Cupertino City Council
January 18, 2022

Construction Vehicles
The transport of workers and materials to and from the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along local roadways. Individual construction vehicle pass-bys may create momentary noise levels of up to approximately 85 dBA (Lmax) at 50 feet from the vehicle, but these occurrences would generally be infrequent and short lived. Therefore, noise impacts from construction-related truck traffic would be less than significant at noise-sensitive receptors along the construction routes. 272
CC 01-18-2022
272 of 365
Construction Equipment
Short-term noise impacts would occur during grading and site preparation activities. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed. Each construction phase has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses from demolition, site preparation, and building construction. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

As shown in Table 3-3, typical maximum noise levels range up to the City’s standard of 87 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases, but this is only when pile driving occurs (95 dBA Lmax), otherwise the next highest noise level is 85 dBA Lmax. The site preparation phase, including grading of the site and utility trenching, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving machinery is the noisiest construction equipment. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

This evaluation includes a conservative analysis that focuses on whether noise from multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment operating simultaneously near the project borders would result in noise levels in excess of the City’s standard of 80 dBA Lmax as measured at nearby receiving properties. The nearest residential buildings are located approximately 130 feet east of the project site. At 130 feet, there would be a decrease of approximately 8 dBA from the increased distance compared to the noise level measured at 50 feet from the active construction area. Therefore, the closest sensitive receptor may be subject to shortterm maximum construction noise reaching 77 dBA Lmax during construction.48 Therefore, construction noise levels as measured at the nearest noise sensitive land uses would below the City’s threshold of 80 dBA Lmax. In addition, construction equipment would operate at various locations within the 3-acre project site and would only generate this maximum noise level when operations occur closest to the receptor.

As discussed above, construction noise may exceed the maximum permissible noise limits, provided that the equipment utilized is outfitted with high-quality mufflers and abatement devices and is in good condition. Therefore, consistent with the CMC Chapter 10.48, the following construction best management practices are required to be implemented:
 Prepare all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
 Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site.
48 Since there is no pile driving as part of the proposed project, this represents the highest construction equipment noise level of 85 dBA Lmax minus 8 dBA equals 77 dBA Lmax.
273
CC 01-18-2022
273 of 365
 Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all construction activities.

In addition to the best management practices listed above, the applicant shall indicate compliance with the following grading and construction hours and noise limit requirements on all demolition, construction and grading permits, and in the construction management plan(s), unless otherwise indicated.  All grading activities shall be limited to the dry season (April 15 to October 1), unless permitted otherwise by the Director of Public works.
 Construction hours and noise limits shall be compliant with all requirements of CMC Chapter 10.48.  Grading, street construction, underground utility and demolition hours for work done more than 750 feet away from residential areas shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within 750 feet of residential areas shall not occur on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, and during nighttime period as defined in CMC Section 10.48.053(b).  Construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Construction activities are not allowed on holidays as defined in CMC Chapter 10.48. Nighttime construction is allowed if compliant with nighttime standards of CMC Section 10.48.
 Rules and regulations pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of an applicant appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site.  The applicant shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions.
 Ensure that all general construction related activities are restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction shall be prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, and during the nighttime period.

3.4.2.2 PROJECT-RELATED OPERATIONAL NOISE
Operational noise can be categorized as stationary source noise and mobile source noise. Stationary source noise includes noise generated by the proposed project, such as storage loading/unloading activities and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Mobile source noise would be attributable to the additional trips that would occur with implementation of the proposed project.

Stationary-Source Noise
The proposed public storage uses would contain stationary noise sources such as storage loading/unloading activities and HVAC equipment. These are potential point sources of noise that could affect noise-sensitive receptors in the project site vicinity.
274
CC 01-18-2022
274 of 365
Customer Vehicle Access Activities
The proposed project would contain self-storage uses, therefore, vehicle noise, including engine sounds, car doors slamming, car alarms, music, and people conversing, could occur as a result of the proposed project. Typical vehicle access activities, such as people conversing or doors slamming, would generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet.

Intensity of operation of the proposed project may increase due to the higher number of storage units; however, these operations would be internal to the new buildings and would not contribute to the exterior noise environment at the surrounding receptors. Therefore, noise levels due to customer vehicle activities are anticipated to remain similar to existing conditions.

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Equipment
The HVAC equipment would be located on the roof of each building and would be enclosed to withstand climatic conditions and reduce noise. The exterior mechanical and HVAC equipment associated with the proposed use are expected to be similar to the existing commercial uses or quieter due to advances in technology. Because mechanical specifications for these proposed units are not yet available, it is conservatively assumed that noise from these units would be up to 75 dBA Leq at a distance of 3 feet. The nearest sensitive receptors to proposed buildings include the single-family residences located adjacent to the eastern border of the project site, which would be located approximately 130 feet to the east along Nathanson Avenue and to the south along Meteor Drive and Mary Avenue. Adjusted for distance to the nearest off-site sensitive receptors, these residences would be exposed to a noise level of 42 dBA Leq generated by HVAC equipment.49 This noise level would not exceed the City’s maximum noise level standards of 55 dBA during nighttime hours and 65 dBA during daytime hours, as measured at the nearest receiving sensitive land use.

Mobile-Source Noise
Traffic Noise Impacts
Motor vehicles with their distinctive noise characteristics are the dominant noise source in the project vicinity. The amount of noise varies according to many factors, such as volume of traffic, vehicle mix (percentage of cars and trucks), average traffic speed, and distance from the observer. Implementation of the proposed project would result in new daily trips on local roadways in the project site vicinity. A characteristic of sound is that a doubling of a noise source is required in order to result in a perceptible (3 dBA or greater) increase in the resulting noise level. As discussed under Section 3.4.1, Traffic, the proposed project would result in an estimated 123 daily vehicle trips, which is an additional 79 daily vehicle trips from existing conditions.
49 Assumes noise diminishes at a rate of at least 6 dBA per doubling of distance. 275
CC 01-18-2022
275 of 365
The adjacent I-280, which is the predominant source of noise in the vicinity of the project site, carries approximately 146,000 average daily trips.50 The net increase of 79 daily trips, including 8 afternoon peak hour trips and 3 morning peak hour trips, would be minimal compared to existing trips associated with a built-out neighborhood and the thousands of existing trips on SR-85 and I-280. Therefore, project daily trips would not result in a perceptible noise increase along any roadway segment in the project vicinity and this impact would be less than significant.

3.4.2.3 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
Operational Vibration
Operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial levels of vibration because there are no known sources of vibrational energy associated with the project, such as industrial machinery or railroad operations. Thus, vibration effects or impacts from operations sources would be less than significant.

Construction Vibration
Construction activities generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration-sensitive uses. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Table 3-5 lists reference vibration levels for different types of commonly used construction equipment.

TABLE 3-5 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS
Equipment Approximate PPV Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Notes: PPV = Peak Particle Velocity in inches per second Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2018.

Proposed construction would include demolition and grading, which would include equipment such as loaders and bulldozers. Paving activities may also generate construction vibration and would include equipment such as pavers and rollers. Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided in Table 3-5 and the construction vibration assessment guidelines published by the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA), the vibration impacts associated with the proposed project were assessed in terms of potential architectural damage due to vibration.
50 California Department of Transportation, 2020. 2017 Traffic Volumes. Website: www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census (accessed August 2020).
276
CC 01-18-2022
276 of 365
The City does not have specific, vibration-related standards. Thus, project-related construction vibration was evaluated for its potential to cause minor architectural damage based on FTA’s architectural damage criteria. The term ‘architectural damage’ is defined as minor surface cracks (in plaster, drywall, tile, or stucco) or the sticking of doors and windows. This is below the severity of ‘structural damage’ which entails the compromising of structural soundness or the threatening the basic integrity of the building shell.

Building damage is typically not a concern for most projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile driving during construction. No blasting, pile driving, or hard rock ripping/crushing activities would be required during project construction. Since vibration-induced architectural damage could result from an instantaneous vibration event, distances are measured from the receptor façade to the nearest location of potential construction activities.

A peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.2 inches per second (in/sec) is used as the threshold for “non-engineered timber and masonry buildings” (which would apply to the surrounding structures).51 Proposed driveways would be paved within 130 feet of nearby residential structures, and therefore would not exceed the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold if vibratory rollers are used. If grading equipment such as a large dozer operates within approximately 130 feet of a nearby residential structure, the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold would also not be exceeded. Therefore, impacts from groundborne vibration during construction would be less than significant.

3.4.2.4 AIRCRAFT NOISE IMPACTS
The proposed project is not located within 2 miles of a public or public use airport. The San Jose International Airport is the closest airport and is located approximately 7 miles northeast of the project site.

Aircraft noise is occasionally audible at the project site; however, no portion of the project site lies within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of any public airport nor does any portion of the project site lie within 2 miles of any private airfield or heliport. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with the proximity of an airport.

3.4.3 Air Quality
The proposed project is located in the City of Cupertino and is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. Within the BAAQMD, ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead (Pb) have been set by both the State of California and the federal government. The State has also set standards for sulfate and visibility. The BAAQMD is under State non-attainment status for ozone and particulate matter standards. The BAAQMD is classified as non51 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2018. 277
CC 01-18-2022
277 of 365
attainment for the federal ozone 8-hour standard and non-attainment for the federal PM2.5 24-hour standard.

3.4.3.1 CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLANS
The applicable air quality plan is the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan, which was adopted on April 19, 2017.

The 2017 Clean Air Plan/Regional Climate Protection Strategy serves as a roadmap for the BAAQMD to reduce air pollution and protect public health and the global climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also includes measures and programs to reduce emissions of fine particulates and toxic air contaminants. In addition, the Regional Climate Protection Strategy is included in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, which identifies potential rules, control measures, and strategies that the BAAQMD can pursue to reduce greenhouse gases throughout the Bay Area.

Consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan is determined by whether or not the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts or hinder implementation of control measures (e.g., excessive parking or preclude extension of transit lane or bicycle path). As indicated in the analysis that follows, the proposed project would not result in significant operational and construction-period emissions.

Therefore, the proposed project supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan and would not conflict with any of the control measures identified in the plan as designed to bring the region into attainment. Additionally, the project site is located in close proximity to residential uses and would be readily accessible to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users (see Section 3.4.1 Traffic above). In addition, the proposed project would provide bicycle parking spaces, which would promote BAAQMD initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation. The proposed project would not hinder the region from attaining the goals outlined in the Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not hinder or disrupt implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan.

3.4.3.2 RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF ANY CRITERIA

POLLUTANT
This section analyzes potential impacts related to air quality that could occur from a combination of the proposed project with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS. Any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment adds to the cumulative impact. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted by cumulative plus project emissions (the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin), a project is cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the BAAQMD emissions thresholds.

BAAQMD has identified thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions and criteria air pollutant precursors, including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Development projects below the significance thresholds 278
CC 01-18-2022
278 of 365
would not generate sufficient criteria pollutant emissions to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The following describes project-related impacts from regional short-term construction activities and regional long-term operation of the proposed project.

Regional Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) from demolition and soil-disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and fine PM2.5.

Construction Fugitive Dust
Ground disturbing activities during construction would generate fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5). The amount of dust generated during construction would be highly variable and is dependent on the amount of material being disturbed, the type of material, moisture content, and meteorological conditions. If uncontrolled, PM10 and PM2.5 levels downwind of actively disturbed areas could possibly exceed State standards.

Consequently, BAAQMD considers all impacts related to fugitive dust emissions from construction to be less than significant with implementation of BAAQMD’s best management practices listed below.  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.  Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  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.
 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.
 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 BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
279
CC 01-18-2022
279 of 365
Construction Exhaust Emissions
Construction emissions are based on the preliminary construction duration and normalized California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) default schedule developed for the proposed project. The proposed project would result in demolition, demolition debris hauling, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating that would occur near existing sensitive land uses.

Construction emissions were quantified using the CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.25. Potential constructionrelated air quality impacts are determined by comparing the average daily criteria air pollutants emissions generated by the proposed project-related construction activities to the BAAQMD significance thresholds in Table 3-6. Average daily emissions are based on the annual construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days.

TABLE 3-6 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Yearb
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons/year)
a

VOC NOx
Fugitive
PM10
c

Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
c

Exhaust
PM2.5
c
2021 2.3 23.2 1 <1 <1 <1
2022 24 29.0 1 <1 <1 <1
Total 26.3 52.2 1 <1 <1 1
Criteria Air Pollutants (average lbs/day)
a

Average Daily Emissions
d 10 25 <1 <1 <1 <1
BAAQMD Average Daily ProjectLevel Threshold 54 54 BMPs 82 BMPs 54 Exceeds Average Daily Threshold No No NA No NA No
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. BMP = Best Management Practices; N/A = not applicable a. Construction phasing and equipment mix are based on the preliminary information provided by the project applicant. Where specific information regarding project-related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by South Coast Air Quality Management District of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. b. The construction schedule has been pushed back since air pollutant emissions modeling on CalEEMod was conducted. While emissions for each year may be different from the original results, which would also result in slightly different numbers for construction health risk, the total average daily emissions would still be the same for the proposed project. In other words, while total emissions over the life of the construction period would be the same, the amount generated in a given year may differ. However, because the duration and type of construction remains the same, differences in air pollutant numbers due to a change in when the construction year starts would be negligible. c. Includes implementation of BMPs for fugitive dust control required by BAAQMD as mitigation, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, and street sweeping. d. Average daily emissions are based on the total construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days. The total number of construction days is estimated to be about 263.

Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2.25 As shown above in Table 3-6, criteria air pollutant emissions from construction equipment exhaust would not exceed the BAAQMD average daily thresholds and impacts from project-related construction activities to the regional air quality would be less than significant. 280
CC 01-18-2022
280 of 365
Operational Impacts
Typical long-term air pollutant emissions are generated by area sources (e.g., landscape fuel use, aerosols, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement), energy use (natural gas), and mobile sources (i.e., on-road vehicles). The proposed project would result in new public storage buildings and new paved and landscaped surfaces. The proposed project would generate a net total of 79 average daily trips from the existing land uses at the project site. Because transportation emissions would generate the majority of criteria air pollutants associated with the proposed project, the net increase in daily trips would not substantially increase criteria air pollutant emissions in the city. Furthermore, the new buildings would be more energy efficient than the existing structures and would be built to achieve the latest Title 24 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD daily pounds per day or annual tons per year project level threshold and would not cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Because criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project are anticipated to decrease, resulting in a project benefit to air quality, no impact would occur.

3.4.3.3 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Development of the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations. Unlike the construction emissions shown above in Table 3-6, described in pounds per day (PPD), localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (parts per millions [ppm] or micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3
]) and can be correlated to potential health effects.

