial comments are incorporated, Alta will submit a draft public technical report for the UPRR Trail
alignment alternatives to City staff. We will present the draft public technical report for the Union Pacific
Trail alignment alternatives to the community and City’s commissions for input and feedback on the different
alternatives.
Upon final comments from City of Cupertino staff, Alta will revise the draft public technical report for trail
alignments to reflect all the input received. The final document will be known as the final technical report
for the UPRR trail alignment alternatives.
Task 4 Deliverables:
• Technical report for the UPRR trail alignment alternatives and appendices (administrative draft,
public draft, and final)
o Document concept trail alignment alternatives
o Design considerations
o Trail feasibility criteria
107
o Recommendation matrix
o Recommendations for a preferred alternative
Task 5. Facilitate Community Outreach and Public Participation Efforts
5.1. Community Outreach Plan
Alta will work with the City project manager and key partners to create a detailed, coordinated plan to inform
and involve the public and all partners and stakeholders throughout the trail study. Elements of the outreach
plan will be discussed at the project initiation meeting. The plan will then be refined, coordinated with the
overall project work plan, and transmitted for review. Key components to be developed inc lude:
• Plan of materials to be developed, including public notices, online forum, and email messages
• Study messaging to be used throughout outreach materials, including specific messaging for
parents and families, and non-English-speaking residents
• Materials and communications distribution plan
• Outreach Schedule
The Outreach Plan will be revised by Alta in response to one set of comments from the City and relevant
partners. The final outreach plan will be implemented by Alta in collaboration with the City. We anticipate
that the City will assist with material distribution, including distribution to City channels, including print and
electronic media and public message boards.
5.2. Community Workshops
Alta will work with the City to plan and host up to three (3) engaging, collaborative, and interactive
community workshops.
Workshop #1
The first workshop will focus on introducing the study, gathering stakeholder feedback on opportunities and
constraints to be explored. This workshop will provide an opportunity to gather early feedback on the project
and engage stakeholders at the earliest stages of study development. We envision that the workshop would
include multiple stations with maps, diagrams, and other visual materials to help orient attendees to the
study area and objectives, with Alta and City staff available to discuss the project and gather feedback.
Workshop #2
Working with the City, Alta will plan and host a second community workshop at a mid-point of the project to
provide project updates and solicit additional feedback from stakeholders. This workshop will focus on
presenting the trail design and alignment alternatives, study opportunities and constraints, and final
evaluation criteria. Attendees will be presented with visual displays that showcase the alternatives,
opportunities and constraints, and provide the contextual information to help them provide informed
comments to the project team.
Workshop #3
The final community workshop will provide an opportunity to showcase the study findings, including the
recommended alignment, design standards, and cost estimates. Alta will work with the City to plan the
workshop for diverse attendance from stakeholder communities, including user groups, school
communities, nearby property owners, and non-English-speaking residents. The workshop will be in an
open house format, providing an opportunity to drop in, review the study findings and recommendations,
and speak with project team staff when convenient to the attendee. Boards and display materials will be
highly visual, with maximum use of graphic representation of materials alongside any narrative information.
108
5.3. Neighborhood-Specific Working Group Sessions
To promote more focused input and engagement, Alta proposes holding neighborhood-specific working
group sessions with residents living along the corridor in the following areas:
• Stonebridge Community to Creston Drive
• Northern end of Madera Drive to Stevens Creek Boulevard
• McClellan Road to Rainbow Drive
• Rainbow Drive to Prospect Road
• Prospect Road to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
Community Walks
Alta proposes holding the first two working group sessions as joint site tours/community walks to identify
key conditions and issues in the study area and to establish a shared understanding between the project
team and the community (these community walks could be combined with Task 3). The first community
walk could be on the northern section (Hammond-Snyder Loop Trail to McClellan Road) and the second
on the southern section (McClellan Road to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road). The sections could also be
shortened in length and may be contingent on getting approval from UPRR or other property owners. Alta
will provide a base map and background information package for participants. The main purpose of this
effort will be an interactive field working session where creative brainstorming can occur and where
opportunities and constraints can be better understood.
Working Group Sessions
Alta will then meet with each working group one time (five meetings total). The first working group session
will recap the community walks, describe existing conditions, opportunities, and constraints, and share initial
concepts for review and feedback. Revised concepts will be available for feedback at the second and third
community workshop. The method for noticing residents will be established in Task 5.1 Community
Outreach Plan and may include direct mail and/or online social media such as NextDoor.
5.4. Community Outreach Memo
Alta will develop a memo that details the public outreach process, timeline of activities, level of participation,
and community feedback. The memo will summarize community input according to common themes
expressed by the public and provide documentation of the engagement process through photographs,
attendance records, and comment cards or other written remarks. The memo will include an executive
summary.
5.5. Graphics/Online Media
Alta will develop a logo and design scheme to brand the study process. Alta will develop outreach flyers for
each of the three (3) community workshops. Alta will prepare up to twelve (12) visually rich posts to help
the City advertise upcoming events or provide updates on the study process via the City’s website and
social media channels.
Task 5 Deliverables:
• Community outreach plan
• Up to three community workshops
• Community walk (joint working group session)
• Up to six neighborhood-specific working group sessions
• Community outreach memo
• Study logo/brand
109
• Community workshop flyers
• Up to twelve update posts for social media/website
Task 6. Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility Study
Task 6.1. Administrative Feasibility Draft Study
Based on the information gathered in Tasks 1-5, Alta will prepare an administrative draft version of the
UPRR Trail Feasibility Study based on the preferred UPRR Trail preferred alignment alternative. Every
major chapter and section as well all exhibits and appendices produced will be provided to City of Cupertino
staff for review. This will be presented to city staff in the form of an administrative draft trail feasibility study
for comments. We will look to the City’s project manager to provide us with one consolidated set of
comments for inclusion in the final report.
Task 6.2. Public Feasibility Draft Study
After initial comments are incorporated, Alta will submit a public draft version of the UPRR Trail Feasibility
Study to City staff. We will present the public draft of the UPRR Trail Feasibility Study to the community
and City’s Commissions for final input and feedback on the preferred alternative.
Task 6.3. Final Feasibility Study
Upon final comments from City of Cupertino staff, Alta will revise the public draft version of the UPRR Trail
Feasibility Study to reflect all the input received. The final document will be known as the Final UPRR Trail
Feasibility Study.
Task 6 Deliverables:
• UPRR Trail Feasibility Study (administrative draft, public draft and final)
Task 7. Meetings
Throughout the duration of this project, the Alta team with be conducting meetings with city staff, local
agencies, local businesses, and with different communities and neighborhood throughout the UPRR Trail
corridor. The following meetings will be lead and administrate by the Alta team:
Task 7.1. Project Kick-off Meeting
As the first order of work Alta will conduct a project kick-off meeting with City of Cupertino staff and the
project team members will take place. Topics for this meeting include review of project goals, key issues
and project schedule including task and meeting sequencing, confirm procedures and lines of
communication and stakeholders, review and collect available information and review.
Task 7.2. City Staff Meetings
Monthly, in-person project team meetings will be conducted between the project team and City of Cupertino
staff. These meetings will occur throughout the project timeline and are intended to take place in Cupertino.
Weekly or bi-weekly project update meetings will be held via telephone, GoTo Meeting or similar (based on
City of Cupertino’s preference). The Alta team will lead both weekly/bi-weekly and monthly meetings and
will prepare the agendas, meeting materials, and meeting minutes.
110
Task 7.3. City Council Meetings/Study Sessions
Alta will prepare presentations for a minimum of two City council meetings/study sessions. These
meetings/study sessions will serve as an info session for the city council members and an opportunity for
them to provide their input. Alta will prepare all associated presentation materials.
Task 7.4. Commission Meetings/Study Sessions
Alta will lead presentations at a minimum of ten city commission meetings/study sessions for the various
applicable City of Cupertino commissions. These meetings/study sessions will serve as an info session for
the city commission members and an opportunity for them to provide their input. Alta will prepare all
associated presentation materials.
To reduce costs associated with this project, Alta and the City of Cupertino will strategize to combine these
meetings and hold joint commission meetings to discuss the proposed corridor.
Task 7.5. Agency Meetings
Alta will lead and administer meetings with each of the following agencies:
• UPRR – minimum of four meetings
• SCVW D – minimum of four meetings
• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority – minimum of two meetings
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – minimum of three meetings
• Pacific Gas & Electric – minimum of one meeting
• City of Saratoga – minimum of two meetings
• Alta will prepare all associated presentation materials for meetings.
Task 7.6. Local Business Meetings
Alta will discuss with the City of Cupertino staff to identify the local businesses along Bubb Road that will
be affected by the proposed UPRR Trail corridor. Once these businesses are identified, Alta will lead and
administer a minimum of two (2) meetings with each of the businesses to discuss their needs for potential
access from their parking lots. Alta will prepare all agenda, associated presentation materials, and meeting
minutes following each meeting.
Community Outreach Meetings
Please refer to Task 5: Facilitate Community Outreach and Public Participation Efforts for the community
outreach meetings plan.
Task 7 Deliverables:
• Final project scope and work schedule from the project kick-off Meeting
• Agendas, meeting materials, and meeting minutes for the City staff meetings
• Presentation and reports for the City council meetings
• Meeting materials and presentations for the City commission meetings
• Agendas, meeting materials, and meeting minutes for each of the agency meetings
• Agendas, meeting materials, and meeting minutes for each of the local business meetings
• Meeting materials and presentations for the community outreach meetings
111
Additional Task
Task 8. Boundary and Topographic Survey
Task 8.1. Topographic Survey
We propose to provide a topographic survey information at a scale of 1” = 20’. Areas where additional
topographic survey information is required will be identified by the Alta team and will typically show the
location of existing trees, structures, walkways, fences, adjacent roadways, and utility information within
the project areas. The location of utility vaults, manholes, catch basins and invert information of storm and
sanitary sewers will be shown based upon a field survey. The location of underground utilities lines such
as gas, water, electric, and any on-site utilities will be shown based upon available agency records.
Mechanical detection of existing utilities is specifically excluded.
Task 8.2. Boundary Survey
We propose to provide property boundary information where required including tie-in with adjacent streets,
curbs, etc. We will show boundary lines, giving length and bearing (including reference on basis) on each
straight line; interior angles; radius, point of tangency and length of curved lines.
112
1. Initiation and Project Management1.1 Project Initiation1.2 Project Management2. Identify Ownerships and Jurisdictions2.1 Collect Documents2.2 Review of Documents2.3 Identify potential constraints/design impacts3. Conduct Field Reconnaissance and Existing Facilities Inventory/Analysis 3.1. Data Collection and Base Mapping3.2. Site Reconnaissance X3.3. Opportunity and Constraints Analysis4. Develop Trail Alignments and Feasibility Criteria 4.1. Trail Feasibility Criteria4.2. Develop Trail Alignments Alternatives and Connection/Crossing Concept Designs 4.3. Develop Technical Report for Trail Alignments and Connection/Crossing Concept DesignsX5. Facilitate Community Outreach and Public Transportation Efforts5.1 Community Outreach Plan5.2 Community WorkshopsXXX5.3 Neighborhood-Specific Working Group SessionsXXX XX XX5.4 Community Outreach Memo5.5 Graphics/Online Media6. Union Pacific Railroad Feasibility Study6.1 Administrative Feasibility Draft Study6.2 Public Feasibility Draft StudyX6.3 Final Feasiblity Study7. Meetings7.1 Project Kick Off MeetingX7.2 City Staff MeetingsXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX7.3 City Council Meetings/Study SessionsXX7.4 Commision Meetings/Study SessionsXXXXXXXXXX7.5 Agency MeetingsXXXXXXXXXX7.6 Local Business MeetingsXXXXXXLEGENDTask ProgressXMeeting / WorkshopDeliverableClient Review8 9 10 11 12TaskMonth # (from Notice to Proceed)123414 15 1613567Exhibit B - Schedule of Performance113
Exhibit C - Compensation
City of Cupertino
Cupertino Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility Study
Biotic
Principal-in-
Charge
Project
Manager
Assistant
Project
Manager
Outreach
Lead Planner Designer
Senior
Engineer Engineer
GIS
Analyst
Principal-in-
Charge
Project
Manager
Project
Engineer
CAD
Drafter
Senior
Surveyor
Project
Surveyor
2-Person
Survey
Crew Biologist
George M.
Hudson,
PLA
Greg
Maher,
PLA, ASLA
Brian
Burchfield,
PLA
Jeff
Knowles,
AICP
Lola Torney Reed
Gordon
Jason
Cook, PE,
QSD
Joseph
Paull
Zachary
Robinson
Ron Sanzo,
PE, TE
Bruce
Davis, PE
Jenner
Philips
Colin
Findlay
Kelly
Johnson,
PLS
TBD TBD Kathleen
Lyons
$265 $200 $133 $175 $112 $105 $145 $112 $105 $200 $165 $140 $105 $175 $140 $295 $145
1. Initiation and Project Management 7 34 64 16 4 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 141 $22,735
1.1 Project Initiation 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 25 $3,905
1.2 Project Management 6 30 60 12 8 116 $18,830
2. Identify Ownerships and Jurisdictions 1 4 8 0 0 16 10 0 24 14 22 0 0 28 64 0 0 191 $28,069
2.1 Collect Documents 1 2 4 8 8 16 2 2 4 16 63 $8,547
2.2 Review of Documents 2 4 8 2 8 4 8 20 40 96 $14,122
2.3 Identify potential constraints/design impacts 8 12 4 8 32 $5,400
3. Conduct Field Reconnaissance and Existing
Facilities Inventory/Analysis 2 5 24 14 20 36 28 16 36 3 8 20 0 0 0 0 30 242 $31,894
3.1. Data Collection and Base Mapping 1 8 2 16 8 4 12 1 4 4 6 66 $8,452
3.2. Site Reconnaissance 2 8 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 12 58 $7,760
3.3. Opportunity and Constraints Analysis 2 2 8 8 16 16 16 8 16 2 4 8 12 118 $15,682
4. Develop Trail Alignments and Feasibility
Criteria 6 6 36 24 36 48 24 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 198 $26,262
4.1. Trail Feasibility Criteria 2 2 12 8 12 16 8 2 12 74 $9,594
4.2. Develop Trail Alignments Alternatives and
Connection/Crossing Concept Designs 2 2 12 8 12 16 8 2 62 $8,334
4.3. Develop Technical Report for Trail Alignments and
Connection/Crossing Concept Designs 2 2 12 8 12 16 8 2 62 $8,334
5. Facilitate Community Outreach and Public
Participation Efforts 4 26 30 50 110 32 4 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 $37,052
5.1 Community Outreach Plan 2 2 2 4 8 18 $2,792
5.2 Community Workshops 12 12 18 40 4 16 102 $13,998
5.3 Neighborhood-Specific Working Group Sessions 8 16 24 30 78 $11,288
5.4 Community Outreach Memo 1 2 4 16 2 25 $3,367
5.5 Graphics/Online Media 1 2 16 30 49 $5,607
6. Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility Study 6 24 32 36 30 48 48 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 257 $36,101
6.1 Administrative Feasibility Draft Study 2 8 12 12 10 16 16 10 86 $12,066
6.2 Public Feasibility Draft Study 2 8 12 12 10 16 16 10 2 88 $12,356
6.3 Final Feasiblity Study 2 8 8 12 10 16 16 10 1 83 $11,679
7. Meetings 3 44 76 32 16 0 24 8 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 223 $23,967
7.1 Project Kick Off Meeting 1 4 4 4 13 $2,297
7.2 City Staff & Team Meetings 1 8 16 8 8 41 $6,553
7.3 City Council & Commission Meetings/Study Sessions 1 8 8 8 8 4 37 $5,805
7.4 Commision Meetings/Study Sessions 8 20 12 8 8 8 64 $9,312
7.5 Agency Meetings 2 8 16 4 16 46 $7,478
7.6 Local Business Meetings 2 8 12 22 $3,726
Additional Tasks
8. Boundary and Topographic Survey 1 1 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 3 8 4 70 24 48 86 0 261 $48,809
8.1 Topographic Survey 1 1 8 8 1 4 4 54 4 8 54 147 $27,529
8.2 Boundary Survey 2 4 16 20 40 32 114 $21,280
Staff Hours 29 143 270 172 216 180 150 76 72 17 46 20 0 28 64 0 37 1785 $254,889
Reimbursable Expenses & Travel $5,000
Project Total without Additional Task 8 $7,685 $28,600 $35,910 $30,100 $24,192 $18,900 $21,750 $8,512 $7,560 $3,400 $7,590 $2,800 $0 $4,900 $8,960 $0 $5,365 $211,080
Project Total with Additional Task 8 $259,889
GENERAL NOTES:
* Hours and staff assignments can be adjusted by the consultant as needed to implement the tasks described during the course of the project.
TASK
Total Task
Fee
Alta Planning + Design
Task
Hours
Sandis
114
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Insurance Requirements for Professional/Consulting Contracts Version: Nov 2017
1
EXHIBIT D
Insurance Requirements
Professional/Consulting Services Contracts
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance and results of
the Services hereunder by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) Form CG 00 01 covering CGL
on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, contractual liability, property
damage, bodily injury, and personal and advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000 per
occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately
to this Project (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or it shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
a. It shall be a requirement under this agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader
than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits
shall be made available to the Additional Insured and shall be (1) the minimum
coverage/limits specified in this agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits
of coverage of any insurance policy, whichever is greater.
b. Additional Insured coverage under Contractor's policy shall be "primary and non-
contributory," will not seek contribution from City’s insurance/self-insurance, and shall be at
least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13
c. The limits of insurance required may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella
or excess insurance, provided each policy complies with the requirements set forth in this
Contract. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a
provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the
benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to
protect City as a named insured.
2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or, if Contractor has no
owned autos, then hired autos (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limits no less than
$1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation: As required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s
Liability Insurance of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury or disease.
(Not required if Contractor provides written verification it has no employees).
4. Professional Liability. Insurance which includes coverage for professional acts, errors and omissions,
with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate (if applicable).
If Contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, City requires
and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and higher insurance limits maintained by Contractor.
OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status
The City of Cupertino, its City Council, officers, officials, employees, agents, servants and volunteers are to
be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of the Services
115
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Insurance Requirements for Professional/Consulting Contracts Version: Nov 2017
2
performed by or on behalf of Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished. Endorsement of
CGL coverage shall be at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or if not available, through the addition
of both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 if a later edition is used.
Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this Contract, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary coverage at least
as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be
excess of Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute to it.
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy shall state that coverage shall not be canceled or allowed to expire, except with written
notice to City 30 days in advance or 10 days in advance if due to non-payment of premiums.
Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor may
acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Contractor agrees to obtain
any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies
regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
Self-Insured Retentions
City may approve self-insured retentions and require proof of Contractor’s ability to pay losses and related
investigations, claim administration and defense expenses within the retention. The policy shall provide, or
be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurers must be acceptable to City and licensed to do business in California, and each insurer must have an
A.M. Best’s financial strength rating of “A” or better and a financial size rating of “VII” or better.
Claims Made Policies (applicable only to professional liability)
If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:
1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the Effective Date of the Contract.
2. Insurance must be maintained for at least five (5) years after completion of the Services.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with
a Retroactive Date prior to the Contract Effective Date, the Contractor must purchase “extended
reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of the Services.
Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with acceptable original certificates and mandatory endorsements (or copies
of the policies effecting the coverage required by this Contract), and a copy of the Declarations and
Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to City prior to commencing the
Services. City retains the right to demand verification of compliance at any time during the Contract.
Subcontractors
Contractor shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements
stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that City is an additional insured on insurance required from
subcontractors.
Insurance coverage shall not limit Contractor’s duties to indemnify, defend and hold City harmless. City
reserves the right to modify these requirements based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer,
coverage or other special circumstances.
116
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-3577 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/27/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/20/2018 2/20/2018
Title:Subject: Authorize Funding Amount to the 2011 Contract Sweeping Services, Inc, Contract
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - June 6, 2011 Staff Report
C – April 27, 2016 letter to Contract Street Sweeping to extend five years
D - September 27, 2017 Lehigh Hanson Letter
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
AdoptedCity Council2/20/2018 1
Subject: Authorize Funding Amount to the 2011 Contract Sweeping Services, Inc, Contract
1. Adopt Resolution No. 18-013 to increase the authorized amount for the 2011 Contract
Sweeping Service, Project No. 2011-02, to Contract Sweeping Service, Inc., from the
previously authorized annual amount of $137,097, to the annual amount of $198,000, and
approve a an annual contingency of $10,000 to cover extra sweeping as may be required, for a
total of $208,000, and;
2. Approve FY 17/18 Budget Adjustments in the amount of $42,542 in the Resource Recovery
Envorinmental Programs account number 520-81-801 700-702 and $28,361 in the
Environmental Management Clean Creek Storm Drain Non-Point Source account number 230-
81-802 700-702.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™117
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 6, 2018
Subject
Authorize Funding Amount for the 2011 Contract Sweeping Services Contract
Recommended Actions
1. Adopt the draft resolution to increase the authorized amount for the 2011
Contract Sweeping Service, Project No. 2011-02, to Contract Sweeping Service, by
$70,903, which includes an annual contingency of $10,000 to cover extra
sweeping as may be required, for a total of $208,000 annually; and
2. Approve FY17/18 Budget Adjustments in the amount of $42,542 in the Resource
Recovery Environmental Programs account number 520 -81-801 700-702 and
$28,361 in the Environmental Management Clean Creek Storm Drain Non-Point
Source account number 230-81-802 700-702.
Discussion
This project is for street sweeping services and was originally authorized by Council on
June 6, 2011 for the annual amount to $137,097. The term of the contract was for five
years starting on July 1, 2011, and with satisfactory performance, there was an option to
extend for an additional five years, for a total of ten years. Due to satisfactory
performance, the contract was extended an additional five year years that began July 1,
2016. Per the contract, the cost to perform street sweeping is increased or decreased
based on the consumer price index (CPI).
The current budgeted amount for street sweeping has been exceeded due to additional
commercial route sweeping and compounding increases to the CPI. An annual
appropriation of $208,000, is needed to maintain the currently required level of street
sweeping. Staff will be requesting a similar appropriations for remaining two and one
half years of the extended term of the contract.
Additional Sweeping of Foothill Boulevard
118
In 2017, staff received numerous complaints regarding loose rock on Foothill Boulevard.
To resolve the issue, the City added one more sweep for a total of three sweeps per
week. The additional cost of this sweep is being reimbursed at a rate of $200 per week
by Lehigh Hanson Cement as pass-through funding not impacting the contract amount.
A fourth sweep of Foothill Boulevard is also being performed by Stevens Creek Quarry
(SCQ) with SCQ forces at no cost to the City.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
This budget adjustment will be split 60\40 between Resource Recovery Environmental
Programs account number 520-81-801 700-702 for $42,542 and the Environmental
Management Clean Creek Storm Drain Non-Point Source account number 230-81-802
700-702 for the amount of $28,361.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft Resolution
B - June 7, 2011 Staff Report
C – April 27, 2016 letter to Contract Street Sweeping to extend five years
D - September 13, 2017 letter from Lehigh Hanson
119
RESOLUTION NO. 18-XXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR STREET SWEEPING
SERVICES WITH CONTRACT SWEEPING SERVICES INC. TO A TOTAL OF
$208,000 FOR FY 2017-2018
WHEREAS, in 2011 the City of Cupertino solicited competitive bidding for
contractors to provide street sweeping services throughout the City. Four bids were
received and Contract Sweeping Services Inc. (“Contractor”) was considered to be the
lowest responsive bidder and was awarded the contract; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a 5-year contract with Contractor for
street sweeping services on June 6, 2011, in the amount of $137,097 including a $20,000
contingency to cover changes in sweeping routes and compounding increases to CPI,
for a total contract amount of $685,485 for five years; and
WHEREAS, the contract provided the option to extend for five additional years
and based on Contractor’s satisfactory performance the contract was extended from
July 1, 2016 through July 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the general terms of the contract remain the same, but additional
services are required and the contract budget must be increased to conform to
compounding increases in CPI; and
WHEREAS, an annual appropriation of $208,000, which is equivalent to
$520,000 in total is needed for the remaining two and one half years of the extended
term of the contract; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Cupertino hereby adopts this resolution and approves the following actions:
1. An increase of the authorized amount for the 2011 Contract Sweeping Service,
Project No. 2011-02, to Contract Sweeping Services, Inc. by $70,903, which includes
a contingency of $10,000 annually to cover extra sweeping as may be required, for
an annual total of $208,000 for the remainder of the extended contract term; and
2. Approves budget adjustments in the amount of $42,542 in the Resource Recovery
Environmental Programs account number 520-81-801 700-702 and $28,361 in the
120
Environmental Management Clean Creek Storm Drain Non-Point Source account
number 230-81-802 700-702.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino the 6th day of February 2018, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Darcy Paul, Mayor
City of Cupertino
121
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: June 7, 2011
Subject
2011 Contractual Street Sweeping Services.
Recommended Action
Review bids and award contract for Street Sweeping Services, Project No. 2011-02 to Contract
Sweeping Services, Inc. in the amount of $117,097.68, and approve a contingency of $20,000 to
cover extra sweeping that may be required on the commercial route, for a total of $137,097.68.
Discussion
This project is for annual Street Sweeping Services and is funded in the Resource Recovery and
the Non Point Source budgets. The project consists of the Contractor sweeping City commercial
and residential streets throughout the year. Residential and commercial streets are swept two
times per month and Foothill Boulevard will be swept three times a week. Staff is in discussion
with Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc. and LeHigh Cement, Inc. for a cost sharing agreement for the
sweeping of Foothill Boulevard. The term of the agreement is five years with satisfactory
performance, starting on July 1, 2011 and can be extended for an additional five years, for a total
of ten years. Upon one year of satisfactory performance the contract price will be increased or
decreased based on the consumer price index (CPI) for all union wage earners on the anniversary
date of the agreement.
The following is a summary of the bids received for the project:
BIDDER BASE BID
Budget Estimate $200,000.00
Broom Service Inc. $197,113.92
Universal Building Services $179,904.00
Clean Sweep $143,724.00
Contract Sweeping Services $117,097.68
The low bidder is Contract Sweeping Services, Inc. for the amount of $117,097.68.
As part of this bid there are items for Emergency and Scheduled Extra Work as needed on an
hourly rate basis or on a curb mile rate basis. When necessary this work would be billed in
addition to the monthly miles swept.
122
Contract Sweeping Services, Inc. bid on this project in the past. Our current sweeping contract is
Don and Mike’s Commercial Sweeping, Inc. Don and Mike’s Commercial Sweeping, Inc.
contract price is $144,084, plus $18,000 for potential extra sweeping.
Fiscal Impact
This action would require expenditure from the approved Resource Recovery Budget Account
No. 520-8003-7106 in the amount of $57,097.68 and from the Non Point Source Budget Account
No. 230-8004-7014 in the amount of $60,000.00, and additional expenditures thereafter from the
Resource Recovery Account up to an additional $20,000, if emergency or additional sweeping is
required.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments: None
123
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timm Borden, Director
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE ~ CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3266
(408) 777-3354 ~ FAX (408) 777-3333
April 27, 2016
Mr. Joe Vella
Contract Street Sweeping Services, Inc.
760 E. Capital Avenue
Milpitas, CA 95035-6812
Subject: 2011 Contractual Street Sweeping Services Contract - Five Year Extension
Dear Mr. Vella
In 2011 the City of Cupertino solicited competitive bidding for contractors to provide
street sweeping services throughout the City. Four bids were received and Contract
Street Sweeping was considered to be the lowest responsive bidder. At the City Council
meeting of June 7, 2011, the contract was authorized for award and Contract Street
Sweeping began providing service to the City on July 1, 2011. The term of this
agreement was five years with the option to extend for an additional five years.
Due to the good performance of Contract Street Sweeping in providing street sweeping
services to the City, the City desires to exercise the option to extend the agreement
through June 2021. Please refer to paragraph 3.1 Contract Time of the agreement. This
extension will be subject to the same provisions as the original agreement, including an
increase or decrease in compensation paid to Contract Street Sweeping.
By signing and returning this original document, Contract Street Sweeping is agreeing
to this five year extension per the original terms of the 2011 Contractual Street
Sweeping Contract (Project No. 2011-02).
Thank you for your service. Contract Street Sweeping, Inc.
__________________________
Signature
Timm Borden __________________________
Director of Public Works Print Name / Title
__________________________
Date
124
24001 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone Number: 408-996-4202
September 13, 2017
Roger S. Lee
Assistant Director of Public Works
City of Cupertino
RE: Street Sweeping
Dear Roger:
This letter confirms Lehigh Southwest Cement Company’s (Lehigh) agreement to contribute to
the cost of street-sweeping N. Foothill Blvd. in Cupertino (from McClellan Road to Highway
280). Lehigh agrees that, for the period of one year (52 weeks), Lehigh will pay the City $200
per week to reimburse the City for its costs of hiring Contract Sweeping Co. to conduct an
additional sweep of N. Foothill Blvd. each Friday with a regenerative air sweeper.
Lehigh is making this contribution to reiterate its commitment to fostering a good relationship
with the City and the surrounding community. Lehigh does not believe, and specifically denies,
that its site is the cause of any of the excess pebbles or dust on N. Foothill Blvd.
Respectfully,
________________________________
Erika Guerra
Environmental Director
Lehigh Hanson
.cc
Keith Krugh (Lehigh)
Denzil Cotera (Lehigh)
125
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-3578 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/27/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/20/2018 2/20/2018
Title:Subject: Accept offer of dedication and waiver of future reimbursement related to the McClellan Road
Sidewalk Improvements - Phase 2 Project
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
AdoptedCity Council2/20/2018 1
Subject: Accept offer of dedication and waiver of future reimbursement related to the
McClellan Road Sidewalk Improvements - Phase 2 Project
Adopt Resolution No. 18-014 accepting the offer of dedication and waiver of future
reimbursement from four property owners for the construction of the McClellan Road Sidewalk
Improvements - Phase 2 Project
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™126
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 20, 2018
Subject:
Accept offer of dedication and waiver of future reimbursement related to the McClellan
Road Sidewalk Improvements - Phase 2 Project.
Recommended Action:
Adopt a draft resolution accepting the offer of dedication and waiver of future
reimbursement from four property owners for the construction of the McClellan Road
Sidewalk Improvements - Phase 2 Project.
Description:
Section 14.04.110 of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code provides that when the City
or another property owner installs public improvements that benefit a property, the
owner of the benefitted property is required to reimburse the City or the property
owner for its reasonable share of the costs of such improvements when the benefitted
property owner seeks a land use entitlement from the City. However, if a property
owner dedicates necessary right-of-way to the City without charge, the City may enter
into an agreement with the owner to waive future reimbursement requirements.
Discussion:
The McClellan Road Sidewalk Improvements - Phase 2 project will install sidewalks
along McClellan Road between Byrne and San Leandro Avenues. During the design of
the project the need for additional right-of-way was identified in 7 locations. Beginning
in February 2017, staff began discussions with abutting property owners to obtain the
necessary right-of-way dedication. Four property owners have donated property rights
for the construction of the sidewalk improvements in exchange for a waiver of future
reimbursement for City funded public improvements. The three remaining property
owners have declined to donate the necessary property rights. In these locations the
sidewalk will be discontinuous until such time as the property owners submit a
development application. When that occurs, the development will be conditioned to
dedicate the necessary right-of-way and construct full public improvements at no cost
to the City.
With the adoption of this resolution staff can complete the design of the project and the
relocation of utilities in advance of the scheduled June 2018 start of construction.
127
Sustainability Impact
Acceptance of the land dedications will allow the sidewalk improvements project to be
constructed. This project will encourage walking by providing a safe path of travel and
is consistent with the Mobility Element of the General Plan, Goal M-3 (“Support a Safe
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network for People of All Ages and Abilities”).
Fiscal Impact
Approval of this resolution results in no additional fiscal impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Michael Zimmermann, CIP Manager
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Department
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A - Draft Resolution
128
RESOLUTION NO. XX-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ACCEPTING THE DEDICATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS TO 21970,
21972, 22000, AND 22549 McCLELLAN ROAD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SIDEWALKS ON McCLELLAN ROAD AND WAIVING FUTURE
REIMBURSEMENT OF CITY-FUNDED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City desires to construct sidewalks on McClellan Road in areas
where the sidewalks are currently discontinuous; and
WHEREAS, section 14.04.110 of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code allows
the City to provide a waiver of future reimbursement of the cost for City-funded public
improvements when the property owner donates the property rights necessary for the
improvement project; and
WHEREAS, four property owners have donated property rights along their
property frontages necessary for the construction of the McClellan Sidewalk
Improvements-Phase 2 Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Cupertino hereby accepts the dedication of property to 21970, 21972, 22000, AND 22549
McClellan Road and as further described in each of the four Agreements Regarding Offer
of Dedication and Waiver of Future Reimbursement, attached as Exhibits A through D.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 20th day of February 2018, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: TBD
NOES: TBD
ABSENT: TBD
ABSTAIN: TBD
APPROVED:
________________________
ATTEST:
_________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Darcy Paul, Mayor, City of Cupertino
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-3683 Name:
Status:Type:Second Reading of
Ordinances
Enacted
File created:In control:2/14/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/20/2018 2/20/2018
Title:Subject: Second reading for an ordinance to amend regulations in Title 2, Administration and
Personnel of the Municipal Code Chapter 2.80, to allow up to six (6) members for the Fine Arts
Commission
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff report
A - Ordinance No. 18-2171
B - Redline Draft Ordinance
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
EnactedCity Council2/20/2018 1
Subject: Second reading for an ordinance to amend regulations in Title 2, Administration and
Personnel of the Municipal Code Chapter 2.80, to allow up to six (6) members for the Fine Arts
Commission
That the City Council conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 18-2171: "An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending regulations in Title 2,
Administration and Personnel of the Municipal Code Chapter 2.80, to allow up to six (6)
members for the Fine Arts Commission"
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™170
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: February 20, 2018
Subject
Second reading for an ordinance to amend regulations in Title 2, Administration and
Personnel of the Municipal Code Chapter 2.80, to allow up to six (6) members for the Fine
Arts Commission.
Recommended Action
That the City Council conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance 18-2171:
”Ordinance to amend regulations in Title 2, Administration and Personnel of the
Municipal Code, Chapter 2.80, to allow up to six (6) members for the Fine Arts
Commission.”
Discussion
On February 6, 2018, the City Council introduced and conducted the first reading of
Ordinance 18-2171. The changes to the Municipal Code are indicated in redlines in
Attachment B.
Next steps
The ordinance will be effective 30 days after the second reading (March 22, 2018).
Prepared by: Catarina Kidd, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Benjamin Fu, Assistant Community Development Director
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A. Ordinance 18-2171
B. Redline Draft Ordinance, indicating changes to Municipal Code
171
ORDINANCE NO. 18-2171
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CUPERTINO ORDINANCE AMENDING
REGULATIONS IN TITLE 2, ADMINISTRATION AND
PERSONNEL OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.80,
TO ALLOW UP TO SIX (6) MEMBERS
FOR FINE ARTS COMMISSION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Section 2.80.010 of the City’s ordinance code is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.80.010 Established.
The Fine Arts Commission of the City is established. The Fine Arts Commission shall
consist of six members, none of whom shall be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with
as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City
Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The membership shall be
reduced back to five members when one Fine Arts Commissioner term expires in January 2019.
At least three members shall be City of Cupertino residents. Members of the Fine Arts
Commission shall be appointed by the City Council. Membership will be drawn to represent the
arts, citizens and business community on an approximately equal basis
2. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation, published and circulated in the City within 15 days after its adoption, in
accordance with Government Code Section 36933, and shall certify to the adoption of this
ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of publication,
to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 6th
day of February 2018 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino the 20th day of February, 2018 by the following vote:
Vote: Members of the City Council
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ______________________________
Grace Schmidt Darcy Paul
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
172
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CUPERTINO ORDINANCE AMENDING
REGULATIONS IN TITLE 2, ADMINISTRATION AND
PERSONNEL OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.80,
TO ALLOW UP TO SIX (6) MEMBERS
FOR FINE ARTS COMMISSION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Section 2.80.010 of the City’s ordinance code is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.80.010 Established.
The Fine Arts Commission of the City is established. The Fine Arts Commission shall
consist of five six members, none of whom shall be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit
with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission,
the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The membership shall be
reduced back to five members when one Fine Arts Commissioner term expires in January 2019.
At least three members shall be City of Cupertino residents. Members of the Fine Arts
Commission shall be appointed by the City Council. Membership will be drawn to represent the
arts, citizens and business community on an approximately equal basis
2. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation, published and circulated in the City within 15 days after its adoption, in
accordance with Government Code Section 36933, and shall certify to the adoption of this
ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of publication,
to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 6th
day of February 2018 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino the 20th day of February, 2018 by the following vote:
Vote: Members of the City Council
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ______________________________
Grace Schmidt Darcy Paul
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
173
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:117-3452 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Adopted
File created:In control:12/20/2017 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/20/2018 2/20/2018
Title:Subject: Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation
Plan
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
AdoptedCity Council2/20/2018 1
Subject: Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
Adopt Resolution No. 18-015 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2018
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™174
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 20, 2018
Subject
Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution No. 18-015 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2018
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Discussion
The Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan is a long-range planning document that
will be the blueprint for Cupertino to achieve its vision of an inviting, safe, and
connected pedestrian network that enhances the quality of life for all community
members and visitors. The current Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2002. Since
that time, communities have developed better tools and metrics to evaluate areas of
opportunity and conflict and to envision and implement improvements that will have a
measurable impact on the safety and appeal of walking. As a result, over the past eight
months City staff, along with Toole Design Group, have been working together to
develop an update to the Pedestrian Transportation Plan that addresses present and
future needs of the walking community and lays the groundwork for grant funding
eligibility for pedestrian-related projects.
The 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan (the Plan) is divided into five main
chapters. Chapter 1, Introduction and Purpose, introduces the Plan, outlines the Plan’s
visions and goals, and outlines the planning process used to update the Plan.
Chapter 2, Walking in Cupertino Today, describes Cupertino’s land use, demographics,
travel patterns, its major transportation facilities, pedestrian destinations and demands,
and discusses collision history.
Chapter 3, Policy and Program Recommendations, identifies a series of focused policies,
programs, and practices to further promote pedestrian safety and access. These
recommendations were developed based on a review and evaluation of the C ity’s
current operations and compared with national best practices. The recommendations
175
address three primary areas: infrastructure and operations; evaluation and planning;
and education and enforcement.
Chapter 4, Project Recommendations, discusses the various means by which location-
specific project recommendations were identified. These means include walk audits
performed by staff, the consultant team and members of the community; public
comments received via an online map; comments received at public workshops; and
staff input based on locations of known issues and previous community feedback.
These are discussed further in “Outreach and Public Hearings”, below. Also included in
this chapter is a toolbox inventory of measures that can be implemented to enhance
walkability and safety, along with the benefits, challenges and applicability of each.
Finally, Chapter 5, Implementation Strategy, presents the prioritized list of individual
infrastructure improvements, including the evaluation criteria, scoring method and
project cost estimates. For each improvement, the type of project, location, total score,
and approximate cost are given. Proposed improvements range from small, relatively
low-cost items such as infilling sidewalk gaps, to large-scale projects such as grade-
separated bike/ped crossings. The improvements have been sorted into priority tiers
based on a logical breakdown of scores. It is anticipated that projects within Tier 1
would be completed first; however, projects in Tiers 2 or 3 may be implemented sooner
if practical considerations or funding opportunities make it advisable. Additionally,
Tier 1 contains some projects that are of a high cost and large scope, and it is anticipated
that although work may begin on these projects in the short -term, project completion
may not occur for several years similarly as a result of practical considerations or
funding constraints.
Of particular note is the fact that many of the projects identified in the Plan either
overlap with projects already identified in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, or will
be addressed as part of improvements to be completed as part of the Bike Plan
implementation. Also, for the purpose of project prioritization, recommended
improvements were separated into two groups: (1) those which are generally of
significant cost, along high-crash corridors, and/or provide significant connectivity and
which would generally require funding through the Capital Improvement Program;
and (2) smaller isolated projects, which include most items identified through the walk
audits and which can generally be funded through existing Operation and Maintenance
budgets or completed in combination with larger projects. Only the first group of
projects are prioritized in Chapter 5; the others are listed in Appendices C and D.
Outreach and Public Hearings
Outreach events included a public workshop held on January 25, 2017 for the purpose
of soliciting input from the Cupertino community with respect to their vision for
walking in Cupertino; an online WikiMap, which was open to comments from January
22 to March 1, 2017; a table at Cupertino’s Earth Day on April 22, 2017 to share initial
176
recommendations and solicit further feedback; and six walk audits performed by City
staff, Toole Design Group staff, and interested community members on March 14 and
15, 2017 to identify specific pedestrian-related issues, create a shared understanding of
infrastructure and behavioral issues that create a challenging pedestrian environment,
discuss potential countermeasures. In addition, the Plan has been a regular item on the
agenda of the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, including presentations by
Toole Design Group staff on March 15, 2017 and June 21, 2017 for the purpose of
informing and gathering input from the Commission and members of the general
public. Finally, the draft Plan was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission
for discussion on December 7, 2017. At their meeting of November 15, 2017, the Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission unanimously voted to recommend that City Council adopt the
Plan, with a follow up recommendation at their January 17, 2018 meeting to
incorporate several comments into the Plan that were received at the Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting.
Sustainability Impact
Implementation of the elements of the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan will
encourage walking, reduce reliance on the single-occupancy vehicle, and will therefore
have a positive impact on sustainability. Additionally, adopting the Plan is consistent
with the Mobility Element of the General Plan, Goal M-3 (“Support a Safe Pedestrian
and Bicycle Network for People of All Ages and Abilities”) and Policy M-3 (“Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan”).
Fiscal Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact resulting from adoption of the 2018 Pedestrian
Transportation Plan. However, there will be a cost associated with implementing each
of the proposed improvements contained within the Plan. Priority projects identified by
the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan will be proposed as part of the 2018-19 Capital
Improvement Program budget.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: David Stillman, Senior Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft Resolution
177
A - Draft Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 18-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING THE 2018
CUPERTINO PEDESTRIAN PLAN PROJECT AND THE CUPERTINO PEDESTRIAN PLAN
PROJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FOR WHICH AN INITIAL STUDY WAS
PREPARED, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, AS AMENDED, AND ADOPTING A RELATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Cupertino prepared an Initial
Study and approved for circulation a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian
Plan under Project No. 2016-17 (the “Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration”), all in accordance
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with state and
local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively “CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that implementation
of the Project could result in a certain significant effect on the environment and identified a mitigation
measure that would reduce the significant effect to a less-than-significant level; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an initial
study/mitigated negative declaration that identifies one or more significant environmental effects,
CEQA requires the decision-making body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation
measures that would reduce those significant environment effects to a less-than-significant level; and
WHEREAS, whenever a lead agency approves a project requiring the implementation of
measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, CEQA also requires a lead
agency to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure compliance with the
mitigating measures during project implementation, and such a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program has been prepared for the Project for consideration aby the decision-maker for the City of
Cupertino as lead agency for the Project (the “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”); and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is the lead agency on the project, and the City Council is the
decision-making for the proposed approval to undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration and related Mitigation and Reporting Program for the Project and intends to take actions on
the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Attachment 1,
and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, attached hereto
as Attachment 2, and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife
resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code.
178
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Program and Transportation Development Act (TDA)
provide funding for projects that improve safety and convenience for walking; and
WHEREAS, a local agency must have a current Pedestrian Transportation Plan to be eligible for
TDA funds and the current Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted in 2002; and
WHEREAS, a local agency must have projects reviewed by a local bicycle and pedestrian
advisory committee for TDA funds, and this Plan has been reviewed by the Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan complies with the San Francisco
Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan has been prepared by
consultants in conjunction with the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and City Staff; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan provides policy, project, and
programmatic recommendations that will help Cupertino create an inviting, safe, and connected
pedestrian network that promotes active living and enhances the quality of life for all community
members and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan includes a summary of current
pedestrian safety trends and a selection of recommendations that will help Cupertino better understand
and mitigate pedestrian safety issues, prioritize safety projects, and track improvements in pedestrian
safety in the future; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan provides resources and
recommendations to help Cupertino achieve the mobility and Complete Streets goals set forth in the
City’s Community Vision 2040; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan will encourage more people to
walk in Cupertino through guidance that will increase and improve pedestrian access to community
destinations for people of all ages and abilities; and
WHEREAS, the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission recommends City Council Approval
of the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan is attached hereto as Attachment
3, and incorporated herein by reference; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO:
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby make the following findings:
(1) It has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and other
information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, prior to acting upon or
approving the Project,
(2) The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project has been completed in compliance
with CEQA and consistent with state and local guidelines implementing CEQA, and
179
(3) The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration represents the independent judgment and analysis of
the City of Cupertino as lead agency for the Project. The City Council designates the Public Works
Department at the City of Cupertino located at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, as the
custodian or documents and records on which this decision is based.
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby find that based on the entire record of proceedings before it
and all information received that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant
effect on the environment and does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the related
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project (2016 No. 17). The Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Reporting Program are attached hereto as
Attachment 2 and 3.
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby approves the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20 day of February, 2018 by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Darcy Paul, Mayor, City of Cupertino
180
Attachment 1
181
Initial Study0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ
Cupertino 3HGHVWULDQ
Transportation Plan
Project
Prepared by
-DQXDU\
182
183
184
185
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................ 1
Section 2.0 Project Information ......................................................................................................... 3
Section 3.0 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 6
Section 4.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Impact Discussion ........................................... 17
4.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 19
4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .................................................................................... 24
4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 26
4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 31
4.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 35
4.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 38
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 41
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 45
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 48
4.10 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................... 55
4.11 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................ 57
4.12 Noise and Vibration……………………………………………………………………….. 58
4.13 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................ 61
4.14 Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 62
4.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 64
4.16 Transportation/Traffic........................................................................................................... 65
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 68
4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................... 71
Section 5.0 References ..................................................................................................................... 73
Section 6.0 Lead Agency and Consultants ....................................................................................... 76
186
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan ii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures
Figure 2.0-1: Regional Map .............................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2.0-2: Aerial Map .................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3.0-1: Existing and Planned Off-Street Facilities ................................................................ 13
Figure 3.0-2: Proposed Sidewalk Projects ...................................................................................... 14
Figure 3.0-3: Proposed Traffic Calming Projects ........................................................................... 15
Figure 3.0-4: Proposed Intersection Improvements ........................................................................ 16
Photos
Photo 1. ................................................................................................................................................ 19
Photo 2 and 3. ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Photo 4 and 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Tables
Table 3.2-1: Proposed Pedestrian Pathways & Bike/Ped Bridges ......................................................... 7
Table 3.2-2: Proposed Sidewalk Project Locations ............................................................................... 7
Table 3.2-3: Proposed Traffic Calming Opportunities .......................................................................... 8
Table 3.2-4: Proposed Intersection Improvements ................................................................................ 9
Table 3.2-5: Other Pedestrian Projects ................................................................................................ 10
187
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan iii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AFY Acre-feet per year
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNPS California Native Plant Society
dB Decibel
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESAs Endangered Species Acts
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
LID Low Impact Development
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
NOD Notice of Determination
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PM Particulate Matter
PTP Pedestrian Transportation Plan
RWF Regional Wastewater Facility
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SJWC San José Water Company
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TACs Toxic Air Contaminants
TCMs Transportation Control Measures
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
188
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The City of Cupertino as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study for the Cupertino
Pedestrian Transportation Plan in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations
and policies of the City of Cupertino, California.
The project proposes to improve and expand the existing pedestrian network throughout the City of
Cupertino. This Initial Study evaluates the environmental impacts that might reasonably be
anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project.
The City previously circulated an Initial Study for the proposed project from September 19, 2017 to
October 18, 2017; however, the document was not adopted due to changes in the project description
made prior to project approval. Therefore, the City is recirculating the Initial Study for the project
which includes all of the previously evaluated and some additional pedestrian improvements in the
City. Comments were received on the previous Initial Study from the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) related to the project description and the potential need for encroachment
permits. The City has considered these comments in the preparation of this updated Initial Study.
The additional improvements evaluated in the Initial Study include three new sidewalk
improvements (Mary Avenue, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Alcalde Road), a walkway (San
Fernando Avenue), a new Class 1 Path (Mary Avenue), two grade separated crossings (Phar Lap
Drive and McClellan Road), and the reconfiguration of the Rainbow Drive and Stelling Road
intersection. These improvements are described in detail in Section 3.0 Project Description.
1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Publication of this Initial Study marks the beginning of a 30-day public review and comment period.
During this period, the Initial Study will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to
interested organizations and individuals for review. Written comments concerning the environmental
review contained in this Initial Study during the 30-day public review period should be sent to:
Julie Chiu, Associate Civil Engineer
City of Cupertino, Department of Public Works
Juliec@cupertino.org
408.777.7710
1.3 CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROJECT
Following the conclusion of the public review period, the City of Cupertino will consider the
adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project at a regularly
scheduled meeting. The City shall consider the Initial Study/MND together with any comments
received during the public review process. Upon adoption of the MND, the City may proceed with
project approval actions.
189
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
1.4 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
If the project is approved, the City of Cupertino will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which
will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s
Office for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to
the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)).
190
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 PROJECT TITLE
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
2.2 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
Julie Chiu, Associate Civil Engineer
City of Cupertino, Department of Public Works
Juliec@cupertino.org
408.777.7710
2.3 PROJECT APPLICANT
City of Cupertino, Department of Public Works
2.4 PROJECT LOCATION
The Pedestrian Transportation Plan proposes upgrading, expanding, and installing new pedestrian
facilities throughout the City of Cupertino. Regional and aerial maps of the City are shown on
Figure 2.0-1 and 2.0-2.
2.5 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER
Most of the proposed pedestrian network would be completed within existing public right-of-ways
which generally, do not have individual assessor parcel numbers.
2.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT
Most of the length of the proposed pedestrian network would be completed within existing public
right-of-ways, which generally do not have individual General Plan or zoning designations. The
proposed pedestrian facilities run through areas with various General Plan land use designations and
zoning areas throughout the City.
191
VICINITY MAPFIGURE 2.0-11728028088068085853535852379998282101101San JoseSanta ClaraLos AltosCupertinoCupertinoLos GatosSaratogaCampbellCampbellSunnyvaleSunnyvaleMountainViewSan Francisco BayPacific OceanMonterey BaySan JoséFremontOaklandSan FranciscoSanta CruzMountain ViewMorgan HillFremontOaklandSan FranciscoSanta CruzMountain ViewSunnyvaleMorgan HillProject SiteProject SiteSan JoséCampbellCampbellSunnyvale192
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FIGURE 2.0-2
Sunnyvale
Cupertino
Saratoga
San Jose
Santa Clara
City of Cupertino
0 1000 3000 6000 Feet
193
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The proposed project is the update to the existing Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan that was
adopted in 2002. The Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PTP) serves as the blueprint for Cupertino to
achieve its vision of an inviting, safe, and connected pedestrian network that enhances the quality of
life for all community members and to establish a guiding framework for the development and
maintenance of pedestrian facilities throughout Cupertino.
The PTP builds upon existing City policies and strategies, including the Cupertino Bicycle
Transportation Plan (Bicycle Transportation Plan), which was adopted in 2016. Some of the
proposed project components discussed in this Initial Study were also included in the Bicycle
Transportation Plan.1
3.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Tables 3.2-1 – 3.2-5 below, list the proposed project components, separated by project type. Within
the draft PTP, the projects are further categorized based on prioritization for implementation, which
will be primarily based on the identification of funding sources. For the location of the planned
improvements on maps of the City, refer to Figures 3.0-1 – 3.0-5 at the end of Section 3.0.
Pedestrian Pathway Projects
Pedestrian shared use paths are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and are intended for
use by pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorized users. Pedestrian/bicycle bridges are
included in pedestrian pathway projects and provide complete separation of pedestrians and
bicyclists from vehicular traffic, often where no other pedestrian or bicycle facility is available. They
connect transportation networks across barriers such as railroads, freeways, or other major
transportation corridors. Grade-separated undercrossings are also considered to be pedestrian
pathway projects.
Table 3.2-1 on the following page lists the proposed pedestrian pathway and pedestrian/bicycle
bridge opportunities in the City. The listed projects were analyzed as part of the Cupertino Bicycle
Transportation Network Initial Study. As with the Bicycle Transportation Plan, further
environmental review may be required for implementation of these off-street improvements. Figure
3.0-1 shows the location of the proposed improvements on a map of the City. These improvements
are those most likely to result in ground disturbance.
1 The overlapping project components of the proposed project and the Bicycle Transportation Plan are identified in
this Initial Study. The environmental review for the PTP is consistent with the environmental review of the Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
194
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Table 3.2-1
Proposed Pedestrian Pathways & Ped/Bicycle Bridges
Recommendation Location
Create pedestrian/bike connection Imperial Ave. between Alcazar Ave. and
Almaden Ave.
Enhance pedestrian/bike connection Bandley Dr. at Greenleaf Dr.
Construct shared use path Union Pacific ROW
Construct pedestrian/bicyclist bridge SR-85 Bridge
Construct shared use path I-280 Canal Path
Construct shared use path Vallco West Pathway
Construct shared use path Regnart Creek
Construct shared use path Deep Cliff Golf Course
Construct shared use path Varian Park Path
Construct pedestrian/bicyclist bridge Carmen Rd. Bridge at Stevens Creek Blvd.
Construct shared use path Wilson Park
Construct shared use path San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Extension
Construct pedestrian/bicyclist bridge West Cupertino UPRR Crossing
Construct shared use path The Oaks Path
Construct pedestrian/bicyclist bridge McClellan Rd. at Stevens Creek
Construct grade-separated
undercrossing
Phar Lap Dr. at Stevens Creek Blvd.
Construct grade-separated
undercrossing
McClellan Rd., east or west of Stevens
Creek Blvd.
Construct shared use path Mary Ave. – Don Burnett Bridge to Stevens
Creek Blvd.
Sidewalk Improvement Locations
Sidewalks provide a dedicated space, typically adjacent to right of ways, to safely accommodate
pedestrian travel. Table 3.2-2 lists the proposed sidewalk improvement project locations in the City.
Figure 3.0-2 shows the location of the proposed improvements on a map of the City.
Table 3.2-2
Proposed Sidewalk Project Locations
Street Roadway Segment
Stevens Creek Blvd. North side, Lebanon Dr. to Lockwood Dr.
Stevens Creek Blvd. North side, Lockwood Dr. to Prado Vista Rd.
Stevens Creek Blvd. South side, Lockwood Dr. to Prado Vista Rd.
Stevens Creek Blvd. South side, Camino Vista Rd. to Foothill Blvd.
Rae Lane North side, west of Linda Vista Dr.
McClellan Rd. North side, SR 85 to Rose Blossom Dr.
McClellan Rd. South side, Bonny Dr. to McClellan Pl.
Foothill Blvd. West side, Stevens Creek Blvd. to Rancho Ventura St.
Foothill Blvd. East side, between Rancho Ventura St. and Walnut Cir.
Foothill Blvd. East side, between Stevens Creek Blvd. and Rancho Ventura St.
Lebanon Dr. West/south side, Stevens Creek Blvd. to Lockwood Dr.
Lockwood Dr. East side, Stevens Creek Blvd. to Lebanon Dr.
Lebanon Dr. East/north side, Stevens Creek Blvd. to Lockwood Dr.
195
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Table 3.2-2
Proposed Sidewalk Project Locations
Bubb Rd. East side, Edward Way to Krzich Pl.
Stelling Rd. West side, Catalano Ct. to Orion Ct.
Orange Ave. Granada Ave. to Alcazar Ave.
Mann Dr. Woodbury Dr. to Eaton Pl.
De Anza Blvd. West side, Stevens Creek Blvd. to Rodrigues Ave.
Bandley Dr. Stevens Creek Blvd. to Valley Green Dr.
Stevens Creek Blvd. North side, SR 85 to Stelling Rd.
Byrne Ave. McClellan Rd. to Granada Ave.
McClellan Rd. Leandro Ave. to Orange Ave.
Beardon Rd. Alves Rd. to Valley Green Dr.
Mary Ave. (NEW) West side, Dog Park to Oaks Shopping Center
Stevens Creek Blvd.
(NEW)
West of Phar Lap where missing, connect to proposed UPRR
Alcalde Rd. (NEW) Avenida Lane to Foothill Blvd.
Traffic Calming Projects
Traffic calming uses physical engineering measures to reduce speeds, alter driver behavior, and
improve conditions for non-motorized street users. Traffic calming engineering techniques include
installation of tighter curb radii to slow vehicles making right turns, curb extensions, and extensions
of the sidewalk or curb line into the roadway. Table 3.2-3 lists the proposed traffic calming
opportunities in the City. Figure 3.0-2 shows the location of the proposed improvements on a map of
the City.
Table 3.2-3
Proposed Traffic Calming Opportunities
Recommendation Location
Install mini traffic circle Pasadena Ave. at Lomita Ave.
Square west leg of intersection Byrne Ave. at San Fernando Ave.
Narrow curb radii Mann Dr. at Woodbury Dr.
Narrow curb radii Mann Dr. at Monte Ct.
Narrow curb radii Mann Dr. at Gardenview Ln.
Narrow curb radii Mann Dr. at Oakview Ln.
Narrow curb radii De Anza Blvd. at Scofield Dr.
Narrow curb radii De Anza Blvd. at Sunrise Dr.
Narrow curb radii De Anza Blvd. at Rodrigues Ave.
Construct curb extension Bandley Dr. at Mariani Ave. (southeast corner)
Mark high-visibility crosswalk Bandley Dr. at Lazaneo Dr. (north leg)
Construct curb extensions Bandley Dr. at Lazaneo Dr.
Construct curb extensions Bandley Dr. at Alves Dr. (south leg)
Construct curb extensions Phar Lap Dr. at Stevens Creek Blvd.
Construct curb extensions Miller Ave. at Greenwood Dr.
Narrow curb radii Phar Lap Dr. at Clearcreek Ct.
Narrow curb radii Phar Lap Dr. at Oakdell Pl.
Narrow curb radii Phar Lap Dr. at Clearwood Ct.
Reconfigure intersection De Anza Blvd. at McClellan Rd.
196
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Table 3.2-3
Proposed Traffic Calming Opportunities
Recommendation Location
Narrow curb radii Estates Dr. at Glenview Ave.
Construct curb extensions Rainbow Dr. at Gardenside Ln.
Construct curb extensions Phil Ln. at Finch Ave.
Construct curb extensions Finch Ave. at Calle de Barcelona (north and south
legs)
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Table 3.2-4 lists the proposed intersection improvement opportunities in the City. Improvements to
intersections include more visible crosswalk markings, installation of rectangular rapid flashing
beacons (RRFB), and adjusting raised median curblines. Figure 3.0-4 shows the location of the
proposed improvements on a map of the City.
Table 3.2-4
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Recommendation Location
Mark high-visibility crosswalk Stevens Creek Blvd. at Orange Ave. (west leg)
Install pedestrian warning signs San Fernando Ave. between Byrne Ave. and
Blackberry Farm Park
Add right-turn phase Stevens Creek Blvd. at SR 85 NB on ramp (from
Class IV design)
Mark high-visibility crosswalk Stevens Creek Blvd. at Pasadena Ave. (west leg)
Mark high-visibility crosswalk Stevens Creek Blvd. at Imperial Ave. (west leg)
Adjust raised median curbline Stevens Creek Blvd. at Stelling Rd.
Mark high-visibility crosswalk Stevens Creek Blvd. at Finch Ave. (west leg)
Reconfigure travel lane geometry Finch Ave. at Stevens Creek Blvd. (south leg)
Mark crosswalk through parking lot De Anza Blvd., east side at Saint Joseph Parish
Install RRFB Valley Green Dr. at Bandley Dr. (west leg)
Mark high-visibility crosswalk Bandley Dr. at Mariani Ave. (north leg)
Consider all-way stop control Bandley Dr. at Lazaneo Dr.
Mark high-visibility crosswalk Stevens Creek Blvd. at Tantau Ave. (east leg)
Mark standard crosswalk Estates Dr. at Vicksburg Dr. (east leg)
Mark standard crosswalk Estates Dr. at Vicksburg Dr. (south leg)
Install RRFB Miller Ave. at Greenwood Dr.
Consider stop control for Alves Dr. Alves Dr. at Saich Way
Consider stop control for Alves Dr. Alves Dr. at Beardon Dr.
Consider leading pedestrian interval with
added right turn phase
De Anza Blvd. at I-280 EB on-ramp
Shift crosswalk to N leg; install median
island and RRFB
Stelling Rd. at Alves Dr.
Mark high-visibility crosswalk Rainbow Dr. at Gardenside Ln.
Reconfigure intersection and crosswalk Torre Ave. at Town Center Ln.
Mark high-visibility crosswalk Tantau Dr. at I-280 EB off-ramp
Install RRFB McClellan Rd. at September Dr.
197
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Table 3.2-4
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Recommendation Location
Adjust raised median curbline Stevens Creek Blvd. at Mary Ave. (east leg)
Adjust raised median curbline Stevens Creek Blvd. at Stelling Rd (north leg)
Adjust raised median curbline Stevens Creek Blvd. at Stelling Rd (east leg)
Mark high-visibility crosswalk Stevens Creek Blvd. at Mary Ave (west leg)
Mark high-visibility crosswalk Stevens Creek Blvd. at Orange Ave. (east leg)
Mark high-visibility crosswalk Stevens Creek Blvd. at Saich Way (west leg)
Remove existing beacon and install RRFB. Stevens Creek Blvd. at Pasadena Ave.
Install RRFB McClellan Rd. at Bonny Dr. (west leg)
Adjust raised median curbline Mary Ave. at Stevens Creek Blvd. (north leg)
Reconfigure intersection and crosswalks Rainbow Dr. at Stelling Rd.
Other Pedestrian Projects
Table 3.2-5 on the following page lists the other pedestrian projects, not categorized in the above
tables. It is currently unknown what type of facility would be constructed on San Fernando Avenue.
Therefore, it is included in this section. The list of proposed projects in Table 3.2-5 are not displayed
in Figures 3.0-1 – 3.0-4.
Table 3.2-5
Other Pedestrian Projects
Recommendation Location
Remove bollards De Anza Blvd, west side between Stevens Creek Blvd and
Alves Dr.
Consider creating pedestrian
connection
Hanford Dr., east end
Improve bus stop accommodation De Anza Blvd., east side north of Lazaneao Dr. (VTA
Route 55 stop)
Remove newspaper box De Anza Blvd., west side south of Stevens Creek Blvd.
Repair stairway McClellan Rd. at Tressler Ct.
Shorten turn lane access Stevens Creek Blvd. at Oaks entrance (part of Class IV
design)
Consolidate one-way USPS
driveways
Stevens Creek Blvd., north side at USPS office
Shorten turn lane access* Stevens Creek Blvd. at west entrance to De Anza College
(part of Class IV design)
Construct walkway San Fernando Avenue between Byrne Ave. and Blackberry
Farm Park entrance
* Project was analyzed as part of the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Network Initial Study. As with the
Bicycle Transportation Plan, further environmental review may be required for implementation of these off-street
improvements.
198
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
3.3 STORMWATER OUTFALLS AND STORM DRAINAGE
The majority of proposed project components would be located on existing streets and within public
right-of-ways that have inlets that direct stormwater into existing storm drains. In areas where new
pedestrian facilities would be constructed on unpaved surfaces, the facilities would be designed to
convey stormwater towards storm drains or bio-treatment areas. Stormwater treatment measures to
be implemented would be consistent with the Santa Clara Valley Stormwater Municipal Permit’s C.3
provisions and handbook and the City’s Climate Action Plan. These would include:
x Installing self-treating and self-retaining areas in bio-treatment areas such as bioretention and
rain garden landscaped areas, as permitted; and
x Reducing impervious surfaces by utilizing permeable/pervious/porous pavements.
The project would implement pre- and post-construction-related measures to conform to the City of
Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18. A discussion of the best management practices to be
implemented can be found in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
3.4 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
As described previously, the City has not yet determined the sequence of project implementation.
Prioritization of improvements will be determined as funding sources are identified.
3.5 CONSISTENCY WITH ZONING, PLANS, AND OTHER APPLICABLE
LAND USE CONTROLS
3.5.1 Land Use & Zoning Designations
The proposed PTP network is consistent with the land use designations in the City of Cupertino’s
General Plan and zoning ordinance.
3.5.2 Property and Easement Acquisitions
The project would be implemented on existing streets and within paved and unpaved public right-of-
ways, to the extent practical. Any proposed improvements that would result in the taking of private
property and/or easements could be required to undergo further environmental review prior to project
construction.
3.6 PURPOSE AND NEED
The proposed project is an update to the existing PTP that was adopted by the City in 2002. The
purpose of the PTP is to establish a framework for the development and maintenance of pedestrian
facilities throughout Cupertino and recommend policies, programs, and messaging to support and
promote walking. The PTP seeks to:
x Improve pedestrian safety and reduce the number and severity of pedestrian-related
collisions, injuries, and fatalities;
x Increase and improve pedestrian access to community destinations across the City of
Cupertino for people of all ages and abilities; and
199
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
x Continue to develop a connected pedestrian network that fosters an enjoyable walking
experience.
This Initial Study is intended to provide programmatic CEQA environmental clearance for the PTP
as a whole. Larger projects identified in the Bicycle Transportation Plan and PTP, such as the
proposed pedestrian bridges and undercrossings, are identified in this Initial Study as needing further
environmental review. This Initial Study is intended to cover the full environmental review for the
remaining projects, as listed in Tables 3.2-2 – 3.2-5.
200
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY PROJECTSFIGURE 3.0-1or Undercrossing201
PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROJECTSFIGURE 3.0-2202
PROPOSED TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECTSFIGURE 3.0-3203
PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTSFIGURE 3.0-4204
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 17 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND
IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section presents the discussion of impacts related to the following environmental subjects in
their respective subsections:
4.1 Aesthetics
4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
4.3 Air Quality
4.4 Biological Resources
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.6 Geology and Soils
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.11 Mineral Resources
4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.13 Population and Housing
4.14 Public Services
4.15 Recreation
4.16 Transportation/Traffic
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance
The discussion for each environmental subject includes the following subsections:
x Environmental Setting – This subsection 1) provides a brief overview of relevant plans,
policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the project, and 2)
describes the existing physical environmental conditions at the project sites and in the
surrounding area, as relevant.
x Checklist and Discussion of Impacts – This subsection includes a checklist for determining
potential impacts and discusses the project’s environmental impact as it relates to the
checklist questions. For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are identified.
“Mitigation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a signi ficant
impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Each impact is numbered using an alphanumeric
system that identifies the environmental issue. For example, Impact HAZ-1 denotes the first
potentially significant impact discussed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section.
Mitigation measures are also numbered to correspond to the impact they address. For
example, MM NOI-2.3 refers to the third mitigation measure for the second impact in the
Noise section.
x Conclusion – This subsection provides a summary of the project’s impacts on the r esource.
Important Note to the Reader
The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion [California Building Industry
Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (No. S 213478)]
confirmed that CEQA, with several specific exceptions, is concerned with the impacts of a project on
the environment, not the effects the existing environment may have on a project. Therefore, the
evaluation of the significance of project impacts under CEQA in the following sections focuses on
impacts of the project on the environment, including whether a project may exacerbate existing
environmental hazards.
205
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 18 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
The City of Cupertino currently has policies that address existing conditions (e.g., air quality, noise,
and hazards) affecting a proposed project, which are also addressed in this section. This is consistent
with one of the primary objectives of CEQA and this document, which is to provide objective
information to decision-makers and the public regarding a project as a whole. The CEQA Guidelines
and the courts are clear that a CEQA document (e.g., EIR or Initial Study) can include information of
interest even if such information is not an “environmental impact” as defined by CEQA.
Therefore, where applicable, in addition to describing the impacts of the project on the environment,
this chapter discusses Planning Considerations that relate to policies pertaining to existing conditions.
Such examples include, but are not limited to, locating a project near sources of air emissions that
can pose a health risk, in a floodplain, in a geologic hazard zone, in a high noise environment, or
on/adjacent to sites involving hazardous substances.
206
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 19 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The City of Cupertino is an urbanized area developed primarily with a mix of uses, including single-
and multi-family residential, office, public/quasi-public (schools and parks), industrial, and
commercial. The majority of the planned pedestrian facilities and improvements would be
constructed on existing city and residential streets.
There are a number of mature and young trees located throughout the City. Representative photos of
some pedestrian improvement locations and facilities are provided in Photos 1-5 on the following
pages.
Scenic Views
The Montebello foothills at the south and west boundaries of the valley floor provide a scenic
backdrop to the City of Cupertino. The central portion of the City is flat for the most part and views
of the foothills from the proposed pedestrian network are obscured by existing buildings and/or trees.
Neither Highway 85 nor Interstate 280 within Cupertino are designated scenic highways.
Photo 1: McClellan Road, facing west. Sidewalks and bicycle facilities are absent from
McClellan on the south side of the road.
207
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 20 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Photo 2: Intersection of McClellan Road (right) and De Anza Blvd., facing west.
Photo 3: Location of potential curb radii reduction at Sunrise Drive and S. De Anza
Boulevard.
208
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 21 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Photo 4: Location of potential installation of RRFB at intersection of Bonny Drive and
McClellan Road.
Photo 5: Potential UPRR shared use path location.
209
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 22 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.1.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
1,2
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
1,2
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
1,2
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which will adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1,2
Aesthetic values are, by nature, very subjective. Opinions as to what constitutes a degradation of
visual character will differ among individuals. The proposed pedestrian facilities would be
constructed adjacent to existing streets, and would be visible from adjacent land uses. The following
discussion addresses the proposed changes to the visual setting of the project area and factors that are
part of the community’s assessment of the aesthetic values of a project’s design.
Impacts to Scenic Views or Scenic Resources
The proposed pedestrian facilities and improvements would be located in a highly developed area on
the floor of the Santa Clara Valley. Scenic resources along state scenic highways would not be
affected since there are no designated state scenic highways in Cupertino. For these reasons, the
proposed project would not have a direct adverse effect on a scenic vista or damage scenic resources.
(No Impact)
Scenic views from the immediate project vicinity are limited. The Montebello foothills to the south
of the City are largely obscured by existing development and trees. Any proposal that includes an
elevated bicycle/pedestrian bridge would require additional review of potential visual impacts.
Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially block scenic views and is not
anticipated to have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Changes in Visual Character
The project proposes to implement the PTP within the City. Most of the improvements would be
completed on-street within existing right-of-ways. Project components listed in Tables 3.2-2 – 3.2-5
(see Section 3.0) would not result in the removal of any trees within the project vicinity. Larger
projects, including the proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridges and undercrossings may require further
environmental review to determine the extent of aesthetic impact, if at all.
210
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 23 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
For these reasons and those stated above, implementation of the PTP would have a less than
significant impact on the visual character of areas adjacent to the proposed alignments. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
Light and Glare Impacts
The proposed pedestrian network would be located along lighted streets and would not include a
substantial amount of new lighting. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.1.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant visual or aesthetic impacts.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
211
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 24 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
Agricultural Resources
The Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012 map designates most of Cupertino as Urban and
Built-Up Land. Urban and Built-Up Land is defined as residential land with a density of at least six
units per 10-acre parcel, as well as land used for industrial and commercial purposes, golf courses,
landfills, airports, sewage treatment, and water control structures.
The locations of the proposed projects are within the urban area of Cupertino, and are not zoned or
used for agricultural purposes, nor are they the subject of Williamson Act contracts.2
Forest Resources
The proposed project locations are not within lands classified as forest land or timberland. There is
no forest land or timberland located in the Cupertino.
4.2.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
4
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
2,3,4
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
2,3
d) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
1,2
2 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Santa Clara County Williamson
Act FY 2013/2014. 2013.
212
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 25 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1,2
Agricultural Resources Impact
The project improvements, most of which are on existing City streets, are not designated, zoned, or
used as farmland or for agricultural purposes. The proposed project, therefore, would not convert
farmland to non-agricultural use, or otherwise result in impacts to agricultural resources. (No
Impact)
Forest Resources Impact
There are no forest resources in Cupertino. The proposed project, therefore, would not impact forest
resources. (No Impact)
4.2.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to agriculture or
forestry resources. (No Impact)
213
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 26 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.3 AIR QUALITY
4.3.1 Environmental Setting
Clean air is a natural resource of vital importance. Pollutants in the air can cause health problems,
especially for children, the elderly, and people with heart or lung problems. Healthy adults may
experience symptoms during periods of intense exercise. Pollutants can also cause damage to
vegetation, animals, and property.