Construction Off-Site Community Risk and Hazards
The proposed project would elevate concentrations of TACs and PM2.5 in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during construction activities. The BAAQMD has developed Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction to evaluate construction-related health risks associated with residential, commercial, and industrial projects. According to the screening tables, the surrounding residences are closer than the distance of 100 meters (328 feet) that would screen out potential health risks and, therefore, could be potentially impacted from the proposed construction activities. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single-family residences located approximately 130 feet from the site construction area to the east along Nathanson Avenue and to the south along Meteor Drive and Mary Avenue. Consequently, a site-specific construction health risk assessment (HRA) of TACs and PM2.5 was prepared (Attachment A).

A quantified analysis of the proposed project construction emissions was conducted using the CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2.25. Construction emissions were based on 263 working days of the total 12-month construction duration. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) AERMOD, Version 9.9, dispersion modeling program was used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risk, chronic non-cancer hazard index for non-carcinogenic risk, and the PM2.5 maximum annual concentrations at the nearest sensitive receptors. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3-7. 281
CC 01-18-2022
281 of 365
TABLE 3-7 CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)

Maximum Exposed Receptor – Off-site Resident 3.8 0.014 0.04 BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.30
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
Note: micrograms per cubic meter = µg/m3; PM2.5 – fine particulatematter; Cancer risk calculated using 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Health Risk Assessment Guidance Manual.

Source: Lakes AERMOD View, 9.5 (2017).

Cancer risk for the maximum exposed receptor (MER) from project-related construction emissions was calculated to be 3.8 in a million, which is below the 10 in a million-significance threshold. In accordance with the latest 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance, the calculated total cancer risk conservatively assumes that the risk for the MER consists of a pregnant woman in the third trimester that subsequently gives birth to an infant during the approximately 12-month construction period; therefore, all calculated risk values were multiplied by a factor of 10. In addition, it was conservatively assumed that the residents were outdoors 8 hours a day, 260 construction days per year and exposed to all of the daily construction emissions. For non-carcinogenic effects, the chronic hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint totaled less than one for all the off-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, chronic non-carcinogenic hazards are within acceptable limits. Additionally, the highest annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.04 μg/m3 would not exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 μg/m3 . Therefore, the project
would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation Phase Community Risk and Hazards
Types of land uses that typically generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants include industrial (stationary sources), manufacturing, and warehousing (truck idling) land uses. These types of major air pollutant emissions sources are not included as part of the proposed storage unit project. The proposed project would not include stationary sources that emit toxic air contaminants and would not generate a significant amount of heavy-duty truck trips (a source of diesel particulate matter [DPM]). Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during operation, and impacts would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hotspot Analysis
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of carbon monoxide (CO) called hotspots.

These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm.
282
CC 01-18-2022
282 of 365
Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—in order to generate a significant CO impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a net increase of peak hour trips by 3 AM (morning) and 9 PM (evening) trips.52 Thus, the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited.53 The proposed project would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the project vicinity. As a result, the proposed project would not increase CO concentrations at intersections. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would be a project benefit; and therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

3.4.3.4 ODORS
During project construction, some odors may be created due to diesel exhaust. However, these odors would be temporary and limited to the construction period. The proposed project would not include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors and once operational, the project would not be a source of odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

3.4.3.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
A project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change; therefore, this section measures the proposed project contribution to the cumulative environmental impact associated with GHG emissions. Development of the proposed project would contribute to climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from the construction activities needed to implement the project, which would generate a short-term increase in GHG emissions.

Construction Impacts
BAAQMD does not have thresholds of significance for construction related GHG emissions, which are onetime, short-term emissions and therefore would not significantly contribute to the long-term cumulative GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project. Implementation of the BAAQMD Basic Construction best management practices (refer to Section 3.4.3.2) would reduce GHG emissions by reducing the amount of construction vehicle idling and by requiring the use of properly maintained equipment. Therefore, project construction impacts associated with GHG emissions would be reduced to the extent feasible and as required by the BAAQMD.
52 Hexagon, 2021. Transportation Analysis for the Proposed Self-Storage Facility at 10655 Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California.

September 3. 53 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011 Revised. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
283
CC 01-18-2022
283 of 365
Operational Impacts
The proposed project would generate a net increase in 162 daily weekday trips than the existing on-site land uses (see Table 3-4 in Section 3.4.2, Noise). Because transportation emissions would generate the majority of GHG emissions associated with the proposed project, this net increase in daily trips would not substantially increase GHG emissions in the city. Additionally, the new buildings would be more energy efficient than the existing structures and would be built to achieve the latest Title 24 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The net increase in GHG emissions from the operation of the project would be 496 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year. See Attachment B of this document.

BAAQMD has a tiered approach for assessing GHG emissions impacts of a project. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, if a project is consistent with an adopted qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy that meets certain specified standards, it may be presumed that the project will not have significant cumulative greenhouse gas emission impacts. This approach is consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5(b), which states that “[p]ursuant to Sections 15064(h)(3) and 15130(d), a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with a previously adopted plan or mitigation program [for reduction of greenhouse gases],” and will be used in this analysis. BAAQMD also has adopted screening criteria and significance criteria for development projects that would be applicable for the proposed project. If a project exceeds the BAAQMD Guidelines’ GHG screening-level sizes, the proposed project would be required to conduct a GHG emissions analysis using the BAAQMD significance criteria of 660 MTCO2e per year.54 Cupertino Climate Action Plan
The Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a strategic planning document that identifies sources of GHG emissions within the City’s boundaries, presents current and future emissions estimates, identifies a GHG reduction target for future years, and presents strategic goals, measures, and actions to reduce emissions from the energy, transportation and land use, water, solid waste, and green infrastructure sectors.

The emissions reduction strategies developed by the City followed the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (2011) and the corresponding criteria for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program as defined by the BAAQMD, which in turn were developed to comply with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and achieve the goals of California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) 2008 Scoping Plan. Since the adoption of the CAP in January of 2015 as a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 32 (September 2016) and CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (December 2017), aimed at meeting SB 32’s GHG reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

A qualified GHG reduction strategy adopted by a local jurisdiction should include the following elements, described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. BAAQMD’s revised CEQA Guidelines provides the 54 This threshold has been reduced by 40 percent (1,100 MTCO2e per year minus 440 MTCO2e per year equals 660 MTCO2e per year) to meet the Senate Bill 32’s GHG reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. 284
CC 01-18-2022
284 of 365
methodology to determine if a GHG reduction strategy meets these requirements. The following includes a description of the BAAQMD methodology and how the Cupertino CAP meets the requirement.

1. Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area.
 Cupertino’s CAP identifies a baseline GHG emissions inventory for year 2010 and business-asusual forecasts for 2020, 2035, and 2050 for land uses within the City.

2. Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.  Cupertino’s CAP has established a goal (or level) of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2035. The 2020 GHG reduction goal is in line with AB 32. However, the 2030 goal was adopted prior to SB 32.

3. Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area.
 The GHG emissions sources calculated in the baseline GHG emissions inventory include commercial, residential, and industrial electricity and natural gas use, on-road transportation, solid waste disposal, energy use related to water and wastewater, agricultural off-road equipment and emissions associated with fertilizer application, and off-road equipment use for construction and lawn and garden activities. GHG emissions from these activities were calculated from activity data such as kilowatt hours of electricity, therms of natural gas, tons of waste disposed, and VMT from trips with an origin or destination in Cupertino.

4. Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level.
 The Cupertino CAP has identified groups of measures and performance standards aimed at achieving these targets: Reduce Energy Use/Improve Facilities; Encourage Alternative Transportation/Convert Vehicle Fleet; Conserve Potable Water; Reduce Solid Waste; and Expand Green Infrastructure. The Cupertino CAP strategies achieve the near-term (i.e., 2020) GHG reduction target. Strategies for the post-2020 targets were not quantified.

5. Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the target GHG emissions level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels.  The City has a sustainability division that implements and tracks the City’s GHG reduction strategies and progress toward GHG reduction targets. The City’s sustainability division prepares annual reports on CAP implementation and progress as part of the monitoring program, including projects and policies, data and metrics, as well as inventory updates to determine if the CAP is achieving its targeted goals.
285
CC 01-18-2022
285 of 365

6. Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.  The City’s 2015 addendum to General Plan EIR55 demonstrated that that adoption of the Cupertino CAP would not create any new or substantially more severe significant effects on the environment that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR certified in 2014.56 Based on the analysis above, the City’s CAP is a qualified GHG reduction plan for the AB 32 targets, but not the SB 32 targets.

In addition, a specific project proposal is considered consistent with the Cupertino CAP if it does not conflict with the required GHG reduction measures contained in the adopted CAP. Project consistency with the adopted GHG reduction measures are shown in Table 3-8:

TABLE 3-8 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY MATRIX Measure Consistency
Measure C‐E‐1 Energy Use Data and Analysis
Increase resident and building owner/tenant/operator knowledge about how, when, and where building energy is used.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 850 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

This measure is not relevant because the proposed project receives energy through Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) and therefore utilizes renewable energy for the building. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure C‐E‐2 Retrofit Financing
Promote existing and support development of new private financing options for home and commercial building retrofits and renewable energy development.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 10,525 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The project proposes new residential buildings that would comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, at minimum. The proposed project would not
conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure C‐E‐3 Home & Commercial Building Retrofit Outreach Develop aggressive outreach program to drive voluntary
participation in energy‐ and water‐efficiency retrofits.

Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The proposed project includes the construction of new
buildings and therefore these measures would not apply as a retrofit. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the latest building code and utilize energy and water efficient fixtures. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.

Measure C‐E‐4 Energy Assurance Plan
Develop a long‐term community‐wide energy conservation plan that considers future opportunities to influence building energy efficiency through additional or enhanced building regulations.

Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The proposed project includes buildings that would comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen, at minimum.
55 City of Cupertino, approved General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR Final Addendum, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. October 2015. 56 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 2014.
286
CC 01-18-2022
286 of 365
TABLE 3-8 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY MATRIX Measure Consistency
Measure C‐E‐5 Community‐Wide Solar Photovoltaic
Development
Encourage voluntary community‐wide solar photovoltaic
development through regulatory barrier reduction and public outreach campaigns.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 4,400 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure C‐E‐6 Community‐Wide Solar Hot Water Development Encourage communitywide solar hot water development through regulatory barrier reduction and public outreach campaigns. 2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 925 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure C‐E‐7 Community Choice Energy Option
Partner with other Santa Clara County jurisdictions to evaluate the development of a regional CCE option, including identification of the geographic scope, potential costs to participating jurisdictions and residents, and potential liabilities.

2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 56,875 MT
CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The City of Cupertino is a member of Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) which partners with PG&E to provide clean electricity.

The proposed project would receive energy from SVCE. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure C-T-1 Bicycle & Pedestrian Environment Enhancements Continue to encourage multi-modal transportation, including walking and biking, through safety and comfort enhancements in the bicycle and pedestrian environment.

Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The proposed project would not remove existing bicycle
facilities, nor would it conflict with the City’s 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Pedestrians would also have access to the site via the existing crosswalks on Mary Avenue and Meteor Drive. Therefore, the proposed project would promote these alternative modes of transportation.

Measure C‐T‐2 Bikeshare Program
Explore feasibility of developing local bikeshare program.

Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. A Class II bike lane currently exist on Mary Avenue. Bicyclists would access the project site from the existing Class II bike lane via the internal roadway network.

Measure C‐T‐3 Transportation Demand Management
Provide informational resources to local businesses subject to SB 1339 transportation demand management program
requirements and encourage additional voluntary participation in the program.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 2,375 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The proposed project is an infill project with access provided by roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks and is served by VTA bus route

51. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.
287
CC 01-18-2022
287 of 365
TABLE 3-8 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY MATRIX Measure Consistency
Measure C‐T‐5 Transit Priority
Improve transit service reliability and speed.

Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The proposed project is an infill project served by VTA bus route 51. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.

Measure C‐T‐6 Transit‐Oriented Development
Continue to encourage development that takes advantage of its location near local transit options (e.g., major bus stops) through higher densities and intensities to increase ridership potential.

Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The proposed project is an infill project served by VTA bus route 51. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.

Measure C-W-1 SB-X7-7

Implement water conservation policies contained within
Cupertino’s Urban Water Management Plan to achieve 20
percent per capita water reductions by 2020.

Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The proposed project would comply with SB X7-7, which
requires California to achieve a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 and would implement best
management practices for water conservation to achieve the City’s water conservation goals. The project incorporates water conservation features for on-site irrigation. All landscape zones would be irrigated as required by the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance, and water uses would be tailored to meet CALGreen Building Standards, which requires water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.

Measure C‐W‐2 Recycled Water Irrigation Program
Explore opportunities to use recycled water for irrigation purposes to reduce potable water demands.

Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

City must build the infrastructure to provide recycled water for projects to use. The project incorporates water conservation features for on-site irrigation. All landscape zones would be irrigated as required by the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance, and water uses would be tailored to meet CALGreen Building Standards, which requires water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure C‐SW‐1 Zero Waste Goal
Maximize solid waste diversion communitywide through
preparation of a zero‐waste strategic plan.

Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

Pursuant to CMC Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, during construction, the project would reduce construction waste and divert materials from landfill and promote recycling of construction waste. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure C‐SW‐2 Food Scrap and Compostable Paper Diversion Continue to promote the collection of food scraps and
compostable paper through the City’s organics collection program.

Consistent. The City is the responsible party for implementing this measure. The proposed project would include compost and yard waste disposal services through the City’s contracts with Recology South Bay. The materials would be collected by the 288
CC 01-18-2022
288 of 365
TABLE 3-8 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY MATRIX Measure Consistency
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 750 MT CO2e/yr
City garbage waste hauler. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure C‐SW‐3 Construction & Demolition Waste Diversion Program
Continue to enforce diversion requirements in City’s Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion and Green Building Ordinances. 2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 550 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The proposed project would comply with the City’s
Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance (CMC Chapter 16.72), which requires applicable construction projects to divert 65 percent of construction waste. Pursuant to CMC Section 16.72.050, Information Required Before Issuance of Permit, the project would create a construction waste
management plan to reduce construction waste and divert materials from landfill and promote recycling of construction waste. Prior to receiving a final building inspection, a construction recycling report would be submitted to show the tons recycled and disposed by material type. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this
measure.

Measure C‐G‐1 Urban Forest Program
Support development and maintenance of a healthy, vibrant urban forest through outreach, incentives, and strategic leadership.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 725 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.

The project would provide 25,272 square feet of landscaped area and would replace each tree proposed for removal.

Landscaping improvements would be located on all sides of the project site with the majority of the landscaping being located on the eastern perimeter of the project site adjacent to the existing public path and would consist of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. The new landscaping reduces stormwater run-off, increases carbon sequestration plantings, and reduces the heat sink profile of the site. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Source: City of Cupertino, PlaceWorks, 2021.

Development in Cupertino, including the proposed project, is required to adhere to City-adopted policy provisions, including those contained in the adopted CAP. The City ensures that the provisions of the Cupertino CAP are incorporated into projects and their permits through development review and applications of conditions of approval as applicable. Additionally, as previously stated, the proposed selfstorage project would replace the older structures with newer, more energy efficient structures that achieve the 2019 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and water efficiency standards and the net increase in GHG emissions from the operation of the project would be 496 MTCO2e, which is less than the BAAQMD de minimis bright-line screening threshold57 of 660 MTCO2e/year (see Attachment B of this document).

Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
57 A bright-line rule (or bright-line test) is a clearly defined rule or standard in the United States, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. The purpose of a bright-line rule is to produce predictable and consistent results in its application.
289
CC 01-18-2022
289 of 365
CARB’s Scoping Plan
CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) outlines the State’s strategies to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with the targets established under AB 32 and SB 32. The Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool that is used to develop performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the Scoping Plan include: implementing SB 350, which expands the Renewable Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030 and doubles energy efficiency savings; expanding the Low Carbon Fuel Standards to 18 percent by 2030; implementing the Mobile Source Strategy to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks; implementing the Sustainable Freight Action Plan; implementing the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which reduces methane and hydrofluorocarbons to 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 and black carbon emissions to 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; continuing to implement SB 375; creating a post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program; and developing an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the low carbon fuel standards, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the California Fuel Efficiency standards, and other early action measures as necessary to ensure the State is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32 and SB 32. In addition, new buildings are required to comply with the current Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. The proposed project would comply with these GHG emissions reduction measures since they are statewide strategies. The proposed project GHG emissions would be reduced through compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area is the Bay Area’s RTP/ SCS that identifies the sustainable vision for the Bay Area. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth to outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve VMT reductions. The proposed project is an infill development project that would result in an increase in land use intensity in a portion of the City that has access to existing infrastructure and services. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Plan Bay Area.
290
CC 01-18-2022
290 of 365

3.4.4 Water Quality

3.4.4.1 CONSTRUCTION RELATED WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
The City, as a participant in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPP), which is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, is committed to reducing the amount of pollutants entering waterways. Below is a discussion of the proposed project’s compliance with water quality standards.

The proposed project would include the demolition of existing self-storage buildings and the construction of three new self-storage buildings on a 3-acre area of the site (see Figure 2-3). Runoff water quality is regulated by the NPDES Program. Locally, the NPDES Program is administered by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board). The proposed project would be required to comply with the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activity (Construction General Permit), because it would result in a disturbance of 1 acre or more, and the Regional Water Board Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), because it would create and/or replace more than 10,000 square feet of existing impervious surfaces.

In compliance with the Construction General Permit, the project applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as a standard condition of project approval.

Preparation and implementation of the SWPPP, would ensure that potential adverse impacts to surface water quality throughout the construction period would be less than significant.

When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), the developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Board, which encompasses preparation of a SWPPP, use of construction best management practices to control storm water runoff quality, and best management practices inspection and maintenance.

3.4.4.2 OPERATION PERIOD WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
The proposed project would include the demolition of existing self-storage buildings and construction of three new self-storage buildings on a 3-acre area of the site. The proposed project would result in a decrease in impervious surface area by adding landscaping on the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would include point source control measures, as identified in Section 2.5.4.3, Stormwater Management, of the Project Description.

As stated above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the MRP. In compliance with the MRP, the project applicant would be required to prepare a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP), which would act as the overall program document designed to provide measures to mitigate potential water quality impacts associated with operation of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would continue to 291
CC 01-18-2022
291 of 365
minimize pollutant runoff from the project site, and water quality impacts during operation would not be significant.

3.4.4.3 GROUNDWATER
The proposed project would connect to the existing water lines on- site and would not use groundwater at the site. Additionally, the proposed project would include 24,494 square feet of pervious landscaped area and a 5,376 cubic-foot below-ground infiltration basin, which would allow water to percolate into the groundwater basin below the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

3.4.4.4 STORMWATER COLLECTION
The proposed project would not increase the impervious surface area of the project site and therefore would not result in an increase in runoff that would exceed existing stormwater facilities or cause flooding of receiving waters. Additionally, the proposed project would implement site design and source control measures, such as directing stormwater flows to landscaped areas on site, to reduce stormwater runoff.

3.4.4.5 FLOODING
The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone or special flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Additionally, the project site is also not located in an area subject to tsunami, seiche, or dam failure inundation.

3.5 SECTION 15332(E): UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES
For the reasons stated below, the project site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services and therefore meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(e).

The project site is located in an urban area already served by all necessary municipal utilities (i.e., stormwater, water, wastewater, solid waste) and public services (i.e., police and fire).

3.5.1 Stormwater
Stormwater runoff from the project site is channeled into storm drains onsite and conveyed northeast to a 12-inch outfall into the Junipero Serra Channel, a concrete-lined ditch owned and maintained by Valley Water, which discharge into Calabazas Creek, and ultimately into San Francisco Bay. As stated above, the City participates in the SCVURPP, which implements the NPDES program throughout the county.

Overall stormwater runoff volume from the project site would decrease because the existing site is comprised almost entirely of impervious surfaces. The proposed project would include a 2,575-square-foot bioretention area and one 5,376-cubic-foot infiltration basin to hold and treat stormwater runoff before it 292
CC 01-18-2022
292 of 365
enters the channel thereby reducing demand on the storm drain system. Therefore, there would be no significant increase in contributions to the municipal stormwater system once the proposed project is in operation.

3.5.2 Water
The project site is located within the Cupertino Water Service (CWS), which is leased to San José Water (SJW) until 2022. SJW would supply water to the project site. Water supply for the SJW is a combination of groundwater from wells in the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin, treated water purchased from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and local mountain surface water from the Santa Cruz Mountains. Water service to the project site would be provided by the existing water line on the southern border of the project site via a 6-inch connection for fire water, and 4-inch connections for domestic and irrigation water.58 No new connections would be needed and are not proposed as part of the proposed project.

As shown in the General Plan EIR in Chapter 4.14, the water supply at project buildout year 2022 would be 13,078 acre-feet59 per year (afy) and at General Plan buildout year 2040 would be 16,984 afy. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan would not result in insufficient water supplies from SJW under normal year conditions or during single-dry year and multiple-dry years, with the proposed and existing water conservation regulations and measures in place. As shown in Table 2-1 in Section 2.4, General Plan EIR, the proposed project is within the buildout projections of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, there would be no impact with respect to water supply.

3.5.3 Wastewater
The Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) sewer collection system directs wastewater to the San José-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plan (SJ/SCWPCP), which is jointly owned by the cities of San José and Santa Clara.

Municipal storm water discharges in the City of Cupertino are subject to the Waste Discharge Requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP; Order Number R2-2015-0049) and NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, which became effective on January 1, 2016. The MRP currently allows average dry weather flow (ADFW) of up to 167 million gallons per day (mgd) with full tertiary treatment, and wet weather discharges of up to 271 mgd with full tertiary treatment. As discussed below, future demands from the proposed project would not exceed the design or permitted capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP that serves the project site. Future water treatment demand was assessed in consultation with the City of Cupertino and includes consideration of development in the city through the 2040 buildout horizon of the General Plan.

Therefore, development of the proposed project would not require any improvements not already considered and the impact of the proposed project on SJ/SCWPCP would be less than significant. 58 Project Site Plans, 2019, Sheet C.2, October 18.
59 One acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, or enough water to cover an acre of land, about the size of a football field, one foot deep.
293
CC 01-18-2022
293 of 365
Based on the CSD’s Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara dated December 6, 2019, the estimated ADWF generation rate for retail is 0.73 gpd per square foot. Applying this generation rate, the net new 104,392 square feet of additional storage facility from the proposed project would generate up to 7,206 gpd or approximately 0.076 mgd of wastewater.60 The SJ/SCWPCP’s projected peak wet weather capacity stated in The San Jose Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan, November 2013, is 450 mgd. Combined, the proposed project’s wastewater generation (0.076 mgd) and the existing wastewater generated in the SJ/SCWPCP’s service area (110 mgd) would not exceed the SJ/SCWPCP’s current total peak wet weather capacity of 450 mgd. The (Average Dry Weather Flow) ADWF capacity is 167 mgd pursuant to the most recent NPDES permit for the SJ/SCWPCP.

Combined, the proposed project’s wastewater generation (0.076 mgd) and the existing wastewater generated (110 mgd) would not exceed the SJ/SCWCP’s current ADWF capacity limits.

The CSD has a contractual maximum treatment allocation of 7.85 mgd, on average, with the SJ/SCWPCP. At the time of the General Plan EIR, the wastewater generation of 5.3 mgd was estimated by the CSD.61 Combined, the existing wastewater flow (5.3 mgd) plus the proposed project (0.076 mgd) would not exceed the City’s contractual allocation limits (7.85 mgd). Furthermore, the proposed project is within the buildout evaluated in the General Plan EIR; therefore, no new impact would result.

The CSD wastewater system flows through a portion of the City of Santa Clara’s sewer system. The contractual agreement between CSD and the City of Santa Clara, for this portion of the Santa Clara sewer system, allows the City 13.8 mgd of capacity in the sewer system during peak wet weather flows. The existing CSD peak wet weather flow into the Santa Clara system is 13.14 mgd.62 However, the estimated wastewater generation from the proposed project and from other potential projects in Cupertino, as established by the General Plan and other approved projects, is approximately 14.61 mgd, which is the total capacity needed to serve the General Plan buildout.63 Therefore, the proposed project, and other approved and potential projects as established by the General Plan buildout, will require a reduction in sewer generation from the CSD system prior to flowing into the City of Santa Clara system, or additional capacity rights will need to be acquired from the City of Santa Clara.

Until such corrections to the system can occur, the operation of future projects in Cupertino, including the proposed project, would exceed the 13.8 mgd contractual limit through the City of Santa Clara sewer 60 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc., December 6, 2019, Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara. 61 City of Cupertino, General Plan (Community Vision 2015–2040), Appendix B: Housing Element Technical Report, 4.3 Environmental, Infrastructure & Public Service Constraints, page B-93. 62 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc, December 6, 2019, Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara.
63 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc, December 6, 2019, Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara.
294
CC 01-18-2022
294 of 365
system. Implementation of the following condition of approval is required for all future projects in Cupertino.

No building permits shall be issued by the City for the proposed Loc-N-Stor Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino and Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD), that the proposed project would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system by implementing one or more of the following methods:

1. Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet weather flows; or

2. Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or reduce water consumption of the fixtures used within the proposed project, or other methods that are measurable and reduce sewer generation rates to acceptable levels, to the satisfaction of the CSD.

3. The proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be calculated using the generation rates used by the CSD in the Flow Modeling Analysis for the Homestead Flume Outfall to the City of Santa Clara, prepared by Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. dated December 6, 2019, unless alternative (i.e., lower) generation rates achieved by the proposed project are substantiated by the project applicant based on evidence to the satisfaction of the CSD. To calculate the peak wet weather flow for a 10-year storm event, the average daily flow rate shall be multiplied by a factor of 2.95 as required by CSD pursuant to their December 2019 flow modeling analysis.

Alternatively, if the prior agreement between CSD and the City of Santa Clara that currently limits the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system were to be updated to increase the permitted peak wet weather flow, this would also render any impacts to be less than significant. If this were to occur prior to the City’s approval of building permits, this condition of approval would no longer be required to be implemented.

3.5.4 Solid Waste
The City contracts with Recology to provide solid waste collection services to residents and businesses in the city. The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (NISL) until 2023 but has not secured a new landfill contract for landfill disposal after that date. However, according to the Integrated Waste Management Plan, the landfills in the County (including NISL where the City’s collected solid waste is currently being landfilled) have adequate disposal capacity beyond 2026.64 The City, therefore, has options for landfill service once the City’s existing contract with NISL ends in 2023. In addition to the Newby Island Landfill, solid waste generated in Cupertino can also be disposed of at the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery facility, the Corinda Los Trancos Landfill, Forward Landfill Inc., Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill, Kirby 64 Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Plan, County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency, 1996. 295
CC 01-18-2022
295 of 365
Canyon Recycling and Disposal Facility, the Monterey Peninsula Landfill, Recology Hay Road, the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill, the Zanker Material Processing Facility, and the Zanker Road Class III Landfill.

3.5.5 Public Services Providers
The primary purpose of the public services impact analysis is to examine the impacts associated with physical improvements to public service facilities required to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. Public service facilities need improvements (i.e., construction, renovation, or expansion) as demand for services increase. Increased demand is typically driven by increases in population. The proposed project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed the ability of public service providers to adequately serve residents, thereby requiring construction of new facilities or modification of existing facilities.

The proposed project would not directly result in any additional new population growth or employment growth and impacts to public services providers as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the property tax generated from the proposed storage facility would support the City’s public services funds that are used in part to maintain some City services. Likewise, and pursuant to SB 50,65 the project applicant would be required the school impact fees required for commercial development that would deem any impacts to the Cupertino Union School District less than significant.
65 Senate Bill 50 amended California Government Code Section 65995, which contains limitations on Education Code section 17620, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries. 296
CC 01-18-2022
296 of 365
This page intentionally left blank.
297
CC 01-18-2022
297 of 365

4. Exceptions
In addition to analyzing the applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32), this document assesses whether any of the exceptions to categorical exemptions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Exceptions) apply to the proposed project. The following analysis compares the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Exceptions) to the project, and concludes, based on substantial evidence, that none of the exceptions are applicable to the project, and that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300 and 15332.

4.1 SECTION 15300.2(A): LOCATION
Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

The proposed project does not qualify for an exemption under Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, or 11. The project site is located within an urban developed area and is not located within a sensitive environment. In addition, the proposed project would not result in any impacts on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(a) does not apply to the proposed project.

4.2 SECTION 15300.2(B): CUMULATIVE IMPACT
All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

The effects of the proposed project would generally be beneficial, as the proposed project would provide greater self-storage space within the City and would replace an existing self-storage facility with a more modern facility. The proposed project would result in an increased density of self-storage activities in an urban neighborhood that is already served by utilities and public services, as well as transportation. Any 298
CC 01-18-2022
298 of 365
construction effects would be temporary, confined to the project vicinity, and reduced to the extent feasible by implementing specific General Plan policies and applicable regulatory requirements. No successive project of the same type in the same place are known or expected to occur over time that would result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Additionally, as stated in Section 3.4.3.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable CAP and would not result in cumulative impacts related to GHGs. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(b) does not apply to the proposed project.

4.3 SECTION 15300.2(C): SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

There are no known unusual circumstances that are applicable to the project and which may result in a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing selfstorage buildings on the project site and the construction of three new self-storage buildings. The proposed project would not result in a change in the existing use or introduce a new activity to the area that could result in a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15003.2(b) does not apply to the proposed project.

4.4 SECTION 15300.2(D): SCENIC HIGHWAYS
A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

The proposed project would not affect a resource within a State Scenic Highway. The nearest scenic Highway, State Route 9, is located approximately 5 miles south of the project site. Therefore, no scenic resources within view of a State Scenic Highway would be altered as part of the project.