Regulatory Framework
Clean Air Plan
Regional air quality management districts such as BAAQMD must prepare air quality plans
specifying how state air quality standards would be met. BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is
the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP focuses on two closely-related
BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. To protect public health, the
plan describes how BAAQMD will continue its progress toward attaining all state and federal air
quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay
Area communities.
The 2017 CAP includes a wide range of control measures designed to decrease emissions of the air
pollutants that are most harmful to Bay Area residents, such as particulate matter, ozone, and toxic
air contaminants; to reduce emissions of methane and other “super-GHGs” that are potent climate
pollutants in the near-term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel
combustion.
Existing Conditions
Climate and Topography
The City of Cupertino is located in the Santa Clara Valley within the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin. The City is located in proximity to both the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay, which
has a moderating influence on the climate. This portion of the Santa Clara Valley is bounded to the
north by the San Francisco Bay and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest. The surrounding
terrain greatly influences winds in the valley, resulting in a prevailing wind that follows along the
northwest-southeast axis of the valley.
Regional and Local Criteria Pollutants
Major pollutants listed in “criteria” documents by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) include ozone, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM). These pollutants can have
health effects such as respiratory impairment and heart/lung disease symptoms.
The Bay Area is currently designated as an “attainment area,” meaning the area meets the relevant
standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The region is classified as a
“nonattainment area” for both the federal and state ozone standards, although a request for
214
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 27 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
reclassification to “attainment” of the federal standard is currently being considered by the USEPA.
The area does not meet the state standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).
Local Community Risks/Toxic Air Contaminants and Fine Particulate Matter
Besides criteria air pollutants, there is another group of substances found in ambient air referred to as
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). These contaminants tend to be localized and are found in relatively
low concentrations in ambient air; however, exposure to low concentrations over long periods can
result in adverse chronic health effects.
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) is a complex mixture of substances that includes elements such as
carbon and metals; compounds such as nitrates, organics, and sulfates; and complex mixtures such as
diesel exhaust and wood smoke. Long-term and short-term exposure to PM2.5 can cause a wide range
of health effects.
Common stationary source types of TACs and PM2.5 include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and
diesel backup generators which are subject to permit requirements. The other, often more significant,
common source is motor vehicles on freeways and roads.
Sensitive Receptors
BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (e.g.,
children, the elderly, and the acutely and chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses
include residences, school playgrounds, child-care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes,
hospitals, and medical clinics. The proposed project includes improvements to pedestrian facilities
adjacent to sensitive land uses including residential areas and schools (e.g. Lincoln Elementary
School, Monta Vista High School, Cupertino high School, and De Anza College).
4.3.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
1, 6
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
1,2
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is classified as non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors?
1
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
1
215
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 28 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
1
Project-Level Significance Thresholds
The thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants are a net increase of 54 pounds or more per
day of reactive organic gas (ROG), nitrous oxide (NOX), and/or PM2.5; or 82 pounds or more a day of
PM10. These thresholds are based on thresholds identified by BAAQMD in 2011.3
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that projects be evaluated for community
risk when they are located within 1,000 feet of freeways, high traffic volume roadways (10,000
average annual daily trips or more), and/or stationary permitted sources of TACs. The thresholds for
TACs are an increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in one million, increased non-cancer risk of
greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or a PM2.5 increase of 0.3 μg/m3.
Clean Air Plan Consistency
The 2017 CAP contains control measures, consistent with the state’s climate protection goals, aimed
at reducing Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below
1990 levels by 2050. These control measures are organized into five categories: Stationary Source
Measures, Mobile Source Measures, Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), Land Use and Local
Impact Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures.
The project is the implementation of the PTP which would improve and expand upon the existing
pedestrian network throughout the city. With implementation of the improvements, it is expected
that pedestrian movements throughout the city would improve and would enable more pedestrians to
utilize the right-of-ways, which would potentially reduce vehicles on the road. The project,
therefore, supports the primary goals of the CAP in that it would reduce mobile source emissions
from a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. (No Impact)
Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts
Project construction activities would be minimal and would marginally affect local air quality during
the construction period, if at all. Significant construction (e.g. earthmoving) is not expected to occur
3 As previously discussed in Section 4.0, on December 17, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in
“CBIA vs. BAAQMD” holding that CEQA is primarily concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment
and generally does not require agencies to analyze the impact of existing conditions on a project’s future users or
residents unless the project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or risks that already exist. Nevertheless,
the City has policies and regulations that address existi ng conditions affecting a proposed project, which are
included in Section 4.3.2.2.
The City has carefully considered the thresholds prepared by BAAQMD and the recent court ruling, and regards the
thresholds to be based on the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and conservative
in terms of the assessment of health effects associated with TACs and PM2.5. Therefore, the analysis in this Initial
Study is based upon the methodologies and thresholds in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
216
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 29 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
from project implementation. As noted in Section 3.0 Project Description, construction of the
proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridges and undercrossings may require further environmental review to
determine the extent of air quality impacts, if at all. The remainder of this discussion is related to
those proposed project components that are covered by this Initial Study.
Construction activities are a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non-water based
paints, thinners, some insulating materials, and caulking materials would evaporate into the
atmosphere and contribute to the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in
paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application.
Construction Dust Emissions
Construction dust could affect local air quality at various times during construction on unpaved right-
of-ways. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for
dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed to the atmosphere. Construction activities,
particularly during site area preparation, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of
PM10 and PM2.5. However, these activities are not expected as part of the construction of most of the
proposed pedestrian improvements, as they would mainly occur on existing streets.
Consistent with BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Measures, the proposed project would include the
following Best Management Practices to be implemented by the construction contractor to reduce air
pollutant emissions to avoid any significant impacts to local air quality:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads)
shall be watered two times per day.
2. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public areas shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
3. All vehicle speeds on unpaved areas shall be limited to 15 mph.
4. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible
and feasible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
5. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
6. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
7. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at
the City of Cupertino regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
217
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 30 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Additional measures are included to reduce localized construction equipment exhaust emissions:
1. All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating on
any site for more than two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter
emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent; and
2. All portable diesel-powered off-road equipment (e.g., air compressors) operating on any
site for more than two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions
standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent.
Note that the construction contractor can use other comparable measures to minimize construction
period DPM emissions, upon approval by the City. Such measures may be the use of alternative
powered equipment (e.g., LPG-powered lifts), alternative fuels (e.g., biofuels), added exhaust devices,
or a combination of measures.
The BAAQMD basic and additional construction mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant and
construction equipment exhaust emissions are included in the project to avoid and/or reduce any
impacts to local air quality. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Construction TAC and PM2.5 Health Risks
Construction equipment generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. Diesel exhaust poses both
a health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. Given that the majority of the project would
require minimal site excavation/grading, if at all, and construction of the project would be relatively
brief, it is not expected that the project would generate construction TACs long enough to result in
human health risks. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Operational-Related Impacts from the Project
The project is the implementation and construction of a series of pedestrian facility improvements
and expansions throughout the City of Cupertino. Operational use of the improvements is expected
to result in a decrease in automobile use and would, therefore, be considered a beneficial air quality
impact. (No Impact)
Odors
The project does not propose a use that would generate objectionable odors. (No Impact)
4.3.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
218
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 31 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Special Status Species
Threatened and Endangered Species
State and federal “endangered species” legislation has provided California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving
and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations.
Species listed as threatened or endangered under provisions of the state and federal Endangered
Species Acts (ESAs), candidate species for such listing, state species of special concern, and some
plants listed as endangered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) are collectively referred to
as “species of special status.”
Permits may be required from both the CDFW and USFWS if activities associated with a proposed
project will result in the take of a listed species. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the State of
California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catc h, capture or
kill” said species (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). “Take” is more broadly defined by
the federal Endangered Species Act to include “harm” of a listed species (16 USC, Section 1532(19),
50 CFR, Section 17.3).
Migratory Birds
State and federal laws protect most bird species. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA:
16 U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except
in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses
whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
Birds of Prey
Birds of prey, such as owls and hawks, are protected in California under provisions of the State Fish
and Game Code, Section 3503.5, (1992), which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy
any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the
nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted
pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental
loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest
abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a “taking” by the CDFW.
Existing Conditions
The City of Cupertino is an urbanized area with a diversity of land uses. The majority of the project
components would be built on existing right-of-ways that are adjacent to residential, commercial,
industrial, parks, and open space uses. The pedestrian pathways adjacent to creeks (e.g. Regnart
Creek) may require additional environmental review as specific improvement plans are finalized.
Habitats in developed urban areas are relatively low in species diversity. Species that use this habitat
219
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 32 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
are urban and suburban adapted birds, such as rock dove, mourning dove, house sparrow, scrub jay,
and starling.
4.4.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
1,2
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW
or USFWS?
1,2
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
1,2
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
1,2
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
1,2
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
1,2
Biological Resources Impacts
Adopted Plans & Policies
The project is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
220
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 33 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Impacts to Special-Status Species
Given that the majority of the project improvements would be constructed on existing right-of-ways
that lack suitable habitat for many special-status animal species, the project is not anticipated to
result in impacts to special-status plant and animal species. The proposed bicycle and pedestrian
bridges with alignment adjacent to creeks, as described in the environmental review prepared for the
Bicycle Transportation Plan, may require further environmental review as project design plans are
finalized. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Impacts to Nesting Birds and Raptors
The majority of the project area is currently developed with impervious surfaces (i.e. streets,
boulevards etc.). Project components not developed with impervious surfaces are along Regnart
Creek, the UPRR right-of-way, the I-280 canal, and at potential bridge locations (see Table 3.2-1).
Construction related activities associated with construction of the proposed pedestrian improvements
may result in disturbance to nesting birds in trees within the project area.
Impact BIO-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in the
loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors or other migratory birds, or nest
abandonment. (Significant Impact)
The following mitigation measures would be implemented during construction of the bridges and
trails identified in Table 3.2-1 to avoid abandonment of raptor and other protected migratory birds
nests. Impacts would be less than significant with the following mitigation measures:
Mitigation Measures:
MM BIO-1.1:Construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season to the extent
feasible. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors in the San
Francisco Bay area, extends from February through August.
MM BIO-1.2:A preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be completed by a qualified
biologist prior to tree removal or any construction related activity that occurs
during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) to avoid potential
impacts to nesting birds. Surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist
no more than 7 days prior to initiation of construction activities. Surveys
shall include the project site, staging area, and areas within 500 feet
surrounding the project site. If nesting bird activity is observed, the biologist
in consultation with CDFW, will determine an adequate buffer zone and other
minimization measures to ensure the nest will not be disturbed by project
construction.
Implementation of MM BIO-1.1 and MM BIO-1.2 would reduce impacts to nesting raptors and
migratory birds to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated)
221
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 34 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Impacts to Trees
Construction of the proposed pedestrian improvements would primarily occur on existing right-of-
ways, and would not result in the loss of trees as a result of implementation. For the shared
pedestrian/bicycle facilities discussed in the environmental review for the Bicycle Transportation
Plan that would result in the loss of trees and overlap with the proposed PTP, further environmental
review may be required as project designs are finalized. Mitigation measures will be included in
each project, consistent with the City of Cupertino’s Tree Ordinance, as necessary, to reduce
potential impacts to trees to a less than significant level. All other improvements included in the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact to trees. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.4.3 Conclusion
The project would not impact a local habitat conservation plan. Implementation of the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact on riparian habitat, riparian species, migration
corridors, and trees. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
222
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 35 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5.1 Environmental Setting
Cultural resources are evidence of past human occupation and activity and include both historical and
archaeological resources. These resources may be located above ground, underground, or
underwater and have significance in history, prehistory,4 architecture or culture of the nation, State of
California, or local or tribal communities. Cultural resources are generally identified in historic or
cultural resources inventories maintained by the county or local cities or towns, and also on the
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and the National Register of
Historic Places (National Register).
Heritage trees are considered cultural resources in the City of Cupertino and are recognized as a
cultural resource in the General Plan. As defined in the Protected Trees Ordinance (Section
14.18.020), a Heritage tree is any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors including, but not
limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or species, has been found by the Planning
Commission to have a special significance to the community.
Paleontological resources are fossils; the remains or traces of prehistoric life preserved in the
geological record. They range from well-known and well publicized fossils (such as mammoth and
dinosaur bones) to scientifically important fossils (such as paleobotanical remains, trace fossils, and
microfossils). Potentially sensitive areas with fossil bearing sediments near the ground surface in
areas of Santa Clara County are generally in or adjacent to foothill areas rather than the younger
Holocene age deposits on the valley floor. Geologic units of the Holocene age are generally not
considered sensitive for paleontological resources, because biological remains younger than 10,000
years are not usually considered fossils.
4.5.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
1,2
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
1
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site, or unique
geologic feature?
1
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
1
4 Events of the past prior to written records are considered prehistory.
223
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 36 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code Section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe, and that
is:
1. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or
1,2
2. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying this
criteria, the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe
shall be considered.
1,2
Prehistoric, Historic, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources
Construction of the proposed pedestrian improvements would primarily occur along paved right-of-
ways and would not include the removal of or impacts to identified historical resources or a site
recognized in the Cupertino General Plan (General Plan) as a Historic Site or Commemorative Site.
Implementation of the project, therefore, would not impact historic resources in the City of
Cupertino. (Less Than Significant Impact)
The majority of the project area is currently developed with impervious surfaces (i.e. streets,
boulevards etc.). Project components not developed with impervious surfaces are along Regnart
Creek, the UPRR right-of-way, and the I-280 canal, and at bridge locations. Construction related
activities associated with building the proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridges or undercrossings may
uncover, while highly unlikely, buried prehistoric or historic deposits which could provide
information on prehistory or the history of this site, its inhabitants, and the role it played in the
development of the City.
Impact CUL-1: Implementation of the larger project components (e.g. pedestrian bridges and
undercrossings) included in the proposed project could result in significant impacts
to buried cultural resources, if encountered. (Significant Impact)
224
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 37 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Mitigation Measures: As a condition of approval, the proposed project shall implement the
following mitigation measures to reduce impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level:
MM CUL-1.1: In the event of the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits, work
shall be halted within 50 feet of the discovery and a qualified professional
archaeologist (or paleontologist, as applicable) shall examine the find and make
appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the
appropriate mitigation. The recommendation shall be implemented and could
include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials.
MM CUL-1.2: Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of
the Public Resources Code of the State of California:
x In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there
shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County
Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the
remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are
not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native
American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition
of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the land owner shall re-inter the
human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the
property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
MM CUL-1.3: If cultural resources are encountered, a final report summarizing the discovery of
cultural materials shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works prior to
issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description of the
mitigation program that was implemented (e.g., monitoring and testing program), a
list of the resources found, a summary of the resources analysis methodology and
conclusion, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report
shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the Director
Public Works.
The project area is located on the valley floor and most likely contains geologic units of Holocene
age; therefore, it is highly unlikely that the project area contains any paleontological resources. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
4.5.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not impact historic resources. Subsurface cultural
resources could be encountered during construction on unpaved surfaces. Mitigation measures are
included in the project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
225
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 38 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.6.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
Geology and Soils
The City of Cupertino is located in the western portion of the Santa Clara Valley and lower portion
of the Santa Cruz Mountain foothills. The Santa Clara Valley is located within the Coast Ranges
geomorphic province of California; an area characterized by northwest-trending ridges and valleys,
underlain by strongly deformed sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of the Franciscan Complex.
Overlying these rocks are sediments deposited during recent geologic times. The Santa Clara Valley
consists of a large structural basin containing alluvial deposits derived from the Diablo Range to the
east and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. Valley sediments were deposited as a series of
coalescing alluvial fans by streams that drain the adjacent mountains. These alluvial sediments make
up the groundwater aquifers of the area. Soil types at the project site include clay, similar to other
low-lying areas of the City. Soil on-site has a moderate to high potential for expansion.5
Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
The City of Cupertino is located within the San Francisco Bay Area, which is classified as Zone 4,
the most seismically active zone in the United States. The Monta Vista and San Andreas Faults are
south of the City.
Hazards associated with seismic activity along regional and local faults include fault rupture, ground
shaking, liquefaction, differential settlement, landslides, and waves in bodies of water. The northeast
portion of Cupertino along SR 85 is located within a fault rupture hazard zone.6
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loose water-
saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state after ground shaking. There are many variables that
contribute to liquefaction, including the age of the soil, soil type, soil cohesion, soil density, and
groundwater level.
The lands adjacent to Stevens Creek, Calabazas Creek, Saratoga Creek and San Tomas Aquino Creek
are located within a designated State of California Liquefaction Hazard Zone and a Santa Clara
County Liquefaction Hazard Zone. 7 The remainder of the City is not located in these zones.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying
alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or
excavation. There are no open faces within the project area.
5 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Accessed July 13, 2017. Available at:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
6 Santa Clara County. Geologic Hazard Zones. October 26, 2012.
7 Ibid.
226
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 39 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Landsliding
Landslides occur when the stability of a slope changes from a stable to unstable condition. In
general, steep slopes are less stable than more gently inclined ones. Landslides can also be triggered
by seismic shaking. The project’s geographic scope is not located within a State of California
Landslide zone.8 The City’s General Plan also maps geologic and seismic hazards. The project area
is primarily on the valley floor, an area with relatively low levels of landsliding hazards.
4.6.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
described on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault (refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.)?
1,2,5
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
1,2,5
4. Landslides? 1
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
1,2
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that will become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
1,2,5
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building
Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
1,2
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
1,2
8 County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazards Zones Map 26. Accessed July 13, 2017. Available at:
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/GIS/GeoHazardZones/Documents/GeohazardMapsATLAS2.pdf.
227
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 40 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
The project does not propose to construct improvements or facilities that would require the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems; therefore, impacts related to the use of these
systems are not applicable to the proposed project and not discussed further.
Soils Impacts
The proposed project improvements would not be exposed to substantial slope instability, erosion, or
landslide-related hazards due to the flat topography of the project area. Soils within the project area,
however, have a moderate to high expansion potential. The presence of expansive soil could damage
future pedestrian improvements unless avoided by incorporating appropriate engineering into grading
designs. The project would not result in loss, injury, or death related to expansive soils. The project
proposes to be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable standard practices in the
California Building Code, as adopted by the City of Cupertino, to reduce expansive soil impacts to a
less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Seismic and Seismic-Related Impacts
The project is located in a seismically active region and would therefore, experience strong ground
shaking during the lifetime of the proposed project components. While no active faults are known to
cross the project area and the site does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo zone, ground shaking due to
an earthquake could damage the proposed pedestrian facilities. Project components in liquefaction
hazard zones would be constructed to reduce geologic hazard impacts to a less than significant level.
Incorporation of standard construction measures in conformance with City policies would reduce
seismic hazards and impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.6.3 Conclusion
The project would result in less than significant seismic shaking, soil erosion, expansive soil, and
other geologic impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
228
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 41 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7.1 Environmental Setting
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which are discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality
and have local or regional impacts, emissions of greenhouse gases have a broader, global impact.
Global warming associated with the “greenhouse effect” is a process where greenhouse gases
accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s
atmosphere over time. The principle greenhouse gases contributing to global warming and
associated climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and
fluorinated compounds. Greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change are
attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation,
industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors.
Regulatory Framework
State of California
AB 32 and Related Executive Orders and Regulations
The Global Warming Solutions Act (also known as “Assembly Bill (AB) 32”) sets the State of
California’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. The Act requires that the
greenhouse gas emissions in California be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Prior to adoption of AB
32, the Governor of California also signed Executive Order S-3-05 which identified CalEPA as the
lead coordinating State agency for establishing climate change emission reduction targets in
California. Under Executive Order S-3-05, the state plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80
percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Additional state law and regulations related to the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions includes SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
(see discussion below), the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard for Energy Standard (Senate Bill
2X) and fleet-wide passenger car standards (Pavley Regulations).
In December 2008, the CARB approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which proposes a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s dependence on oil, diversify energy
sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan
must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on
track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal. On May 22, 2014, the First Update to the
Scoping Plan was approved by the CARB. The First Update identifies opportunities to leverage
existing and new funds to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions through strategic planning and
targeted low carbon investments. In addition, the First Update defines climate change priorities for
CARB for the next five years and sets the groundwork to achieve long-term goals set forth in
Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012.9
9 California Air Resources Board. “First Update to AB 32 Scoping Plan.” May 27, 2014. Accessed July 27, 2017.
Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm
229
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 42 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Regional and Local Plans
2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD and other agencies prepare clean air plans as required under the state and federal Clean
Air Acts. The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP) focuses on two closely-related BAAQMD
goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. Consistent with the GHG reduction targets
adopted by the state of California, the 2017 CAP lays the groundwork for BAAQMD’s long-term
effort to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2017 CAP includes a wide range of control measures designed to
decrease emissions of methane and other “super-GHGs” that are potent climate pollutants in the
near-term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.
City of Cupertino General Plan
The Cupertino General Plan includes an Environmental Resources/Sustainability Section, with
policies that call for energy efficiency, alternative transportation planning, and green building.
Cupertino Climate Action Plan
The City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan seeks to identify emission reduction strategies that are
informed by the goals, values, and priorities of the community. The Climate Action Plan describes
the City’s current emissions inventory and establishes future reduction targets. In addition,
community-wide reduction measures and actions that can be implemented to help achieve future
emission targets are described in the Climate Action Plan.
Existing Conditions
The City of Cupertino is highly urbanized with a diversity of land uses. Greenhouse gas emissions
within the City are mostly the result of vehicle trips to, from, and throughout the City. The existing
pedestrian network consists of disjointed sidewalks, pathways, and crosswalks throughout the City
and does not contribute to overall greenhouse gas emissions in the area.
4.7.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
1,2
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1,2
GHG emissions worldwide cumulatively contribute to the significant adverse environmental impacts
of global climate change. No single land use project could generate sufficient GHG emissions on its
own to noticeably change the global average temperature. The combination of GHG emissions from
230
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 43 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
past, present, and future projects in the City of Cupertino, the entire state of California, across the
nation, and around the world, contribute cumulatively to the phenomenon of global climate change
and its associated environmental impacts.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold
As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may
have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the Lead
Agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The first checklist
question is assessed using quantitative thresholds for GHG emissions identified by BAAQMD in
2009. Using a methodology that models how new land use development in the San Francisco Bay
area can meet Statewide AB 32 GHG reduction goals, BAAQMD identified a significance threshold
of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year.10
The City has carefully considered the thresholds prepared by BAAQMD and regards the quantitative
thresholds to be based on the best information available for development in the San Francisco Bay
Area Air Basin. Evidence supporting these thresholds has been presented in the following
documents:
x BAAQMD. 2009. CEQA Thresholds Options and Justification Report.
x BAAQMD. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. (Appendix
D).
x CARB. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. (Statewide GHG Emission Targets)
BAAQMD has not identified a threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts from the Project
The project is the implementation of a series of pedestrian network improvements that would
facilitate a reduction in vehicle use by providing safer, alternative transportation routes throughout
the City. The project, therefore, would not release or contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and is
considered a beneficial impact to the environment. (No Impact)
Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies
As discussed in Section 4.7.1.2, the State of California has adopted the Scoping Plan. Greenhouse
gas emissions are also addressed in the City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan.
The nature of the project is such that these measures are not relevant to project operations and,
therefore, cannot be implemented.
10 In addition to this bright-line threshold, an “efficiency” threshold was identified for urban high density, transit -
oriented development projects that are intended to reduce vehicle trips but that may still result in overall emissions
greater than 1,100 metric tons per year. This efficiency threshold is 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population
(e.g., residents and employees) per year.
231
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 44 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Sustainable Communities Strategy
Plan Bay Area, which includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy that links transportation and land
use planning, grew out of California’s 2008 Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg), which requires each of the
state’s 18 metropolitan areas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Plan
Bay Area promotes compact, mixed-use commercial and residential development focused in Priority
Development Areas that is walkable and bikeable and close to mass transit, jobs, schools, shopping,
parks, recreation, and other amenities.
The project is the implementation of a series of pedestrian network improvements that would enable
resident to utilize non-automobile transit routes, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The
project is, therefore, compliant with and contributing to achieving the Sustainable Communities
Strategy.
Cupertino Climate Action Plan
The proposed project is the implementation of the PTP, which would reduce long-term emissions,
consistent with the CAP.
The project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions adopted by the California legislature, CARB, BAAQMD, or City of Cupertino. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
4.7.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant greenhouse gas emission
impacts, would be consistent with adopted plans and policies related to the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions, and would be considered a beneficial impact. (Less Than Significant Impact)
232
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 45 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8.1 Environmental Setting
Hazardous materials encompass a wide range of substances, some of which are naturally-occurring
and some of which are man-made. Examples include motor oil and fuel, metals (e.g., lead, mercury,
and arsenic), asbestos, pesticides, herbicides, and chemical compounds used in manufacturing and
other uses. A substance may be considered hazardous if, due to its chemical and/or physical
properties, it poses a substantial hazard when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed
of, or released into the atmosphere in the event of an accident. Determining if such substances are
present on or near project sites is important because exposure to hazardous materials above
regulatory thresholds can result in adverse health effects on humans.
Regulatory Framework
Hazardous waste generators and users in the City are required to comply with regulations enforced
by several federal, state, and county agencies. The regulations are designed to reduce the risk
associated with human exposure to hazardous materials and minimize adverse environmental effects.
The Santa Clara County Fire Department coordinates with the County’s Hazardous Materials
Compliance Division to implement the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Management Plan
and to ensure that commercial and residential activities involving classified hazardous substances are
properly handled, contained, and disposed.
Existing Conditions
Site Conditions
Known sources of historical hazardous materials contamination in Cupertino are mainly the result of
leaking underground storage tanks. Within the project area, all known sources of hazardous
materials contamination are currently in the process of remediation and/or statements of case closure
for the incidents have been issued. There are no buildings within the areas of proposed project
components.
4.8.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1,2
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
1,2
233
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 46 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
1,2
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, will it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
1,2
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, will the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
1,2
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, will the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
1,2
g) Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1,2
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
1,2,8
4.8.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
As described above, leaking underground storage tanks have been identified in the project area but
have received a case closed status or are in the process of remediation. Improvements to existing
sidewalks or the construction of new sidewalks/interchanges and spot improvements along streets
and boulevards would not require extensive grading, and it is unlikely that construction activities
would expose workers to contaminated soils or groundwater. (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project does not include the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or
emissions and would therefore, not emit or handle hazardous materials within a quarter mile of
schools in the project area. (No Impact)
The project area is not located within an airport land use plan, wildfire hazard zone, or in the vicinity
of a private airstrip. Construction of the proposed project would not interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. For these reasons, implementation of the
234
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 47 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
proposed project would not result in significant hazardous material impacts related to these issues.
(No Impact)
4.8.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project, in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and
regulations, would not result in a significant hazardous materials impact. (Less Than Significant
Impact)
235
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 48 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
National Flood Insurance Program
In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising
cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused
by floods. The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance available for communities that agree to
adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the NFIP and creates Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that designate 100-year floodplain zones and delineate other flood
hazard areas. A 100-year floodplain zone is the area that has a one in 100 (one percent) chance of
being flooded in any one year based on historical data. As discussed in more detail in Section 4.9.1.2
below, some of the project components are located within a 100-year flood zone.
Water Quality (Nonpoint Source Pollution Program)
The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the
primary laws related to water quality. Regulations set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill the
requirements of this legislation. USEPA’s regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into
the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented
at the regional level by the water quality control boards, which for the Cupertino area is the San
Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Statewide Construction General Permit
The State Water Resources Control Board has implemented a NPDES General Construction Permit
for the State of California. For projects disturbing one acre or more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI)
and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared prior to commencement of
construction.
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)/C.3 Requirements
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
(Permit Number CAS612008) (MRP). In an effort to standardize stormwater management
requirements throughout the region, this permit replaces the formerly separate countywide municipal
stormwater permits with a regional permit for 77 Bay Area municipalities, including the City of
Cupertino. Under provisions of the NPDES Municipal Permit, redevelopment projects that add
and/or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, or 5,000 square feet of uncovered
parking area, are required to design and construct stormwater treatment controls to treat post-
construction stormwater runoff. Amendments to the MRP require all of the post-construction runoff
to be treated by using Low Impact Development (LID) treatment controls, such as infiltration,
evaporation, harvesting, or biotreatment facilities, where feasible.
236
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 49 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
The MRP also identifies subwatershed and catchment areas subject to hydromodification
management controls. Projects that add or replace one acre of impervious surfaces are subject to the
hydromodification standard and associated requirements in the MRP.11
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Chapter 16.52 Prevention of Flood Damage of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code governs
construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas (Zone A, AO, or A1-30 on FIRM maps) having special
flood or flood-related erosion hazards. Under this regulation, the Director of Public Works reviews
all development permits to determine that the permit requirements of this chapter have been satisfied.
Chapter 9.18 Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection of the City of Cupertino
Municipal Code outlines the City’s minimum requirements designed to control the discharge of
pollutants into the City of Cupertino’s storm drain system and to assure that discharges from the City
of Cupertino storm drain system comply with applicable provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act
and NPDES Permit.
Existing Conditions
Hydrology and Drainage
The project area is located within the West Valley Watershed. Each watershed is made up of one or
more main creeks, as well as many smaller tributaries, each with its own sub-watershed. Creeks in
the West Valley Watershed include portions of the Sunnyvale East Channel and Calabazas Creek,
and Regnart Creek.12 Watershed elements include not only these tributaries but groundwater.
Cupertino is located within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin and includes the McClellan
groundwater recharge facility.
The proposed pedestrian facility and spot improvements would be constructed on existing
impervious surfaces (e.g. streets and boulevards). Runoff from the project area would connect with
existing storm drains in streets which would drain into Regnart Creek and San Tomas Aquino Creek,
which eventually drains into San Francisco Bay.
Groundwater
The project area is located in the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin between the Diablo
Mountains to the east and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. The City of Cupertino is located in
the Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Recharge Area.13 Groundwater in the project area varies
depending on location in the City. Fluctuations in the level of subsurface water can occur due to
variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors.
11 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Hydromodification Management (HM)
Applicability Map City of Cupertino. November 2010. Accessed July 14, 2017. Available at:
http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/HMP_app_maps/Cupertino_HMP_Map.pdf
12 Santa Clara Valley Water District. “West Valley Watershed.” Accessed July 14, 2017. Available at:
http://www.valleywater.org/uploadedImages/Services/HealthyCreeksEcoSystems/WatershedInformation/WestValle
y/WestValley2005Mapxl.jpg?n=1070 aspx.
13 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2012 Groundwater Management Plan.
237
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 50 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by
pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as
non-point source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other
exposed surfaces into storm drains. The runoff often contains contaminants such as oil, grease, plant
and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In
sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitat of
natural waterways such as Regnart Creek, which drains into Calabazas Creek and eventually into San
Francisco Bay.
Flooding and Other Inundation Hazards
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM), the majority of the City of Cupertino is located within the FEMA Flood Zone, X500. X500
Zones are areas of 500-year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot and an area inundated by
0.2% annual chance of flooding. The portions of Cupertino located within FEMA Zone A are
adjacent to Calabazas Creek and Stevens Creek.14 Areas within Zone A have a 1% annual chance of
flooding. Central Cupertino is located within FEMA Flood Zone X, which are moderate risk areas
within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance flooding where
average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance flooding where the contributing
drainage area is less than 1 square mile, and areas protected from the 1-percent-annual-chance flood
by a levee.
The project area is not subject to flooding due to seiches or tsunamis.15 In the event of a Stevens
Creek Dam failure, sections of Cupertino would be subject to dam inundation.16
14 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Clara County, California,
Community-Panel Number 06085C0209H, May 18, 2009.
15 Association of Bay Area Governments. Interactive Flooding Map. Accessed April 13, 2016. Available at:
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=femaZones
16 City of Cupertino. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Approving the Join Stevens Creek
Dam Failure Plan. October, 16, 2012. Accessed July 17, 2017. Available at:
http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1210.
238
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 51 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.9.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
1,2
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there will be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells will drop to
a level which will not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
1,2
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which will result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
1,2
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
will result in flooding on-or off-site?
1,2
e) Create or contribute runoff water which will
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
1,2
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
1,2
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
1,2
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which will impede or redirect flood
flows?
1,2,9
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
1,2,5
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,2
239
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 52 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Hydrology and Drainage Impacts
The majority of the project area is currently developed with impervious surfaces (i.e. streets,
boulevards etc.). Project components not developed with impervious surfaces are along Regnart
Creek, the UPRR right-of-way, the I-280 canal, and at bridge locations. Construction related
activities associated with building the proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridges and undercrossings are a
more likely source of substantial drainage impacts which may result in stormwater pollution
associated with erosion and sedimentation. As stated previously, these project components may be
required to undergo a separate, more extensive environmental review as design plans are finalized.
Runoff generated by the project would flow into existing storm drains or be treated using LID
stormwater controls where appropriate. The project would, therefore, not alter the existing drainage
pattern of the area. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Groundwater
Except for possibly the proposed undercrossings, construction of project components in unpaved
areas is not expected to excavate soils to levels that would reach groundwater. As stated previously,
these project components may be required to undergo a separate, more extensive environmental
review as design plans are finalized. Implementation of the proposed project would, therefore, not
substantially deplete groundwater resources or interfere with groundwater recharge. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
Water Quality Impacts
Construction-Related Impacts
The majority of the project is planned for implementation on existing paved right-of-ways. Project
improvements on undeveloped land would require minimal grading, if at all. It is not anticipated that
these improvements would generate construction-related pollutants that would adversely impact
water quality. For the larger projects included in the PTP, including bicycle/pedestrian bridges and
undercrossings, may require further environmental review prior to implementation to determine
extent of water quality impacts. Implementation of the following standard measures during
installation of the remaining projects would ensure that construction-related impacts to water quality
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project includes the
following standard measures:
x The project shall implement construction BMPs to avoid impacts to surface water quality
during construction, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Construction BMPs
would include, but would not be limited to the following measures:
Preclude non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater system.
Incorporate site-specific Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control
during the construction period consistent with the NPDES permit.
Cover soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute to non-visible pollution prior to
rainfall events or monitor runoff.
240
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 53 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Perform monitoring of discharges to the stormwater system to ensure that stormwater
runoff during construction is contained prior to discharge to allow sediment to settle out
and filtered, if necessary to ensure that only clear water is discharged to the storm system.
Post-Construction Measures
In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project includes the
following standard measures; if applicable:
x To protect groundwater from pollutant loading of urban runoff, BMPs which are primarily
infiltration devices (such as infiltration trenches and infiltration basins) must meet, at a
minimum, the following conditions:
Pollution prevention and source control BMPs shall be implemented to protect
groundwater;
Use of infiltration BMPs cannot cause or contribute to degradation of groundwater;
Infiltration BMPs must be adequately maintained;
Vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high
groundwater mark must be at least 10 feet. In areas of highly porous soils and/or high
groundwater table, BMPs shall be subject to a higher level of analysis (considering
potential for pollutants such as on-site chemical use, level of pretreatment, similar
factors); and
x Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be selected and designed to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works in accordance with the requirements contained in the most recent
versions of the following documents:
City of Cupertino Post-Construction BMP Section Matrix;
SCVURPPP “Guidance for Implementing Storm Water Regulations for New and
Redevelopment Projects;”
NPDES Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit issued to the City of Cupertino by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region;
California BMP Handbooks;
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) “Start at the
Source” Design Guidance Manual;
BASMAA “Using Site Design Standards to Meet Development Standards for Stormwater
Quality – A Companion Document to Start at the Source;” and
City of Cupertino Planning Procedures Performance Standard.
Implementation of standard measures would ensure that the project would not result in significant
construction-related water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Post-Construction Impacts
The project itself would not generate pollution from project operations since once it is constructed,
there would be not be ongoing operations. The project itself would not create or contribute runoff
since it would be maintaining similar imperviousness as existing conditions. Pollution from project
241
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 54 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
operations, if at all would be generated from pedestrians using the facilities. Implementation of
standards measures, as discussed above, would ensure that the project would not result in significant
post-construction water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Flood Impacts and Other Inundation Hazards
As discussed previously, the portions of the project area is within the 100-year, or one percent flood
zone. The project does not propose to build housing and would not result in the relocation of housing
elsewhere. The project, therefore, would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area or
would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area.
The project is located in parts of Cupertino that are subject to inundation in the event of a complete
failure of the Stevens Creek Dam. The facilities included in the proposed project would be subject to
flooding in the event of dam failure; however, they do not increase the potential for this failure to
occur. Pedestrians utilizing the facilities would not be at greater risk from the effects of dam failure
when compared to other citizens of the City. Implementation of the project would not expose
additional residents to a significant risk of loss, injury or death as a result of dam failure. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
The project is not located in an area of projected sea level rise, earthquake-induced waves or
mudflows. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.9.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant hydrology or water quality
impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
242
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 55 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed project is the implementation of the City of Cupertino’s PTP. Proposed project
components are planned throughout the City of Cupertino along existing public streets, boulevards,
along the I-280 canal, UPRR tracks, and Regnart Creek, as listed in Table 3.0-1 and 3.0-2. The
pedestrian facilities and spot improvements are planned on existing right-of-ways and along existing
maintenance roads adjacent to I-280, the UPRR tracks, and Regnart Creek.
The proposed project segments and spot improvements would be adjacent to a variety of land uses,
including residential, commercial/retail, institutions, office, schools, and parks.
Regulatory Framework
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
The majority of the planned improvements are located within existing City of Cupertino public
roadways designated as right-of-way in the General Plan and zoning ordinance.
Other Public Agencies
Planned pedestrian facilities could be located within the right-of-ways of the Santa Clara Valley
Water District (near creeks), Caltrans (all highway facilities), and California Public Utilities
Commission lands (UPRR tracks).
4.10.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
1,2
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1,2
Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinances
The proposed pedestrian network would be within existing Cupertino street right-of-ways and
adjacent primarily to residential and commercial/retail uses. Streets and boulevards proposed for
pedestrian facilities are not subject to zoning regulations by the City of Cupertino since streets and
243
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 56 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
boulevards are considered public right-of-ways. The project is, therefore, consistent with the General
Plan land use and zoning designations within the project area.
Pedestrian facilities proposed within the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Caltrans, and California
Public Utilities Commission right-of-ways have not yet been designed, however, it is anticipated that
the facilities would be designed consistent with the plans, policies, and requirements of those
agencies. (No Impact)
Land Use Compatibility
The majority of the proposed pedestrian network would be constructed within existing City streets.
The proposed sidewalk, traffic calming, intersection, and other improvements would not create a
barrier to development or physically divide a community. In fact, those facilities would serve to
better connect areas of the City that have limited pedestrian access. The project is not located within
a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. (No Impact)
4.10.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant land use impact. (No
Impact)
244
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 57 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
4.11.1 Environmental Setting
Mineral resources found and extracted in Santa Clara County include construction aggregate deposits
such as sand, gravel, and crushed stone. There are several areas in the City of Cupertino that are
designated by the State Mining and Geology Board under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
of 1975 (SMARA) as containing mineral deposits which are of regional significance; however, the
General Plan indicates that these areas are either depleted or unavailable due to existing
development. The project area is not within one of the areas of Cupertino designated as containing
mineral deposits of importance.
4.11.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that will be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
1,2
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
1,2
Mineral Resources Impact
As the mineral resources in Cupertino are either depleted or inaccessible, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in the loss of available mineral resources. (No Impact)
4.11.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resources. (No Impact)
245
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 58 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION
4.12.1 Environmental Setting
Noise
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Noise can be disturbing or annoying because of its pitch or
loudness. Pitch refers to relative frequency of vibrations; higher pitch signals sound louder to people.
A decibel (dB) is measured based on the relative amplitude of a sound. Ten on the decibel scale
marks the lowest sound level that a healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in
decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis such that each 10 decibel increase is perceived as a
doubling of loudness. The California A-weighted sound level, or dBA, gives greater weight to
sounds to which the human ear is most sensitive.
Sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night because excessive noise interferes with
the ability to sleep. Twenty-four hour descriptors have been developed that emphasize quiet-time
noise events. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, Ldn, is a measure of the cumulative noise
exposure in a community. It includes a 10 dB addition or “penalty” to noise levels from 10:00 PM to
7:00 AM to account for human sensitivity to night noise.
Regulatory Framework
City of Cupertino General Plan
The General Plan provides a policy framework for guiding future land use and urban design
decisions and contains a system of control and abatement measures to protect residents from
exposure to excessive or unacceptable noise levels.
Municipal Code
The City of Cupertino regulates noise within the community in Chapter 10.48 (Community Noise
Control) of the Municipal Code.
Existing Conditions
The majority of the planned pedestrian network is on existing streets and boulevards that are
dominated by vehicular noise on these roadways.
The project area is not located within two miles of an airport or private airstrip, or within an airport
land use plan area.
246
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 59 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.12.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
1-3
b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of,
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
1-3
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
1,2
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
1,2
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, will the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
1,2
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, will the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
1,2
CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be considered substantial. Typically, project-
generated noise level increases of three dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant where
exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard. Where noise levels
would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the project, noise level
increases of three dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant.
Noise and Vibration Impacts from the Project
Future project noise would result from pedestrian facility users. It is expected that noise within the
project area, however, would be primarily from normal vehicular traffic on streets and boulevards
which would dominate most, if not all, noise generated from pedestrians using the network. City
parks, open space, and creek areas have lower noise levels; however, these areas are urban in nature
and the introduction of trail users would result in a nominal increase in noise levels to sensitive
receptors and wildlife. Noise from project operation would not substantially increase ambient noise
levels in the project area. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a
significant noise impact. (Less Than Significant Impact)
247
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Noise impacts to pedestrian users along City streets and boulevards and over state highway facilities
would be similar to those currently experienced by bicyclists and pedestrians traveling in the City.
The construction of pedestrian facilities could serve to move pedestrians away from roadway traffic,
thus potentially reducing noise levels. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Construction activities can generate high noise levels, especially during the construction of project
infrastructure when heavy equipment is used. Since the majority of the proposed pedestrian network
spot improvements involve sidewalk extensions and crosswalks, the use of heavy equipment would
not be expected for future project construction. For the larger, more extensive projects included in
the proposed project (e.g. UPRR, I-280 canal, Regnart Creek, pedestrian/bicycle bridges, and
undercrossings), further environmental review may be required to determine the extent of noise
impacts, however, the use of construction equipment would be subject to the City’s noise ordinance
which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact)
As stated in Section 4.10 Land Use, the project area is not located within an airport land use plan or
within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project would, therefore, not expose people in such areas
to excessive noise levels. (No Impact)
4.12.3 Conclusion
The project would result in less than significant operational and construction noise, vibration, and air
traffic impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
248
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 61 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.13.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed project is the expansion and improvement of the existing pedestrian network within
Cupertino. The project does not propose the construction of housing.
4.13.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
1
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1
Growth Inducement Impacts
The project area is located within the City of Cupertino. The project does not propose the
construction of new homes or businesses, and would not construct utilities or infrastructure beyond
what is required to serve the project. The project is intended to better serve and accommodate the
existing Cupertino residents and visitors, and would not induce unplanned growth in the City. (No
Impact)
Housing Displacement Impacts
Pedestrian facilities would be constructed on existing right-of-ways and would not result in the
removal of existing housing or structures. The project would not, therefore, displace people or
housing. (No Impact)
4.13.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in growth inducement or impacts to the
existing housing supply. (No Impact)
249
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 62 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14.1 Environmental Setting
The project is located throughout the City of Cupertino. Fire, police and emergency services are
provided by the City. The pedestrian network would be expanded within existing developed areas,
which includes parks and schools.
4.14.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
- Fire Protection?
- Police Protection?
- Schools?
- Parks?
- Other Public Facilities?
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
Impacts to Fire and Police Protection Services
The project area is located within an urbanized area of Cupertino that is currently served by the Santa
Clara County Fire Department and Santa Clara County’s Sheriff’s Office. The introduction of more
individuals along the proposed pedestrian network may result in increase for service within the area,
however, the reported incidents would be similar to those already occurring on existing roadways and
at neighborhood parks in the City. Increased pedestrian presence on pedestrian facilities throughout
the City may result in an increase in need for police protection services, however, the increase would
not be to a point where new police and fire facilities would be need to be constructed. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
Impacts to Schools, Parks, and Other Public Facilities
Project implementation may increase use of community parks and amenities due to improved access
to such facilities. It is not anticipated that the increase in use would exceed the capacity of existing
facilities such that new facilities would need to be constructed; therefore, the project would not result
in a significant impact to schools, parks, or other public facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact)
250
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 63 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.14.3 Conclusion
The project could result in a slight increase in demand for emergency services within the project area,
however, the increase would not exceed the capacity for the City of Cupertino to provide services to
its residents and visitors. The project would provide additional recreational opportunities by
improving access to parks, schools, and community amenities. The project, therefore, would not
result in significant impacts to public services. (Less Than Significant Impact)
251
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 64 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.15 RECREATION
4.15.1 Environmental Setting
The Department of Recreation and Community Services is responsible for park planning and
development, and a comprehensive leisure program for the City. The City of Cupertino is served by
approximately 214 acres of parkland, including neighborhood parks, community parks, and school
playing fields. Leisure services facilities within the City include the Quinlan Community Center,
Cupertino Sports Center, Monta Vista Recreation Center, Cupertino Senior Center, and Blackberry
Farm.
4.15.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility will occur
or be accelerated?
1,2
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
1,2
The project would improve and expand pedestrian facilities throughout the City to facilitate
pedestrian movement, which may result in an increase in the use of parks and recreational facilities.
The incremental increase in use of these parks and recreational facilities would not result in
substantial or accelerated physical deterioration of these facilities. The project would not result in
significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.15.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an adverse impact to recreational
resources in the City. (Less Than Significant Impact)
252
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 65 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The list of planned project improvements to the pedestrian network are listed in Table 3.0-1 and 3.0-
2 in Section 3.0 Project Description of this Initial Study.
4.16.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
The following policies found in the Cupertino General Plan are applicable to the proposed project:
Policy M-2.1: Street Design. Adopt and maintain street design standards to optimize
mobility for all transportation modes including automobiles, walking,
bicycling and transit.
Policy M-2.2: Adjacent Land Use. Design roadway alignments, lane widths, medians,
parking and bicycle lanes, crosswalks and sidewalks to complement adjacent
land uses in keeping with the vision of the Planning Area.
Policy M-2.3: Connectivity. Promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve
connectivity between planning areas, neighborhoods and services, and foster
a sense of community.
Policy M-2.6: Traffic Calming. Consider the implementation of best practices on streets to
reduce speeds and make them user-friendly for alternative modes of
transportation, including pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy M-3.1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Adopt and maintain a
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, which outlines policies and
improvements to streets, extension of trails, and pathways to create a safe
way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis.
Policy M-3.3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle
crossings and pathways at key locations across physical barriers such as
creeks, highways and road barriers.
Existing Conditions
Existing Transportation Network
Roadway Network
The existing roadway network in Cupertino is made up of major streets, boulevards, and
neighborhood streets throughout the City. The main east/west streets include Stevens Creek
Boulevard and McClellan Road. North/south streets include Tantau Avenue, Wolfe Road/Miller
Avenue, Blaney Avenue, De Anza Boulevard, Stelling Road, Bubb Road, and Stevens Canyon
Road/Foothill Boulevard. Interstate 280 generally forms the northern boundary of the City while SR-
85 bisects it in a northwest to southeast direction.
253
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 66 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian facilities are primarily comprised of sidewalks and pedestrian signals at intersections
along most major streets throughout Cupertino.
The existing pedestrian facilities (i.e. sidewalks) are primarily along major streets and boulevards,
and residential neighborhoods.
Transit Services
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority bus routes circulate throughout Cupertino. Bus
stops are located on major streets including Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, Stelling
Road, Bollinger Road, Homestead Road, Wolfe Road, and Tantau Avenue.
Existing Conditions
The existing pedestrian network is primarily along major streets and boulevards, and residential
neighborhoods throughout Cupertino. The network is largely disjointed and does not provide
adequate connectivity among existing pedestrian facilities in the City.
4.16.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
1,2
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1,2
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
1,2
254
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 67 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
1,2
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
1,2
Impacts to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities
The project is the implementation of the PTP that would improve and expand upon the existing
pedestrian network throughout the City. The project would not result in an increase in vehicle trips
since the intent of the project is for residents within the City to utilize the network for transportation.
Implementation of the planned improvements would not conflict with any policies of the City of
Cupertino or other agencies (e.g. the Valley Transportation Authority) regarding pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit facilities, nor would it interfere with any existing or planned facilities. The project is
intended to improve the pedestrian network in the City and would, therefore, be considered a
beneficial impact to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in the project area. (No Impact)
Air Traffic Patterns
The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Project implementation would not impact local air traffic patterns. (No Impact)
Site Access and Hazards
The project would improve access on streets and boulevards within parks, near schools, and other
community amenities throughout the City. It is not expected that the project would increase hazards
to pedestrians because of improved sidewalks and signalization as part of the pedestrian network.
Nonetheless, an improved pedestrian network would likely increase use of bikeways and thus
inadvertently expose bikeway users to hazards from vehicular traffic. The increase in hazards to
pedestrians would be reduced via implementation of improved markings and signalization at
intersections. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.16.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant transportation impacts. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
255
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 68 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.17.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
Water
Water service to the project area is supplied primarily by the San José Water Company (SJWC) and
the California Water Service Company, which also maintains the water system. SJWC serves
approximately 139 square miles of the Santa Clara Valley, including most of San José, most of
Cupertino, the entire cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, the Town of Los Gatos, and parts
of unincorporated Santa Clara County. SJWC relies on groundwater, imported treated water, and
local surface water for its potable water supply. In 2010, SJWC received approximately 39 percent
of its water supply from groundwater, 50 percent from imported treated water, and 11 percent from
local surface water.17 In 2010, SJWC delivered 133,066 acre-feet of water per year (AFY) which is
expected to increase to 159,479 AFY by 2035.
Storm Drainage
As discussed in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, existing right-of-ways in the City drain
into existing storm drains. Runoff from the project would depend on the specific location of the
pedestrian facility and/or segment within the larger pedestrian network.
Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer System
The Cupertino Sanitary District (District) provides sanitary sewer service to the project area. The
District collects and transports wastewater to the San José/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility
(RWF) located in north San José. The District purchases 7.85 million gallons per day of water
treatment capacity from the RWF.18 Approximately five million gallons of wastewater a day is
generated within the District and conveyed to the RWF.19
Solid Waste
Garbage and recycling collection services in the City of Cupertino are provided by Recology. Solid
waste collected from the City is delivered to Newby Island Sanitary Landfill.
17 San José Water Company. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2011.
18 City of Milpitas. “Agreement for Treatment Plant Capacity Transfer”. 2009. Accessed July 17, 2017. Available
at: <http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2009/010609/item_17.pdf>
19 Cupertino Sanitary District. 2015 Annual Report. 2015.
256
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 69 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.17.2 Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
1
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
1
c) Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
1
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
1
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
1
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
1
Water Service and Supply
The project would include minimal landscaping that would require water for maintenance, however,
would otherwise not construct features that would require water or water services. The project,
therefore, would not substantially increase water demand to the extent that new entitlements and
sources of water would be required. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Storm Drainage
As discussed in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Quality, the project would be constructed to direct runoff
towards existing storm drains or bioswales to treat stormwater runoff. The construction of bioswales
for stormwater treatment would not result in adverse impacts to the existing storm drainage system.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
257
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 70 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer System
The project does not propose the construction of features that would require connection to the City’s
wastewater/sanitary sewer system and therefore, would not exceed wastewater requirements. (No
Impact)
Solid Waste
The project does not propose the construction of features that would need to be served by solid waste
facilities. (No Impact)
4.17.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to utilities and
service systems. (Less Than Significant Impact)
258
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 71 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
1-9
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
1-9
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
1-9
4.18.1 Project Impacts
The proposed project, with implementation of the mitigation measures described in Section 4.0 of
this Initial Study, would not significantly degrade or impact the quality of the environment. As
discussed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, the project would not have a significant impact on
cultural resources with the incorporation of the described mitigation measures. (Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
4.18.2 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together are
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The project would not
result in impacts to agricultural and forest resources or mineral resources and, therefore, would not
contribute to the cumulative impacts of those resources. For project components that would require
construction of pedestrian/bicycle bridge improvements, construction of undercrossings,
improvements on the UPRR tracks, along creeks, or the I-280 canal, additional environmental review
may be required to determine potential environmental impacts.
The project would lead to an increase in the number of pedestrians using the network which would
increase the number of people on the streets at any given time. Project implementation would result
259
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 72 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
in an improved and safer pedestrian network, which would reduce the risks associated with
traditional pedestrian use on urban and residential streets.
There are no planned or proposed developments in the project area that could contribute to
cumulative aesthetic, air quality (including construction-related impacts), hydrology and water
quality, noise, population and housing, recreation, or utilities and service system impacts. The
project’s archaeological resources and geology and soils impacts would be specific to the location of
the proposed project component and would not contribute to cumulative impacts elsewhere.
The project’s cumulative impacts to greenhouse gas emissions is discussed in Section 4.7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and it was concluded that the project would have a less than significant
(cumulative) impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
Based on the discussion above, the project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
4.18.3 Direct or Indirect Adverse Effects on Human Beings
Based on the analysis completed in Section 4.0 of this Initial Study, the project would not result in
direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. (Less Than Significant Impact)
260
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 73 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Checklist Sources
1. Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental specialist preparing this
assessment, based upon a review of the site and surrounding conditions, as well as a review
of the project plans.
2. City of Cupertino. General Plan. November 2005.
3. City of Cupertino. Municipal Code. February 19, 2013.
4. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012.
Map.
5. County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazards Zones Map 18. Accessed July 21, 2017.
Available at:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/PlansOrdinances/GeoHazards/Pages/GeoMaps.aspx
6. California Air Resources Board. First Update to AB 32 Scoping Plan. May 27, 2014.
Accessed July 21, 2017. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm
7. County of Santa Clara, Planning Office. “Airport Land-Use Commission”. Accessed July
21, 2017. Available at:
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx.
8. CalFire. “Santa Clara County FHSZ Maps” Accessed July 21, 2017. Available at:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php.
9. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Clara County,
California. Community-Panel Number 06085C0209H, May 18, 2009.
261
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 74 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments. Interactive Flooding Map. Accessed April 13, 2016.
Available at: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=femaZones
California Air Resources Board. “First Update to AB 32 Scoping Plan.” May 27, 2014. Accessed
July 27, 2017. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm
CalFire. “Santa Clara County FHSZ Maps” Accessed July 21, 2017. Available at:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Santa Clara County
Williamson Act FY 2013/2014. 2013.
California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012. Map.
City of Cupertino. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Approving the Join
Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan. October, 16, 2012. Accessed July 17, 2017. Available at:
http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1210.
City of Cupertino. General Plan. November 2005.
City of Cupertino. Municipal Code. February 19, 2013.
County of Santa Clara, Planning Office. “Airport Land-Use Commission”. Accessed July 21, 2017.
Available at:
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx .
County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazards Zones Map 26. Accessed July 13, 2017. Available at:
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/GIS/GeoHazardZones/Documents/GeohazardMapsAT
LAS2.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Clara County,
California, Community-Panel Number 06085C0209H, May 18, 2009.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Accessed July 13, 2017. Available at:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
San José Water Company. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2011.
Santa Clara County. Geologic Hazard Zones. October 26, 2012.
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Hydromodification Management
(HM) Applicability Map City of Cupertino. November 2010. Accessed July 14, 2017.
Available at: http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/HMP_app_maps/Cupertino_HMP_Map.pdf
262
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 75 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2012 Groundwater Management Plan.
Santa Clara Valley Water District. “West Valley Watershed.” Accessed July 14, 2017. Available
at:
http://www.valleywater.org/uploadedImages/Services/HealthyCreeksEcoSystems/WatershedI
nformation/WestValley/WestValley2005Mapxl.jpg?n=1070 aspx.
263
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan 76 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cupertino January 2018
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS
6.1 LEAD AGENCY
City of Cupertino, Department of Public Works
Julie Chiu, Associate Civil Engineer
6.2 CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners
Jodi Starbird, Principal Project Manager
Caroline Weston, Assistant Project Manager
Zach Dill, Graphic Artist
264
Attachment 2
265
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
February 2018
266
1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Project
Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s)
Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1:
Construction activities
associated with the
proposed project could
result in the loss of
fertile eggs, nesting
raptors or other
migratory birds, or nest
abandonment.
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
MM BIO-1.1: Construction shall be scheduled to avoid
the nesting season to the extent feasible. The nesting
season for most birds, including most raptors in the
San Francisco Bay area, extends from February
through August.
MM BIO-1.2: A preconstruction nesting bird survey
shall be completed by a qualified biologist prior to tree
removal or any construction related activity that occurs
during the breeding season (February 1 through
August 31) to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds.
Surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist no
more than 7 days prior to initiation of construction
activities. Surveys shall include the project site,
staging area, and areas within 500 feet surrounding the
project site. If nesting bird activity is observed, the
biologist in consultation with CDFW, will determine
an adequate buffer zone and other minimization
measures to ensure the nest will not be disturbed by
project construction.
If tree removal on the
site is to occur
between February 1st
and August 31st, the
City shall be
responsible for
implementing MM
BIO-1.2 no more than
7 days prior to the
initiation of
demolition/
construction activities.
All measures shall
be printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans and
shall be reviewed by
the Director of
Public Works prior
to the issuance of
permits.
The results of the
preconstruction
nesting bird survey,
including any
protection measures,
shall be submitted to
the Director of
Public Works prior
to the start of
grading or tree
removal.
Director of Public
Works
267
2
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Project
Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s)
Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1:
Implementation of the
larger project
components (e.g.
pedestrian bridges)
included in the proposed
project could result in
significant impacts to
buried cultural
resources, if
encountered.
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
MM CUL-1.1: In the event of the discovery of prehistoric
or historic archaeological deposits or paleontological
deposits, work shall be halted within 50 feet of the
discovery and a qualified professional archaeologist (or
paleontologist, as applicable) shall examine the find and
make appropriate recommendations regarding the
significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The
recommendation shall be implemented and could include
collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant
cultural materials.
MM CUL-1.2: Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health
and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the Public
Resources Code of the State of California:
• In the event of the discovery of human remains during
construction, there shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara
County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a
determination as to whether the remains are Native
American. If the Coroner determines that the remains
are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the
Native American Heritage Commission who shall
attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native
American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached
as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this
State law, then the landowner shall re-inter the human
remains and items associated with Native American
During construction,
the City and contractor
shall be responsible
for notification of any
discoveries.
All measures shall
be printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans and
shall be reviewed by
the Director of
Public Works prior
to the issuance of
permits.
Director of Public
Works
268
3
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Project
Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s)
Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
burials on the property in a location not subject to
further subsurface disturbance.
MM CUL-1.3: If cultural resources are encountered, a
final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials
shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works prior to
issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a
description of the mitigation program that was implemented
(e.g., monitoring and testing program), a list of the
resources found, a summary of the resources analysis
methodology and conclusion, and a description of the
disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify
completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of
the Director Public Works.
Source: Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, January 2018.
269
Attachment 3
270
CITY OF CUPERTINOPEDESTRIAN
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FINAL REPORT I FEBRUARY 2018
Prepared by:Prepared for:DRAFT Revised February 2018271
1
City of Cupertino
Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Vision and Goals ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
Planning Process ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Chapter 2: Walking in Cupertino Today ..................................................................................................................... 4
Land Use, Community Demographics, and Travel Patterns ............................................................................... 4
Destinations and Demand ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Pedestrian Network ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Street Types ................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Collision Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
Chapter 3: Policy and Program Recommendations ................................................................................................. 23
Infrastructure and Operations ................................................................................................................................. 25
Evaluation and Planning .............................................................................................................................................. 28
Education and Enforcement ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Chapter 4: Project Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 33
Pedestrian Facility Toolbox ...................................................................................................................................... 36
Chapter 5: Implementation Strategy ........................................................................................................................... 49
Routine Accommodation .......................................................................................................................................... 49
Project Prioritization .................................................................................................................................................. 49
Cost Estimate Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................... 50
Agency Coordination ................................................................................................................................................. 55
Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix A. Plan and Policy Review ........................................................................................................................... 64
Appendix B. Pedestrian Demand Analysis ................................................................................................................. 72
Appendix C. Walk Audit Summary ............................................................................................................................. 75
Appendix D. Public Comments from Outreach Events/Activities ....................................................................... 90
Appendix E. Crosswalk Installation Policy .............................................................................................................. 110
Appendix F. Project Scoring ..................................................................................................................................... 115 DRAFT272
2
Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose
Introduction
The City of Cupertino is undertaking a number of ambitious initiatives to improve pedestrian and bicycling
conditions throughout the city. This Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PTP) will be the blueprint for Cupertino
to achieve its vision of an inviting, safe, and connected pedestrian network that enhances the quality of life
for all community members and visitors.
This Plan serves as an update to the first Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan that was adopted in 2002.
Since that time, communities now have better tools and metrics to evaluate areas of opportunity and conflict
and to envision and implement improvements that will have a measurable impact. The purpose of this PTP is
to establish a guiding framework for the development and maintenance of pedestrian facilities throughout
Cupertino and recommend policies, programs, and messaging to support and promote walking.
The PTP builds upon the City’s comprehensive strategies to create a connected, multimodal transportation
network and enhance quality of life throughout Cupertino. For example, the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation
Plan (adopted 2016) envisions a citywide multimodal bicycle network, and this document complements the
proposed bicycle network to create comprehensive active transportation options of safe routes for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
The PTP also builds upon the regional and national awareness of the importance of pedestrian safety. No
matter which mode of transportation one uses, at some point during a trip, every person is a pedestrian.
Policies such as Vision Zero, which seeks to eliminate all traffic fatalities and injuries, underscore the
importance of creating safe, functioning, and connected pedestrian networks.
The development of the PTP is a testament to the City’s focus and commitment to these issues. This and
other efforts have a great potential to positively influence the City’s vibrancy, transportation safety and
equity, and quality of life.
Vision and Goals
Vision Statement
The City of Cupertino envisions an inviting and safe walking environment that promotes active living and
healthy transportation choices, enhances the quality of life for all community members and visitors, and is a
seamless and integral part of the City’s connected, multi‐modal transportation network.
The goals described in Table 1 aim to achieve this vision.
Goals
Safety Improve pedestrian safety and reduce the number and severity of pedestrian‐related
collisions, injuries, and fatalities.
Access Increase and improve pedestrian access to community destinations across the City of
Cupertino for people of all ages and abilities.
Connectivity Continue to develop a connected pedestrian network that fosters an enjoyable
walking experience.
Table 1. PTP Goals DRAFT273
3
Planning Process
This update to the original 2002 Pedestrian Transportation Plan was developed over a one year period,
beginning in early 2017. Major focus areas of this PTP were guided by the City’s desire to create
data‐driven practices to identify, prioritize, and implement capital improvements and support
programs for pedestrians and pedestrian facilities. The PTP was also guided by strategic input
provided by the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission on stakeholder concerns and priorities, and by
feedback from the community‐at‐large on specific locations and issues of concern antd preferred
types of pedestrian improvements.
The process to develop the PTP was organized into three Phases as seen in Figure 1 below. The City
conducted a robust community outreach effort and engaged with the community during each phase of the
PTP’s development, as noted by the asterisks in Figure 1.
Figure 1. PTP Planning Process
The input gathered throughout the planning
process complimented a data‐driven analysis
of existing conditions and a needs assessment
(see Chapter 2) to develop the
recommendations and improvements detailed
in the PTP.
Figure 2. Community members share their ideas at the Community
Open House on how to make Cupertino more walkable. DRAFT274
4
Chapter 2: Walking in Cupertino Today
This chapter presents existing conditions data that formed the basis for drawing conclusions about the
current challenges to pedestrian travel in Cupertino. These challenges are addressed through policy and
program recommendations in Chapter 3 and project recommendations in Chapter 4.
The existing conditions include:
Land Use, Community Demographics, and Travel Patterns
Destinations and Demand
Pedestrian Network
Street Types
Collision Analysis
A review of relevant plans and policies is provided in Appendix A.
Land Use, Community Demographics, and Travel Patterns
Land Use
Cupertino is a suburban city that has been largely developed since the 1960s to today. The city has many
single‐family, residential neighborhoods, several distinct retail corridors along arterial streets, and major
employment centers. As a percentage of total area, 65.6 percent of the city is single‐family residential; 7.1
percent is multi‐family residential; 11.1 percent is mixed‐use; and 16.2 percent is classified as “other.”1 The
more intensive development is mostly located in the flatter areas of the city, while the foothills are lower
density and feature open spaces. Cupertino’s built form also reflects suburban values of vehicular access,
such as wide, high‐speed roadways and ample vehicle parking in front of set‐back businesses and office
buildings.
The City is making significant investments to improve access, safety and comfort for people to walk and bike.
Newer development, such as Main Street Cupertino, also reflect a change in community values that places a
premium on walkable, bikeable places.
While the walking environment varies throughout Cupertino, five pedestrian typologies or zones may be
considered for planning purposes to identify appropriate treatments and levels of investment:
• Cupertino’s Priority Development Area, along the Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard corridors
• Commercial and employment centers
• Residential neighborhoods
• Schools
• Access to parks, trails, and open spaces
Community Demographics
The most recent American Community Survey (ACS) five‐year estimate from 2015 puts the City’s population
at just over 60,000 residents. Of those residents, approximately 65 percent of the population is Asian and 30
percent white; approximately 50 percent of residents are immigrants. Many Asian households speak a
language other than English at home (43 percent), and approximately 25 percent of households have limited
English spoken at home.
1 Source: General Plan: Community Vision 2015‐2040 (Adopted 2015). DRAFT275
5
As shown in Figure 3, over 20 percent of residents are school‐age children, and nearly 27 percent of
households in the city have a member who is under 18 years old. Additionally, seniors make up a sizable
proportion of the community at 13.5 percent of residents.
Figure 3. Cupertino’s Population by Age (Source: 2015 American Community Survey)
Cupertino is a relatively affluent community with a median household income of $141,953, which is nearly 40
percent higher than the area median income for the San Jose region.2 Cupertino housing costs are high for
the region, with a median listing price per square foot of $941 for homes, versus a San Jose area regional
median of $593.3
The majority of Cupertino households have two or more motor vehicles available, as shown in Figure 4
below.
2 San Jose MSA area median income was $101,980 in 2015.
3 Zillow data, accessed 29 September 2017. DRAFT276
6
Figure 4. Vehicles Available per Household (Source: 2015 American Community Survey)
Travel Patterns
Most data available about travel in Cupertino relate to commute trips. All of the data presented below should
be evaluated with the understanding that commute trips generally only account for 10 to 15 percent of all
trips, based on state and national surveys.4 Other trip purposes include visiting friends and family, errands,
entertainment outings, and recreation. Lastly, the data does not include student travel to DeAnza College
which is another major generator of daily travel to Cupertino.
Work Travel Trends
A majority of Cupertino residents commute today using single‐occupancy vehicles, as shown in Table 2.
Commuting by walking is not common in Cupertino. These trends are similar to other regional mid‐sized
cities, though transit mode share is lower in Cupertino than other neighboring cities, likely because Cupertino
is not on the Caltrain line. Notably, a relatively high percentage of residents work from home (6.1 percent)
which means they may take trips by foot in residential neighborhoods at any time of day outside of commute
times. Additionally, those commuters who take transit from Cupertino may walk to get to and from the bus
stop at the beginning and end of the work day.
Cupertino
Mountain
View Santa Clara San Jose California
Drive Alone 80.0% 72.3% 76.5% 77.1% 73.4%
Carpooled 8.9% 8.0% 9.7% 11.3% 10.8%
Public Transit 2.3% 6.0% 4.0% 3.9% 5.2%
Bicycle 0.7% 6.0% 1.7% 1.0% 1.1%
Walked 1.2% 2.5% 3.2% 1.6% 2.7%
Other 0.8% 1.6% 0.9% 1.2% 1.4%
Worked at Home 6.1% 3.5% 4.1% 3.9% 5.3%
Table 2. Commute Trip Mode Split (Source: 2015 American Community Survey)
4 Cupertino‐specific data is unavailable; this range references the National Household Travel Survey (15 percent)
(nation‐wide data) and California Household Travel Survey (9.9 percent) (state‐wide data). DRAFT277
7
The numbers in Table 2 are also reflective of the fact that very few (9.2 percent) of employed Cupertino
residents also work in the city. Cupertino residents generally travel at least 20 minutes to get to work, and
many work in nearby communities of San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Mountain View and Palo Alto.5
While most residents leave Cupertino for work, the daytime population triples based on City Economic
Development data from March 2017.
School Travel Trends
The City of Cupertino has a robust Safe Routes to School Program, and partners with the County, local school
districts, schools, parents, and students to promote safety and access. The Safe Routes to School program
collects travel data at 14 schools within Cupertino, and this data is key to understanding school travel trends.
Data is collected twice per year, via student travel tallies conducted in classrooms. The tallies indicated that a
majority of students are driven to school in a family vehicle or carpool (59 percent in the morning, and 47
percent in the afternoon). Around 20 percent of students walk to school in the morning, and 25 percent walk
home in the afternoon, which is notably high when compared to other communities.
Recreation Facilities Travel Trends
Currently the visitorship to parks by pedestrians is high to very high, attracting children, youth, families and
seniors. One of the City of Cupertino’s key objectives in planning for neighborhoods is to distribute parks and
open space within the community so that all residents can safely walk or bike to a recreation facility. The City
of Cupertino is also committed to ensuring that walking and biking routes are reasonably free of physical
barriers, including streets with heavy traffic; and provide pedestrian links between parks wherever possible.
Destinations and Demand
Destinations
There are several destinations throughout the city that attract people by foot, as shown in Figure 5. Many
retail hubs are located in the “Heart of the City,” Cupertino’s primary commercial corridor, including Main
Street, Vallco Shopping Center, The Oaks, and several shopping centers along Stevens Creek and DeAnza
Boulevard. The City’s Civic Center is a hub for community life and an inviting place to walk. Apple is the most
prominent employer in Cupertino and has office buildings throughout Cupertino. The new Apple Park campus
on North Wolfe Road will generate new pedestrian activity in the northeast area of the city. Within
residential neighborhoods, schools and parks are the main destination for walking trips. These destinations
are illustrated in Figure 5.
5 2015 American Community Survey DRAFT278
8 Figure 5. Pedestrian Destinations/Activity Generators DRAFT279
9
Pedestrian Demand
Identifying pedestrian demand and activity patterns helps the City better understand where pedestrian activity is
most likely to be. Analyzing pedestrian demand allows the City to focus improvements in areas that will have the
greatest impact and benefit the most people.
Potential demand (or locations where pedestrians can be expected) may be based on factors such as the location of
employment and population centers (densities); land uses including open space, trail, sidewalk, and crosswalk
network connectivity; proximity to transit, schools and other activity centers; and demographics.
Cupertino is home to many interesting and popular destinations, including retail and community hubs, and pedestrian
activity is expected to be highest in these areas. Based on a technical analysis of these factors, the areas that have
been identified as having high potential pedestrian demand include:
Stevens Creek Boulevard retail district between Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard
Stevens Creek Boulevard adjacent to DeAnza College
Stevens Creek Trail/Blackberry Farm Park area
School areas
Figure 6 shows the areas of potentially high pedestrian activity. These locations could have higher pedestrian traffic in
the future if infrastructure is improved so that residents and visitors can better connect to these areas. Additional
information about the Pedestrian Demand Analysis methodology can be found in Appendix B. DRAFT280
10 Figure 6. Composite pedestrian demand index map DRAFT281
11
Pedestrian Network
A well‐connected pedestrian network is a vital component to livable communities, which thrive on multimodal travel
options for all, regardless of age, background or ability. Multimodal travel incorporates the needs of pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit users in street design – not just motor vehicles.
Well‐designed streets accommodate pedestrians through a variety treatments
which enhance the safety, convenience, and mobility of pedestrians.
The following are several key elements for a safe, connected, attractive and
comfortable pedestrian network: sidewalks, crossings, traffic calming, and off‐
street facilities.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks provide a dedicated space with the primary purpose of
accommodating pedestrian travel. On steets without curbs, striped shoulders
or pedestrian lanes can delinate pedestrian space from vehicle space; these
work best in residential areas with low volumes of vehicle traffic.