As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, the segment of I-280 in Cupertino is not an officially designated State Scenic Highway but is considered eligible for listing as a designated State Scenic Highway. The project site is adjacent to I-280 and is visible from I-280. Impacts to views of scenic resources from the I-280 view corridor were determined to be less than significant in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project building heights are consistent with what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR, consistent with the surrounding development, and existing conditions currently limit views of scenic resources, including those from the I-280 viewshed. Therefore, proposed project impacts would remain consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant. 299
CC 01-18-2022
299 of 365

4.5 SECTION 15300.2(E): HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to compile, maintain, and update specified lists of hazardous material release sites. CEQA66 requires the lead agency to consult the lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 to determine whether a project and any alternatives are identified. The required lists of hazardous material release sites are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List” named after the legislator who authored the legislation.

Because the statute was enacted more than 20 years ago, some of the provisions refer to agency activities that were conducted many years ago and are no longer being implemented and, in some cases the information required in the Cortese List does not exist. Those requesting a copy of the Cortese Lists are now referred directly to the appropriate information resources contained on internet websites hosted by the boards or departments referenced in the statute, including California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s (DTSC’s) online EnviroStor database and the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) online GeoTracker database. These two databases include hazardous material release sites, along with other categories of sites or facilities specific to each agency’s jurisdiction. As described in Section 2.2.2, Existing Conditions, a search of these online databases found the project site is not on any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code or any other list compiled for purposes related to identifying the prior release of hazardous materials. The project site is currently used as a self-storage site. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(e) does not apply to the proposed project.

4.6 SECTION 15300.2(F): HISTORICAL RESOURCES
A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

No historic resources exist in the vicinity of the project site. There is also no known sensitivity for archaeological or paleontological resources on the site. However, the site may contain previously unknown subsurface archaeological deposits. The proposed project would comply with Land Use and Community Design Element Policy 2-72 in the General Plan which would require compliance with City, State, and federal historic preservation laws, regulations, and Codes, including laws related to archaeological resources. In particular, the proposed project would be required to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), which specifies procedures to be used in the event of a discovery of Native American human remains on non-federal land. Adherence to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) would ensure that impacts to cultural resources would not occur.
66 California Public Resources Code Section 21092.6.
300
CC 01-18-2022
300 of 365

4.7 CONCLUSION
As discussed in Chapter 3, Exemptions, of this document, the proposed project meets the criteria for categorically exempt in-fill development projects in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 and because, as discussed above, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, and it would not have a significant effect on the environment, this analysis finds that a Notice of Exemption may be prepared for the project.
301
CC 01-18-2022
301 of 365

5. List of Preparers
City of Cupertino
Erick Serrano, Senior Planner
Chad Mosley, Assistant Director of Public Works
David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Chris Corrao, Senior Transit & Transportation Planner
Jennifer Chu, Senior Civil Engineer
PlaceWorks
Terri McCracken, Associate Principal
Jacqueline Protsman Rohr, Associate I, Project Manager
Nicole Vermillion, Principal, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Steve Bush, Senior Associate II, Engineer
Josh Carman, Senior Associate II, Noise, Vibration & Acoustics Alexis Mena, Senior Associate II
Allison Dagg, Associate I
302
CC 01-18-2022
302 of 365
This page intentionally left blank.
303
CC 01-18-2022
303 of 365

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
21-10296 Agenda Date: 1/18/2022
Agenda #: 16.

Subject: Athletic Field Use Policy Update
Receive an update on the Athletic Field Use Policy and provide direction on next steps.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1/12/2022
powered by Legistar™304
CC 01-18-2022
304 of 365

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: January 18, 2022
Subject
Athletic Field Use Policy Update
Recommended Action
Receive an update on the Athletic Use Policy and provide direction on next steps.

Background
The City Council identified a study of the current Athletic Field Use Policy as a City Work Program item in Fiscal Year 2019-2020. The objective of the study is to assess the current Athletic Field Use Policy, including a review of scheduling, the fee schedule, cost recovery, and Sunday reservation feasibility. After performing outreach to the community and receiving input from the Youth Sports Organizations (YSOs), staff presented proposed adjustments to the Parks and Recreation Commission on April 8, 2021 for review and input (Attachments A and B). Based on feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission, the policy was updated. The revision was presented to City Council on April 20, 2021 and discussion was continued on May 4, 2021. The updated Field Use Policy was approved with the following amendments (Attachments C and D):

1. Individual Sunday Field Use allowed from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

2. Add a limit of 10 Sundays for each site (by either tournaments or individual Sunday field use)

3. Staff to provide an update to Council in one year

4. Fees to be phased over two years with a 50% increase in the first year and 100% increase in the second year
In response to concerns about the amended policy from the YSO's, the Athletic Field Use Policy was agendized and revisited by City Council on September 21, 2021 (Attachment E and F).

During that meeting City Council considered adjustments to the revised Athletic Field Use Policy and directed staff to make further refinements based on Council’s comments:
 provide a 6‐month report to Council with extended usage suggestions 305
CC 01-18-2022
305 of 365
 include 4‐month input usage data
 make suggestions for simplification
 bring back a presentation to Council at the second meeting in January.

Discussion
Extended Usage Suggestions
At this time, staff does not recommend any changes to Field Use Policy as it relates to extended usage. Feedback from the YSOs has been favorable, with the exception of one group who would like the option for more Sunday games and practices. The current policy allows adequate time for the public to use the fields, including the City’s high usage fields at Creekside and Wilson Parks. This issue should wait to be reassessed until after the Spring 2022 season, allowing for a full year of data collection and feedback from the public and YSOs.
2021 Fall Season Usage Data
Field use is composed of two seasons, fall and spring. The fall season runs from July through December and the spring season runs from January through June. The newly updated Athletic Field Use Policy was implemented on July 1, 2021 for the fall season.

Staff monitored use carefully, performing spot checks on fields to ensure policy compliance. During the course of the fall season there were five reported instances of non-permitted Sunday use, all at Library Field. The incidents were documented by Code Enforcement and Staff followed up with the YSO. In addition, there were eight instances of YSO’s either starting before or staying after their permitted time, at a variety of fields.

YSO’s were notified regarding the infractions and almost all updated their permits accordingly.

Overall, site use was lower than expected, giving the public ample time to utilize the fields. Depending on the season, YSO’s only expended approximately 19% of the available field hours.

Total reservable
hours per season
Total YSO hours
reserved
Hours available for
public
Fall 2021 28,965 5567 23,398
Spring 2022 27,029 8680 projected 18,349
This trend continued for Sunday play, with only a fraction of the available time reserved by YSOs. The current version of the Field Use Policy allows for two Sunday tournaments per year, per group. A tournament is defined as at least three teams all participating in a sport or game. Additionally, organizations may request two Sunday field permits, per year, for games or practice. A game or practice is defined as a maximum of two teams 306
CC 01-18-2022
306 of 365
participating in a sport. A maximum of ten Sundays will be allowed to be permitted at any site whether it is for a game, tournament, or practice.

Sunday Requests Per Site – Fall 2021
Games Tournaments
Creekside 1
Eaton 1 1
Garden Gate 1
Kennedy 2
Library Field 2 1
Regnart 1
Stevens Creek 1
Wilson 2
TOTAL 5 8
As of now, there are no requests from YSO’s for Sunday usage during the Spring 2022 season.

Financially, FY 21-22 has been on trend with pre-pandemic numbers. Two new YSOs were added this fiscal year, increasing revenue accordingly. Projected revenue for FY 22- 23 is a best guess based on actuals from 2021. Due to the upcoming fee increase, there is a possibility that YSOs may not reserve as many hours.

Fiscal Year Season Revenue Total
FY 18-19 Fall 2018 $74,613.00 $137,423.00
Spring 2019 $62,810.00
FY 19-20 Fall 2019 $65,439.00 $65,439.00
Spring 2020 No Permits
FY 20-21 Fall 2020 $52,492.00 $92,576.00
Spring 2021 $40,084.00
FY 21-22 Fall 2021 $63,432.50 $158,392.50
Projected Spring 2022 $94,960.00
FY 22-23 Projected Fall 2022 $126,865.00 $316,785.00
Projected Spring 2023 $189,920.00
The Field Use Policy allows for play on 13 park fields and 14 school site fields. Soccer fields are the most plentiful, although the participation numbers for soccer are the highest of all offered sports.
307
CC 01-18-2022
307 of 365
Participation vs. Fields Available for Each YSO
BASEBALL – 3 BASEBALL FIELDS AVAILABLE PLUS 8 MULTIPURPOSE FIELDS CLL
2019 2020* 2021
Residents 179 43 203
Non-Residents 49 6 43
TOTAL 228 49 246
CRICKET – 1 FIELD AVAILABLE
CCA
2019 2020* 2021
Residents 56 27 67
Non-Residents 26 12 28
TOTAL 82 39 95
SOFTBALL – 2 FIELDS AVAILABLE
CGSL
2019 2020* 2021
Residents 16 4 13
Non-Residents 22 37 53
TOTAL 38 41 66
VOLLEYBALL – 1 FIELD AVAILABLE
USYVL
2019 2020* 2021
Residents 80 No Permits 21
Non-Residents 70 No Permits 37
TOTAL 146 No Permits 58
SOCCER – 12 SOCCER FIELDS AVAILABLE PLUS 8 MULTIPURPOSE FIELDS AYSO 35
2019 2020* 2021
Residents 292 No Permits 199
Non-Residents 178 No Permits 105
Total 470 No Permits 304
AYSO 64 Residents 11 15 19
Non-Residents 44 86 44
Total 55 101 63
CFC Residents 295 40 223
Non-Residents 134 9 148
Total 429 49 371
DYSL
Residents 539 110 324
Non-Residents 1099 469 738
Total 1638 579 1062
308
CC 01-18-2022
308 of 365
FRS** Residents N/A N/A 84
Non-Residents N/A N/A 157
Total N/A N/A 241
GTS Residents 32 No Permits 25
Non-Residents 7 No Permits 18
Total 39 No Permits 43
KFB** Residents N/A N/A 28
Non-Residents N/A N/A 26
Total N/A N/A 54
TOTAL 3125 858 2603
*Fields closed Spring of 2020 due to COVID-19.
**New YSOs as of Fall 2021.

Possible Simplifications
Based on feedback from the YSOs and City Council there is confusion over Sunday play.

Specifically, as it relates to the provision that any given field site cannot be used more than 10 Sundays per fiscal year. Staff suggests removing this clause from the Policy in order to simplify the terms of Sunday play. Sunday play will continue to be tracked at each site; however, if each group is only allowed two tournaments and two additional Sundays for games and practices then Staff feels confident that the fields will still be readily available for neighborhood use.

Since September 21, 2021 the City’s Athletic Field Use website has been updated to be as user friendly as possible. Usage calendars are now displayed per site, making it easier for all users to determine whether or not use is permitted. There is also a Frequently Asked Questions section with information on how to reserve, unauthorized use, the drought, and more.

Additionally, staff worked with the Public Works Department to design and place permanent signage at all City fields, including fields used through the Joint Use Agreement with Cupertino Union School District. Signs include a QR code that takes you to the Athletic Field Use webpage and information on how to report unauthorized usage.

In addition to removing the clause regarding the use of 10 Sundays, staff also recommends adopting a handful of minor changes to verbiage in the policy. These changes are meant to help simply and clarify the policy (Attachments G and H).

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impacts.
309
CC 01-18-2022
309 of 365
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impacts.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Joanne Magrini, Director of Parks and Recreation Reviewed by: Dianne Thompson, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Dianne Thompson, Assistant City Manager Attachments:

A – April 8, 2021 Staff Report - Athletic Field Use Policy B – April 8, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes C – May 4, 2021 Staff Report – Updated Athletic Field Use Policy D – May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting Minutes
E – September 21, 2021 Staff Report – Revised Athletic Field Use Policy F – September 21, 2021 City Council Meeting Minutes
G – Athletic Field Use Policy with Proposed Updates Clean H – Athletic Field Use Policy with Proposed Updates Redline 310
CC 01-18-2022
310 of 365

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: April 8, 2021
Subject
Updated Athletic Field Use Policy
Recommended Action
Recommend that Council approve the updated Athletic Field Use Policy and provide any input
Background
The current City of Cupertino Athletic Field Use Policy (Attachment E) was established to ensure that all City-managed fields are utilized for recreational, athletic, cultural, educational, social, and community service functions in a manner that preserves neighborhood quality of life and protects the park resource. The existing policy was approved in 2004. The policy requires field use permits for exclusive field use or for any repeated, organized use of athletic fields maintained by the City of Cupertino. A study of the current Athletic Field Use Policy became a City Work Program item in Fiscal Year 2019-2020 with the objective of assessing the current Athletic Field Use Policy including a review of scheduling, the fee schedule, cost recovery, and Sunday reservation feasibility. The Parks and Recreation System Master Plan adopted in February 2020 indicates the need to evaluate and implement changes to field scheduling to increase capacity and usage.

Fields at the following sites are governed by the Athletic Field Use Policy:
 Creekside Park  Hoover Park  Lincoln Elementary
 Collins Elementary  Hyde Middle School  Monta Vista Park  Eaton Elementary  Jollyman Park  Regnart Elementary  Faria Elementary  Kennedy Middle School  Stevens Creek Elementary  Garden Gate Elementary  Library Field  Wilson Park
Discussion
After reviewing field use policies in neighboring cities and conducting community outreach, the updated proposed policy includes an option to allow for additional 311
CC 01-18-2022
311 of 365
Sunday field reservations, a transition to an hourly fee structure, and provisions to allow for necessary field closures. Currently, Sunday field reservations are limited to two Sunday tournaments per year per sports group and for groups serving individuals with a disability. Additional Sunday field use may require annual field closures to rest the fields and allow for any maintenance.

Other minor changes in the policy include incorporating existing guidelines for storing equipment and goals, simplified group prioritization, insurance requirements, and the requirement for following State and Federal Guidelines regarding mandated reporting, fingerprinting, and concussion protocols. These items are already part of the current permitting process but are being included in the proposed policy for consistency (Attachment A).

Outreach
Outreach to the community included a dedicated webpage, a citywide postcard, social media posts, an online survey (February 21 – March 21), and an online community meeting on March 9. Staff also met with all youth sports organizations that currently use the fields, collecting feedback about Sunday use, annual field closures, and the change in fees.

The survey was completed by a total of 979 people, including 581 self-identified residents (59%). 397 respondents (41%) indicated that someone in their household participates in a sports group that uses Cupertino fields, including 60 self-identified residents. 415 (42%) respondents said they lived by one of the fields in the Athletic Field Use Policy, including 378 self-identified residents (Attachment B).

Survey results were analyzed in the following groupings and are shown in the following charts:
 Residents
 Respondents where someone in the household participates in a sports group that uses Cupertino fields (Sports Groups)
 Respondents that live by a field in the Athletic Field Use Policy (Lives by Fields)  All respondents (Total)
312
CC 01-18-2022
312 of 365

60.93%

1.20%

31.33%

6.54% 1.76%

0.25%

96.22%

1.76%

76.39%

0.48%

20.48%

2.65%

36.47%

0.82%

58.73%

3.98%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
No Not Sure Yes Yes if not two Sundays in
a row
Currently, youth sports groups are the primary users of Citymanaged fields and have requested additional Sunday field use for general practice and games. Would you support allowing sports groups to use fields on Sundays for these purposes? Residents Sports Groups Lives by Fields Total

62.99%

8.95%

28.06%

3.02%

15.37%

81.61%

76.39%

6.51%

17.11%

38.10%

11.13%

50.77%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
Top choice-4 Sundays Top choice-8 Sundays Top choice-all Sundays If Sunday use is expanded to allow general practice and games, please rank the following options in order of preference.

Residents Sports Groups Live by Fields Total
-Allow each sports group to use a field four (4) Sundays a year -Allow each sports group to use a field eight (8) Sundays a year -Allow sports groups to use fields on all Sundays, provided that no fields are scheduled for two Sundays in a row
313
CC 01-18-2022
313 of 365
Overall, residents and those living near the fields did not want additional Sunday field use while sports groups did. If sports groups were allowed additional Sunday field use, residents and those living near fields preferred only adding four Sundays per group per year from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Sports groups preferred adding all Sundays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Across all respondents, only one month of field closure was preferred.

23.75%

66.61%

7.75%

1.89%

81.36%

9.82%

4.03%

4.79%

16.39%

77.35%

4.82%

1.45%

48.42%

42.49%

5.82%

3.27%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
10 a.m to 5 p.m. 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Not sure If sports groups are allowed to use fields on Sundays for general practice and games, which time frame would you
prefer this use to be allowed?
Residents Sports Groups Live by Fields Total

80.72%

12.74%

6.54%

78.09%

5.29%

16.62%

86.99%

7.95% 5.06%

80.18%

9.09% 10.73%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%
100.00%
One-month Two-month Not sure
An annual field closure is being proposed to rest fields and conduct maintenance. Fields would be closed to sports groups and the public during this closure and would most likely take place during December and/or January. Which would you
prefer?
Residents Sports Groups Live by Fields Total
314
CC 01-18-2022
314 of 365
The survey also allowed respondents to provide comments. Of the 238 comments received, 17% supported Sunday field use and 17% did not. 27% of the comments indicated general support for field use but did not specify Sundays. 17% of the comments indicated that fields should only be closed due to poor conditions and weather.

Additional Sunday Field Use
A review of field use policies in neighboring cities included Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale (Attachment C). All cities reviewed allow permitted field use on all Sundays.

Cupertino’s current limitations on Sunday field use allow Sundays to be used to rest the fields and allow residents to use the fields freely. At prior City Council meetings, youth sports groups have advocated for expanding Sunday use. Expanding Sunday field use would let youth sports teams to schedule games, make-up games, and practices. It would also allow groups who do not hold tournaments to hold games on Sundays.

Based on the results of the survey, it is recommended that the City do one of the following:

1. Do not expand Sunday field use; or

2. Allow each group to reserve fields on 4 Sundays a year from 10 a.m.-2p.m.

In either option, it is recommended that sports groups continue to be allowed to host two tournaments a year, consistent with current practice.

Fee Structure
After reviewing the fee structures for Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale (Attachment D), staff found they all use an hourly fee. To better align with neighboring cities, it is recommended that Cupertino shift from the current per player fee structure to an hourly fee structure. This would improve cost recovery as well as encourage field reservations to be made more efficiently. The per player fee structure results in an estimated 7% cost recovery. Implementing an hourly fee structure will result in higher fees for sports groups. To ease in this increase, it is recommended that the fees start lower at an estimated 25% cost recovery and gradually increase annually until 40% cost recovery is achieved. However, if desired the City could implement 40% cost recovery fees as soon as next year.

All sports groups were made aware of the potential change to an hourly fee structure in February 2020. Groups generally understood the need to increase fees. Some expressed a need for sufficient time to adjust their rates to account for the increase. 315
CC 01-18-2022
315 of 365
Options for Field Use Hourly Fees
Proposed Fee categories
Average Cost
in
Neighboring
Cities
25% Cost
Recovery
(recommended)
40% Cost
Recovery
City of Cupertino at any field/CUSD programs at
JUA fields
No charge No charge No charge
Non-profit organizations serving individuals
with a disability
N/A* No charge No charge
Resident (≥ 51%), nonprofit youth organizations $30/hour/field $20/hour/field $30/hour/field Non-resident, nonprofit youth organizations $78/hour/field $30/hour/field $50/hour/field Resident adult (≥ 51%) or for-profit youth
organizations
$49/hour/field $50/hour/field $60/hour/field
Non-resident adult or for-profit youth
organizations
$85/hour/field $60/hour/field $80/hour/field
*Other cities do not have a category for organizations serving individuals with a disability. Cupertino has historically assigned special priority status to groups providing a unique recreational experience for individuals with a disability, free of charge.

Estimated Impact on Current Sports Groups
Sports Groups Fee Category
FY 18/19 Total
Fees Paid
Estimated 25% Cost
Recovery Fees
(recommended)
Estimated 40%
Cost Recovery
Fees
Resident Groups (≥ 51%)
AYSO-35 Resident NonProfit Youth $8,008.00 $22,440.00 $44,880.00 California Cricket
Academy
Resident NonProfit Youth $1,177.00 $15,520.00 $31,040.00 Cupertino Little League Resident NonProfit Youth $3,278.00 $31,820.00 $63,640.00 Cupertino Football
Club
Resident NonProfit Youth $6,501.00 $22,300.00 $44,600.00 Golden Triangle Soccer Resident NonProfit Youth $506.00 $8,800.00 $17,600.00 U.S. Youth Volleyball
League
Resident NonProfit Youth $2,794.00 $1,600.00 $2,400.00 Non-resident Groups
AYSO-64 Non-resident
Non-Profit Youth $3,520.00 $11,580.00 $19,300.00
Cupertino Girls Softball Non-resident
Non-Profit Youth $1,529.00 $22,800.00 $38,000.00
De Anza Youth Soccer Non-resident
Non-Profit Youth $110,616.00 $231,600.00 $386,000.00
Golden Triangle Soccer Resident NonProfit Youth $506.00 $8,800.00 $17,600.00 Total $137,929.00 $368,460.00 $647,460.00
316
CC 01-18-2022
316 of 365
Annual Field Closure Period
The cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale all have annual winter field closures to rest the fields and conduct maintenance. The length of the closures varies from two months to three and half months. The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara do not have regularly scheduled closures.

According to the survey, respondents preferred a shorter closure. In addition, it is unknown whether the fields will require a resting period and it would depend on how heavily they are used under the new hourly rental structure. With these considerations, it is recommended that fields be closed only on an as-needed basis, to be determined by Public Works as they maintain the fields. This will avoid any unnecessary closure of fields. Any planned field closures will be posted on the City website and sports groups will be notified.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impacts.

Fiscal Impact
In Fiscal Year 2018-2019, field revenue was $139,589. Fall 2019 revenue was $62,726 with no play allowed in the Spring of 2020 due to COVID-19. Participation was limited due to COVID-19 restrictions in Fall 2020 resulting in revenue of $46,013. It costs an estimated $1,874,539 to maintain and operate the fields annually.

Based on current group usage during a non-pandemic year, revenue with the recommended 25% cost recovery hourly fee structure is estimated to be $368,460. The 40% cost recovery hourly fee structure is estimated to result in $647,460 in revenue.

However, an hourly fee structure would allow for more efficient scheduling of the fields.

If more efficient scheduling results in additional hours reserved, it is estimated that field reservations could generate revenues up to $468,635 under the 25% cost recovery model and up to $749,816 under the 40% cost recovery model. Cost recovery models are estimated based on information available and will be revisited annually for adjustments if needed.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Karen Levy, Recreation Coordinator
Reviewed by: Jenny Koverman, Recreation Supervisor
Katy Nomura, Assistant to the City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Joanne Magrini, Director of Parks and Recreation Attachments:

A – Proposed City of Cupertino Athletic Field Use Policy B – Sunday Field Use and Annual Field Closure Survey Results C – Comparison of Other Cities
D – Fee Comparison and Cost Recovery Chart
E – Current City of Cupertino Athletic Field Use Policy 317
CC 01-18-2022
317 of 365

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Teleconference Special Meeting
Thursday, April 8, 2021
5:30 PM

MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Stanek called the special meeting to order at 5:31p.m. via remote teleconference.

ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Carol Stanek, Xiangchen Xu, Gopal Kumarappan, Neesha Tambe, Sashikala Begur
Commissioners absent: None
Staff present: Joanne Magrini, Susan Michael, Jenny Koverman, Katy Nomura, Karen Levy, Whitney Zeller

CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes for the April 1, 2021 meeting will be reviewed for approval at the May 6 meeting.

POSTPONEMENTS
None

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Written communications were received for item 2.

OLD BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

1. Subject: Proposed Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Projects.

Recommended Action: Receive and provide feedback on a presentation for the proposed fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP).

Capital Improvement Programs Manager, Susan Michael, and Recreation Coordinator, Alex Corbalis, provided a presentation on the item.
318
CC 01-18-2022
318 of 365
Commissioner Kumarappan commented that some of the project costs seemed high, specifically noting the cost of the amphitheater improvements at Memorial Park.

Commissioner Begur agreed that the costs seemed high, noting the cost of the proposed Blackberry Farm Pools project.

Vice Chair Xu commented that if there is the possibility to only remove one of the ponds at Memorial Park, that some residents would like to keep the ponds or have a water feature.

Commissioner Tambe commented on the proposed Memorial Park design project and recommended including a cultural element, such as a Zen walking path, and to have the Fine Arts Commission incorporate artwork. She added that she is excited to hear about the three proposed phases for the park.

Chair Stanek commented recommended choosing an alternative name for the proposed Pond Renovations project, as the current name suggests that the ponds will be fixed, rather than removed.

Commissioner Tambe agreed with the recommendation of Wilson Park as the site for a full-size outdoor basketball court.

2. Subject: Updated Athletic Field Use Policy.

Recommended Action: Recommend that Council approve the updated Athletic Field Use Policy and provide any input.

Recreation Coordinator Karen Levy and Recreation Supervisor, Jenny Koverman, provided a presentation on the item.

Community member Amy Jasper provided public comment and inquired about the fees and how the hours will be tracked.

Community member Michael Gong provided public comment and inquired about the cost recovery and addressing organizations of differing sizes.

Commissioner Tambe commented that decreasing the resting periods for fields made sense, that she was ok with the four Sundays for makeup plan, and that she had some hesitation on the pricing. She recommended a phased approach or providing some assistance for groups and moderating use of the cricket field, as it is the only one available.

Commissioner Tambe exited the meeting at 7:12 p.m.
319
CC 01-18-2022
319 of 365
Commissioner Kumarappan expressed concern with increased use of the fields and managing Sunday field use.

Vice Chair Xu agreed with Commissioner Kumarappan’s concerns and suggested limiting the time of the sports groups to use the fields in the late afternoon.

Chair Stanek commented that not including a formal field closure in the policy would be appreciated by sports groups and would allow staff to close the fields due to rain or as needed. She added that she understands transitioning to an hourly rate and having fees that are in line with neighboring cities, but recommended phasing into the higher fees.

Commissioner Kumarappan commented that residents want to use the fields and lower fees would encourage more organizations to utilize Cupertino fields. He noted the goal is to provide the fields to Cupertino residents, not cost recovery. He noted concern with changing from 2 to 4 days of Sunday use, as well as the lower fees increasing demand of field use by outside sports groups.

Commissioner Kumarappan motioned to recommend for Sunday field use, Option 2, amended to allow each group to reserve fields on two Sundays a year from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Commissioner Begur seconded the motion. Motion carried with four votes yes and Commissioner Tambe absent.

The Commission recommended reformatting the fee options with a focus on the hourly rate instead of cost recovery and rename them Options A and B.

Commissioner Kumarappan motioned to recommend transitioning from a user-based fee structure to an hourly rate fee structure, with Option A ($20/hour/field for resident nonprofit youth organizations and $30/hour/field for non-resident, nonprofit youth organizations). Commissioner Begur seconded the motion.

Chair Stanek made a friendly amendment to include a phased approach.

Vice Chair Xu noted that more than one year will be needed to phase in the increased fees.

Commissioner Kumarappan recommended to separate the fee structure and the fee amount into two separate motions and amended his original motion to remove the recommendation of Option A. Vice Chair Xu seconded the amended motion to recommend to transition from a user-based fee structure to an hourly rate fee structure.

Motion carried with four votes yes and Commissioner Tambe absent. 320
CC 01-18-2022
320 of 365
Commissioner Kumarappan motioned to recommend a starting hourly rate of $10/hour/field for residents and use a phased approach, as determined by staff and their experience in the first year, to reach a fee of $20/hour/field, and to set the fee for nonresident, nonprofit youth organizations at $30/hour/field. Commissioner Begur seconded the motion. Motion carried with four votes yes and Commissioner Tambe absent.

Commissioner Kumarappan motioned to recommend the option to close the fields as needed for rest and maintenance. Commissioner Begur seconded the motion. Motion carried with four votes yes and Commissioner Tambe absent.

Commissioner Kumarappan motioned to recommend that City Council approve the updated Athletic Field Use Policy. Vice Chair Xu seconded the motion. Motion carried with four votes yes and Commissioner Tambe absent.

STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS

3. Subject: Monthly Update Reports.

Recommended Action: Receive monthly update reports from the Director of Parks and Recreation and Commissioners.

Parks and Recreation Director, Joanne Magrini, provided the Director’s update.

Chair Stanek noted the completion of the mural at Blackberry Farm. She shared that she took the Cupertino pledge and thanked staff for putting the program together.

Commissioner Xu commented that the second mailer was sent out from the Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District.

Director Magrini noted that an update on Rancho Rinconada will be on the agenda for the May meeting to provide an update on community outreach.

COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE AT UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS

FUTURE AGENDA SETTING
Director Magrini reviewed the tentative agenda items for the May meeting.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Stanek adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. to the May 6, 2021 regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.
321
CC 01-18-2022
321 of 365
Respectfully submitted,
Whitney Zeller, Administrative Assistant
Parks & Recreation Department
Minutes approved at the May 6, 2021 regular meeting
322
CC 01-18-2022
322 of 365

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: May 4, 2021
Subject
Consider approving the updated Athletic Field Use Policy (Continued from April 20.

Public Comment period is closed)
Recommended Action
Approve the updated Athletic Field Use Policy and provide any input Background
The current City of Cupertino Athletic Field Use Policy (Attachment E) was established to ensure that all City-managed fields are utilized for recreational, athletic, cultural, educational, social, and community service functions in a manner that preserves neighborhood quality of life and protects the park resource. The existing policy was approved in 2004. The policy requires field use permits for exclusive field use or for any repeated, organized use of athletic fields maintained by the City of Cupertino. A study of the current Athletic Field Use Policy became a City Work Program item in Fiscal Year 2019-2020 with the objective of assessing the current Athletic Field Use Policy including a review of scheduling, the fee schedule, cost recovery, and Sunday reservation feasibility. The Parks and Recreation System Master Plan adopted in February 2020 indicates the need to evaluate and implement changes to field scheduling to increase capacity and usage.