Sidewalks are the most essential piece of pedestrian infrastructure, and the
coverage and quality is very good in Cupertino. Private streets and semi‐rural
areas identified in Figure 9 are not required to provide sidewalks but are good
candidates for pedestrian lanes. Most of these areas consist of local streets
that are more likely to be low‐volume and low‐speed environments.
Crossings
Crossing intersections and roadways often present conflicts and stressful environments for pedestrians. Marked
crosswalks, and other treatments such as advance yield lines and median
crossing islands, help motorists anticipate the presence of pedestrians. These
treatments also provide increased legitimacy and comfort to people crossing
streets.
In Cupertino, pedestrians are accommodated at intersections through various
treatments such as marked crosswalks, pedestrian signal heads and push
buttons (at signalized intersections), curb ramps and median islands. While
crossing is legal at all intersections whether or not it is marked (unless signed
to prohibit crossings), marked crosswalks help make drivers aware of the
likelihood of pedestrians crossing. Crosswalks are marked on all legs of most
major intersections in the city. Some intersections lack pedestrian crossings
where signal timing does not provide a phase, such as Stevens Creek
Boulevard at Finch Avenue.
In an FHWA study that evaluated marked crosswalks and unmarked crossings,
the authors emphasized the importance of identifying appropriate solutions
to improve safety and access, not only through the use of marked crosswalks;
therefore, Cupertino should consider a variety of treatments in addition to
marked crosswalks to facilitate safe and comfortable street crossings.
Figure 7. Wide, landscaped sidewalks
are provided in the commercial areas
of the city.
Figure 8. Marked Crosswalks
increase visibility for pedestrians. DRAFT282
12 Figure 9. Sidewalk Inventory with Semi‐Rural Areas and Private Streets DRAFT283
13
Traffic Management
Traffic management strategies, such as slowing vehicle speeds and
volumes, are key to creating a safer pedestrian environment.
Roadway treatments such as installing speed humps/tables and
traffic circles can help in slowing traffic speed. Other design elements
such as truck aprons, pinch points, and curb extensions can extend
the sidewalk and reduce the amount of time pedestrians are in
crosswalks.
The City had a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program that
installed traffic calming treatments to improve neighborhood
livability based on collected data regarding traffic speeds and
volumes. Approved traffic calming treatments included speed humps, traffic bars, traffic circles, chokers, and diverters. Slow
traffic speeds also make for a more comfortable walking environment and also give drivers more time to react to a potential
conflict with another road user, and slower speeds can mitigate the severity of a crash, especially between an automobile and
a pedestrian.
Off‐Street Facilities
Off‐street facilities, such as shared‐use paths or pedestrian bridges over busy roadways, provide more protection for
pedestrians and an increased level of comfort.
Existing off‐street facilities include the Stevens Creek Trail, Mary Avenue Bridge and San Thomas/Saratoga Creek Trail which
are popular among Cupertino pedestrians. The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan recommended construction of a number of
additional trails and bridges to serve bicyclists that will also serve pedestrians. These projects are also recommendations of
this plan. See Figure 11 for the location of proposed and existing off‐street facilities.
Stevens Creek Trail Extension
In 2009, a coordinated Stevens Creek Trail planning effort was undertaken between the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos,
Mountain View and Sunnyvale. An advisory body composed of council members from each city (the Joint Cities Working Team
(JCWT)) was installed, and a trail consultant engaged to assess the feasibility of potential route options. The consultant
subsequently published a Feasibility Study in March 2015. It identified three route options through Cupertino, but made no
specific recommendation. These options were:
Mary Avenue to Stevens Creek Blvd, utilizing the Don Burnett Pedestrian Bridge
Foothill Blvd to Stevens Creek Blvd
Construction of a new pedestrian bridge across I‐280 connecting Cupertino’s Homestead Villa and Oakdell Ranch
neighborhoods. A tunnel under I‐280 was found to be infeasible.
A series of public outreach events then followed, intended to gauge public reaction to the study. After considering both the
feasibility study and public input, the JCWT issued its recommendation to the four cities in September 2015. No specific route
recommendation was made for Cupertino. However, the JCWT did recognize the need for a long term trail vision, and that
should circumstances change regarding the availability of land in the area that further studies be undertaken to identify
feasible route. City Council accepted the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study in June 2016. For
further information, refer to the Four Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study (September 2015 final version).
Figure 10. Traffic calming treatments help to reduce
vehicle speeds and make walking safer and more DRAFT284
14 Figure 11. Existing and planned off‐street facilities DRAFT285
15
Street Types
Cupertino’s pedestrian network spans a range of place and street types. The following street types have been defined
by the City in the Mobility Element of the General Plan.
Freeways and Expressways
Boulevards (Arterials)
Main Street
Avenue (Major and Minor Collector)
Neighborhood Connector
Residential Street
Regional Pedestrian/Bike Pathway
Local Pedestrian/Bike Pathway
All street types other than Freeways and Expressways are intended to serve pedestrians as well as other modes.
Higher activity areas are centered on Boulevard street types (Stevens Creek and DeAnza) which are intended to be
regional transportation corridors. These streets have many demands on them from multiple modes: automobiles,
trucks, transit, pedestrians and bicyclists. Figure 12 on the following page shows street classifications from
Cupertino’s General Plan.
Avenues and neighborhood connectors also serve pedestrians and are expected to accommodate all modes.
Residential streets, marked as yellow on Figure 12, prioritize pedestrian and bicycle travel and are good candidates
for traffic calming since the volume of traffic is lower on these streets than along arterial roads. Many of these local
streets are disconnected or discontinuous, making trips more circuitous than they would be with a more connected
street network. Trips that are even a quarter‐mile long may prevent people from considering walking as a
transportation option.
The street network is not the only route of travel available to pedestrians; people also walk on local and regional
pathways. The Stevens Creek Trail is an example of a regional pathway that currently connects Stevens Creek
Boulevard to McClellan Road for non‐motorized users. Local trails function as cut‐throughs in City parks and as small
connectors from the ends of cul‐de‐sacs to adjacent streets.
Since pedestrians are not constrained to the road or path network, they can and do cut across parking lots and other
private property. These informal connections allow walking trips to be shorter and may be considered as part of
pedestrian transportation. DRAFT286
16 Figure 12. Street Typology Map (Source: Cupertino General Plan Mobility Element ‐ Adopted 2015) DRAFT287
17
Collision Analysis
Preventing and mitigating the severity of pedestrian crashes is a key goal of the PTP. While many parts of Cupertino
are highly walkable and provide a safe and comfortable walking environment, even locations with sidewalks and
crossing treatments can experience pedestrian/automobile collisions.
Traffic speed directly impacts the chances of surviving a crash. While this is true for all modes, pedestrians are
especially vulnerable and have a high chance of being seriously injured or killed when speeds reach moderate levels.
A pedestrian involved in a crash with a vehicle traveling 25 mph has a 30 percent chance of suffering a serious injury
or being killed, while at 40 mph the risk is 80 percent, as illustrated in Figure 13. Higher speeds also increase the
likelihood of a crash as stopping distances are greater at higher speed. As a result, speed reduction is a critical
strategy for reducing pedestrian injuries.
To better understand the collision history in Cupertino, injury crash data from 2005 to 2014 were reviewed. This data
comes from police reports. It is possible that some additional pedestrian crashes occurred during this period which
were not reported. Near misses are also not included in this data. However, they may impact how comfortable a
person feels walking and subsequently how likely s/he is to choose to walk.
Over the ten‐year period, 137 pedestrian injury crashes occurred. Overall, pedestrian crashes were likely to be more
severe than other modes, as shown in Table 3. It should be noted that these percentages only include injury crashes.
Figure 13. Greater impact speeds increase the risk of severe injury or death. DRAFT288
18
Crash Severity Pedestrian Bicyclist Motorist
Fatal 3.7% 1.0% 0.5%
Serious Injury 17.5% 9.5% 4.5%
Moderate Injury 35.0% 57.7% 21.0%
Minor Injury 43.8% 31.9% 74.0%
Table 3. Injury Crash Severity by Mode, 2005‐2014
Geographic Crash Analysis
The majority of crashes in Cupertino occur on the Arterials and Major Collectors. Table 4 shows a summary of
pedestrian crashes from 2005 to 2014 and includes a tally of crashes that occurred on streets with five or more
crashes.6 During this time period, 71 percent of pedestrian injury crashes occurred on eight streets. These eight
streets are considered “High‐Injury Corridors” and improvements to these streets could significantly reduce motor
vehicle and pedestrian crashes in Cupertino. See Figure 14 for a geographic illustration of these corridors.
Street Name Crashes7
Stevens Creek Boulevard 39
Stelling Road 18
Miller Avenue/Wolfe Road 15
Homestead Road 12
DeAnza Boulevard 11
McClellan Road 7
Bollinger Road 6
Foothill Boulevard 5
Table 4. High‐Injury Corridors with the most frequent pedestrian collisions resulting in injury
6 Tally includes number of crashes where the street is identified in the crash data either as the Primary Road or Secondary
Road and includes instances where the crash occurred on a cross street within 25’ of the intersection.
7 Crash totals by corridor include those crashes occurring on the streets or at intersections with those streets. Crashes
occurring at the intersection of two high‐crash corridors are counted on both corridors. DRAFT289
19
Figure 14. High‐injury corridors: From 2005 to 2014, 71 percent of pedestrian injury crashes occurred on eight corridors.
In particular, there are ample opportunities to improve pedestrian safety on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Twenty‐nine of
the crashes occurred at intersections on Stevens Creek Boulevard or within 25’ of an intersection. The same number
of crashes on Stevens Creek Boulevard involved a driver violating a pedestrian’s right of way, meaning that the driver
did not yield appropriately to a pedestrian when s/he was in a crosswalk or on a sidewalk.
DRAFT290
20
A majority of crashes where pedestrians are injured in Cupertino occur when the pedestrian is in a crosswalk at the
intersection. In most of these crashes, a driver failed to yield, as shown in Figure 15.
See Figure 16 for the location of all pedestrian crashes between 2005‐2014.
Figure 15. Location of pedestrian crashes. DRAFT291
21 Figure 16. Pedestrian Collisions in Cupertino, 2005 to 2014 DRAFT292
22
Non‐Geographic Crash Analysis
The largest number of pedestrian crashes (50 percent) were the result of a driver’s violation of the pedestrian right of
way, and most of these crashes occurred when a pedestrian was in the crosswalk at an intersection. This finding will
help focus engineering, education and enforcement recommendations. It appears that fewer pedestrians are struck
when crossing the street where a marked crosswalk does not exist. This may be because fewer pedestrians are
crossing at unmarked locations, thus fewer are exposed to the risk of a crash. Additionally, a pedestrian was found at
fault in only 15 percent of crashes. More crashes happened on weekdays and during the half of the year from October
to March (64 percent).
Lastly, the data indicates that children and young adults (ages 5 to 17 and 18 to 24) and elderly pedestrians (ages over
74) are over‐represented in injury crashes. Figure 17 compares the percentage of population represented by each age
group, as well as the percentage of pedestrian victims from 2005 to 2014. Note that child pedestrians included here
are ages 5 to 17; only one pedestrian victim in that time frame was under the age of five.
Figure 17. Percentage of Population Compared to Percentage of Pedestrian Victims, 2005‐2014.
DRAFT293
23
Chapter 3: Policy and Program Recommendations
Cupertino has already made significant investments in making its streets friendlier to pedestrians. This chapter
identifies a series of focused policies, programs, and practices to further promote pedestrian safety and access. These
recommendations were developed based on a review and evaluation of the City’s current operations and compared
with national best practices.
This chapter includes recommendations on the following topics and are summarized in Table 5:
Infrastructure and Operations
Evaluation and Planning
Project Implementation
Education and Enforcement DRAFT294
24
Category Topic Area Recommendations Infrastructure and Operations Street Design
Develop and adopt a Complete Streets Design Manual
Ensure design standards/design speeds in pedestrian areas do not
contribute to a routine need for traffic calming
Adopt a Complete Streets internal process checklist for project
development, design, review and approval, and operations and
maintenance
Neighborhood
Traffic
Management
Formalize the City’s traffic calming practices
Employ traffic calming strategies in locations where traffic speeds are too
high for pedestrian areas
Expand the City’s traffic calming toolbox
Reconsider criteria for setting speed limits
Consider establishing 15 mph school zones and other slow zones near parks,
community facilities, or senior housing
Use new radar speed signs and other technologies to collect speed data
Accessibility
Establish an accessible design checklist for design projects
Conduct ADA trainings for City staff
Encourage representation of people with disabilities in pedestrian‐related
projects and programs Evaluation and Planning Pedestrian
Volume
Include pedestrian and bicycle counts as a routine element of motor vehicle
counts
Conduct annual pedestrian volume counts along the City’s high‐injury
corridors.
Collect pedestrian volume data before and after installation of new
pedestrian facilities
Conduct pedestrian volume counts at specific pedestrian crosswalk locations
to determine where warrants for Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK signals)
and other traffic control devices may be met
Conduct pedestrian and bicycle counts for the planning and evaluation of
the City’s trail systems.
Pedestrian
Safety
Develop crash report (Annual collision analysis to identify trends and
problems areas)
Evaluate pedestrian safety outcomes
Conduct Road Safety Audits (RSAs) and/or Walk Audits Education and Enforcement Safety Education
Continue to promote walking and bicycling to school through the Safe
Routes to School program
Consider developing and implementing a targeted safety campaign for other
groups (adults, seniors, drivers, etc.)
Enforcement
Use enforcement as an opportunity for education by distributing pedestrian
safety pamphlets in‐lieu of, or in addition to, citations
Implement sustained enforcement efforts and involve the media Project Implementation Funding
(See Chapter 5)
Continue to fund high‐priority sidewalk gap closure projects through the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Develop a line item in the CIP for implementation of the PTP
Ensure that pedestrian improvements are included in other street projects,
such as resurfacing, bridge replacement, or lane reconfiguration
Explore the possibility of obtaining Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) funds
Secure a funding source to be used for broader pedestrian safety education
efforts that could target traffic safety education and awareness
Agency
Coordination
(See Chapter 5)
Continue to collaborate with related agencies (transportation, health,
schools, emergency services) within and adjacent to Cupertino
Explore opportunities for improving coordination with major employers
Table 5. Summary of Recommendations for Pedestrian‐related Policies, Programs and PracticesDRAFT
295
25
Infrastructure and Operations
Street Design
Development and implementation of policies and standards that
govern the design of streets can be one of the most effective
ways to improve conditions for pedestrians throughout the
transportation system. Cupertino has established guidelines for
the Stevens Creek Boulevard (Heart of the City Specific Plan) and
the Monta Vista Commercial Area (Monta Vista Design
Guidelines). However, the City does not currently have
comprehensive design standards that apply to all streets. The
City currently uses national and state guidance such as the
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA
MUTCD) and the National Association of City Transportation
Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide.
Goals and strategies in the Cupertino General Plan, adopted in
2015, support the need for Cupertino to develop multimodal
street design standards (Policy M‐2.1). The need for improving
walkability through better connectivity and context‐sensitive
street design is outlined in the Plan (Policies M‐2.2, M‐2.3, and M‐2.4). The General Plan also establishes a
policy to limit street widening for the sole purpose of improving vehicular traffic flow (Policy M‐3.4).
Recommendations
Develop and adopt a Complete Streets Design Manual. Building on the policy established in the
General Plan, adopting street design standards that promote pedestrian safety and comfort would
ensure that pedestrian improvements are implemented systematically throughout the city during
new construction and street retrofits. While existing design resources such as the NACTO Urban
Design Guide are valuable and should continue to be used to inform the City’s design practices,
adopted City standards hold more weight, are easier to enforce and provide more design details.
Adopt a Complete Streets internal process checklist for project development, design, review and
approval, and operations and maintenance. The Complete Streets process ensures a greater
maintenance and enforcement program to ensure the public right‐of‐way remains accessible.
Ensure design standards/design speeds in pedestrian areas do not contribute to a routine need for
traffic calming. Wide streets provide a visual cue to drivers that speeding is safe and expected, which
predictably results in speeding problems that must then be managed through traffic calming or
enforcement. Street design standards that address this problem proactively would be a more
effective long‐term approach.
Best Practice Examples
San Francisco Better Streets Plan, 2011. http://www.sf‐planning.org/ftp/BetterStreets/
Boston Complete Streets Guide, 2013. http://bostoncompletestreets.org/
City of Alexandria Complete Streets Design Guidelines, 2016.
https://www.alexandriava.gov/localmotion/info/default.aspx?id=91090
Resources
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide. http://nacto. org/publication/urban‐street‐design‐guide/
Figure 18. The Massachusetts DOT’s Separated
Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide shows how
to best accommodate bicycle facilities in
pedestrian realms. DRAFT296
26
Neighborhood Traffic Management
As discussed in Chapter 2, vehicle speed directly
impacts the chances of surviving a crash, especially
for pedestrians who are especially vulnerable and
have a high chance of being seriously injured or
killed when speeds reach moderate levels.
Systematic reduction of speeds on Cupertino
streets would improve safety for all modes, while
also helping to meet other City goals. The
Cupertino General Plan includes a
recommendation to reduce speeds through traffic
calming on Cupertino streets (Policy M‐2.6). The
City has an informal neighborhood traffic
management program, and primarily responds to
community members concerns on a case‐by‐case
basis. The City has not recently used other traffic
management tools such as diverters and speed
humps, due to concerns that traffic issues may be
diverted to other streets.
The City currently evaluates speed limits every 10 years and is planning to review established speed limits
citywide in 2019. As part of this process, speed studies are conducted to determine current operating speeds.
Speed studies are also conducted in response to resident concerns.
Recommendations
Formalize the City’s traffic calming practices. A neighborhood traffic management program would
provide a transparent process for developing area‐wide traffic calming improvements. Ideally, this
program would have dedicated funding to allow for a more proactive approach.
Employ traffic calming strategies in locations where traffic speeds are too high for high priority
pedestrian travel areas. Due to the original design of many Cupertino streets, high speeds occur on
many streets. The City should prioritize and implement traffic calming on streets near parks, trails,
and schools that have observed speeding problems.
Expand the traffic calming toolbox. As part of a formalized traffic calming program, criteria and
considerations for the use of various traffic calming treatments should be documented. For example,
the City currently uses speed humps only on a limited basis (e.g., on bicycle boulevards), due to
traffic diversion concerns. While this concern may be valid in some areas, speed humps or other
vertical treatments such as raised intersections may be included as part of a menu of traffic calming
options. Before and after counts may be taken on the treated streets as well as on parallel streets to
monitor impacts and potential diversion.
Reconsider criteria for setting speed limits. Some cities, such as Seattle and Boston, are
experimenting with approaches for setting speed limits that better align with community goals. For
example, Cupertino could consider pedestrian safety when setting speed limits. The California
Figure 19. Traffic calming devices enhance the pedestrian environment
and allow pedestrians to feel safer and more comfortable. DRAFT297
27
Vehicle Code (CVC) allows speed limits to be set at 5mph lower than the 85th percentile speed.8
Changes to the speed limit should be accompanied by geometric changes and enforcement.
Consider establishing 15 mph school zones and other slow zones near parks, community facilities,
or senior housing. To protect the most vulnerable members of society, Cupertino should consider
reducing speed limits in school zones or other slow zones. Lower speeds in such zones would greatly
reduce the chance of a fatality or serious injury if a pedestrian is hit by a motor vehicle.
Use new radar speed signs and other technologies to collect speed data. The City owns and
regularly installs radar signs that display vehicle speeds and can also record speed data. Other
portable technologies, such as StealthStat, a pole‐mounted radar system, could be used to expand
coverage of speed data collection without the use of pneumatic tubes.
Best Practice Examples
City of San Ramon. Residential Traffic Calming Program: Policies, Procedures, Resources.
http://www. sanramon. ca. gov/transp/images/rtc. pdf
City of Seattle. Speed Limits. https://www. seattle. gov/visionzero/speed‐limits
Resources
PEDSAFE. http://pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures.cfm
ITE Traffic Calming Website. http://www.ite.org/traffic/index.asp
Federal Highway Administration. Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: an Informational
Report, 2012. https://safety. fhwa. dot. gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa12004/fhwasa12004. pdf
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Accessibility
The City’s ADA Transition Plan was completed in 2014. It
includes recommendations for removal of programmatic
and policy barriers to accessibility (e.g., changes to City
Municipal Code allowing the use of service animals in
City facilities) as well as removal of physical barriers for
City‐owned facilities. The Transition Plan establishes a
policy and prioritization framework for the use of City
funds to improve accessibility. While the Plan includes
criteria for how to prioritize projects in the public right‐
of‐way (ROW), it does not provide a comprehensive
recommendation for sidewalks throughout the City’s
street network.
The City updates curb ramps in routine CIP resurfacing
projects. In 2016, the City was awarded Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to replace curb
ramps that do not meet ADA guidelines. Sidewalk gap closure projects are ongoing and typically funded
through the City’s CIP.
8 Caltrans. California Manual for Setting Speed Limits. 2013.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/docs/california‐manual‐for‐setting‐speed‐limits.pdf
Figure 20. In Seattle, WA, ADA‐compliant crossings ensure
mobility for people with disabilities. DRAFT298
28
Recommendations
Establish an accessible design checklist for design projects. A checklist will help to ensure ADA
considerations are covered at all level of designs, thereby helping to improve compliance.
Conduct ADA trainings for City staff. To effectively implement ADA changes across the city, the City
should focus on ADA trainings for current employees while working to dedicate more staff to ADA
compliance review, planning, and engineering. FHWA provides numerous training modules on this
and related topics.
Improve representation of people with disabilities. Representation of people with disabilities and
other accessibility advocates on the Cupertino Planning Commission, advisory boards, and as
community advisors for planning projects will help to bring greater awareness and attention to ADA
concerns.
Best Practice Example
Howard County, Maryland. WalkHoward. https://walkhoward.org/resources/
Resources
U. S. Access Board. Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right‐of‐Way. 20911.
https://www. access‐board. gov/guidelines‐and‐standards/streets‐sidewalks/public‐rights‐of‐
way/proposed‐rights‐of‐way‐guidelines
American Planning Association. Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices.
https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/cs/resources/cs‐bestpractices‐
chapter5.pdf
Evaluation and Planning
Collection and analysis of pedestrian‐related data
helps agencies prioritize resources, make more
informed decisions, establish need when
submitting grant applications, and evaluate
trends and outcomes. Prior to collecting new
data, it is important to have a clear sense for how
the data will be used and managed. Ideally, data
collection and analysis would be closely tied to
established goals and policies and would help
Cupertino monitor progress implementing the
PTP.
Pedestrian Volume Data Collection
Cupertino does not routinely collect pedestrian
volume data. Collection of pedestrian volume
data can help the City prioritize investments over
time or demonstrate the impact of infrastructure
investments such as new sidewalks.
A variety of count methods can be used; generally, automated methods that collect continuous count data
over a period of a week or more are preferred to ensure reliable estimates. Short‐duration counts can be
extrapolated to annual averages using expansion factors that account for daily and seasonal fluctuations in
Figure 21. Infrared counter on multi‐use trail in Denver, CO.
Credit: Colorado Department of Transportation. DRAFT299
29
pedestrian activity. This process is discussed in NCHRP Report 797 and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) Traffic Monitoring Guide (see the “Resources” section).
Recommendations
Collect pedestrian and bicycle volumes as part of every traffic count, both for private development
transportation impact studies and City‐led data collection.
Conduct annual pedestrian volume counts along the City’s high‐injury corridors. As mentioned
above, pedestrian intersection (or midblock) volume data would help the City understand the
relative safety of different intersections. This would provide insight into the likely benefit of making
infrastructure improvements. For example, an intersection with a high number of pedestrian crashes
and low pedestrian volumes indicates a likely design problem whereas an intersection with a similar
number of crashes and high pedestrian volume may not have obvious design deficiencies.
Collect pedestrian volume data before and after installation of new pedestrian facilities. Data
collected before and after installation of pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks and crossing
treatments, can demonstrate the impact of infrastructure investments, which may lead to greater
support for future investment.
Conduct pedestrian volume counts at existing pedestrian crosswalk locations to determine where
warrants for Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK signals) or other traffic control devices may be
met. HAWK signals have been proven to be one of the most effective pedestrian crossing treatments
for multilane roads. However, they are subject to warrant criteria, as outlined in the MUTCD. Some
existing midblock crossing locations may meet those warrants and be suitable candidates for
implementation of HAWK signals.
Conduct pedestrian and bicycle counts for the planning and evaluation of the City’s trail systems.
Data can be used for the evaluation and planning of the Stevens Creek Trial, Saratoga Creek Trail and
Don Burnett Bridge/Homestead to Mary Ave. trail.
Best Practice Example
Alameda County Transportation Commission. Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Program. http://www.
alamedactc. org/app_pages/view/9644
Resources
NCHRP Report 797. Guidebook on Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection. 2014. http://www.
trb. org/Publications/Blurbs/171973. aspx
FHWA. Traffic Monitoring Guide. 2016. https://www. fhwa. dot. gov/policyinformation/tmguide/
Pedestrian Safety Analysis and Planning
Review and analysis of pedestrian crashes is an important strategy for saving lives and reducing injuries
across the city. Cupertino staff typically receives collision reports from the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office,
but lacks an established, ongoing process for reviewing crashes and developing solutions. DRAFT300
30
Recommendations
Develop an annual crash report. Many
cities undertake a periodic analysis of
crashes which can help identify trends
and problem areas. A collision analysis
has been conducted for the PTP; to
understand and respond to emerging
needs, crash analysis should be
conducted on a routine basis, such as
every year or every two years.
Evaluate pedestrian safety outcomes.
As projects stemming from this PTP are
implemented, the City should evaluate
the pedestrian safety outcomes,
particularly projects that respond to a
safety concern. Since pedestrian
crashes are rare in many locations, field observations could be used to determine the safety impact.
For example, the City could evaluate yielding behavior before and after the addition of enhanced
crossing treatments to an existing crosswalk. Over time, such information could help the City select
and prioritize which treatments to use based on their effectiveness in Cupertino.
Conduct Road Safety Audits (RSAs). RSAs can be used to identify multidisciplinary strategies at
locations and corridors with a history of pedestrian crashes. Such locations may not have had
fatalities in the past, but have a risk for future fatalities based on higher than expected levels of non‐
fatal crashes. RSAs are typically focused on low‐cost improvements. RSAs should be considered for
the streets identified as high‐injury corridors in the collision analysis in Chapter 2.
Conduct Walk Audits. Walking audits provide an interactive opportunity to receive feedback from
key stakeholders about the study area as well as discuss potential solutions and their feasibility. They
can be led by City staff, advocacy groups such as Walk Bike Cupertino, neighborhood groups, or
consultants. Multiple walk audits were conducted as part of the development of the PTP, including
sections of Stevens Creek Boulevard and DeAnza Boulevard (see Appendix C). Specific locations
identified for future walk audit locations include segments of the high‐injury corridors identified
through analysis of recent collisions in Chapter 2:
o Bollinger Road from DeAnza Boulevard to the City limit
o DeAnza Boulevard from Homestead Road to Bollinger Road
o Foothill Blvd and Stevens Canyon Road from Foothill Expressway to Stevens Creek County
Park
o Miller Avenue/Wolfe Road from Homestead Road to Bollinger Road
o Stelling Road from Homestead Road to the City limit
Best Practice Examples
City of Fort Collins. Traffic Safety Report, 2015.
http://www. fcgov. com/traffic/pdf/traffic‐safety‐summary‐2016. pdf?1476201877
City of Boston. Vision Zero: Rapid Response http://www. visionzeroboston. org/rapidresponse
Massachusetts Department of Transportation. City of New Bedford, Coggeshall Street Road Safety
Audit. https://www. massdot. state. ma.
us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/SafetyAudit/District5/New_Bedford_Coggeshall_St_RSA. pdf
Figure 22. Road Safety Audits bring together planners and
engineers to address high‐crash locations. DRAFT301
31
Resources
FHWA. Road Safety Audit Guidelines, 2006. https://safety. fhwa. dot. gov/rsa/guidelines/
FHWA. Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists, 2007. http://www. pedbikeinfo.
org/pdf/PlanDesign_Tools_Audits_PedRSA. pdf
Education and Enforcement
Safety Education
Cupertino has a well‐developed Safe Routes to School
program that includes participation across all public schools in
the city.9 A wide variety of materials and resources are made
available, including safety tips for all modes, walking and
bicycling maps, drop‐off instructions for individual schools,
and other education and encouragement ideas.
Recommendations
Continue to promote walking and bicycling to school
through the Safe Routes 2 School program.
Consider developing and implementing a targeted
safety campaign. As suggested in Chapter 5,
Cupertino may explore the possibility of obtaining
funding to conduct a broad safety campaign,
targeting all modes and user groups, such as drivers
and seniors. This campaign should address key issues affecting pedestrian safety such as traffic speed
and yielding at crosswalks. A combination of education and enforcement strategies is likely needed
and most effective.
Best Practice Examples
StreetSmart. http://bestreetsmart. net/index2. php
Bike Arlington. PAL: Safety on Our Streets. http://www. bikearlington. com/pages/pal‐safety‐on‐our‐
streets/
Resources
National Center for Safe Routes to School. http://www. saferoutesinfo. org/.
Enforcement
The Santa Clara County Sherriff’s Office works closely with schools in Cupertino to educate children on traffic
safety laws. They have also conducted focused enforcement to increase yielding to pedestrians at crosswalks.
Recommendations
Implement sustained enforcement efforts and involve the media.
Use enforcement as an opportunity for education by distributing pedestrian safety pamphlets in‐
lieu of, or in addition to, citations.
9 City of Cupertino. What is Safe Routes 2 School (SR2S)? www.cupertino.org/saferoutes
Figure 23. Safe Routes to School programs educate
students while encouraging active trips to and from
school. DRAFT302
32
Best Practice Example
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Evaluation of the Miami‐Dade Pedestrian Safety
Demonstration Project. http://www. pedbikeinfo.
org/collateral/PSAP%20Training/gettraining_references_Miami‐Dade. pdf
Resources
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Pedestrian Safety Enforcement Operations: A How‐
To Guide. https://www. nhtsa. gov/sites/nhtsa. dot. gov/files/812059‐
pedestriansafetyenforceoperahowtoguide. pdf DRAFT303
33
Chapter 4: Project Recommendations
Implementation of the project recommendations in this chapter will result in a more livable Cupertino, where
residents and visitors can more safely and comfortably walk for transportation and recreation.
Development of Recommendations
Location‐specific project recommendations were identified in four ways:
Walk audits: areas defined through demand analysis, staff input and geographic/street type diversity
WikiMap comments: responses to comments received on the PTP online map
Public workshop comments: responses to comments received at the first public workshop
City staff input: locations identified by City staff in response to known issue areas and existing in‐
process street design projects
The recommendations included in this chapter focus on targeted locations of high need and opportunity, but
there are similar challenges that exist in other parts of the city. As such, the project list and maps do not
represent the entire realm of projects that could be completed to improve pedestrian travel in Cupertino. In
addition, specific recommendations for infrastructure projects in school areas are being addressed through a
separate, parallel Safe Routes to School process. More information can be found at
http://www.cupertino.org/our‐city/departments/public‐works/transportation‐mobility/safe‐routes‐2‐school
Walk Audits
Walk Audits were conducted of six areas, identified through demand analysis and representing a range of
street types throughout the city. Consultant and City staff visited these areas on March 14 and 15, 2017. The
areas were:
Arterials
Route 1: De Anza Boulevard, between Mariani Avenue and Rodrigues Avenue and Bandley Drive,
from Valley Green Drive to Stevens Creek Boulevard
Route 4: Stevens Creek Boulevard, between SR 85 and Stelling Road
Route 5: Stevens Creek Boulevard, between Finch Avenue and Tantau Avenue
Local Streets
Route 2: Phar Lap Drive and Mann Drive
Route 3: Miller Avenue, Vicksburg Drive, La Mar Drive
Route 6: Monta Vista neighborhood
These audits had multiple purposes:
1. Identify specific issues impacting the pedestrian environment and travel along the walk audit routes,
2. Catalog issues by street type or place within Cupertino for presentation in the PTP,
3. Create a shared understanding of infrastructure and behavioral issues that create a challenging,
uncomfortable or unsafe pedestrian environment, and
4. Discuss potential countermeasures and/or policy and programmatic changes that can address
identified issues
City staff accompanied consultants on all walk audits and answered questions about specific existing and
planned infrastructure within the walk audit areas, as well as general City practices with respect to DRAFT304
34
pedestrian projects and policies. Site‐specific issues within these areas were noted for recommended
improvements. A complete summary of the walk audits can be found in Appendix C.
Many of the walk audit recommendations along the high‐crash corridors are included in the prioritized
project list. Additional audits are recommended along all the high‐crash corridors for a more comprehensive
evaluation. Recommended treatment types for the remaining walk audit routes are intended to serve as
model applications of the toolkit facilities that appear in this chapter. These treatments will guide the City’s
response to future requests and studies on local and collector street types. Figure 24 illustrates the walk
audit locations.
Figure 24. Walk Audit Locations
WikiMap and Public Workshop Comments
Comments received on the WikiMap and at the Public Workshop are listed in Appendix D. Comments from
these sources that address high‐priority locations are included within the prioritized list of project
recommendations. Remaining locations have been catalogued for review by City staff and should be
considered in future development efforts.
Staff Input
City of Cupertino staff are routinely contacted by residents with concerns about the pedestrian environment
and observe issues around the city. This institutional knowledge contributed locations to the analysis of
potential recommendations. Crossing treatments and sidewalk installation projects were made for locations
based on this staff input. Additionally, staff recognized the pedestrian benefits of some elements in the Class
IV bikeway design for Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road, and those project elements are included
here as pedestrian projects.
1
5
3
4 2
6 DRAFT305
35
Identified Issues
These four sources of information about pedestrian issues in the city centered on a few key areas. These
issues can be mitigated by applying treatments in the pedestrian toolbox identified later in this chapter.
1. Boulevard intersections: Boulevard intersections are likely locations of pedestrian/automobile
conflict. This was observed during walk audits, has been reported by residents, and is borne out in
the collision data presented in Chapter 2. The following issues are most critical.
Marked crosswalks: Lack of marked crosswalks on all legs at signalized intersections creates
delay and inconvenience for pedestrians who must cross multiple legs to reach their
destination. It also exposes them to more potential conflicts with automobiles.
Concurrent pedestrian/automobile movements: During walk audits, drivers were observed
encroaching on crosswalks to make right turns on red. Right turns on red may be restricted
at some intersections (e.g., the Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV bikeway design includes
separate phasing), but most locations will likely continue to experience this conflict. This
issue should be addressed through education efforts for residents and daily visitors.
Signal timing: Signal phases along boulevards are very long in part due to accommodation of
high traffic volumes. This leads to long wait times for pedestrians crossing. People were
observed running to make a green signal or to complete a crossing even when a pedestrian
countdown timer indicated too‐short time remaining to make the full crossing.
Driveway proximity to intersection: Some retail locations on boulevard corners have
driveways within the functional area of the intersection. Turning movements into and out of
these driveways create more opportunity for conflict between automobiles and between
pedestrians and automobiles. The City has updated standards regarding proximity of
driveways to the intersection since some of these were constructed, but retrofitting of
existing locations may be warranted.
Curb radii: Drivers turning off a higher‐speed boulevard onto a local street do not receive a
visual cue that they are entering a slower speed environment. They are also not forced to
slow making right turns because curb radii are generally wide coming off the boulevard
streets.
2. Along boulevards: Even with sidewalks provided, some additional issues exist on boulevards for
pedestrians.
Sidewalk width and placement: The current five‐foot sidewalk standard does not create a
comfortable walking environment when the sidewalk is adjacent to the curb. This condition
is present on segments of Stelling Road, DeAnza Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Homestead Road. Though pedestrians are somewhat buffered from automobile traffic by
standard bike lanes, the sidewalk is still not of adequate width to be comfortable or to
accommodate side‐by‐side pedestrian travel. Buffered sidewalks on boulevards were
significantly more conducive to pedestrian comfort.
Crossing spacing: Enhanced, comfortable, safe crossings are widely spaced along
boulevards, up to nearly 0.5 miles in some locations. This can present challenges for
accessing transit stops or other destinations located between crossings.
Driveway frequency: Frequent driveways create potential conflicts between pedestrians
and drivers accessing businesses. These are sometimes the result of smaller retail parcels all
having their own access, and sometimes the result of multiple driveways to access a single
parcel. Shared parking agreements may mitigate the need for frequent driveways. DRAFT306
36
Driveway cross slope: Driveways in locations without a sidewalk buffer often create an
unacceptable cross slope for the sidewalk. Some of these locations were identified in the
ADA Transition Plan, but others exist throughout the city and create a hazard for people in
wheeled mobility devices or pushing strollers and carts.
3. Neighborhood speeds: Local streets in neighborhoods tend to be wide (38’ typical) with wide curb
radii. These characteristics, along with generally low occupancy of on‐street parking, can lead to
higher‐than‐posted speeds for drivers. These issues can be compounded when a local street does not
have frequent traffic control requiring drivers to stop. Residents have expressed concern about high
speeds in several locations recently, and the City has addressed them with speed radar signs. La Mar
Drive is a typical example.
4. Missing sidewalk: Lack of sidewalks on one or both sides of the street was noted by several
community members on local, neighborhood connector and avenue streets. This was also observed
in walk audits. Recommended locations for sidewalk construction do not represent all locations of
missing sidewalk on streets in Cupertino. Sidewalk gaps occur from parcel to parcel and along longer
segments of some streets. Missing sidewalks are more of a concern where traffic volumes and
speeds are high because of the greater potential for conflict and greater severity when crashes do
occur.
5. Placement of curb ramps: Many locations were observed across a range of street types that did not
have curb ramps or had diagonal curb ramps. The City has been working on a program of ramp
replacement, but even some new ramps were replaced as diagonal ramps when two directional
ramps should be standard.
6. Lack of connectivity: Cupertino’s street network is often disconnected and indirect at the local
neighborhood level. This can result in fewer people choosing to walk for trips because distances are
longer or because the most direct route is on a busier street that is less pleasant for walking. Some
public comments noted specific new connection points that would make school, park or retail access
more convenient.
Pedestrian Facility Toolbox
The pedestrian facility toolbox includes general design considerations for pedestrian facilities recommended
in this Plan to make Cupertino a more pedestrian‐friendly community. The guidance provided here is
intended for engineers and planners within Cupertino to reference and to incorporate into their own design
guidelines or standards as appropriate.
The toolkit provides an explanation of the different facilities, their purpose, and application. Some additional
facility types have been included that, though not recommended to address issues identified in this plan, may
be used in the future to address issues in other parts of the city.
DRAFT307
37
Sidewalks
Sidewalks play a critical role in the
character, function, enjoyment, and
accessibility of neighborhoods, main
streets, and other community
destinations. Sidewalks provide a
dedicated space with the primary purpose
of accommodating pedestrian travel.
All sidewalk gaps should be filled, except
for private streets and semi‐rural areas.
Benefits
Provide dedicated space while
improving mobility and access for
pedestrians.
Can encourage walking and
promote fitness and the general
health of a community.
Challenges
Often difficult/costly to retrofit streets to add sidewalks.
Sidewalks need to be maintained and often that responsibility is passed onto adjacent property
owners.
Applicability and Use
Providing continuous sidewalks is critical to the development of a complete pedestrian network in
Cupertino. Therefore, closing existing sidewalk gaps should be prioritized for implementation.
Sidewalks should have a minimum width of five feet if set back from the curb, or six feet if at the
curb face. However, sidewalk and street buffer width should both increase in proportion to adjacent
motor vehicle volumes and pedestrian‐use volumes.
Preferred width: six feet in residential areas, but in commercial areas, near schools, at transit stops,
downtown, near parks, or anywhere where high concentrations of pedestrian activity exists, the
minimum width for a sidewalk should be eight feet.
Striped shoulder/Pedestrian lane
Curbless streets exist in some Cupertino neighborhoods that have
a semi‐rural street typology or in privately‐developed
neighborhoods. Although sidewalks are the best way to provide
separation from motor vehicles, adding a striped
shoulder/pedestrian lane to curbless streets can work well in
residential settings with low levels of vehicle traffic.
Benefits
Visually narrows the roadway to encourage drivers to
slow down.
Figure 25. Detached Sidewalk
Figure 26. Striped pedestrian lane DRAFT308
38
Challenges
Must restrict on‐street parking fully or to one side of street if space available. The latter necessitates
marking parking, and both necessitate enforcement.
Applicability and Use
This condition is most appropriate for local streets with lower volumes and speeds.
Not yet used in Cupertino, however recommended on streets that serve as a low‐volume collector
street, such as Mann Drive.
While a striped shoulder/pedestrian lane can increase comfort for all people within the street right‐
of‐way, traffic calming may be needed to ensure slow vehicle speeds that are appropriate for
curbless streets.
Traffic Calming
Traffic calming uses physical engineering measures to reduce speeds, alter driver behavior, and improve
conditions for non‐motorized street users. Traffic calming aims to slow the speeds of motorists to a “target
speed,” usually 20 miles per hour or less for residential streets and 25 to 35 mph for collectors and minor
arterials. A suite of infrastructure treatments are presented below.
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions extend the sidewalk or curb line into the roadway and are intended to improve safety by
slowing turning speeds, improving sight lines, shortening crossing distances, reducing exposure time, and
increase visibility between roadway users.
Benefits
Shortens pedestrian crossing distance
Prevents vehicles from blocking the crosswalk
Extended sidewalk space can be used for plantings,
street furniture, or green stormwater infrastructure.
Challenges
Can alter the drainage characteristics of the street
May present challenges in accommodating existing
and future bicycle facilities and large vehicle turning
movements
Landscaped curb extensions should only feature low‐
growing plants to preserve sight distances.
Applicability and Use
Valuable in locations with high volumes of pedestrian traffic
Can be used as a traffic‐calming element
Can be used at: intersections and mid‐block pedestrian crossings, but only where on‐street parking is
present
May be used at transit stops (i.e., bus curb extensions) to increase transit stop waiting area capacity
and facilitate in‐lane stopping of transit vehicles
May provide space for utilities, signs and amenities such as bus shelters or waiting areas, bicycle
parking, public seating, public art, street vendors, newspaper stands, trash and recycling receptacles
and green infrastructure elements
Figure 27. Curb extensions DRAFT309
39
Already used on some streets in Cupertino
Curb Radii
Curb radii are important to consider for slowing speeds of turning
vehicles. A tighter curb radius forces drivers to slow in making
right turns. For left turns, drivers have less room for error
entering the cross street and so are also forced to slow. Curb radii
can be adjusted through extension of an existing curb as in Figure
27.
Truck Aprons
Truck Aprons may also be used to extend the curb. They are
paving treatments that create the illusion of “moving the curb.”
They are used to narrow the street at intersections to calm traffic
without restricting the movement of larger vehicles. For most
vehicles, they will function similarly to extending the entire curb,
slowing right turns and narrowing the street. However, they are designed such that they do not restrict
turning movements of larger vehicles that may need to access local streets periodically.
Benefits
I Encourages slower vehicle turning speeds and increases
driver awareness of crossing pedestrians
Shortens pedestrian crossing distance
Improves sight distance
Challenges
Retrofit installations may require drainage and utility
relocation
May not be feasible on steep grades
Applicability and Use
Truck aprons used on some local streets in Cupertino
Often used on roundabouts, they can also be used as
chicanes and curb extensions
Curb radii generally in Cupertino could be narrowed
Figure 28. Narrowed curb radius
Figure 29. Truck apron, Cupertino DRAFT310
40
Vertical Deflection
Speed Humps/Tables provide a gentle rise on the roadway, and consist
of raised pavement approximately three to four inches high at the
center, extending nearly the full width of the street. Speed
humps/tables are very effective at slowing traffic. The height of a speed
hump/table should taper near the gutter to maintain drainage and allow
unimpeded bicycle travel.
Benefits
Highly effective method for slowing motor vehicles
Can be relatively inexpensive and easy to maintain
Challenges
May impact traffic patterns
Concerns about emergency vehicle speed may arise from
installation of speed humps; however, proper design of the
hump profile or use of channels in humps can mitigate impacts
on emergency vehicles and other large vehicles such as buses
Applicability and Use
Grade should be considered; do not use on roadways with greater than 5 percent grade
Speed tables are preferred by City of Cupertino (Standard Detail 1‐17A)
Already used on many local streets in Cupertino
Design consideration should be given for large vehicles and bikes when determining approach angle
and profile
Horizontal Deflection
Traffic circles are circular islands that force drivers to slow at
intersections and navigate around the center island. Circles may be used
at uncontrolled or‐ two‐way stop controlled intersections. When
properly design they reduce the speeds of motorists, which reduces
collisions and improves bicycle and pedestrian safety. They can also
encourage through traffic to stay on arterial streets, reducing the impact
of cut through traffic on neighborhoods.
They are typically installed in the center of street intersections with
three or four approach legs. Larger vehicles such as school buses that
make wider turns can be accommodated by building traffic circles with a
mountable exterior truck aprons.
Benefits
May enhance the attractiveness of the street through opportunity for landscaping
Visually narrows the roadway
Challenges
May impact traffic patterns
May impact street drainage
Figure 31. Traffic circle
Figure 30. Speed hump, Cupertino DRAFT311
41
Applicability and Use
Traffic circles may be considered in the following situations:
At intersections of residential streets to reduce speeds and/or to mitigate a history of angle crashes
Already used on some local streets in Cupertino
Chokers/Pinch points/Chicanes can take the form of curb extensions,
center islands, or staggered on‐street parking placed mid‐block. Chokers
and pinch points narrow the roadway such that drivers must yield to
oncoming traffic passing before proceeding, and/or create a winding
travel path that encourages slower speeds. Chicanes compel drivers and
bicyclists to navigate a narrowed “s” shaped pathway along the street
created by the placement of curb extensions that alternate from one side
of a street to the other, typically in groups of three.
Benefits
Narrows the roadway both physically and visually which slows
vehicle speeds and increases safety/decreases severity of traffic
crashes for all users, especially pedestrians
Stormwater and greenspace elements can be combined to calm
traffic while also making the street more attractive
Challenges
Requires removal of on‐street parking to implement effectively
May impact traffic patterns
May impact street drainage
Applicability and Use
Chokers, pinch points, and chicanes may be considered on residential streets where:
There is a high volume of high speed cut through traffic
A comprehensive neighborhood traffic calming program is present and other traffic calming
measures have been implemented
More effective at reducing speeds where on‐street parking is not present and already forces the
automobile’s path of travel away from the curb
Children frequently walk or bicycle to and from school
Already used on some local streets in Cupertino
Figure 32. Chicane DRAFT312
42
Shared Use Paths
Shared use paths are physically separated from motor
vehicle traffic and are for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
non‐motorized users. Shared use paths, also referred to as
multiuse trails, are often located in independent
alignments, such as a greenbelt or riparian corridors.
However, they are also regularly constructed along
roadways.
Benefits
Separated from motor vehicle traffic
Comfortable for less‐confident adults, children,
seniors, and persons with disabilities
Provides recreational opportunities in addition to
transportation
Challenges
Potentially costly and complicated right‐of‐way
acquisition
Topography and drainage can greatly impact design
Can present safety concerns when placed adjacent to a roadway with frequent driveway or
intersection crossings
Applicability and Use
Creating connections exclusively for people walking and biking, such as at the end of a cul de sac or
along an independent alignment to create a new corridor
Especially useful to create connections where parallel automobile connection is not comfortable or
appealing for people walking or biking
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridges
Pedestrian/bicycle bridges provide complete separation
of pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicular traffic, often
where no other pedestrian or bicycle facility is available,
and connect transportation networks across barriers
such as railroads, freeways, or other major
transportation corridors.
Benefits
Can provide a critical link in the transportation
system by overcoming comfort and/or safety
barriers.
Challenges
People are not likely to use the bridge if a more
direct route is available.
Must maintain wheelchair accessibility,
resulting in longer approach ramps or elevator
access.
Very expensive
Figure 33. Shared use path
Figure 34. Pedestrian and bicycle bridge DRAFT313
43
Applicability and Use
Most appropriate over high‐volume, high‐speed highways, railroad tracks, or natural barriers.
Appropriate where moderate to high pedestrian/bicycle demand exists to cross at a specific location
that cannot be addressed through an at‐grade solution.
May be appropriate in locations where large numbers of school children cross busy streets, or where
high volumes of seniors or mobility‐impaired users need to cross a major roadway.
Crossings
Well‐designed marked crosswalks provide legitimacy and
comfort to pedestrians crossing streets. Drivers are legally
required to yield to pedestrians at intersections, even
when there are no pavement markings, though providing
marked crosswalks communicates to drivers that
pedestrians may be present. At mid‐block locations, a
crosswalk exists only if it is marked.
Benefits
Increase the visibility of pedestrians crossing at
intersections and mid‐block crossings
Crosswalks marked with continental, ladder, or
zebra patterns have been found to be
significantly more visible to motorists10 and to
reduce crashes by 48 percent11
Guide pedestrians to crossing locations
Challenges
Enforcing stop‐bar compliance so drivers do not stop in crosswalks
Applicability and Use
Installation of marked crosswalks should be completed per guidance in the Crosswalk Installation
Policy found in Appendix E of this plan
Marked crosswalks should be at least 10 feet wide or the width of the approaching sidewalk. In areas
of heavy pedestrian volumes, marked crosswalks can be up to 25 feet wide
To maintain visibility near crossings, parking should be prohibited within 20 feet of a crosswalk
10 K. Fitzpatrick, S. Chrysler, V. Iragavarapu, and E.S. Park. Detection Distances to Crosswalk Markings: Transverse Lines,
Continental Markings, and Bar Pairs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2250.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 20011.
11 L. Chen, C. Chen, R. Ewing, C. McKnight, R. Srinivasan, and M. Roe. Safety Countermeasures and Crash Reduction in New York
City—Experience and Lessons Learned. Accident Analysis and Prevention. In print, 2012. Retrieved August 14, 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.05.009
Figure 35. Crosswalk (with Median Island) DRAFT314
44
Raised Crossings
Raised crosswalks use vertical deflection to reduce motorist
speeds upon approach of the crosswalk. Raised intersections
are created by raising the roadway to the same level as the
sidewalk, which creates a speed table across an entire
intersection. Both treatments are intended for locations where
desired approach speeds are 25mph or less.
Benefits
Similar to speed humps and other vertical speed
control elements, raised crosswalks and intersections
reinforce slow speeds and encourage motorists to yield
to pedestrians at the crosswalk
Increase visibility between motorists and pedestrians
Raised intersections create a safe, slow‐speed crossing
and public space at minor intersections
Challenges
Potential coordination with emergency responders
Potential drainage impacts
Very expensive
Applicability and Use
Applying raised crossings at the crosswalks of right‐turn
slip lanes can improve pedestrian safety by encouraging
improved yielding behavior and slowed turning speeds.
Raised intersections are most appropriate in areas of
high pedestrian demand.
Raised intersections are flush with the sidewalk and
ensure that drivers traverse the crossing slowly. Crosswalks do not need to be marked unless they
are not at grade with the sidewalk.
Advance Yield Lines
Advance yield lines, which are composed of solid white triangles (often referred to as “shark’s teeth”),
indicate where drivers should yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.
Benefits
Provide advance warning of pedestrian crossing to drivers before reaching crossing location
By slowing traffic, improve visibility for pedestrians and drivers whose view might otherwise be
blocked by a vehicle in the adjacent lane on multi‐lane approaches
Figure 36. Raised midblock marked crosswalk
Figure 37. Raised intersection DRAFT315
45
Challenges
On‐going maintenance owing to wear on markings located
within the wheel path
Applicability and Use
Typically used on street approaches with two or more
lanes.
When applied to midblock crosswalks, advance yield lines
should be 20 to 50 feet from the crosswalk depending on
speed.
Parking should be restricted between the stop or yield line
and the crosswalk to improve visibility
Effective to combine with RRFBs.
Median Crossings Islands
Median crossing islands (also known as center islands, refuge
islands, and pedestrian safety islands) are raised islands installed in
the center of a street at intersections or midblock. Median crossing
islands reduce pedestrian exposure time and allow pedestrians to
deal with only one direction of traffic at a time by providing a
protected space in the middle of the street.
Benefits
Improve safety and comfort for children, the elderly, the
disabled, and others who travel slowly, as well as bicyclists.
Improve crossing experience at unsignalized locations, as
pedestrians are only required to negotiate one direction of
traffic at a time.
Provide traffic calming effects.
Challenges
Availability of space within the roadway.
Identification of applicable locations where island does not prevent a left turn movement.
Applicability and Use
May be appropriate at: signalized intersections and crossings where there is a high proportion of
young, elderly, and other slower‐moving pedestrians.
Should also be considered at all uncontrolled intersections and midblock crossings where vehicle
speeds and volumes make crossing the street difficult due to lack of adequate gaps, or where four or
more lanes of traffic make pedestrians feel exposed or unsafe.
Appropriate for consideration on collector and arterial streets.
In‐Street Signs
In‐street signs are placed in the roadway to remind roadway users of the state law that the driver of a vehicle
must yield the right‐of‐way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or at
intersections. California’s in‐street Yield to Pedestrians signs bring roadway awareness to crosswalks, thereby
helping to increase yield behavior.
Figure 39. Median crossing island
Figure 38. Advance yield lines DRAFT316
46
Benefits
Improves motorist yielding at crossings
Improves crosswalk visibility
Challenges
Easily damaged, though placing signs on medians may prevent this
Applicability and Use
Appropriate for unsignalized two‐lane low‐speed streets
Signs should be placed at the location of the crosswalk
Signs can be permanently installed in the roadway or mounted on a portable base
to allow them to be taken in and out of the street during high‐pedestrian activity
times (e.g., during arrival/dismissal at a school or during a sporting event)
Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) are a pedestrian warning signal used at
unsignalized street or mid‐block crossings to assist people crossing the street. RRFBs consist
of yellow LED lights in two rectangular clusters, or beacons, that employ a stutter flash
pattern.
Benefits
Improves motorist yielding at crossings and decreases
delay for people waiting for a gap to cross the street
Relatively inexpensive compared to installation of a
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon or full signal
Challenges
Appropriate placement with respect to the proximity of
a signalized intersection maybe difficult due to existing
pedestrian patterns and interrupting traffic patterns.
Applicability and Use
RRFBs must be pedestrian actuated either by a push‐
button or passive detection
RRFBs are appropriate at: uncontrolled intersections,
mid‐block crossings, areas with high pedestrian volumes or a significant number of vulnerable
pedestrians (e.g., near schools, senior centers, at trail crossings, or other locations where additional
crossing protections are needed due to high volumes and speeds
RRFBs should be used on multilane streets only when posted speeds are < 35 mph. A crossing island
may be needed on four‐lane roadways and must be included for roadways with more than four lanes
To maintain visibility near RRFBs, parking should be prohibited within 30 feet of the crosswalk
RRFBs should be installed with a high‐visibility crosswalk
Figure 41. Rectangular rapid flashing beacon
Figure 40. Yield to pedestrian
signage DRAFT317
47
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (also known as HAWK Beacons, “High
Intensity Activated Crosswalks”), are similar to overhead half
signals. The beacon display remains dark until activated by a
pedestrian or bicyclist, at which time the signal phase begins with
a flashing yellow and proceeds to double red.
Benefits
Improved safety and visibility for pedestrians.
Provides dedicated crossing time for pedestrians.
Challenges
As pedestrian hybrid beacons are not currently used in
Cupertino, some education regarding their use will be
required. Initial compliance at new installations may be
low.
Applicability and Use
Where standard traffic signal warrants prevent the installation of a full signal, the pedestrian hybrid
beacon provides an alternative to meet pedestrian crossing needs.
On multi‐lane crossings with speeds equal to or greater than 35mph where yielding compliance has
been poor, pedestrian hybrid beacons are more effective than RRFBs or crosswalks alone.
Leading Pedestrian Interval
The Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) initiates
the pedestrian WALK indication three to seven
seconds before motor vehicles traveling in the
same direction are given the green indication.
This signal timing technique allows pedestrians
to establish themselves in the intersection in
front of turning vehicles, thereby increasing
visibility and safety between all modes.
Benefits
Improves safety and visibility for
pedestrians.
Reduces pedestrian‐vehicle crashes at
intersections.
Challenges
May increase signal cycle length or
reduce green time available to other
users.
Applicability and Use
Use at intersections with high volumes of pedestrians and conflicting turning vehicles or at locations
with a large population of elderly or school children who need the extra visibility and crossing time.
Figure 42. Pedestrian hybrid beacon
Figure 43. Leading Pedestrian Interval. Note that the pedestrian has
been given the “Walk” signal prior to giving the motor vehicles the
green indication. DRAFT318
48
Minimum interval of three seconds needed to allow pedestrians to establish their position ahead of
turning traffic.
At intersections with a vehicular protected left, a lagging protected left arrow should be used for
vehicular movements to accommodate the LPI.
Curb Ramps
Curb ramps provide a transition between sidewalks and streets.
Benefits
Serve a wayfinding function for visually impaired pedestrians.
They allow people using wheelchairs, strollers, walkers,
crutches, bicycles, or people with mobility restrictions to more
easily navigate the city.
Challenges
Potential difficulties in retrofitting curbs with compliant curb
ramps, especially where utility relocation is necessary to
provide directional ramps.
Applicability and Use
Must be installed at all intersection, midblock pedestrian
crossings, and as mandated by federal law.
Curb ramps are required to have landings and detectible
warning surfaces (such as truncated domes) to meet ADA
Standards.
Consider providing wider curb ramps in areas of high pedestrian
volumes and crossing activities; and at trail crossings.
Ramps should provide direct connection to each crosswalk leg; and should not direct pedestrians
diagonally into the intersection.
Figure 44. Curb ramp DRAFT319
49
Chapter 5: Implementation Strategy
Implementation of the recommendations included in this Plan will require funding from multiple sources and
coordination with various agencies. To facilitate this, this chapter presents a method of prioritizing
pedestrian improvement projects, construction cost estimates for the proposed improvements, a brief
overview of funding strategies and sources, and implementation strategies.
Routine Accommodation
Pedestrian projects can be developed either as stand‐alone projects or as part of other projects through
routine accommodation (e.g. including a crosswalk as part of a repaving project). Routine accommodation
should be the first prioritization strategy for pedestrian projects; pedestrian facilities should routinely be
included with all public and private projects, from roadway resurfacing to redevelopment.
Project Prioritization
The project list is the result of several efforts completed during the plan process; however, it is not the full
suite of projects that would make walking safer and more comfortable in Cupertino. Staff will continue to
receive requests for implementation of pedestrian infrastructure projects, and staff will also want to continue
moving forward with making Cupertino a more walkable city.
Recommended Projects Prioritization
Within the scope of the PTP, the prioritization criteria presented in Table 6 was used to score the project list
to identify a high‐priority project list, displayed in table. Projects in these tables include recommendations
from five sources:
Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan
The walk audits that occurred along high crash corridors (two along Stevens Creek Boulevard and
one along DeAnza Boulevard/Bandley Drive)
Sidewalk infill projects identified as a result of community comments
Pedestrian components of the Class IV bikeway designs on Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan
Road, and
Staff‐identified projects in locations with recurring community comment about pedestrian
challenges.
Prioritizing projects from these sources results in the list and map shown in Table 6 and Figure 45. Most of
these projects are on high‐crash corridors with a high density of pedestrian destinations, both of which are
key areas for the Safety and Access goals of this Plan. Projects in these locations will improve pedestrian
safety and access in areas where people are likely to walk to schools, retail, parks and transit. However, this is
not a comprehensive list of projects for these streets, or for Cupertino as a whole. This list represents the
types of projects in select locations that should be high priorities for implementation by the City. The
remaining high‐crash corridors will be evaluated in more detail as part of the recommended walk audits, and
the list of projects will expand.
DRAFT320
50
Category Measure Pts Notes
Schools 40 Total Possible Points
Schools/ Public Library
Within ¼ mi 30 Distance is from school parcel, not point
Between ¼ and ½ mi 20 Distance is from school parcel, not point
Between ½ mi and ¾ mi 15 Distance is from school parcel, not point
School connector route On a route 10 Routes defined by SR2S program
Safety 20 Total Possible Points
Street classification*
Along high-injury corridor 15
Stevens Creek, De Anza, Foothill,
McClellan, Stelling, Miller/Wolfe,
Homestead, Bollinger
Along boulevard or Avenue (not high-injury) 10
Along neighborhood connector 5
Along local 0
Traffic speed Slows traffic speeds 5
Includes traffic calming, new warning
device or control, driveway
consolidation, turn lane access
shortening
Destinations 25 Total Possible Points
Parks, Quinlan Center Within 1/4 mi 10 Distance is from parcel polygon
Transit stop
Within 500' of high volume stop 10 Based on VTA ridership data
Within 500' of other stop 5 Based on VTA ridership data
Retail/business/
employment Within 250’ of parcels 5
Same parcels as indicated on Activity
Generators map in Commercial and
Apple Campus polygons
Connectivity 15 Total Possible Points
Pedestrian pathway Adds new network connection 15
Includes bridges, Class I shared use
paths and pedestrian cut-throughs, new
sidewalk
TOTAL PRIORITZATION SCORE 100
Table 6. Project Prioritization Scoring Rubric
Cost Estimate Assumptions
Pedestrian projects are typically implemented in one of two ways: as part of a larger roadway project, or as a
standalone effort. The former is often more efficient, as costs for materials and labor can achieve economies
of scale when folded into a larger project. Pedestrian facilities are typically a relatively small portion of a
roadway project, whether it is a restriping, resurfacing or reconstruction project. While planned and
programmed street improvements can help guide the implementation schedule for this plan, the City of
Cupertino should also consider prioritizing improvements on streets where pedestrian projects are
recommended.
A list of unit costs was developed based on recent projects and cost estimates throughout the Bay Area and
input from Cupertino staff. These unit costs provided the basis for total cost estimates for each
recommended project. Table 7 provides a unit cost summary for the construction of pedestrian and traffic
calming facilities in Cupertino. DRAFT321
51
Treatment Unit Cost Unit
24" White (Thermo) $12.00 LF
24" Yellow (Thermo) $12.00 LF
12" White Crosswalk/Limit Line (Thermo) $7.00 LF
8" Channelization Line (Thermo) $5.00 LF
4" Shoulder Stripe (Thermo) $3.00 LF
Painted Curb $3.00 LF
Color Epoxy $6.00 SF
Thermoplastic Pavement Legend $8.00 SF
Soft Hit Posts $8.00 LF
Concrete Curb $30.00 LF
Concrete Curb and Gutter $40.00 LF
Concrete Sidewalk $15.00 SF
ADA Curb Ramp $3,500.00 EA
Hot Mix Asphalt, 1/2" Maximum Type A $90.00 TN
Sign Install $750.00 EA
Raised Pavement Markings $8.00 EA
RRFB (Double Sided, one side of street) $15,000.00 EA
Mini Traffic Circle (30' diam. With 8' apron) $12,000.00 EA
Curb Extension (Single bulb‐out) $40,000.00 EA
Narrow Curb Radii (10' radii) $23,000.00 EA
Narrow Curb Radii (25' radii) $20,000.00 EA
Raised Intersection $100,000.00 EA
Median Refuge (New) $10,000.00 EA
Median Refuge (Improve Existing) $6,000.00 EA
Table 7. Summary of Unit Costs for Construction of Pedestrian and Traffic Calming Facilities
While they reflect typical costs, unit costs do not consider project‐specific factors such as intensive grading,
landscaping, or other location‐specific factors that may increase actual costs.
These unit costs were used to develop costs for each high‐priority project. These costs are shown in Table 7.
DRAFT322
52 Figure 45. Priority Projects DRAFT323
53
Table 8. Prioritized Projects, Project Score and CostDRAFT
324
54
Table 8. Prioritized Projects, Project Score and CostDRAFT
325
55
On‐going Prioritization
In the future, these criteria should also be used to score project requests as they are received from residents.
One possible distinction to use in future planning is whether a project affects curb lines and drainage or not. Projects
that do not impact curb lines (signage, striping, traffic control, some traffic calming) should be scored and added in
their prioritized order to a project list funded by a CIP line item dedicated to on‐going pedestrian infrastructure
improvement. These lower cost projects can be implemented on an on‐going basis.
Projects that do impact curb lines should be scored and considered for addition to the CIP as stand‐alone items, or
bundled by neighborhood (sidewalk construction) or corridor (curb radii changes). Projects scoring in the top tier
should be considered for inclusion in the next two‐year funding cycle. Those projects scoring lower should be added
to a list and considered as funding is available. The requested projects list should be updated as requests are
received, and the list should be re‐scored every two years with updated crash data potentially defining new high‐
crash corridors.
Agency Coordination
Coordination with other agencies can help Cupertino leverage resources to make a greater impact on the
community’s walkability. Cupertino staff currently work closely with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) to create links between transit stops and the sidewalk network. The Cupertino General Plan supports this
collaboration, noting that transit use should be encouraged through the design of rights‐of‐way and provision of
amenities such as shelters and trash receptacles (Policies M‐4.4 and M‐4.5).
Cupertino also coordinates with the school districts and the Santa Clara County Public Health Department on shared
objectives and routinely works with partnering agencies such as Caltrans and neighboring jurisdictions.
Recommendations
Continue to collaborate with transportation‐related agencies within and adjacent to Cupertino.
Explore opportunities for improving coordination with major employers.
Resources
FHWA. Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies. 2008.
VTA Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan. Scheduled for adoption in fall 2017.
Funding Sources
Pedestrian projects in Cupertino, including sidewalk construction, are typically funded through the City’s General
Fund and are documented in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP). For instance, in the 2016‐2017 CIP, a total of
$1,888,000 was allocated to the Orange and Byrne sidewalk project. Projects of similar magnitude, such as the
McClellan Road sidewalk gap closure, have been implemented in previous years.
Funding for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements identified in the City’s ADA Transition Plan are also
included in the CIP. Expenditures for these improvements are projected at $75,000 annually for fiscal years 2017
through 2021.12
Potential funding sources include competitive state and federal grant opportunities which may be considered for
future high‐priority projects identified in the PTP.
12 City of Cupertino Public Works Department. Capital Improvement Program. Adopted FY 2017, Planned FY 2018‐2021.
http://cupertino.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=12098 DRAFT326
56
Traffic impact fees are another potential source of funding for pedestrian infrastructure projects, and Cupertino is in
the process of developing a traffic impact fee program. Funds from the program are intended to be applied to bike
and pedestrian improvements, including projects identified in the Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
Most local, state, and federal funding for transportation can be used for the design and construction of pedestrian‐
specific facilities or the inclusion of these facilities as part of larger programs, such as transit projects.
Below are recommendations for implementing the Pedestrian Transportation Plan and additional information for
possible funding sources.
Recommendations
Ensure that pedestrian improvements are included in other
street projects, such as resurfacing, bridge replacement, or lane
reconfiguration. One of the most effective ways to build a
complete, connected network of pedestrian routes is by
implementing pedestrian facilities within the scope of larger
projects. Resurfacing likely offers the greatest opportunity, and
all projects within the public right‐of‐way should be reviewed for
the potential to improve conditions for pedestrians
Continue to fund high‐priority sidewalk gaps through the CIP.
Develop a line item in the CIP for implementation of the
Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The PTP includes
recommendations for sidewalks in addition to important
pedestrian crossings, proactive traffic calming strategies, signal
modifications, and other measures. To achieve the goals of the
Plan, a reliable funding source is needed.
Explore the possibility of obtaining Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) funds. HSIP funds may be used to
address high‐crash locations or to systematically implement
improvements that reduce the risk of pedestrian crashes. The
City should initiate a conversation with Caltrans to better
understand how these funds may be accessed.
Secure a funding source to be used for broader pedestrian safety education efforts that could target traffic
safety education and awareness. Funds dedicated by the City or from grants administered by the California
Office of Traffic Safety could be used to develop and implement a pedestrian safety education campaign
targeting both pedestrians and motorists (and potentially including bicyclists). To the extent possible,
educational messages should be based on safety issues determined from previous crashes or other observed
issues, such as failure to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks or pedestrian signal noncompliance.
Best Practice Example
City of Pasadena Department of Transportation. California Office of Traffic Safety Grant for the Safer Streets
Pasadena – School Area Safety Program.
http://ww5. cityofpasadena. net/commissions/wp‐content/uploads/sites/28/2016/09/2016‐09‐22‐
Transportation‐Advisory‐Commission‐Agenda‐Item‐6A‐Presentation. pdf
Resources
Advocacy Advance. Highway Safety Improvement Program. http://www. advocacyadvance.
org/docs/highway_safety_improvement_program. pdf
Figure 46. Simple sidewalk gap maps show
where new infrastructure can best connect
communities. DRAFT327
57
California Office of Traffic Safety. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grants. http://www. ots. ca.
gov/Grants/Pedestrian_and_Bicycle_Safety. asp
Funding Sources
Federal Funding Opportunities
Several federal funding sources are available for pedestrian and bicycle‐only projects, or for the inclusion of these
facilities in other projects. Funding is primarily available through the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Transit Administration via the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which was signed in 2015 and
supports funding until 2020, and in previous transportation funding bills. The Department of Health and Human
Services and the Department of Housing and Urban Development also provide funding support.
The Federal Highway Administration maintains a data table to assist communities in understanding which Federal
funding programs could be used for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Specific program requirements must be met and
eligibility must be determined on a case‐by‐case basis. For example, transit funds must be used to provide access to
transit, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds must benefit air quality in eligible
areas. More detailed information can be found in the link below.
Resources
FHA’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Program webpage.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Grant Programs
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grant
TIGER grants fund a broad array of road, rail, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian projects. The program focuses on
capital projects that generate economic development and improve access to reliable, safe, and affordable
transportation, especially for disadvantaged communities. The grant funds projects that have gone through
preliminary design stages, and prioritizes projects with broad stakeholder support. Applicants are required to
demonstrate that project benefits outweigh the costs. Projects in urban areas must request at least $10 million (with
a 20% match).
Resources
Tiger Discretionary Grants. www.transportation.gov/tiger
Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program
The Section 402 program provides grants to states to improve driver behavior and reduce deaths and injuries from
motor vehicle‐related crashes. The program is jointly administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) at the federal level and by State Highway
Safety Offices at the state level. Funds may be used to reduce impaired driving, reduce speeding, improve pedestrian
and bicycle safety, and reduce school bus deaths and injuries, among other programs. Child and adult bicycle safety
education is also eligible for funding.
Resources
Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program. http://www.ghsa.org/about/federal‐grant‐
programs/402 DRAFT328
58
Section 405 National Priority Safety Programs
Section 405 grants provide funding on a competitive basis to states to improve highway safety in a number of areas
including impaired driving, occupant protection, distracted driving, and more. States are eligible to apply if they have
met certain qualifications that pertain to each subgrant. Under this section, Nonmotorized Safety grants are eligible
to states where pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities exceed 15 percent of the state’s total annual crash fatalities. The
funds may be used for law enforcement training, enforcement campaigns, and public education to improve
pedestrian safety.
Resources
Section 405 National Priority Safety Programs. http://www.ghsa.org/about/federal‐grant‐programs/405
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Grant Programs
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act Funding
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act supports transit funding through fiscal year 2020; reauthorizes
FTA programs; and includes changes to improve mobility, streamline capital project construction and acquisition, and
increase the safety of public transportation systems across the country. The FAST Act’s five years of predictable
formula funding also includes funding for new grant programs for buses and bus facilities, innovative transportation
coordination, workforce training, and public transportation research activities.
Resources
FTA’s Grant Programs. https://www.transit.dot.gov/grants/13093_3549.html
FTA’s Bicycles & Transit. https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations‐and‐guidance/environmental‐
programs/livable‐sustainable‐communities/bicycles‐transit
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Planning Pilot Grants (5309)
This program provides funding for:
Advanced planning efforts that support transit‐oriented development (TOD) associated with new fixed‐
guideway and core capacity improvement projects
Projects that facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility
Projects that increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic
Resources
FTA’s Pilot Program for Transit‐Oriented Development Planning. https://www.transit.dot.gov/TODPilot
Bus and Bus Facilities Program (Ladders of Opportunity Initiative) (5309)
Funds from this program may be used to modernize and expand transit access specifically for the purpose of
connecting disadvantaged and low‐income individuals, veterans, seniors, youths, and others with local workforce
training, employment centers, health care, and other vital services.