Fields at the following sites are governed by the Athletic Field Use Policy:
 Creekside Park  Hoover Park  Lincoln Elementary
 Collins Elementary  Hyde Middle School  Monta Vista Park  Eaton Elementary  Jollyman Park  Regnart Elementary  Faria Elementary  Kennedy Middle School  Stevens Creek Elementary  Garden Gate Elementary  Library Field  Wilson Park
Discussion
After reviewing field use policies in neighboring cities and conducting community outreach, the updated proposed policy includes an option to allow for additional Sunday field reservations, a transition to an hourly fee structure, and provisions to allow 323
CC 01-18-2022
323 of 365
for necessary field closures. Currently, Sunday field reservations are limited to two Sunday tournaments per year per sports group and for groups serving individuals with a disability. Additional Sunday field use may require annual field closures to rest the fields and allow for any maintenance.

Other minor changes in the policy include incorporating existing guidelines for storing equipment and goals, insurance requirements, and the requirement for following State and Federal Guidelines regarding mandated reporting, fingerprinting, and concussion protocols. These items are already part of the current permitting process but are being included in the proposed policy for consistency (Attachment A). Group prioritization was also simplified for efficiency but remains consistent with current practice.

Outreach
Outreach to the community included a dedicated webpage, a citywide postcard, social media posts, an online survey (February 21 – March 21), and an online community meeting on March 9. Staff also met with all youth sports organizations that currently use the fields, collecting feedback about Sunday use, annual field closures, and the change in fees.

Youth Sport Organization Feedback
Several meetings have been held with the youth sports organizations since February 2020. Groups were informed about the potential change to an hourly fee structure and a proposed youth resident group fee of $20/hour/field. In fall 2020, groups also provided their feedback about their preferred Sunday use as shown in the following table.

Youth Sport Organization Sunday Field Use Feedback
Currently
Allowed
Additional Sunday Use Requested
Actual
Sunday Use
Requested
Practices
Requested
Games
Additional
Requested
Tournaments
Resident Groups (≥ 51%)
American Youth Soccer - 35 2 tournaments 04
Make-Up 2
California Cricket Academy 2 tournaments 0 All 0
Cupertino Football Club
(Soccer) 2 tournaments 0 0 2
Cupertino Little League 0 0 4-6 0
Golden Triangle Soccer 0 All All 0
US Youth Volleyball League 0
0 3-6
Make-Up 0
Non-resident Groups
American Youth Soccer - 64 2 tournaments 0 0 0
324
CC 01-18-2022
324 of 365
De Anza Youth Soccer 2 tournaments 0 20 0
Cupertino Girls Softball 1 tournament 0 7 0
Groups primarily serving individuals with disabilities
Little League Challenger 4-6 half-day
games The current policy allows groups primarily serving individuals with disabilities to use fields on
Sundays. This practice is continued in the proposed
updated policy.

South Bay VIP
20 half-day
games
Survey Results
The survey was completed by a total of 979 people, including 581 self-identified residents (59%). 397 respondents (41%) indicated that someone in their household participates in a sports group that uses Cupertino fields, including 60 self-identified residents. 415 (42%) respondents said they lived by one of the fields in the Athletic Field Use Policy, including 378 self-identified residents (Attachment B).

Survey results were analyzed in the following groupings and are shown in the following charts:
 Residents
 Respondents where someone in the household participates in a sports group that uses Cupertino fields (Sports Groups)
 Respondents that live by a field in the Athletic Field Use Policy (Lives by Fields)  All respondents (Total)

60.93%

1.20%

31.33%

6.54% 1.76%

0.25%

96.22%

1.76%

76.39%

0.48%

20.48%

2.65%

36.47%

0.82%

58.73%

3.98%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
No Not Sure Yes Yes if not two Sundays in
a row
Currently, youth sports groups are the primary users of Citymanaged fields and have requested additional Sunday field use for general practice and games. Would you support allowing sports groups to use fields on Sundays for these purposes? Residents Sports Groups Lives by Fields Total
325
CC 01-18-2022
325 of 365

62.99%

8.95%

28.06%

3.02%

15.37%

81.61%

76.39%

6.51%

17.11%

38.10%

11.13%

50.77%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
Top choice-4 Sundays Top choice-8 Sundays Top choice-all Sundays If Sunday use is expanded to allow general practice and games, please rank the following options in order of preference.

Residents Sports Groups Live by Fields Total
-Allow each sports group to use a field four (4) Sundays a year -Allow each sports group to use a field eight (8) Sundays a year -Allow sports groups to use fields on all Sundays, provided that no fields are scheduled for two Sundays in a row

23.75%

66.61%

7.75%

1.89%

81.36%

9.82%

4.03%

4.79%

16.39%

77.35%

4.82%

1.45%

48.42%

42.49%

5.82%

3.27%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
10 a.m to 5 p.m. 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Not sure If sports groups are allowed to use fields on Sundays for general practice and games, which time frame would you
prefer this use to be allowed?
Residents Sports Groups Live by Fields Total
326
CC 01-18-2022
326 of 365
Overall, residents and those living near the fields did not want additional Sunday field use while sports groups did. If sports groups were allowed additional Sunday field use, residents and those living near fields preferred only adding four Sundays per group per year from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Sports groups preferred adding all Sundays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Across all respondents, only one month of field closure was preferred.

The survey also allowed respondents to provide comments. Of the 238 comments received, 17% supported Sunday field use and 17% did not. 27% of the comments indicated general support for field use but did not specify Sundays. 17% of the comments indicated that fields should only be closed due to poor conditions and weather.

Additional Sunday Field Use
A review of field use policies in neighboring cities included Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale (Attachment C). All cities reviewed allow permitted field use on all Sundays.

Cupertino’s current limitations on Sunday field use allow Sundays to be used to rest the fields and allow residents to use the fields freely. At prior City Council meetings, youth sports groups have advocated for expanding Sunday use. Expanding Sunday field use would let youth sports teams to schedule games, make-up games, and practices. It would also allow groups who do not hold tournaments to hold games on Sundays.

On April 8, 2021 the Parks and Recreation Commission considered the updated Athletic Field Use Policy. The Commission recognized that residents preferred no additional Sunday use while sports groups could benefit from opportunities for make-up games

80.72%

12.74%

6.54%

78.09%

5.29%

16.62%

86.99%

7.95% 5.06%

80.18%

9.09% 10.73%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%
100.00%
One-month Two-month Not sure
An annual field closure is being proposed to rest fields and conduct maintenance. Fields would be closed to sports groups and the public during this closure and would most likely take place during December and/or January. Which would you
prefer?
Residents Sports Groups Live by Fields Total
327
CC 01-18-2022
327 of 365
and limited Sunday use. The Commission wanted to continue to support the recreational use of fields by residents and families.

After discussion, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended allowing each group to reserve a field on two additional Sundays a year from 10 a.m.-2 p.m. for games and practices. This would be in addition to any Sunday use that is currently allowed such as tournaments and groups primarily serving individuals with disabilities.

Fee Structure
After reviewing the fee structures for Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale (Attachment D), staff found they all use an hourly fee. To better align with neighboring cities, it is recommended that Cupertino shift from the current per player fee structure to an hourly fee structure. This would improve cost recovery as well as encourage field reservations to be made more efficiently. The per player fee structure results in an estimated 7% cost recovery. Implementing an hourly fee structure will result in higher fees for sports groups. All sports groups were made aware of the potential change to an hourly fee structure in February 2020. Groups generally understood the need to increase fees. Some expressed a need for sufficient time to adjust their rates to account for the increase.

The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended moving from a per player fee to an hourly fee structure. The Commission was concerned about the increase in fees but was supportive of more competitive fees in line with neighboring cities.

The Commission considered the estimated 25% and 40% cost recovery options presented. While 40% cost recovery is often used in Parks and Recreation fees, the 25% cost recovery option was included to ease in the increase. Due to the significant increase from current rates, the Commission recommended a phased approach for the youth resident groups beginning at $10/hour/field, with all other categories starting at 25% cost recovery levels. The Commission suggested a $5 increase per year until the 25% cost recovery schedule was reached but deferred to staff to determine appropriate increases in subsequent years based on actual use. This fee structure would result in an estimated 17% to 20% cost recovery initially.

Options for Field Use Hourly Fees
Proposed Fee categories
Average Cost
in
Neighboring
Cities
Commission
Recommendation
(Estimated 17%
to 20% Cost
Recovery)
Estimated 25%
Cost Recovery
Option
Estimated 40%
Cost Recovery
Option
City of Cupertino at any
field/CUSD programs at JUA
fields
No charge No charge No charge No charge
328
CC 01-18-2022
328 of 365
*Other cities do not have a category for organizations serving individuals with a disability. Cupertino has historically assigned special priority status to groups providing a unique recreational experience for individuals with a disability, free of charge.

Estimated Impact on Current Sports Groups
Non-profit organizations
serving individuals with a
disability
N/A* No charge No charge No charge
Resident (≥ 51%), nonprofit
youth organizations
$30/hour/field $10/hour/field $20/hour/field $30/hour/field Non-resident, nonprofit youth
organizations
$78/hour/field $30/hour/field $30/hour/field $50/hour/field Resident adult (≥ 51%) or forprofit youth organizations$49/hour/field $50/hour/field $50/hour/field $60/hour/field Non-resident adult or for-profit
youth organizations
$85/hour/field $60/hour/field $60/hour/field $80/hour/field Sports Groups FY 18/19 Total Fees
Paid
Commission
Recommendation
(Estimated 17% to
20% Cost
Recovery)
Estimated 25% Cost
Recovery Fees
Estimated 40%
Cost Recovery
Fees
Resident Groups (≥ 51%)
AYSO-35 $8,008.00 $11,220.00 $22,440.00 $44,880.00
California
Cricket
Academy
$1,177.00 $7,760.00 $15,520.00 $31,040.00
Cupertino
Little League $3,278.00 $15,910.00 $31,820.00 $63,640.00 Cupertino
Football Club $6,501.00 $11,150.00 $22,300.00 $44,600.00 Golden
Triangle
Soccer
$506.00 (new group-1
season only) $4,4400.00 $8,800.00 $17,600.00
U.S. Youth
Volleyball
League
$2,794.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $2,400.00
Non-resident Groups
AYSO-64 $3,520.00 $11,580.00 $11,580.00 $19,300.00
Cupertino
Girls Softball $1,529.00 $22,800.00 $22,800.00 $38,000.00 De Anza
Youth Soccer $110,616.00 $231,600.00 $231,600.00 $386,000.00 Total $137,929.00 $317,220.00 $368,460.00 $647,460.00
329
CC 01-18-2022
329 of 365
Annual Field Closure Period
The cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale all have annual winter field closures to rest the fields and conduct maintenance. The length of the closures varies from two months to three and half months. The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara do not have regularly scheduled closures.

According to the survey, respondents preferred a shorter closure. In addition, it is unknown whether the fields will require a resting period and it would depend on how heavily they are used under the new hourly rental structure. With these considerations, it is recommended that fields be closed only on an as-needed basis, to be determined by Public Works as they maintain the fields. This will avoid any unnecessary closure of fields. Any planned field closures will be posted on the City website and sports groups will be notified. The Parks and Recreation Commission expressed support for this approach.

Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation
On April 8, the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously recommended (with a Commissioner absent) that City Council adopt the Updated Athletic Field Use Policy with the following components:
 Expand Sunday use to allow each group to reserve a field on two additional Sundays a year from 10 a.m.-2 p.m. for games and practices  An hourly fee structure including:
o City of Cupertino at any field/CUSD programs at JUA fields—no charge o Non-profit organizations primarily serving individuals with a disability—no charge
o Resident, nonprofit youth organizations – $10/hour/field o Non-resident, nonprofit youth organizations – $30/hour/field o Resident adult or resident for-profit youth organizations – $50/hour/field o Non-resident adult or non-resident for-profit youth organizations — $60/hour/field
 Scheduling field closures as needed
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impacts.

Fiscal Impact
In Fiscal Year 2018-2019, field revenue was $139,589. Fall 2019 revenue was $62,726 with no play allowed in the Spring of 2020 due to COVID-19. Participation was limited due to COVID-19 restrictions in Fall 2020 resulting in revenue of $46,013. It costs an estimated $1,874,539 to maintain and operate the fields annually.

Based on current group usage during a non-pandemic year, revenue with the recommended 25% cost recovery hourly fee structure is estimated to be $368,460. The 40% cost recovery hourly fee structure is estimated to result in $647,460 in revenue. The 330
CC 01-18-2022
330 of 365
fee structure recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission would result in an estimated $317,220 in revenue. However, an hourly fee structure would allow for more efficient scheduling of the fields. If more efficient scheduling results in additional hours reserved, it is estimated that field reservations could generate revenues up to $374,908 under the model recommended by Parks and Recreation Commission (20% cost recovery), up to $468,635 under the 25% cost recovery model, and up to $749,816 under the 40% cost recovery model. Cost recovery models are estimated based on information available and will be revisited annually for adjustments if needed. _____________________________________
Prepared by: Karen Levy, Recreation Coordinator
Reviewed by: Jenny Koverman, Recreation Supervisor
Katy Nomura, Assistant to the City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Joanne Magrini, Parks and Recreation Director Dianne Thompson, Assistant City Manager
Attachments:

A – Proposed City of Cupertino Athletic Field Use Policy B – Sunday Field Use and Annual Field Closure Survey Results C – Comparison of Other Cities
D – Fee Comparison and Cost Recovery Chart
E – Current City of Cupertino Athletic Field Use Policy F – Policy Comparison Chart
331
CC 01-18-2022
331 of 365

APPROVED MINUTES

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 4, 2021

SPECIAL MEETING
At 5:30 p.m. Mayor Darcy Paul called the Special City Council meeting to order. This was a teleconference meeting with no physical location.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Darcy Paul, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Kitty Moore, Hung Wei, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None. All Councilmembers teleconferenced for the meeting.

STUDY SESSION

1. Subject: Study Session on the Capital Improvement Programs (CIP): Review of Projects Proposed for Fiscal Year (FY) 21/22.

Recommended Action: Receive the Report on Projects Proposed for FY 21‐22 and Provide Comments.

Written communications for this item included a staff presentation, Amended Attachment C – Proposed FY21‐22 CIP Project Table, and emails to Council.

Public Works Director Roger Lee introduced the item and Capital Improvement Programs Manager Susan Michael gave a presentation.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Mayor Paul opened the public comment period and the following people spoke.

Peggy Griffin supported a Memorial Park Plan and expediting Lawrence‐Mitty Park and opposed vehicle charging stations replacing parking spaces at Library/City Hall.

Mayor Paul closed the public comment period.
332
CC 01-18-2022
332 of 365

City Council Minutes May 4, 2021
A.