Resources
Bus and Bus Facilities Program (Ladders of Opportunity Initiative).
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/applying/5309‐bus‐and‐bus‐facilities‐program‐ladders‐
opportunity‐initiative
Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program
This program is intended to enhance mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities by providing funds for programs
to serve transit‐dependent populations beyond traditional public transportation services and Americans with DRAFT329
59
Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services. (This program consolidates New Freedom eligible projects.)
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements that provide access to an eligible public transportation facility and meet the
needs of the elderly and individuals with disabilities are eligible for funding.
Resources
Enhanced Mobility of Seniors & Individuals with Disabilities.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/enhanced‐mobility‐seniors‐individuals‐disabilities‐section‐5310
New Freedom Program (5217)
The New Freedom grant program funds projects that help Americans with disabilities access jobs and participate in
the work force. Lack of adequate transportation is a primary barrier to work for individuals with disabilities, and this
program seeks to provide funding to facilitate transportation connections.
Resources
New Freedom Program Guidance and Application Instructions. https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations‐and‐
guidance/fta‐circulars/new‐freedom‐program‐guidance‐and‐application‐instructions
Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Program
This program (funded by the FTA and Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation) provides funding for new
service options in combination with available technologies that allow for greater individual mobility.
Resources
Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Program. https://www.transit.dot.gov/research‐innovation/mobility‐
demand‐mod‐sandbox‐program.html
Additional Federal Funding Opportunities
Community Services Block Grant Program (CSBG)
The Community Services Block Grant provides funds to alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty in communities;
transportation projects are eligible for funding. Administered by the Department of Health and Human Services,
funding is allocated to states who pass the funding along to local communities. Funded projects have included:
commercial district streetscape improvements; sidewalk improvements; safe routes to school; and neighborhood‐
based bicycling and walking facilities that improve local transportation options or help revitalize neighborhoods.
Resources
Community Services Block Grant. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/programs/csbg
Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grants and the Partnership for Sustainable Communities
This grant program, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), supports locally‐led
collaborative efforts that bring together diverse interests to determine how best to target housing, economic and
workforce development, and infrastructure investments to create more jobs and regional economic activity.
The program places a priority on investing in partnerships, including nontraditional partnerships (e.g., arts and
culture, recreation, public health, food systems, regional planning agencies and public education entities). The
program focuses on six livable principles, the first of which is “Providing more transportation choices: Develop safe,
reliable and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s
dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote public health.” The
program is a key initiative of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, in which HUD works with the U.S. DRAFT330
60
Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to coordinate and leverage
programs and investments.
Resources
Partnership for Sustainable Communities – Partnership Grants, Assistance & Programs.
https://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/partnership‐resources
Sustainable Communities Initiative. https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/hudprograms/sci
State Funding Opportunities
Active Transportation Program (ATP)
In 2013, Governor Brown signed legislation creating the Active Transportation Program (ATP). This program
consolidated the Federal Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), California’s Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA), and Federal and California Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs. The ATP program is administered by Caltrans
Division of Local Assistance, Office of Active Transportation and Special Programs. A portion of the funds are
administered by MPOs in the state which issue their own call for projects typically at the same time as the state call.
In 2017, SB 1 augmented the ATP by $100 million per year. Caltrans has typically issued a call for projects every year.
Resources
Active Transportation Program (ATP). http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/
System Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP)
The SSARP program was established by Caltrans in 2016, and is designed to assist local agencies in performing
collision analysis and the identification of safety issues on roadway networks for all modes. The program focuses on
systemic safety analysis for motor vehicles with an emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle collisions. This analysis should
result in a list of systemic, low‐cost countermeasures that can be used to prepare designs to be used in applications
for future HSIP funding cycles.
Resources
Systematic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP). http://dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/HSIP/SSARP.htm
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
HSIP funds are available for safety projects aimed at reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries. Bike lanes, roadway
shoulders, crosswalks, intersection improvements, underpasses and signs are examples of eligible projects. Projects in
high‐crash locations are most likely to receive funding. This program is funded through the Federal Highway
Administration and is administered by Caltrans; all projects must result in the complete construction of safety
improvements.
Resources
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). http://dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) has grants available to reduce motor vehicle fatalities and injuries in
specific areas of pedestrian and bicycle safety, roadway safety, community based organizations, police traffic services,
alcohol and drugs, occupant protection, emergency medical services and traffic records.
Resources
California Office of Traffic Safety – Grants. http://www.ots.ca.gov/Grants/ DRAFT331
61
Regional Funding Opportunities
One Bay Area Grant
Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) combines the Surface Transportation (STP),
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), and the Transportation Alternatives (TA) program funds
into one program for focused growth in the Bay Area.
The program is in its second cycle, known as “OBAG 2,” and is divided into a Regional Program which is managed by
MTC and a County program which is managed by the nine Bay Area Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) in the
region. The regional program commits $530 million over five years and the County Program consists of $386 million
over the same timeframe from fiscal years (FY) 2017‐18 through FY 2021‐2022.
Projects funded by the program must be in a Priority Development Area (PDA) or have a connection to a PDA.
Jurisdictions that apply to the program must have a Complete Streets Resolution or have an updated General Plan
that meets the California Complete Streets Act of 2008. The program funds:
Local streets and roads maintenance
Streetscape enhancements
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
Safe Routes to School projects
Transportation planning
Resources
One Bay Area Grants. http://mtc.ca.gov/our‐work/invest‐protect/focused‐growth/one‐bay‐area‐grants
Regional Active Transportation Program (ATP)
A portion of the statewide Active Transpiration Program (ATP) is administered by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) for projects within the nine‐County Bay Area. Projects that wish to be considered for the MTC ATP
must submit a regional supplemental application. The supplemental application includes a change to the scoring
criteria for state Disadvantaged Communities, instead asking how projects will benefit people living in the regionally
defined “Communities of Concern.” The supplemental application also awards additional points for projects in
jurisdictions that meet the OBAG Complete Streets polices. Other criteria include: project delivery, local match
requirements, environmental review, and the listing of a project in a Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP).
Resources
Active Transportation Program (ATP). http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/
Transportation Fund for Clean Air Regional Fund (TFCA)
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) administers a grant program based off a $4 surcharge on
cars and trucks registered within the Bay Area, known as the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA). This program
funds projects that reduce criteria pollutant emissions from cars such as trip reduction programs and services, clean
vehicle and clean fuel infrastructure and bicycle facilities. The program is split between the Regional Fund
administered directly from the BAAQMD and the County Manager’s Fund which is administered by CMAs. While the
project funds Class I‐IV bikeways, pedestrian paths could be funded if constructing a Class I trail project, which is
shared between bicycles and pedestrians.
Resources
Bay Area Air Quality Management District – Bicycle Facilities. http://www.baaqmd.gov/grant‐funding/public‐
agencies/bikeways‐roads‐lanes‐paths DRAFT332
62
Santa Clara County Funding Opportunities
Transportation Development Act Article 3
The Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA‐3) provides annual funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects,
and in Santa Clara County, the funds are managed by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). MTC gives each of
the CMAs the authority on how to use the funds within their county. The distribution of funds varies, with some
counties issuing a competitive call for projects while other counties distribute the funds based on the population
share of each jurisdiction.
TDA‐3 funds can be used for bicycle or pedestrian capital projects, maintenance of a multi‐use path, bicycle safety
education programs, development of a bicycle or pedestrian plan, and restriping Class II bicycle lanes. In Santa Clara
County, VTA distributes the funds in two ways:
Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) – Projects must be on the Board‐adopted BEP list
Guarantee Funds – Funds are allocated to cities within Santa Clara County based on population
Resources
Transportation Development Act Article 3. http://mtc.ca.gov/our‐work/fund‐invest/investment‐strategies‐
commitments/transit‐21st‐century/funding‐sales‐tax‐and‐0
Valley Transportation Authority Measure B
In 2016, Santa Clara County voters approved Measure B, a 30‐year half‐cent countywide sales tax to enhance transit,
highways, expressways, pedestrian, bicycle and complete streets projects. VTA, the county Congestion Management
Agency (CMA), will manage the funds which are expected to generate between $6 billion and $6.5 billion in 2017. VTA
expects to spend $250 million on bicycle and pedestrian projects over the 30‐year period.
Resources
2016 Measure B. http://www.vta.org/measure‐b‐2016
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) ‐ County Manager Fund
The TFCA fund allocates 40 percent to VTA which administers Santa Clara County’s portion of the TFCA program. The
goal of the program is to reduce air pollution, conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases, improve water quality
by decreasing contaminated runoff from roadways, improve transportation options, and reduce traffic congestion.
Projects are evaluated on the amount of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduced based on the mode shift from single
occupant vehicles to other modes. Projects also must demonstrate the cost‐effectiveness of reducing criteria
pollutants based on a formula provided by the BAAQMD. Funds can be used for the following project types:
Design and construction of physical improvements that support motor vehicle emission reductions (bicycle
and pedestrian facilities)
Bicycle facility improvements
Arterial traffic management including signal timing, transit signal pre‐emption, bus stop relocation and smart
streets
Telecommuting and congestion pricing
Rideshare programs
Purchase of clean fuel buses and local feeder bus or shuttle service
Rail‐bus integration and regional transition information services
Clean vehicle purchase or retrofits
Automobile buy‐back programs DRAFT333
63
Resources
TFCA Program Documents. http://www.vta.org/projects‐and‐programs/programs/call‐for‐projects‐tfca‐
program‐documents
DRAFT334
64
Appendix A. Plan and Policy Review
As part of the existing conditions analysis, all applicable local, regional, state, and federal plan and policy documents
were reviewed. Many of the documents endorse the development of safe, connected pedestrian networks, and some
include specific project‐level recommendations that have been considered as a part of the development of the PTP.
Local Plans and Policies
Cupertino Municipal Code and Standard Details
The Cupertino Municipal Code covers all aspects of City regulations, including zoning and various development‐
related requirements. Regarding sidewalks, the Subdivision Code (which is a part of the Municipal Code) states that
“formal” sidewalks are not required in semi‐rural developments; sidewalk alternatives such as curb‐separated walking
areas may be provided.
The Cupertino Standard Details indicate sidewalk widths: 4.5 feet sidewalks are standard, and 10 feet sidewalks may
be required in commercial areas. Both monolithic and detached sidewalk options are provided.
Cupertino General Plan/Community Vision 2015 – 2040 (2014)
Cupertino’s General Plan is very supportive of increased pedestrian comfort and access. The Vision statement of the
Cupertino General Plan calls for a “walkable” and “bikeable” community with a “vibrant, mixed use Heart of the City.”
Overall Plan goals that relate to walking include “Improve Connectivity” and “Enhance Mobility.” More specifically,
the Mobility Element gives policy direction to transportation planning, including walking, within the City of Cupertino.
Following California’s Complete Streets Act, the City of Cupertino seeks to enhance the transportation system for all
modes of transportation. The Mobility Element addresses key challenges, such as the need to link land use and
transportation, enhance connectivity, and reduce demand for single occupancy vehicles.
The following General Plan goals relate to walking:
Goal M‐2: Promote improvements to city streets that safely accommodate all transportation modes and
persons of all abilities.
o Complete Streets policies and strategies direct the City to develop multimodal street standards and
design City streets to complement surrounding land uses. Additionally, policies support bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity and accessibility, such as discouraging street closures and considering traffic
calming strategies.
Goal M‐3: Support a safe pedestrian and bicycle street network for people of all ages and abilities.
o Walkability and bikeability policies and strategies include adopting Bicycle and Pedestrian master
plans, and enhancing the walking environment through roadway design and improvements (i.e., with
new development, bicycle and pedestrian crossings) and planning for improvements and addressing
network gaps in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Goal M‐5: Ensure safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle access to schools while working to reduce school‐
related congestion.
o Safe Routes to School policies and strategies include encouraging the Teen Commission to encourage
walking and biking to school, prioritizing safe access to school in pedestrian projects, and connecting
schools to shared use paths.
Goal M‐10: Ensure that the city’s transportation infrastructure is well‐maintained for all modes of
transportation and that projects are prioritized on their ability to meet the city’s mobility goals. DRAFT335
65
Transportation infrastructure policies call for the City to develop and implement transportation improvements that
accommodate users of all modes of transportation.
Cupertino ADA Transition Plan (2014)
In 2014, the City of Cupertino adopted an ADA Self‐Evaluation and Transition Plan in accordance with the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act for public entities. The ADA Transition Plan reviews the programs,
activities, and services provided by the City and identifies and prioritizes removal of current barriers to accessibility.
The Transition Plan also includes a ten‐year plan for accessibility barrier removal (15‐year schedule for barrier
removal within the public rights‐of‐way). The Plan prioritizes the criteria for barrier removal on public rights‐of‐way as
follows:
1. Government offices and facilities
2. Bus stops and transportation facilities
3. Places of public accommodation such as commercial and business areas
4. Facilities containing employers
5. Other areas such as residential neighborhoods and underdeveloped regions of the City
The Plan notes that the City has an annual curb ramp program, and that a park accessibility project was completed,
including curb ramps installed at Varian Park, Hoover Park, Three Oaks Park, Jollyman Park, and at Homestead Road
and Barranca Drive. The Appendix of the ADA Transition Plan reviews public right‐of‐way accessibility compliance
adjacent to City properties; the largest projects include Stevens Creek Boulevard and Monta Vista Park.
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2002)
The City of Cupertino developed its first Pedestrian Transportation Plan in 2002, which identifies a set of goals,
policies, and actions to improve safety and encourage more walking trips. The Plan recommends that the City pursue
funding opportunities, support the Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (now called the Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission), and develop bicycle and pedestrian safety programs and promotional activities.
The Pedestrian Transportation Plan establishes four overarching goals:
Implement pedestrian‐friendly land use planning and design policies
Encourage and support non‐motorized school access
Adopt traffic engineering/planning policies that are pedestrian‐friendly
Implement safety education and encouragement programs
Related to traffic impact studies for new development, the Plan recommends the following criteria to determine if a
development project had a significant impact on pedestrians:
Consistency with the General Plan and other plans
Permanent travel pattern or access changes
Impact on existing pedestrian facilities
Pedestrian safety (conformity with accepted design guidelines)
Impact on pedestrian crossings
The Plan also includes design guidance for pedestrian facilities based on ADA guidance, including traffic signal policy
recommendations.
In addition to guidance at the policy level and the development review process, the Pedestrian Plan identifies several
recommended infrastructure projects. The Plan recommends 36 pedestrian capital projects, including crossing
improvements, sidewalk infill, pathways, traffic calming, and pedestrian safety/circulation projects. Criteria that were DRAFT336
66
used to prioritize projects include safety, connectivity, demand, commuter/transportation trips, and local support.
Some projects have been implemented since adoption of the plan document.
Heart of the City Specific Plan (2014)
The Heart of the City Specific Plan guides development and redevelopment of the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor
to implement the vision of “pedestrian‐inclusive gathering places” to support a sense of place for Cupertino residents
and visitors. According to the Specific Plan, new development projects “should include pedestrian and bicycle
pathways.” The Specific Plan also includes streetscape design guidelines that emphasize improving the pedestrian
environment. Plan Bay Area, the 2013 long‐range regional transportation plan adopted by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), identified the Heart of the City area as
a Priority Development Area. Figure 47 shows the Heart of City Plan area and activity clusters.
Figure 47. Heart of the City Special Centers Map, Heart of the City Specific Plan (2014)
North Vallco and South Vallco Master Plans (2008), and South Vallco Connectivity Plan (2014)
The City of Cupertino has adopted one master plan for the North Vallco planning area and two plans for the South
Vallco planning area.
North Vallco Planning Area
This plan governs the 240‐acre area bounded by Homestead Road, Tantau Avenue, I‐280 and Wolfe Road.
The North Vallco Master Plan develops a vision for the North Vallco area, which the General Plan identifies as
a “Special Center” retained for employment, lodging, and neighborhood commercial uses. The Plan states
that new development in the area is to “Provide connectivity for all modes, pedestrian and vehicular –
including automobile, bicycle, shuttle and Segway.” Additionally, the Plan directs new development to
“consider providing more through‐streets to Pruneridge, Wolfe and Tantau to foster walking and bicycling
between in‐district destinations.” DRAFT337
67
South Vallco Planning Area
This plan governs the 125‐acre area bounded by I‐280 to the north, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south,
including Cupertino Square shopping center (formerly Vallco Fashion Park) along the east and west side of
Wolfe Road and the office development along the east side of Tantau Avenue.
The South Vallco Master Plan recommends enhancing streetscape and crosswalks landscaping, lighting,
wayfinding, and other elements such as street furniture. To enhance the pedestrian environment and
connections, the Plan recommends strategies such as traffic calming, consistent streetscape design, and
implementing a network of shared‐use paths.
The South Vallco Connectivity Plan provides goals, objectives, and guidelines to support connectivity, safety,
and design objectives for the South Vallco area. Related to pedestrian circulation, the Plan identifies
connectivity‐oriented goals to enhance multimodal transportation connections (including pedestrian
connections) within the study area.
Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan (2016)
The Bicycle Transportation Plan envisions “an exceptional bicycling environment” that facilitates people of all ages
and abilities accessing their destinations on a bicycle.
Policy recommendations related to pedestrian transportation include:
Expansion of the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program
Promote active transportation benefits through messages in City media and with tourism and economic
development agencies (to promote Cupertino as a destination for active living).
Establish a citywide Vision Zero policy with a target date of 2026, and study a potential policy of 15 mph
school zone speed limits.
Some existing bicycle infrastructure noted in the plan also benefits pedestrians. This includes the Stevens Creek Trail,
as well the Hammond Snyder Loop Trail, the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, and the Don Burnett Pedestrian Bridge.
The plan makes recommendations for additional Class I trail facilities, and these recommendations are included in the
PTP update as projects, too. All spot and linear projects in the Bicycle Plan are prioritized for implementation. Tier I
projects that would also benefit pedestrians include the Union Pacific Trail, Highway 85 crossing, and I‐280 Channel
Trail.
The Plan also describes existing programs that have overlap benefitting pedestrians, such as the Safe Routes to School
program and existing enforcement and evaluation activities. Programmatic recommendations relevant to pedestrian
transportation include:
Back‐to‐school encouragement messaging and parent surveys
Walk & roll days and walking school buses
Suggested walking routes to school maps
Vision Zero targeted enforcement
Annual review of bicycle and pedestrian data
Student walking and bicycling hand tallies and electronic counts
Stevens Creek Trail Grade Separation Study of Stevens Creek Blvd. and McClellan Rd.‐Feasibility
Report (2016)
This report provides an assessment of the feasibility to provide grade separation for Stevens Creek Trail at Stevens
Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road. Six location proposed for a trail underpass or tunnel were studied. Three of the DRAFT338
68
locations do not support a grade‐separated crossing and three have potential to provide a crossing below the
roadway to create a trail fully separated from vehicle traffic.
McClellan Road Sidewalk Feasibility Study
The McClellan Road Sidewalk Feasibility study assesses the feasibility of constructing sidewalks along McClellan Road
between Orange Avenue and San Leandro Avenue, near three schools. The report evaluates potential sidewalk
construction at sixteen locations, including detailed cost estimates. As shown in Figure 48, sidewalk improvements
were prioritized at Mira Vista Road and at Byrne Avenue. The report recommends that the City pursue VTA funding
(Transportation Development Act funds) and HSIP funding to implement these sidewalk improvements. This project is
going to final design in 2018.
Figure 48. McClellan Road Project Map
Regional Plans and Policies
Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study (2002)
In 2002, the Stevens Creek Trial Feasibility study concluded that it is feasible to construct 7.7 miles of separated and
on‐street multi‐use paths connecting to Rancho San Antonio and Stevens Creek County parks. To complete the trail, a
public trail easement through the approximately 150 acre former quarry property south of Linda Vista Park will be
established when the property is proposed for development. The former quarry haul road connects Linda Vista Park
to McClellan Road. DRAFT339
69
Parkside Trail Feasibility Study (2014)
This feasibility report explores the potential for extending trails through properties owned by Parkside Trails. These
lands offer the potential to extend the Stevens Creek Trail and directly link Cupertino residents with nearby regional
parks and open space preserves. Trails identified in this study include a route between Linda Vista Park and Stevens
Creek Park.
Stevens Creek Trail Extension (2015)
In 2009, a coordinated Stevens Creek Trail planning effort was undertaken between the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos,
Mountain View and Sunnyvale. A Feasibly Study was completed in March 2015 that identified the following three
route options through Cupertino, but made no specific recommendation.
Mary Avenue to Stevens Creek Blvd, utilizing the Don Burnett Pedestrian Bridge
Foothill Blvd to Stevens Creek Blvd
Construction of a new pedestrian bridge across I‐280 connecting Cupertino’s Homestead Villa and Oakdell
Ranch neighborhoods ‐ A tunnel under I‐280 was found to be infeasible.
After considering the feasibility study and public input, the Joint Cities Working Team (an advisory body of council
members from each city) issued its recommendation to the four cities in September 2015; no specific route
recommendation was made for Cupertino. However, the JCWT did recognize the need for a long‐term trail vision, and
that should circumstances change regarding the availability of land in the area, further studies be undertaken to
identify a feasible route. For further information, refer to the Four Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility
Study (September 2015 final version). The Stevens Creek Trail extension is not included as a project in this Plan. The
City of Cupertino Council accepted the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study in June 2016.
VTA Valley Transportation Plan 2040 (2014)
The Valley Transportation Plan 2040 sets the long‐range vision for Santa Clara County’s transportation system, and as
a part of the Plan, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) added a new category of projects for Multimodal
Transportation Investments. VTA will begin a process for developing a pedestrian funding program, which may focus
on transit access, Safe Routes to School, addressing network gaps, and urban design improvements. The Expressway
Pedestrian Funding program also funds pedestrian improvements throughout the County’s expressway network, and
the Community Design and Transportation program funds pedestrian improvements and Complete Streets projects.
VTA Union Pacific Rail Trail Feasibility Study (2001)
The VTA Union Pacific Rail Trail Feasibility Study assessed constructing a rail trail on the 8.7‐mile Union Pacific Rail
corridor. The proposed trail would connect to the Los Gatos Creek Trail and link the Rancho San Antonio County Park
to the Vasona County Park. The study analyzes existing conditions, identifies opportunities and constraints and
proposed alternative alignments. Due to funding constraints, the study recommends that VTA implement the trail in
phases. The study recommends that a trail alignment through the City of Cupertino be located on‐street north of
Stevens Creek Boulevard, then shifts to the rail right‐of‐way south of Stevens Creek Blvd until the border with
Saratoga.
DRAFT340
70
State and Federal Plans and Policies
Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions (2006)
The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) has a goal of California reaching 1990 greenhouse gas emission levels by
2020 by reducing emissions, including those caused by motor vehicles.
Assembly Bill 1358: Complete Streets (2008)
All California Cities and Counties must include accommodations for all street users (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
riders, motorists, children, persons with disabilities, and elderly persons) in circulation element updates.
Senate Bill 375: Sustainable Communities (2009)
SB 375 directs the Air Resources Board to set regional targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases. Metropolitan
planning organizations must develop land use plans to meet these emission reduction goals by tying together regional
housing needs and regional transportation planning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicle trips.
Senate Bill 743: Environmental Quality: Transit Oriented Infill Projects, Judicial Review
Streamlining for Environmental Leadership Development Projects, and Entertainment and
Sports Center in the City of Sacramento (2013)
Senate Bill 743 eliminates motor vehicle‐based measures (such as level of service and auto delay) in determining
significant environmental impacts, including parking impacts when determining significant impacts in transit oriented
infill projects. According to the legislative intent described in the bill, the intent of these changes was to balance
congestion management goals with other policy goals focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, infill
development, and promoting active transportation.
Senate Bill 99: Active Transportation Program Act (2013)
The Active Transportation Program distributes federal funds for local and regional efforts to increase walking and
bicycling. The funding is intended to increase the number of walking and bicycling trips, increase safety for those
modes, and provide support for disadvantaged communities to achieve transportation equity.
California Strategic Management Plan (2015)
This plan provides strategic direction for Caltrans, including targets of doubling walking trips and tripling bicycling
trips by 2020. Additionally, the plan calls for reducing user fatalities and injuries, promoting community health
through active transportation, and improving the quality of life for all Californians by increasing accessibility to all
modes of transportation.
California Transportation Plan 2025 (2006)
The California Transportation Plan’s Vision Statement calls for California to have a “safe, sustainable, world‐class
transportation system that provides for the mobility and accessibility of people, goods, services, and information
through an integrated, multimodal network that is developed through collaboration and achieves a Prosperous
Economy, a Quality Environment, and Social Equity.” The first goal of the plan includes enhancing modal choice and
connectivity.
Smart Mobility 2010 (2010)
The California Smart Mobility Call to Action provides new approaches to implementation and lays the groundwork for
an expanded State Transportation Planning Program. It enhances the scope of the existing California Transportation
Plan by analyzing the benefits of multi‐modal, interregional transportation projects. The Smart Mobility framework DRAFT341
71
emphasizes travel choices and safety for all users, supporting the goals of social equity, climate change intervention,
energy security, and a sustainable economy.
California Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (forthcoming)
A process is underway to develop the California Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The plan will be a visionary
and comprehensive policy to support active modes of transportation. Policies that stem from this plan will guide
decisions about future bicycle and pedestrian investments, and support local governments in creating a safe active
transportation network.
Caltrans Complete Streets Policy (2001) and Deputy Directive 64 (2008)
The California Complete Streets Policy states that the California Department of Transportation “views all
transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers and recognizes
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system.”
To support the Deputy Directive, Caltrans adopted the Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan in 2010. Various
people across Caltrans contributed ideas and projects to include in the Complete Streets Implementation Action plan
to make Complete Streets a reality in California.
US DOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and
Recommendations (2010)
On March 15, 2010, the United States Department of Transportation announced a policy statement, included below,
with a list of recommended actions.
“The DOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects.
Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for
walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems. Because of the
numerous individual and community benefits that walking and bicycling provide — including health, safety,
environmental, transportation, and quality of life — transportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum
standards to provide safe and convenient facilities for these modes.”
Recommended actions to support the policy statement include considering walking and biking equal to other modes,
ensuring that there are transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities, going beyond minimum design
standards, collecting data on walking and biking trips, and several other actions that make it easier for people to walk
and bike.
FHWA Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts
This publication highlights ways that designers can apply design flexibility found in current national design guidance to
reduce multimodal conflicts and achieve “connected networks so that walking and bicycling are safe, comfortable,
and attractive options for people of all ages and abilities.”
NRPA Safe Routes to Parks
The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) is campaign for Safe Routes to Parks to improve access to Parks
through walking, biking, or transit. The Save Routes to Parks is intended to provide local governments with critical
evidence and best practice‐based guidance on Safe Routes to Parks best practices that are backed by research and
supported by national organizations. This frameworks is intended to be used as a guide that will engage leaders and
community members in an ongoing process to ensure that community policies and practices support safe and
equitable access to parks. DRAFT342
72
Appendix B. Pedestrian Demand Analysis
Pedestrian demand analysis identifies locations where pedestrians are likely to be; see Chapter 2 for additional
information.
Via an online survey and at a public workshop in January 2017, the community was asked where they would most like
to see pedestrian improvements. The weighting used in this analysis (see Table 9) is based on this community
feedback regarding priorities for pedestrian access. The data collected via the online survey and during the public
workshop demonstrated that the community is most interested in pedestrian improvements that connect to schools,
parks and trails. Respondents were less interested in connections to commercial areas and transit. Because this
analysis is grounded in stated community values and attempts to measure potential demand, the output may not
reflect pedestrian traffic as observed in the city today, or where people actually are.
Factor
Weighting
(maximum points
for the Factor)
Scoring within Factor
Within 1/3 mile
of transit stop 15 Based on ridership at stop (1= low ridership stops, 15= highest
ridership stops/lots of stops nearby)
Land Use 20
Based on type of land use (20=parks/public; 10=high‐density
residential; 5=medium‐density residential; 1=low‐density
residential)
Note: Parks/public includes City parks plus community center
such as Quinlan Community Center and the Public Library
Major Employer 15 Based on size of employer (e.g. 15=Apple, 10=DeAnza College,
5=high schools, etc.)
Trail and Campus
access points 20
20 if within a half mile of a major trail or campus access point;
10 if within a half mile of a minor trail or access point
Note: Access points were manually created for DeAnza College
and trails
Within half mile
of school 10 10 if within a half mile of one or more schools
Maximum Score
for Grid Overlay 80
Table 9. Pedestrian Demand Factors
Areas of Highest Pedestrian Demand
Figures 49 through 53 illustrate the component parts that were summed to result in the composite demand analysis
(see Chapter 2 for areas of high potential pedestrian activity).
DRAFT343
73 Figure 49. Transit demand component map Figure 50. Land use demand component map Figure 51. Major employer demand component map Figure 52. Trail and campus access demand component map DRAFT344
74 Figure 53. School demand component map DRAFT345
75
Appendix C. Walk Audit Summary
This Appendix summarizes the findings of six walk audits performed on March 14 and 15, 2017 as part of the
existing conditions analysis for the Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PTP). These audits had multiple purposes:
1. Identify specific issues impacting the pedestrian environment and travel along the walk audit routes,
2. Catalog issues by street type or place within Cupertino for presentation in the PTP,
3. Create a shared understanding of infrastructure and behavioral issues that create a challenging,
uncomfortable or unsafe pedestrian environment, and
4. Discuss potential countermeasures and/or policy and programmatic changes that can address
identified issues
City staff accompanied consultants on all walk audits and answered questions about specific existing and
planned infrastructure within the walk audit areas, as well as general City practices with respect to
pedestrian projects and policies. Identified issues and opportunities from the walk audits are summarized by
street type below and followed by specific write‐ups of each audit location.
Citywide Observations
Generally, walking in Cupertino is reasonably comfortable and safe. There are, however, several issues that
occur across the city that may cause people to choose not to walk for a given trip or for exercise. These issues
arise along the two main types of streets in the city: arterials (boulevards) and local streets.
Arterials13
Issues for pedestrians along arterials center at intersections, not along street segments. The two major issues
along segments are: driveway crossings and the long distances between marked or signalized crossings.
Driveways interrupt the pedestrian path of travel and present the opportunity for conflicts with automobiles.
Large curb radii allow turning drivers to maintain higher speeds across the sidewalk at driveways. Some
driveways also pre‐empt the sidewalk, with asphalt paving through the pedestrian path of travel rather than
a continuous concrete treatment through the driveway. Long distances between crossings, over a quarter
mile in some locations, may spur pedestrians to choose unsafe locations to cross the street if destinations are
located on both sides of the street.
Generally, sidewalk coverage along arterials is comprehensive. People have a place to walk along the road,
and in many cases, this sidewalk is separated from automobile travel by a planted buffer. Some locations lack
this buffer—much of Homestead Road, some of DeAnza Boulevard—but in those locations, pedestrians are
still separated from automobile traffic by the presence of a bike lane. The lack of buffer also contributes to
lower pedestrian comfort because there are no street trees to provide shade.
Intersections in Cupertino present problems for pedestrians with two features: large curb radii and turn
conflicts at signalized intersections. The first feature is present at most cross streets with arterials; wide radii
allow drivers to maintain speed as they turn onto a local street, across the path of pedestrian travel.
13 Though not classed as arterials, the issues identified here also apply to major collectors Stelling Road, Miller
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. DRAFT346
76
Analysis of recent crash data in Cupertino show that many pedestrian/vehicle collisions actually occur at
signalized intersections when the pedestrian is in a crosswalk. This means drivers are failing to yield to
pedestrians who have the right of way when they make turns. This type of behavior was observed during
walk audits, both with drivers turning right on red (conflict with pedestrians crossing in front of them) and
turning right on green (conflict with pedestrians traveling in the parallel direction.
Local Streets
Issues on local streets in Cupertino occur at both intersections and along street segments. One of the biggest
issues is that there is no clear message to drivers entering a local street from an arterial that they should slow
speeds. While a speed limit sign or on‐pavement speed marking may be present, the width of local streets
connecting to arterials (typically at least 38’) provide an unconstrained throughway that invites fast travel.
The lack of pavement markings—centerlines, crosswalks, bike lanes—also contributes to the wide‐open
feeling of many local streets. This issue is compounded when streets are straight with few intersections
where driver must stop. La Mar Drive is an example of this type of street and a location where residents
frequently express concerns regarding speeding.
A higher percentage of local streets also do not have sidewalks. In most cases, these are streets where
residents have elected to remain “semi‐rural” or they are private streets; in both cases, sidewalks are not
required. However, there are also local streets with intermittent sidewalk coverage as a result of annexation
and subsequent installation of sidewalk only at the time of parcel development, for example Hermosa
Avenue in Monta Vista. While automobile speeds and volumes are not high on many of these streets,
pedestrians are still forced to share space with traffic, and in those situations pedestrians likely feel
uncomfortable and vulnerable.
The issues of wide curb radii exist on local streets as well. When not stop‐controlled, local‐to‐local street
turns can be taken at higher speeds. Drivers may not be able to see and react to children playing in the street,
for instance, in these situations.
Traffic calming measures are present on some local streets that can mitigate issues created by the
infrastructure identified above. Speed humps are probably the most effective traffic calming infrastructure
used in Cupertino today. Speed humps introduce vertical deflection that forces drivers to slow. Whereas
traffic calming devices that rely on horizontal deflection (e.g., chokers) are more effective at slowing larger
vehicles than smaller, more nimble cars. The few existing truck aprons that narrow curb radii can also be
quite effective in slowing turning traffic on local streets.
Walk Audit Routes
The list of audit locations reflects the two major street types mentioned above, plus some collector streets,
and include locations in multiple neighborhoods within the city. Each route was between 0.75 and 1 mile in
length. The routes are:
Arterials (Boulevards)
Route 1: De Anza Boulevard and Bandley Drive, from Valley Green Drive to Rodrigues Avenue
Route 4: Stevens Creek Boulevard, between SR 85 and Stelling Road
Route 5: Stevens Creek Boulevard, between Finch Avenue and Tantau Avenue
DRAFT347
77
Local Streets
Route 2: Phar Lap Drive and Mann Drive
Route 3: Miller Avenue, Vicksburg Drive, La Mar Drive
Route 6: Monte Vista neighborhood
Figure 54. Reference map for route locations
1
5
3
4 2
6 DRAFT348
78
Route 1: DeAnza Boulevard and Bandley Drive
Summary Observations
This area of the city has a significant amount of pedestrian activity, especially around the lunch hour when
nearby employees walk to retail and dining destinations in shopping centers on Stevens Creek and DeAnza
Boulevards, and to the Apple café on Bandley Drive. Generally, walking conditions are comfortable with
sidewalk present on all streets and separated from the street by a buffer in many locations. However, the
curb adjacent sidewalk on DeAnza south of Stevens Creek is less comfortable, and the minimum sidewalk
widths on Bandley do not adequately accommodate larger groups of people walking together.
The intersection of DeAnza and Stevens Creek Boulevards is uncomfortable during most hours of the day due
to turning vehicle conflicts and poor driver yielding behavior. This is also the case at Bandley and Valley
Green Drives where the drivers do not stop consistently for people attempting using the crosswalk to cross at
Valley Green Drive. Other intersections could benefit from smaller curb radii or crossing improvements.
Issues and Treatment Highlights
The maps on the following pages show issues observed during the walk audits. The current area least friendly
to pedestrian travel is probably also the one that will take the longest to change: DeAnza Boulevard from
Stevens Creek Boulevard to Rodrigues Avenue. This area has curb adjacent sidewalk on the west side of the
street that puts pedestrians closer to high‐speed, high‐volume traffic. The area also does not have any shade
trees, and wide curb radii make it easy for drivers to make relatively fast right turns onto side streets.
Changes to the sidewalk on this route would entail major construction and cost and are not likely until this
area redevelops.
Driver yielding issues with right turns observed at the Stevens Creek/DeAnza intersection will be addressed
with signalization phasing changes proposed in the Class IV bikeway design for Stevens Creek. Though issues
at this particular intersection will be addressed with those changes, similar situations exist elsewhere in
Cupertino, and a focused marketing campaign regarding driver yielding at intersections may help change
behavior.
DRAFT349
79
Figure 55. Route 1
DRAFT350
80
Route 2: Phar Lap Drive and Mann Drive
Summary Observations
This route was chosen because it includes both typical local streets and local streets falling into the semi‐rural
characterization. The main issues observed on Phar Lap Drive are typical of other local streets in the city:
wide curb radii, wide cross section overall, and a lack of curb ramps. The width of Phar Lap Drive is somewhat
mitigated by the presence of mature street trees and sidewalk, neither of which are present on Mann Drive
which, though the same pavement width, feels wider and more prone to inducing driver speeding behavior.
Neither street serves a major network purpose as both end slightly north of our study area, so low traffic
volumes may make speeds less of an issue and on Mann Drive, the lack of sidewalk less of a concern.
Issues and Treatment Highlights
The issue of street width on Mann Drive could be addressed by adding markings to the street to delineate
shoulder areas and parking. This would provide defined space for pedestrians walking along the street in lieu
of a sidewalk, and designating parking areas will reduce the need for parking in the shoulder area. This would
be a new treatment for Cupertino and would necessitate cooperation of adjacent neighbors and an
education campaign to familiarize all street users with the changes.
One issue not noted in the maps is that this area, though served by nearby Stevens Creek Elementary School,
is cut off from it by a lack of connected streets and Stevens Creek itself. It is currently at least a ¾‐mile walk
to the school, a distance that is at the upper end of what an elementary school student can reasonably be
expected to walk daily. If any opportunity arises for a connection between Phar Lap Drive and Creston Drive
to the west, that would be advantageous to spur more student travel by foot.
DRAFT351
81
Figure 56. Route 2 DRAFT352
82
Route 3: Miller Avenue, La Mar Drive and Creekside Park
Summary Observations
This route provides access to and through Creekside Park, a popular destination for neighborhood residents
and Citywide for many types of outdoor activities. Access from the neighborhood to the west is provided via
a canal‐adjacent trail that is well‐maintained and lit, and access from the Miller Avenue side is provided at a
signalized intersection with marked crosswalks at all legs. Local streets in the neighborhood are typical of
Cupertino: approximately 38 feet wide, no marked centerlines (other than Estates Drive), few marked
crosswalks, and little on‐street daytime parking occupancy. Unlike other locations, a median island is present
at the entrance to Vicksburg Drive from Miller Avenue which provides some traffic calming and a type of
gateway to the neighborhood. However, residents still cite speeding as a concern on this street which led to
recent installation of a radar speed read‐out sign.
Issues and Treatment Highlights
Speeding concerns have been reported on neighborhood local streets in this area as mentioned above on
Vicksburg Drive and also on La Mar Drive. The aforementioned median island is the only traffic calming
currently present in the audit area, and the addition of a mini circle at La Mar Drive and Estates Drive is an
example of a project type that could help slow traffic. A circle may actually be more effective elsewhere along
the stretch of La Mar Drive between Estates Drive and Blaney Avenue, perhaps at Lindsay Avenue; breaking
up this long, straight stretch without traffic control could help slow speeds, but it lies outside this walk audit
area.
Crosswalks are not marked consistently in the neighborhood and may have been added to emphasize
pedestrian paths to Creekside Park, but they are not currently present on all legs of the intersections of
Estates Drive with Vicksburg Drive and La Mar Drive. Consistent marking of crosswalks could reinforce
pedestrian priority in these locations. Crosswalk marking will be separately addressed in the Pedestrian
Transportation Plan through development of a Crosswalk Policy.
Lastly, bus stops located on Miller Avenue are located one block north of the signalized intersection at Calle
de Barcelona. There is no marked or enhanced pedestrian crossing provided to access these stops. Transit
riders need to walk to the signal to cross safely which is somewhat unlikely. Given that bus riders likely make
a round‐trip, they need to cross the street once, and some type of enhanced crossing should be provided for
them.
DRAFT353
83
Figure 57. Route 3
DRAFT354
84
Route 4: Stevens Creek Boulevard – SR 85 to Stelling Road
Summary Observations
Pedestrians along this segment of Stevens Creek Boulevard face a number of challenges to safety and
comfort, mostly related to intersections. Some of these issues will be addressed through implementation of
the Class IV bikeway design and others will not. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street, with the
north side curb‐adjacent and the south side along DeAnza College separated from the street by a large
planted buffer in most locations. Issues occur where high‐speed automobile traffic can cross the pedestrian
path of travel at driveways and an on‐ramp.
Issues and Treatment Highlights
Issues related to potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts are present at three locations: the SR 85 northbound
on‐ramp, the west driveway entrance to The Oaks shopping center, and the west driveway entrance to
DeAnza College. Movement onto the SR 85 on‐ramp is currently uncontrolled for drivers, and though the City
has installed signage to reinforce driver yielding behavior, the location remains a challenge. The
recommended addition of a right‐turn signal here as a part of the Class IV bikeway design will largely remedy
this issue for pedestrians. In the interim, additional warning and yield signage may increase driver compliance
and pedestrian safety.
Both driveway entrances of concern have long dedicated deceleration lanes to exit from Stevens Creek
Boulevard to the destination. Drivers can maintain high speeds across the pedestrian path of travel in these
locations. The implementation of the Class IV bikeway design will shorten the distance over which a driver
can access the driveways, slowing speeds. In the interim, it may be desirable to install a temporary bulb out
at The Oaks driveway. There is less opportunity for an interim treatment at the DeAnza driveway.
Inadequate street lighting was noted by citizens and observed at the intersection of Stelling Road and
Stevens Creek Boulevard. Bus stops adjacent to this intersection are used during low light hours, and
pedestrian traffic is likely also generated by nearby land uses. Additional lighting at this intersection would
help drivers see pedestrians and may help avoid conflicts between crossing pedestrians and turning vehicles.
DRAFT355
85
Figure 58. Route 4
DRAFT356
86
Route 5: Stevens Creek Boulevard – Finch Road to Tantau Avenue
Summary Observations
This segment of Stevens Creek Boulevard was selected because of proximity to the Main Street shopping
area. Pedestrian accommodation along the street here is quite good: The Main Street development installed
wide sidewalk on the north side of the street which will be shaded as street trees mature, and sidewalk along
the south side is separated by a wide planter strip with mature street trees. Issues are concentrated at the
intersections with Finch Road and Tantau Avenue.
Issues and Treatment Highlights
The intersection with Finch Avenue is a critical connection for students at Cupertino High School accessing
shopping and dining at Main Street, and traffic is heavy during before‐ and after‐school times. Hundreds of
students were observed crossing through this intersection at the lunch hour. There is currently no marked
crosswalk on the east leg of this intersection which would provide the most direct access from the school
across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The feasibility of adding a crosswalk here should be studied. Additionally,
there is a channelized right turn movement from Finch Avenue onto Stevens Creek which is channelized by a
small island. This creates a situation where driver movements are prioritized and pedestrians are dependent
upon drivers yielding to cross Finch Avenue. Studying removal of the channelized right turn lane is
recommended.
DRAFT357
87
Figure 59. Route 5
DRAFT358
88
Route 6: Monta Vista Neighborhood
Summary Observations
The Monta Vista Neighborhood has minimal sidewalk coverage because it was developed to less stringent
County standards, and was only later annexed to the City of Cupertino. The County standards also led to most
of the streets (except Pasadena Avenue) being narrower than typical Cupertino local streets, closer to 24 feet
than 38 feet. This limited street size makes the lack of sidewalks more pronounced, forcing pedestrians to be
in close contact with vehicles. That said, narrower roads tend to encourage drivers to be more cautious and
drive slower, providing more natural traffic calming.
While the neighborhood is primarily residential and has low traffic volumes, it provides access to Monta Vista
High, Kennedy Middle and Lincoln Elementary schools by foot, bike, and vehicle. The neighborhood also
serves as an access point to Blackberry Farm Park and the Stevens Creek Trail via San Fernando Avenue
Issues and Treatment Highlights
Additional traffic calming in the neighborhood could help lower speeds on wide streets or at intersections.
Pasadena Avenue sees some higher speeds, which could be mitigated by adding a mini circle at the currently
yield‐controlled intersection with Lomita Avenue. Though the intersection with Granada Avenue is also wide,
the all‐way stop control serves to slow traffic there. The intersection at San Fernando and Byrne Avenues is
also very wide owing to the angle of San Fernando, the large radii and lack of curbs. Tightening radii here
with striping and flexposts could serve to create more of a gateway to this access point for Blackberry Farm
Park. This could also reinforce the message to drivers that this is a location where additional awareness is
warranted. Existing speed humps and the stop control already slow travel.
The lack of connection between the northern and southern portions of Imperial Avenue was also noted as an
issue. There is currently a wall preventing access by all modes here. This street could provide a more direct
connection from the neighborhood to schools on McClellan Avenue, especially from the higher density
housing north along Imperial Avenue. The City should begin to explore the possibility of creating pedestrian
(and bicycle) access through this location by removing at least a portion of this wall. Outreach to and close
communication with neighbors would be necessary for this project.
DRAFT359
89
Figure 60. Route 6 DRAFT360
90
Appendix D. Public Comments from Outreach Events/Activities
This appendix summarizes community responses from the PTP outreach events and activities, including:
WikiMap Response Summary
January 25, 2017 Public Workshop
April 22, 2017 Earth Day Public Outreach Event
WikiMap Response Summary
The WikiMap online outreach exercise was used to determine where participants experience pedestrian‐
related issues, where they typically walk, and where they would like to be able to walk to in the future. The
WikiMap was open from January 22 to March 1, 2017.
This summary provided an overview of the responses. The data collected will be used to inform
recommendations for policies, programs, and locations and types of pedestrian‐related infrastructure projects.
Survey Responses
Respondents were asked for five pieces of information: 1) to provide their demographic information, 2) identify
barriers to walking, 3) locate where they have been involved in a crash or near miss, 4) where would they like
to walk to and what prevents them from walking there today, and 5) where do they walk to today.
Respondent Information
A total of 37 individuals contributed to the WikiMapping public outreach tool; however, not all respondents
contributed to each individual section of the WikiMap. Demographic data collected (see Figure 61) indicate a
fairly representative sample based on gender, but a skewed sample based on age with under‐representation
from younger residents and over‐representation from seniors, based on recent Census data. Approximately 78
percent of people have at least two vehicles available at their household, equaling 2.32 vehicles per household,
as shown in Figure 62.
3%5%3%
24%
22%
14%
22%
8%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
# of RespondentsAge of Respondents
Figure 61. Age and Gender of WikiMap Respondents DRAFT361
91
Barriers to Walking
Attendees were asked to identify locations where barriers to walking exist. After placing a barrier point on the
map, users were prompted to respond to the question “What type of barrier is located here?” with the
following choices provided:
1. Dangerous intersection
2. Fast‐moving traffic
3. Lack of traffic signal
4. Lack of marked crosswalk
5. Disconnected streets
6. Lack of sidewalk
7. Linear barrier (e.g., freeway)
8. Other (explain below)
Respondents could select multiple issues for a single location. Table 10 lists the findings from the barrier survey.
A total of 13 respondents contributed 79 comments. Two individuals contributed a combined total of 25
comments, or 32 percent of all comments. Excluding those two individuals, the average number of comments
is 3.2 per respondent. Nearly half of the respondents stated they believe there a lack of sidewalks, lack of
marked crosswalks, and fast‐moving traffic are barriers to walking.
16%
5%
38%
32%
8%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
01234 or more# of Respondents# of Vehicles
Number of Vehicles Available
Figure 62. Number of Vehicles Available to Respondents DRAFT362
92
Table 10. Identify Barriers to Walking (13 total respondents)
“Lack of Sidewalks” had the highest number of total comments accounting for a total of 39 percent of all
comments and 46 percent of respondents contributed. Responses were concentrated along McClellan Road,
Stevens Creek Boulevard west of Foothill Boulevard, and along Starling Drive east of Foothill Boulevard.
“Fast‐Moving Traffic” accounted for 13 percent of all comments and 46 percent of respondents contributing.
Identified locations were predominantly along minor collectors and arterial roadways, typically along
commercial corridors and near interstate on/off ramps.
There were eight “Dangerous Intersections” identified on the WikiMap by four individuals. Two intersections
were located on arterial roadways, three on minor collectors, and three on local roadways. Issues on arterials
were related to turning vehicles and potential conflicts with pedestrians. Minor Collector streets have visibility
issues due to poor lighting, a sharp turn on McClellan Road, and motorist compliance. Local roadway concerns
were related to school pickup/drop‐off operations contributing to low crosswalk compliance rates, and
motorists driving in unsafe manners.
“Other” barriers included seven comments that were correctly categorized as “other” and seven additional
comments that further described barriers that have their own category type (lack of sidewalk, dangerous
intersection, etc.). Figure 63 indicates locations of all comments received regarding barriers to walking.
Barrier Type
Share of Total
Comments (%)
Comments
(count)
Respondents
(count)
Share of Total
Respondents (%)
Lack of Sidewalk 39%31 6 46%
Fast-Moving Traffic 13%10 6 46%
Dangerous Intersection 10%8 4 31%
Lack of Marked Crosswalk 10%8 6 46%
Disconnected Streets 5%4 2 15%
Lack of Traffic Signals 5%4 2 15%
Linear Barrier 0%0 0 0%
Other 18%14 4 31%
Total 100% 79 30
DRAFT363
93 Figure 63. Barriers to WalkingDRAFT364
94
Crash and Near Miss Locations
Users were asked to identify locations where they were involved in either a crash or a near miss event. Crashes
and near misses are displayed roadway user type (bicyclist, pedestrian, motorist) on the following map. There
were 11 respondents who contributed 32 comments identifying where the event occurred, whether the event
was a crash or near miss; if they were a motorist, a bicyclist, or a pedestrian, and if they reported the crash/near
miss. There was one instance of a reported crash that occurred which involved a motorist. The remaining 31
comments were near miss events.
Table 11 identifies the type crash or near miss location for each type of participant. In the 32 events identified,
53 percent of respondents were pedestrians, 34 percent were motorists, and the remaining 13 percent were
bicyclists. There is a concentration of near misses on the east side of Cupertino (east of Miller), however 10 of
these 15 were identified by one individual (see Figure 64). This self‐reported data about near misses echoes
findings from the analysis of SWITRS crash data that indicated a concentration of pedestrian crashes occurring
at intersections.
Location Bicyclist Motorist Pedestrian Total Percent
Along Roadway 3 4 7 22%
Driveway 1 1 2 6%
Intersection 3 8 12 23 72%
Total 4 11 17 32 100%
Percent 13% 34% 53%
Table 11. Roadway User and Location of Event (11 total respondents) DRAFT365
95 Figure 64. Crash SurveyDRAFT366
96
Places I Walk To
Survey respondents were asked to locate on the WikiMap where they currently walk to using the following six
categories:
1. Dining
2. Recreation
3. School
4. Shopping
5. Social/Entertainment
6. Work
There was a total of 15 respondents who contributed a total of 79 responses (see Table 12). Forty‐four percent of the
comments identified recreational destinations, followed by school destinations accounting for 18 percent of comments.
Figure 65 illustrates where people currently walk to. Destinations are concentrated along major roadways and along
off‐street trails. Two roadways have many destinations where people are walking to: Stevens Creek Boulevard and
McClellan Road.
Destination Share of Total
Comments (%)
Comments
(count)
Respondents
(count)
Share of Total
Respondents (%)
Dining 13% 10 3 20%
Recreation 44% 35 11 73%
School 18% 14 5 33%
Shopping 10% 8 4 27%
Social/Entertainment 10% 8 5 33%
Work 5% 4 2 13%
Total 100% 79 30
Table 12. Typical Walking Destinations (15 total respondents) DRAFT367
97 Figure 65. Places I Walk To DRAFT368
98
Places I Would Like to Walk To
A total of eight people entered 12 comments regarding destinations they would like to be able to walk to and
listing which barrier prevented them from walking. The same destinations asked previously for the typical
destinations surveyors walk to were used, and Figure 66 shows the locations of those would‐be destinations.DRAFT369
99 Figure 66. Places I Want to Walk toDRAFT370
100
Respondents were also asked to identify which of the following factors prevent them from walking to that
destination today:
1. Lack of Sidewalk
2. No Convenient Pedestrian Entrance
3. Too Much Traffic
4. Streets Don’t Connect
5. Difficult to Cross Street
6. Feels unsafe for Children DRAFT371
101
Table 13 lists the issues influencing why these individuals may not be choosing to walk to certain destinations. A lack of
sidewalk and presence of too much traffic were chosen most frequently as the barriers preventing people from walking
to these destinations today.
Barrier Type Total Share of Total
Lack of sidewalk 7 30%
No convenient pedestrian
entrance 3 13%
Too much traffic 6 26%
Streets don't connect 1 4%
Difficult to cross street 2 9%
Feels unsafe for children 4 17%
Total 23 100%
Table 13. Barriers Preventing Walking to Selected Destinations (8 total respondents)
Public Workshop Summary
At the first workshop for the Pedestrian Transportation Plan held on January 25, 2017 from 6:00‐7:30pm in the
Cupertino Room at the Quinlan Center, Toole Design Group (TDG) provided a high‐level overview of the project and
planning process, and gathered input from the community about their interests and priorities related to walking.
Informational and interactive boards and an on‐line survey station were used to gather feedback and introduce the
project. TDG staff also solicited feedback from workshop participants through individual and small group
conversations. While the input discussed below came from a relatively small group of residents, it is anticipated that
the online input vehicles of the survey and WikiMap will provide additional input that can guide the plan
development process.
Public Input
Public input was recorded in the following formats:
1. A map exercise to find out where participants think there are current pedestrian‐related issues and
opportunities in Cupertino.
2. A dot access exercise to determine which types of pedestrian trips are most important to community
members to improve.
3. Survey station with a laptop for participating in the online project survey.
Map Exercise
Participants were invited to place color‐coded dots on a large scale citywide map in four categories. Table 14 shows
the total number of dots mapped for the four categories.
Type of Place Number of Comments
Place I walk 24
Place I’d like to walk 6
Barrier to Walking 12
Crash/Near Miss 14
Table 14. Map Exercise Comment Summary DRAFT372
102
Dots were placed in the following locations:
Places I like to walk
o Parks
o Elementary and middle schools
o Businesses near Vallco Pkwy and next to the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd and N Wolfe Rd
Places I’d like to walk
o North side of the intersection of West Valley and Stevens Creek Blvd
o Canyon Oak Park
o De Anza Baseball Field
o Between Varian Park and Stocklmeir Ranch if a pedestrian connection were added
Barriers to walking
o Stevens Creek needs pedestrian crossings, especially between Stocklmeir Ranch and Varian Park and
near Carmen Rd
o Railroad tracks between Madera Dr. and Somerset Park
o Lack of sidewalks
o Lack of pedestrian connectivity between residential streets
o Lack of crosswalks on Stevens Creek Blvd and N De Anza Blvd
Crash/Near Miss: Responses clustered around the areas identified below.
o Stevens Creek Blvd
o N De Anza
o Bubb Rd south of Stevens Creek Blvd
Other Comments
o Will the trail from Stevens Creek to Canyon Oak Park trail be opened up to bikes?
Dot Access Exercise
Table 15 summarizes the pedestrian trip types that workshop attendees felt were most important to developing a
safe and connected pedestrian network in Cupertino. Of the eight trip types mentioned, safe crossings of major
roadways, and access to schools and greenspaces were the most frequently cited trip types.
Trip Type Number of
Votes
Safe Crossings of Major Roadways 8
Access to Schools 7
Access to Greenspace 7
Access to Multi‐Use Paths (i.e., trails) 6
Access to Transit 4
Access to Shopping 4
Access to Jobs 4
Directness (i.e., shortest distance between destinations) 3
Table 15. Pedestrian Trip Types
DRAFT373
103
General Comments
TDG staff discussions with workshop attendees revealed a few
issues that were not otherwise brought up through the map or
voting exercise.
There are issues with street connectivity that make it
too far, unappealing or not possible for some trips to be
made by foot.
The most direct pedestrian routes are sometimes limited
due to lack of access through private property. Note:
Although access is not legally required across a private
property, the preponderance of large parcels for office
or retail use in the City also contribute to the
disconnected nature of the network.
Bikeway Design Project
TDG presented a set of workshop boards and corridor roll plots in order to provide the public with an overview of
design development process and schedule, as well as the conceptual designs of the proposed bikeways, intersection
treatments, buffer types, driveways and bus stop zones.
Public Input
Attendees were invited to add their comments to the conceptual plans and informational boards to provide feedback
on intersections, “hot spot” areas, concerns about safety, and how people might use the potential street designs.
General Comments
The following feedback applies to both the Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road corridor plans.
There was broad support and excitement for the installation of Class IV bike lanes.
Participants had questions about how cyclists would be able to make left turns at controlled and uncontrolled
intersections, and the mechanics of how to pass slower cyclists while riding in Class IV bike lanes.
There was a desire to ensure that the push buttons for activated signals at intersections are placed in a way
so that they are easily accessible to bicyclists.
Specific suggestions:
o Add bike boxes at controlled intersections.
o At driveways, install signage to warn drivers about pedestrians and cyclists, in addition to conflict
markings and raised crossings.
o Several suggestions were provided on buffer treatment options, including:
Instead of using planter boxes as barriers, use a narrow curb‐like barrier.
Instead of using concrete barriers, use visual barriers, like the low fences used in some Asian
counties.
Use bollards instead of a curb.
The barriers between pedestrians and cyclists should be visible.
The buffer treatment should be more permeable, to allow exit/entrance mid‐block and
ahead of left‐turns
Stevens Creek Boulevard
The most frequent questions among participants were how to protect bicyclists from right‐turning vehicles and how
to safely allow bicyclists to turn left at intersections. Attendees advocated for increased separation between bike
lanes and vehicle lanes.
Figure 67. Attendees at the Public Workshop DRAFT374
104
Stevens Creek Boulevard Intersections of Concern for Cyclists Turning Left
Foothill Blvd
Pharlap Dr.
Saich Way
Mary Ave
Finch Ave
Intersections of Concern for Right‐Turning Vehicles
Hwy‐85 NB on‐ramp interchange (West of Mary Ave)
Intersections in Need of Additional Crosswalks
Pharlap Dr.
Saich Way
Mary Ave
Finch Ave
Other Comments
Consider a separated trail from Foothill Blvd to Orange Ave.
Bike lane leading up to Mary Ave (from the East, South side) should be 8ft, not 7ft.
Foothill Blvd is a popular bike route.
How will cars be prevented from crossing through bike lane when cyclists are present (De Anza College)?
Adjust signal timing to favor walking/biking students over driving parents (Intersection w/ Finch Ave).
Consider long‐term, secure bike parking at express bus stops.
McClellan Road
Two design concepts were presented for McClellan Road: Class IV bikeways in
both directions (Concept 1) and a two‐way Class IV bikeway on the north side
of McClellan Road (Concept 2). Based on feedback from community
members, there was no clear preference between these options.
Concept 1: Class IV bikeways in both directions
McClellan Road Intersections of Concern
Bubb Rd
o The entire intersection is a conflict zone for vehicles and
bikes in all directions.
Rose Blossom Drive
o Currently no stop on McClellan when turning into De Anza
Entrance. Traffic then stays across the intersection causing a
grid lock on De Anza inner road.
S Stelling Rd
o Conflict zone for buses and cars that want to make a right‐
turn and bikes that want to go straight to reach the school.
S De Anza and Pacifica Drive
Figure 68. Attendees discussing the
bikeway designs DRAFT375
105
Other Comments
Beyond McClellan Rd and Byrne Ave: Very Challenging area, but please
extend bikeway to McClellan Preserve
How will sidewalks be added when there are obstructions at property
lines?
Concept 2: Two‐way Class IV separated bikeway on the north side of
McClellan Road
General Comments
In certain locations, such as near Bubb Rd, the two‐way cycle track
may be a better option.
Overpass between Rose Blossom and September Drive: show crossings
on both sides of street (kids need to cross from all side streets).
How will bicyclists get in and out of the two‐way cycle track on the
north side of the street if they have origins/destinations on the south
side?
How will bicyclists respond to a two‐way cycle track at intersections?
Intersection of Bubb Rd, south side: show crossing to go south side at
Bubb to access the middle school.
Earth Day Outreach Event Summary
This summary provides an overview of the second outreach event for the PTP which was held at the Cupertino Earth
Day & Arbor Day Festival at the Civic Center Plaza on Saturday, April 22, 2017 11am‐3pm.
Public Workshop
This earth day event provided an opportunity to share with the public and stakeholders what we have learned so far,
initial recommendations, different types of pedestrian improvements, and trade‐offs and priorities. The goal of this
event was to engage the public about walking in Cupertino and build momentum for future pedestrian efforts.
Information and Interactive Boards
There was a series of four boards designed to provide information and gather input. Board #1 displayed the project
schedule and indicated where the project was up to the point of the Earth Day Event.
Figure 69. Participant at the Public
Workshop DRAFT376
106
Figure 70. Board #1 ‐ Project Schedule
Board #2 displayed a series of infographics and facts that framed the conversation about walking and existing
conditions in Cupertino. The board included a word cloud, key facts on crash data, reasons people choose not to walk,
and where improvements should be focused in Cupertino. This data was drawn from input received via the survey,
online map and first public outreach event.
Figure 71. Board #2 ‐ Walking in Cupertino Today
DRAFT377
107
Board #3 provided an opportunity for people to vote on their preferred pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, curb
extensions, marked crosswalks, street lighting, traffic calming, and rapid flashing beacons, that will be found as
recommendations in the BMP. Further, this board provided an opportunity for the public to share their opinion on
priorities for facility types based on full trade‐offs between cost and the level of comfort.
Figure 72. Board #3 ‐ What do you think?
When asked on a typical Cupertino street, which type of facility would you feel most comfortable and safe while
walking, over a third of responses were sidewalks, followed by marked crosswalks.
Table 16. Responses to Board #3
What do you think? “Which facility would you feel most comfortable and safe” Results (n=43))
14
2
10
7
55
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Sidewalks Curb
Extensions
Marked
Crosswalks
Street
Lighting
Traffic
Calming
Rapid
Flashing
BeaconDRAFT
378
108
When asked, which facility are you most likely to support, respondents overwhelmingly preferred safe and visible
crosswalks over delay and convenience. Further respondents preferred slow and safe neighborhood streets over
access and efficiency six to one.
Table 17. Board #3 ‐ What do you think? “Which are you most likely to support” Results (n=43)
Board #4 included a citywide map and “example” facility recommendations from the walk audits. Coupled with board
three and facilitated conversations with staff, the public provided their input on what they thought of the proposed
network and recommendations, if there was anything missing, and if they had any further ideas, questions or
concerns.
6
3
11
3210123Number of VotesLevel of Agreement
Calming Traffic
11
11
3210123Number of VotesLevel of Agreement
Enhancing Crossings
33
2
3210123Number of VotesLevel of Agreement
Consolidating
Driveways
Neighborhood
Streets should be
slow and safe for
people all the time
Crossings should
be built the safest
and most visible
way possible
Driveways should be
limited to minimize
conflicts between
pedestrians and cars
Vehicle access and
efficiency is a
priority
Delay and
inconvenience is
not preferred
Driveways should
be as frequent as
needed to get
closest to
destinations DRAFT379
109
Figure 73. Board #4 ‐ Example Pedestrian Improvements
Children’s Activity
Children were given a handout that asks them to “walk” from home, to school, to a park and back along the existing
pedestrian infrastructure. This helped them understand how having crosswalks and sidewalks in place enables them
to move around the city.
Figure 74. Children’s Handout: Help Taylor Find Their Way!
DRAFT380
110
Appendix E. Crosswalk Installation Policy
Pedestrian crossings are an essential part of a safe, connected pedestrian network. Well‐designed crossings ensure
pedestrians have a comfortable and convenient place to cross, which is particularly important for streets with higher
volumes of traffic or high speeds. However, crossings should not be installed indiscriminately, as they can be
expensive to install and maintain, and should be implemented based on predictable criteria. This Appendix provides
guidance to the City of Cupertino for evaluating locations for the potential installation of crosswalks. In general, this
guidance is not intended to be used to justify removal of crosswalks, which requires a public hearing under California
state law.14
Background
Pedestrian crossings are often requested where pedestrians have trouble crossing the road. In most cases, the desire
is for new crosswalks to be installed at uncontrolled midblock locations or an uncontrolled leg of two‐way stop
intersections. At such locations, crossing the street without the benefit of crossing features can be more difficult and
potentially more dangerous.
Pedestrian crossings have been studied extensively. An FHWA study completed in 2001 evaluated 1,000 marked
crosswalks and 1,000 unmarked crossings in 30 U.S. cities to determine the impact of marked crosswalks on
pedestrian safety.15 The study reviewed pedestrian crash history, daily pedestrian volume estimates, average daily
traffic (ADT) volumes, number of lanes, speed limit, area type, type of median, type and condition of crosswalk
marking patterns, and other site characteristics. The results of the Zegeer study have since been used to inform
national guidelines for use of marked crosswalks. Key findings include:
Marked crosswalks alone are not recommended for the following situations:
o Uncontrolled crossing locations on roads with four or more lanes where traffic volumes exceed
approximately 12,000 vehicles per day (if no raised medians present) or approximately 15,000
vehicles per day (with raised medians that serve as refuge areas).
o Two‐lane roads if traffic volumes exceed 12,000 vehicles per day or on multi‐lane roads with traffic
volumes above 9,000 vehicles per day (with no raised median).
o Roadways with speed limits above 40 mph. Enhanced crossing mechanisms, such as traffic and
pedestrian signals, are recommended instead.
Many types of pedestrian crossing problems cannot be addressed properly with only one treatment, such as
a marked crosswalk. Installing crosswalks without other substantial treatments, such as traffic signals or
traffic calming treatments, does not increase pedestrian safety.
On two‐lane roads and lower volume multi‐lane roads, marked crosswalks were not found to have any
positive or negative effect on pedestrian crash rates. The benefit of installing marked crosswalks at these
sites is to indicate the desired location at which to cross the street and, in some situations, help consolidate
multiple crossing points.
The guidance contained in the California MUTCD supports the need for implementation of additional measures at
crosswalks on high‐speed multilane roadways. However, it contains more permissive criteria for implementing
14 California Vehicle Code §21950.5
15 Zegeer et al. Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and
Recommended Guidelines. Federal Highway Administration.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/ DRAFT381
111
crosswalk markings alone across multilane streets, despite the recommendations in the Zegeer report.16 Cities can go
beyond MUTCD minimum requirements and follow more conservative recommendations that favor implementation
of protective measures at crosswalks on a wider range of street types.
In delivering the recommendations against the use of unmarked crosswalks alone in many cases, the study authors
noted that “the results of this study should not be misused as justification to do nothing to help pedestrians to safely
cross the streets. Instead, pedestrian crossing problems and needs should be routinely identified, and appropriate
solutions should be selected to improve pedestrian safety and access. Deciding where to mark or not mark crosswalks
is only one consideration in meeting the objective.”
While the Zegeer report remains the most important guidance for whether a crosswalk should be installed, more
recent research sheds light on the types of treatments that should be implemented under different circumstances.
NCHRP Report 562 includes descriptions of pavement markings, pedestrian signals, flashing beacons, and roadway
design elements that can be used to promote safer crossings. The study also notes that treatments are often
implemented in combination to inform the actions of both pedestrians and motorists.17 The findings reiterate the
need for more complex treatments on multilane, high‐speed roadways, where motorist yielding was observed to
decrease with treatments such as crosswalks and signage alone.
Another NCHRP Report, Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments,
published in 2017, quantifies the safety benefits associated with installation of refuge islands, advanced yield or stop
markings and signs, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), and pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs).18 Among
these, PHBs and RRFBs were found to offer the most significant pedestrian crash reduction (55 percent and 47
percent, respectively). Refuge islands and advanced yield markings were also shown to reduce pedestrian crashes by
31 percent and 25 percent, respectively.
Pedestrian Crossing Installation Guidelines
As noted above, crosswalks are often requested by members of the public. To respond to such requests in a
consistent and predictable fashion, a clear process and decision‐making criteria are needed. A process for
determining whether to install a crosswalk and the appropriate treatment type is provided as part of this Appendix
and is explained here. This process does not apply to crosswalk markings along school routes, which should consider
the unique needs of school‐aged children. Additionally, engineering judgment is always needed to account for site‐
specific factors.
Crosswalk Decision Process
The decision‐making process begins with the identification of a candidate crossing location. This location may be
based on a request from residents or through proactive identification of potential crossing locations. Existing
crossings may also be evaluated to determine whether additional enhancements are needed or whether, in extreme
circumstances, the crossing should be considered for removal due to safety concerns.
Candidate locations at signalized intersections (unmarked legs of the intersection) should generally be marked as a
crosswalk, unless engineering judgment determines the pedestrian crossing should be prohibited due to safety
concerns. Guidance to this effect is provided in FHWA’s PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
16 Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition, Revision 2. Chapter 3B.18 Crosswalk
Markings. 2017.
17 Fitzpatrick, et al. NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. 2006.
18 Zegeer, et al. NCHRP Research Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian
Crossing Treatments. 2017. DRAFT382
112
Selection System, which states that “Pedestrians are sensitive to out‐of‐the‐way travel, and reasonable
accommodation should be made to make crossings both convenient and safe at locations with adequate visibility. At
signalized intersections, this means that all four legs of the intersection should have crosswalks.”19 The National
Association of City Transportation Officials reiterated this recommendation in its Urban Street Design Guide.20 If
needed, curb ramps should be installed or improved in conjunction with new markings installed at signals. For stop‐
controlled locations, it is typically not necessary to install a marked crossing.
Uncontrolled intersection or midblock locations should be given further consideration for installation of a crosswalk.
Locations with very low traffic volumes do not require a marked crosswalk, as pedestrians are easily able to find a gap
in traffic. A minimum threshold of 1,500 vehicles per day is proposed for this purpose; however, the City could
determine a higher threshold is appropriate, particularly after reviewing site conditions.
For uncontrolled locations that meet minimum vehicle volume thresholds, a crosswalk should be implemented if the
location is a multi‐use path crossing and sight distance is adequate. For other locations, it is necessary to determine
whether pedestrian activity can be expected on a regular basis. This determination can be made based on the
location’s proximity to pedestrian generators such as parks or commercial areas. Pedestrian volume estimates could
also be used to determine use levels; however, existing use may be low relative to the number of people who would
use a new crossing facility.
An additional consideration for new crosswalks is whether there is an existing controlled intersection or improved
crossing within 300 feet of the proposed location. If so, pedestrians should typically be directed to use the existing
crossing. As for multi‐use path crossings, it is important to ensure that all pedestrian crossings meet minimum sight
distance standards.
Crossing Treatment Guidance
Once a location has been determined to require a crosswalk, a variety of treatment options should be considered. The
factors to be considered include: number of lanes, presence of a median, traffic speed, and vehicle volume. The
‘Uncontrolled Crossing Treatment Selection Guidelines’ matrix identifies four possible treatment categories based on
combinations of these features. These include:
High‐visibility marked crossing with crosswalk warning signs
High‐visibility marked crossing with geometric enhancements that reduce crossing distance and advanced
yield markings21
High‐visibility marked crossing with active warning devices such as Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
(RRFBs)
High‐visibility marked crossing with Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK signals) or full signals
Crossing treatments are further documented in the Facility Toolbox contained in the PTP. Additionally, the resources
below document the recommended use of various treatments and their impacts on pedestrian safety.
19 Federal Highway Administration. PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=4
20 National Association of City Transportation Officials: Urban Street Design Guide. https://nacto.org/publication/urban‐
street‐design‐guide/intersection‐design‐elements/crosswalks‐and‐crossings/
21 Advanced yield markings are particularly important on multi‐lane streets to reduce the risk of multiple‐threat crashes. DRAFT383
113
Resources
Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices: 2014 Edition, Revision 2. 2017.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/docs/2014r2/CAMUTCD2014_rev2.pdf
Fitzpatrick, et al. TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings.
2006.
Zegeer, et al. NCHRP Research Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled
Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. 2017.
Zegeer et al. Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report
and Recommended Guidelines. 2005.
DRAFT384
114
Figure 75. Pedestrian Crossing Installation GuidelineDRAFT
385
115 Appendix F. Project Scoring Table 18. Project Scoring DRAFT386
116 Table 18. Project Scoring DRAFT387
117 Table 18. Project Scoring DRAFT388
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:117-3315 Name:
Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Item Heard
File created:In control:11/13/2017 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/20/2018 2/20/2018
Title:Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Item heardCity Council2/20/2018 1
Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Report on Committee assignments and general comments
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™389