Council received the report on projects proposed for Fiscal Year (FY) 21/22 and provided the following direction:
• Amend Lawrence Mitty project to include recommended design budget. Want outreach and design to move in parallel as is practical to the annexation process.

Move to category 2 or 3.
• Traffic gardens –Consider using those funds to purchase traffic garden pop ups / coordinate space with schools.
• Provide Citywide Park Master Plan information relative to Memorial Park to support proposed work, inform on status of previous park specific plan

ADJOURNMENT

REGULAR MEETING
At 6:46 p.m. Mayor Darcy Paul called the Regular City Council meeting to order. This was a teleconference meeting with no physical location.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Darcy Paul, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Kitty Moore, Hung Wei, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None. All Councilmembers teleconferenced for the meeting.

In open session, Mayor Paul reported out on the Special Closed Session Meeting held on April 29, 2021:

1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with Legal Counsel regarding the following existing litigation:
a. Huang Family v. City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 19CV347316.
b. City of Cupertino v. Jennifer Chang, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.21CV380291
Council discussed with legal counsel these pending cases for which discussion in open session would prejudice the City in the litigation.

No reportable action was taken.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4), conference with Legal Counsel regarding initiation of litigation, (two potential cases):
333
CC 01-18-2022
333 of 365

City Council Minutes May 4, 2021
A.

Council discussed with legal counsel the potential initiation of litigation for two matters for which discussion in open session would prejudice the City in the potential litigation.

No reportable action was taken.

CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS

1. Subject: Proclamation for Public Works Week, May 16‐22, 2021 Recommended Action: Present Proclamation for Public Works Week, May 16‐22, 2021 Public Works Director Roger Lee accepted the proclamation for Public Works Week, May 16‐22, 2021.

Mayor Paul presented the Proclamation.

2. Subject: Presentation from Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (ʺMidpenʺ) Board members Yoriko Kishimoto and Pete Siemens for an introduction to Midpen and to provide an update on activities
Recommended Action: Receive presentation from Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (ʺMidpenʺ) Board members Yoriko Kishimoto and Pete Siemens for an introduction to Midpen and to provide an update on activities Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (ʺMidpenʺ) Board members Yoriko Kishimoto and Pete Siemens gave a presentation for an introduction to Midpen and to provide an update on activities.

Council received the Presentation.

POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY
Wei moved and Willey seconded to reorder the agenda to hear Item No. 14 Consider approving the updated Athletic Field Use Policy before Item No. 13 Consideration of proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2021‐22 Fee Schedule Update. The motion carried unanimously.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – None
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF (10 minutes)
334
CC 01-18-2022
334 of 365

City Council Minutes May 4, 2021
A.

3. Subject: Brief reports on councilmember activities and brief announcements Recommended Action: Receive brief reports on councilmember activities and brief announcements
Council received brief reports on councilmember activities and brief announcements.

4. Subject: City Manager update on emergency response efforts Recommended Action: Receive City Manager update on emergency response efforts City Manager Deborah Feng reported on California’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy tier assignments, COVID‐19 vaccination information, testing opportunities, and case rates.

Council received the City Manager update on emergency response efforts.

5. Subject: Report on Committee assignments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments
Councilmembers highlighted the activities of their various committees.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Wei moved and Moore seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar except for Item No. 7 which was pulled for discussion. Ayes: Paul, Chao, Moore, Wei, and Willey. Noes: None.

Abstain: None. Absent: None.

6. Subject: Approve the April 12 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the April 12 City Council minutes

7. Subject: Approve the April 20 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the April 20 City Council minutes Written communications for this item included an email from J.R. Fruen requesting his public comments for Item 10 Density Bonus Ordinance be changed to, “J.R. Fruen referred to written comments and raised concern that the Ordinance would not meet HCDʹs definition of ʺincentivizingʺ affordable housing production.” Paul moved and Moore seconded to make the requested amendment to the Draft Minutes and bring back a clean version for approval at the next meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
335
CC 01-18-2022
335 of 365

City Council Minutes May 4, 2021
A.

8. Subject: Consider Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease Agreement with the Library Joint Powers Authority of Santa Clara County for the Cupertino Library Located at 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca 95014.

Recommended Action:    Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Lease Agreement with the Library Joint Powers Authority of Santa Clara County for the Cupertino Library Located at 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014, for a 25‐year Term Starting January 1, 2019. (Attachment A).

9. Subject: Consider Fiscal Year 2021‐22 projects proposed to receive $1,170,317 in funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by Senate Bill 1 (SB 1).

Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 21‐024 establishing a list of projects proposed to be funded by $1,170,317 of RMRA (SB1) revenues, estimated to be received in FY 2021‐22.

10. Subject: Consideration of Resolution, allowing the City of Cupertino to accept $177,952 in per capita grant funds from the State of California, to be used for the implementation of a full‐size outdoor basketball court.

Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 21‐035, allowing the City of Cupertino to enter into a contract(s) with the State of California to accept $177,952 in per capita grant funds under Proposition 68, to be used for the implementation of a full‐size outdoor basketball court.

SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES

11. Subject: Consider and act on Ordinance No. 21‐2226 ʺAn Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino to adopt changes to Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus, of the Cupertino Municipal Code to allow increased density bonuses for projects providing higher percentages of affordable units in a housing development project.ʺ Application No(s).: MCA‐2021‐002; Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: citywide Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 21‐2226, ʺAn Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino to adopt changes to Chapter

19.56, Density Bonus, of the Cupertino Municipal Code to allow increased density bonuses for projects providing higher percentages of affordable units in a housing development project,ʺ  which includes a finding that adoption of the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

Written communications for this item included an email to Council.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.
336
CC 01-18-2022
336 of 365

City Council Minutes May 4, 2021
A.

Mayor Paul opened the public comment period and, seeing no speakers, closed the public comment period.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia read the title of Ordinance No. 21‐2226, ʺAn Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino to adopt changes to Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus, of the Cupertino Municipal Code to allow increased density bonuses for projects providing higher percentages of affordable units in a housing development project,ʺ which includes a finding that adoption of the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

Chao moved and Willey seconded to read Ordinance No. 21‐2226 by title only, and that the City Clerk’s reading constitute the second reading thereof; and to enact the Ordinance. Ayes: Paul, Chao, Moore, and Willey. Noes: Wei. Abstain: None. Absent:

None.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

12. Subject: Consideration of Municipal Code Amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 10.90, expanding existing policies to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke, including in multi‐unit housing, entryways, public events, service areas, and outdoor worksites. (Postponed from April 20)
Recommended Action: 1. Reintroduce with amendments and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 21‐2227: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending City Code Chapter 10.90 of Title 10 (Public Peace, Safety, and Morals) to prohibit smoking in multi‐unit housing and certain outdoor areas,” which adds setback requirements for designated smoking areas and includes detached ADUs and JADUs in the regulations, and which includes a finding that the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA; or

2. Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 21‐2224 “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending City Code Chapter 10.90 of Title 10 (Public Peace, Safety, and Morals) to prohibit smoking in multi‐unit housing and certain outdoor areas,” which includes a finding that the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA.

Assistant to the City Manager Katy Nomura gave a presentation.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Mayor Paul opened the public hearing and the following people spoke. 337
CC 01-18-2022
337 of 365

City Council Minutes May 4, 2021
A.

Jennifer Griffin supported ADUs and JADU’s to remain smoke‐free because of the potential proximity to all property lines.

Mayor Paul closed the public hearing.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia read the title of Ordinance No. 21‐2227: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending City Code Chapter 10.90 of Title 10 (Public Peace, Safety, and Morals) to prohibit smoking in multi‐unit housing and certain outdoor areas,” which adds setbackrequirements for designated smoking areas and includes detached ADUs and JADUs in the regulations, and which includes a finding that the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA.

Wei made a friendly amendment to remove JADUs from the regulations. (Moore declined the friendly amendment and it was not included in the motion).

Chao moved and Wei seconded a substitute motion to remove JADUs from the regulations.  The motion failed with Moore, Willey, and Paul voting no.

Moore moved and Willey seconded to read Ordinance No. 21‐2227 by title only, and that the City Clerk’s reading constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Paul, Moore, and Willey. Noes: Chao and Wei. None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

As noted under Postponements and Orders of the Day, Council heard item 14 before Item 13.

13. Subject: Consideration of proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2021‐22 Fee Schedule Update. (Postponed from April 20)
Recommended Action: Consider proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2021‐22 Fee Schedule Update.

1. Adopt Resolution No. 21‐033 amending FY 2020‐21 Fee Schedule E to add a community garden fee effective May 5, 2021.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 21‐034 approving FY 2021‐22 Fee Schedules A, B, C, D, and E effective July 3, 2021.

Finance Manager Zach Korach gave a presentation.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Mayor Paul opened the public hearing and the following people spoke. 338
CC 01-18-2022
338 of 365

City Council Minutes May 4, 2021
A.

George Chong, on behalf of Cupertino Little League, supported reconsidering the field use fees and related proposed field use policy changes.

Mayor Paul closed the public hearing.

Paul moved and Wei seconded to:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 21‐033 amending FY 2020‐21 Fee Schedule E to add a community garden fee effective May 5, 2021; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 21‐034 approving FY 2021‐22 Fee Schedules A, B, C, D, and E effective July 3, 2021; and

3. Excepting Schedule E for draft field use fees and adopting field use fees as directed by Council for Item 14 to reduce the field use fee amounts in FY 21‐22 by 50%.

The motion carried with Moore voting no.

ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS

14. Subject: Consider approving the updated Athletic Field Use Policy. (Continued from April 20. The public comment has been closed and remains closed).

Recommended Action: Approve the updated Athletic Field Use Policy and provide any input
Written communications for this item included emails to Council.

Jenny Koverman gave a recap of the staff recommendation and discussion points from the last meeting.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Moore moved to approve the updated Athletic Field Use Policy with the amendment to direct staff to conduct a review in one year.

Chao made a friendly amendment to delay the increase of fees by one year. (Moore declined the friendly amendment and it was not included in the motion).

Wei made a friendly amendment to extend the field‐use times for the two additional Sundays from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. to 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Moore declined the friendly amendment and it was not included in the motion).

Moore’s motion did not receive a second and it was not considered. 339
CC 01-18-2022
339 of 365

City Council Minutes May 4, 2021
A.

Chao moved and Wei seconded to approve the updated Athletic Field Use Policy as recommended by staff with the amendment to extend the field use times for the two additional Sundays to 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Moore made a friendly amendment to exempt Creekside Park from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. and to direct staff to conduct a review of the Policy in one year. (Chao declined the Creekside Park exemption and accepted a review in one year).

Chao amended her motion to add a limit of ten Sundays for each site (by either tournaments or individual Sunday field use). (Wei accepted the amendment).

Paul made a friendly amendment for the proposed fees to be phased over two years with a 50% increase in the first year and 100% increase in the second year. (Chao accepted the friendly amendment).

Chao moved and Wei seconded to approve the updated Athletic Field Use Policy per the staff recommendation, as amended.

Amendments:

1. Individual Sunday Field Use allowed from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

2. Add a limit of ten Sundays for each site (by either tournaments or individual Sunday field use)

3. Staff to provide an update to Council in one year

4. Fees to be phased over two years with a 50% increase in the first year and 100% increase in the second year
The motion carried with Moore voting no.

15. Subject: Consideration of a City Council summer recess and cancellation of meeting(s).

Recommended Action: Consider a City Council summer recess and cancel suggested July 6 and/or August 3 meeting(s) or provide direction to staff.

Mayor Paul opened the public hearing and the following people spoke.

Jennifer Griffin opposed canceling consecutive meetings and supported the ability of Council to convene for a special meeting, if necessary.

Mayor Paul closed the public hearing.

Paul moved Wei seconded to cancel the July 6 and August 3 meetings. The motion carried with Moore voting no.
340
CC 01-18-2022
340 of 365

City Council Minutes May 4, 2021
A.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ‐ CONTINUED (As necessary) – None

COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Council did not hear this item.

ADJOURNMENT
At 9:52 p.m. Mayor Paul adjourned the meeting.
_________________                        ___
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
341
CC 01-18-2022
341 of 365

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 21, 2021
Subject
Consider adjustments to the revised Athletic Field Use Policy Recommended Action
Consider adjustments to the revised Athletic Field Use Policy Background
The Athletic Field Use Policy was revised and presented to City Council on April 20 and approved on May 4. A revision to the policy was recommended in the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan and assigned as a City Work Program item in Fiscal Year 2019-2020. The purpose was to update the policy to address the scheduling structure, fee schedule, and Sunday reservations. The staff report from the May 4 meeting is attached for reference (Attachment A).

Prior to the May 4 City Council authorization, staff presented the following adjustments to the prior policy to the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) on April 8 for review and input: These adjustments were recommended after performing outreach to the community and receiving input from the youth sports organizations. - Transition to an hourly fee structure
- Revised fees based on 25% cost recovery (supplemented with a comparison of fees to neighboring cities)
- Addition of four Sunday field reservations per organization from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

The Commission supported the hourly fee structure, recommended a phased approach for the resident non-profit youth group fee to reduce the impact on the youth sports organizations, and also recommended a reduction in the additional Sunday field reservations to accommodate recreational use of fields by residents and families. The revised policy presented to City Council on May 4 included the recommended the following recommended adjustments from the Commission:
342
CC 01-18-2022
342 of 365
- Transition to an hourly fee structure
- Revised fees resulting in 17% to 20% cost recovery (based on the Commission’s recommendation)
- Addition of two Sunday field reservations per organization from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

On May 4 City Council considered and approved the proposed adjustments, but with the following amendments:
- A two-year phased approach for the revised fees, established at 50% of proposed levels for the first year and increased to 100% of proposed levels for the second year for all organizations
- The additional two Sunday field reservations per group was expanded from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. to 10 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
- Limit of 10 Sunday reservations for each site per year - Provide a status update on the revised policy implementation to City Council in one year
A summary of Athletic Field Use Policy changes is attached for reference (Attachment B).

Discussion
The revised field use fee schedule was incorporated into the City’s Fee Schedule, and field permit applications were updated and sent out to the youth sports organizations. As applications were received and reviewed, staff generated a field permit schedule to track the days and times fields were reserved. This is posted and updated regularly on the City’s website for public viewing by month (Attachment C).

Staff perform spot checks to ensure organizations are adhering to their reservation dates and times. Members of the public can also review the field permit schedule posted on the City’s website to check if a group has the field reserved or not, and can report unauthorized uses to Code Enforcement using the Cupertino311 app or accessing Cupertino311 through the City’s website. The City has received several complaints regarding unscheduled and unauthorized organized use at the Library field on Sundays.

Staff are also currently working on signage to post at the fields to communicate field usage status more easily to all park users.

Limited Sunday use continues to be a concern expressed by youth sports organizations.

The policy adopted last May permits each organization to reserve up to four Sundays in total (including two Sundays for tournaments). However, most youth sports organizations prefer expanded Sunday reservations to schedule games, make-up games, and practices. While this would provide more scheduling opportunities for the sports 343
CC 01-18-2022
343 of 365
organizations, it would reduce the availability for recreational use of fields by residents and families.

City Council could consider increasing the number of Sunday reservations allowed per organization to meet the demand from the organizations. However, since the revised policy has only been in effect for approximately two months, staff’s recommendation is to keep the revised Athletic Field Use Policy as approved and to review the policy in one year as originally directed. As requested by City Council, staff will continue to collect a year’s worth of data to present a more complete comparison to the original field use policy and the impacts from the adjustments can be reported to City Council for consideration.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impacts.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impacts.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Joanne Magrini, Director of Parks and Recreation Reviewed by: Dianne Thompson, Assistant City Manager
Christopher Jensen, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Greg Larson, Interim City Manager Attachments:

A – May 4, 2021 Staff Report - Athletic Field Use Policy Update B – Summary of Field Use Policy Changes
C – Field Permit Schedule (August 2021)
344
CC 01-18-2022
344 of 365

APPROVED MINUTES

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, September 21, 2021

SPECIAL MEETING
At 5:30 p.m. Mayor Darcy Paul called the Special City Council meeting to order. This was a teleconference meeting with no physical location.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Darcy Paul, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Kitty Moore, Hung Wei, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None. All Councilmembers teleconferenced for the meeting.

STUDY SESSION

1. Subject: Study Session to provide an update on the Pre‐Approved Accessory Dwelling Unit Program and Accessory Dwelling Unit implementation Recommended Action: That City Council receive the presentation and provide comments.

Written Communications for this item included a staff presentation.

Director of Community Development Ben Fu introduced the item.

Senior Planner Gian Martire gave a presentation.

Mayor Paul opened the public comment period and the following people spoke.

Jennifer Griffin supported the City taking a responsible approach and was concerned about impacts with the passage of housing bills SB 9 and SB 10.

Mayor Paul closed the public comment period.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Council received the presentation and provided the following comments. 345
CC 01-18-2022
345 of 365
City Council Minutes September 21, 2021

 clarify 16 feet height maximum for setbacks in Municipal Code table 19.112.030a for new construction of detached ADUs of 800 square feet  collect data for actual use of the ADUs
 look into adding the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) to the categories list  bring back required changes to Zoning Ordinance to include SB 9 language to reserve power to cities for denial authority by end of calendar year when SB 9 takes effect
 provide City notification of the projects and potential addition of on‐street parking to adjacent neighbors

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Paul adjourned the meeting at 6:34 p.m.

REGULAR MEETING
At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Darcy Paul called the Regular City Council meeting to order. This was a teleconference meeting with no physical location.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Darcy Paul, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Kitty Moore, Hung Wei, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None. All Councilmembers teleconferenced for the meeting.

CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS

1. Subject: Proclamation recognizing September as National Suicide Prevention Month Recommended Action: Present proclamation recognizing September as National Suicide Prevention Month
Mego Lien, Suicide Prevention Manager County of Santa Clara Behavioral Health Services, received the proclamation.

Mayor Paul presented the proclamation recognizing September as NationalSuicide Prevention Month.

2. Subject: Proclamation recognizing September 21 as World Alzheimer’s Day Recommended Action: Present proclamation recognizing September 21 as World Alzheimer’s Day
346
CC 01-18-2022
346 of 365
City Council Minutes September 21, 2021

Mayor Paul presented the proclamation recognizing September 21 as WorldAlzheimer’s Day.

3. Subject: Certificates of recognition to the Cupertino Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Student Video Contest winners
Recommended Action: Present certificates of recognition to the Cupertino Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Student Video Contest winners
Safe Routes to School Coordinator Cherie Walkowiak introduced the item and played the winning student videos.

Middle School winner Sudisha Kumar and High School winning team Lindsey Tang, Crystal Cheng, and Avishi Trivedi received the certificates of recognition.

Mayor Paul presented the certificates of recognition to the Cupertino Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Student Video Contest winners.

POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY ‐ None

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jennifer Griffin opposed new housing laws SB 9 and SB 10 and was concerned about unconstitutionality and loss of local control. (Submitted written comments).

Lisa Warren supported a future initiative for local control and was concerned about regulating privacy screenings for ADUs alongside state requirements.

Paul Soto supported conducting a City meeting regarding redlining policies and the map of 1939 and the impacts of redlining.

Call‐in User 3 was concerned about an unpermitted play structure her backyard that must be torn down and requested time to resolve the matter.

Mary supported Cupertino adopting an ordinance requiring the safe storage of firearms to protect the Cupertino community and similar to neighboring cities.

Tushar Shinde supported amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance to address the distance between residential and commercial properties and similar to other cities.

REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF (10 minutes)
347
CC 01-18-2022
347 of 365
City Council Minutes September 21, 2021

4. Subject: Brief reports on councilmember activities and brief announcements Recommended Action: Receive brief reports on councilmember activities and brief announcements
Council received brief reports on councilmember activities and brief announcements.

5. Subject: Report on Committee assignments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments
Councilmembers highlighted the activities of their various committees.

6. Subject: City Manager Update
Recommended Action: Receive City Manager updates on emergency response efforts and other City business
Interim City Manager Greg Larson reported on COVID‐19 case rates, testing locations, and vaccinations; and upcoming City events, and the Vallco development project.

Council received the City Manager updates on emergency response effortsand other City business.

CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 7‐15)
Moore moved and Willey seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar except for Item No. 15 which was pulled for discussion. Ayes: Paul, Chao, Moore, Wei, and Willey. Noes:

None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

7. Subject: Approve the September 7 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the September 7 City Council minutes

8. Subject: Consider Accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 2, 2021 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 21‐082 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 2, 2021
Written communications for this item included a Supplemental Staff Report Response to Council Inquiries.

9. Subject: Consider Accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 9, 2021 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 21‐083 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 9, 2021
348
CC 01-18-2022
348 of 365
City Council Minutes September 21, 2021

10. Subject: Consider Accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 16, 2021 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 21‐084 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 16, 2021

11. Subject: Consider Accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 23, 2021 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 21‐085 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 23, 2021

12. Subject: Consider Accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 30, 2021 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 21‐086 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 30, 2021

13. Subject: Consider waiving planning permit fees for landscape conversion projects participating in an official City Climate Victory Garden Pilot Program or in Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Landscape Rebate Program
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 21‐087 that allows planning permit fees to be waived for Climate Victory Garden Pilot projects and Santa Clara Valley Water District Landscape Rebate Program projects

14. Subject: Consider Approval of a Contract between the City of Cupertino and Miracle Play Systems, Inc. for the Purchase and Installation of Themed Playground Equipment at Creekside Park Tot Lot
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract between the City of Cupertino and Miracle Play Systems, Inc., Using Pricing Established through the National Cooperative Purchase Program, in the Amount of $222,194.96

15. Subject: Initiate Sixth‐Cycle General Plan Housing Element update, consider consultant agreement to complete the Sixth‐Cycle General Plan Housing Element update, related rezoning, and all necessary environmental review as required under State law, and associated budget modification.

Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 21‐088 (Attachment A) to:

1. Initiate the Sixth‐Cycle General Plan Housing Element update;

2. Award a consultant agreement for the Sixth‐Cycle General Plan Housing Element update, related rezoning, and all necessary environmental review as required under State law;

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute a consultant agreement based on the scope of work with EMC Planning Group to provide these services to the City, for an amount not to exceed $748,040 (Attachment B);

4. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract change order(s) for an amount not to exceed $748,040 with EMC Planning Group; and
349
CC 01-18-2022
349 of 365
City Council Minutes September 21, 2021

5. Approve Budget Modification #2122‐165 to increase appropriations in 100‐71‐702 750‐ 101 (page 414 of the Fiscal Year 2021‐22 Adopted Budget) by $774,248 and increase revenues in 100‐71‐702 440‐430 by $352,613 for the Sixth‐Cycle General Plan Housing Element Update, related rezoning, public noticing, legal counsel, and all necessary environmental review as required under State law for the fiscal year 2021‐22.

Written Communications forthis item included a staff presentation, a Supplemental Staff Report Response to Council Inquiries and an email to Council.

Community Development Director Ben Fu introduced the item.

Associate Planner Erika Poveda gave a presentation.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Mayor Paul opened the public comment period and the following people spoke.

Paul Soto was concerned about the generational consequences of redlining and supported settling the legal violations of segregated housing.

Jennifer Griffin supported EMC Planning Group adopting a neutral position and considering community concerns and needs.

Jean Bedord supported approval of the consultant agreement for the Sixth‐Cycle General Plan Housing Element update.

Mayor Paul closed the public comment period.

Wei moved and Chao seconded to adopt Resolution No. 21‐088 per the staff report recommended action to:

1. Initiate the Sixth‐Cycle General Plan Housing Element update;

2. Award a consultant agreement for the Sixth‐Cycle General Plan Housing Element update, related rezoning, and all necessary environmental review as required under State law;

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute a consultant agreement based on the scope of work with EMC Planning Group to provide these services to the City, for an amount not to exceed $748,040 (Attachment B);

4. Authorize the City Manager to approve no‐cost contract change order(s) with EMC Planning Group; and
350
CC 01-18-2022
350 of 365
City Council Minutes September 21, 2021

5. Approve Budget Modification #2122‐165 to increase appropriations in 100‐71‐702 750‐ 101 (page 414 of the Fiscal Year 2021‐22 Adopted Budget) by $774,248 and increase revenues in 100‐71‐702 440‐430 by $352,613 for the Sixth‐Cycle General Plan Housing Element Update, related rezoning, public noticing, legal counsel, and all necessary environmental review as required under State law for the fiscal year 2021‐22.

The motion carried unanimously.

Council recessed from 8:58 p.m. to 8:55 p.m.

SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES ‐ None
PUBLIC HEARINGS ‐ None

ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS

16. Subject: Consider adopting a resolution approving the addition of a Suicide Prevention Policy
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 21‐089 establishing a Suicide Prevention Policy
Written Communications for this item included a staff presentation and emails to Council.

Management Analyst Astrid Robles gave a presentation.

Mayor Paul opened the public comment period and the following people spoke.

Victor Ojakian, on behalf of National Alliance on Mental Illness Santa Clara County, supported adopting a Suicide Prevention Policy.

Mary Gloner, on behalf of Project Safety Net, supported adopting a Suicide Prevention Policy.

David Mineta, on behalf of Momentum for Health, supported adopting a Suicide Prevention Policy.

Mayor Paul closed the public comment period.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

351
CC 01-18-2022
351 of 365
City Council Minutes September 21, 2021

Mego Lien, Suicide Prevention Manager County of Santa Clara Behavioral Health Services, answered questions.

Chao moved and Wei seconded to adopt Resolution No. 21‐089 establishing a Suicide Prevention Policy. The motion carried unanimously.

17. Subject: Consider adjustments to the revised Athletic Field Use Policy Recommended Action: Consider adjustments to the revised Athletic Field Use Policy Written Communications for this item included a staff presentation.

Parks and Recreation Director Joanne Magrini gave a presentation.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Mayor Paul opened the public comment period and, seeing no speakers, closed the public comment period.

Council considered adjustments to the revised Athletic Field Use Policy and directed staff make further refinements based on Council’s comments:
 provide a 6‐month report to Council with extended usage suggestions;  include 4‐month input usage data;
 make suggestions for simplification; and
 bring back a presentation to Council at the second meeting in January.

18. Subject: City Work Program Update
Recommended Action: Receive City Work Program update
Written Communications forthis item included a staff presentation, a Supplemental Staff Report Response to Council Inquiries, and Amended Attachment A.

Interim City Manager Greg Larson introduced the item.

Acting Deputy City Manager Katy Nomura gave a presentation.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Mayor Paul opened the public comment period and, seeing no speakers, closed the public comment period.
352
CC 01-18-2022
352 of 365
City Council Minutes September 21, 2021

Council received the City Work Program update.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ‐ CONTINUED (As necessary) ‐ None

COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmembers made brief comments and discussed potential future Work Program items.

ADJOURNMENT
At 11:57 p.m., Mayor Paul adjourned the meeting.
___
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
353
CC 01-18-2022
353 of 365
Athletic Field Use Policy
The City of Cupertino Athletic Field Use Policy has been established to ensure that all City-managed fields are utilized for recreational, athletic, cultural, educational, social, and community service functions in a manner that preserves neighborhood quality of life and protects the park resource.

Purpose:
• To establish procedures governing the exclusive use of City of Cupertino and Cupertino Union School District playing fields managed by the City of Cupertino. • To ensure that Cupertino residents have priority access to the fields. • To support organizations that foster a sense of community and encourage the development of youth athletes.
• To collect reasonable fees for the use of the fields, in support of their ongoing maintenance. • To incorporate turf recovery periods as needed to maintain safe, quality fields.

Permit Required
Field Use Permits are required for exclusive field use or for any repeated, organized use of athletic fields maintained by the City of Cupertino. The Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department issues Field Use Permits.

City of Cupertino Maintained Fields
The fields listed below are available for permitting through the City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department. City of Cupertino owned fields are noted as ‘City’, and fields under the Cupertino Union School District/City of Cupertino Joint Use Agreement are noted as ‘JUA’. ▪ Creekside Park (City) 3 soccer fields
▪ Jollyman Park (City) 1 baseball/soccer joint use field, 1 soccer field ▪ Hoover Park (City) 2 soccer fields
▪ Wilson Park (City) 2 baseball, 1 soccer/baseball joint use field ▪ Monta Vista Park (City) 2 softball fields
▪ Garden Gate Elementary (JUA) 1 soccer field or 2 fields for younger kids ▪ Eaton Elementary (JUA) 1 soccer field or 2 fields for younger kids ▪ Faria Elementary (JUA) 1 baseball/soccer joint use field ▪ Hyde Middle School (JUA) 1 soccer (track) field, 1 baseball/soccer joint use field ▪ Kennedy Middle School (JUA) 1 baseball Field, 3 baseball/soccer joint use fields ▪ Regnart Elementary (JUA) 1 baseball/soccer joint use field ▪ Stevens Creek Elementary (JUA) 2 soccer fields
▪ Lincoln Elementary (JUA) 1 soccer field or 2 fields for younger kids ▪ Collins Elementary (JUA) 1 baseball/soccer joint use field ▪ Library Field (City) 1 field joint use for youth cricket, soccer, volleyball 354
CC 01-18-2022
354 of 365
Field Availability
City-owned fields Monday-Saturday 9 a.m.-Dusk
CUSD fields under the JUA:

Elementary Schools Monday-Friday 4 p.m.-Dusk
Kennedy/Hyde Middle School Monday-Thursday 5 p.m.-Dusk
All JUA fields Saturdays, School Holidays, School Summer Vacation 9 a.m.-Dusk All fields
Games Sunday 10 a.m.-4 p.m.

Tournaments Sunday 9 a.m.-dusk
Sunday use may be permitted by staff to those organizations already in possession of Monday-Saturday Permits.

Organizations may request two Sunday field permits per year for games or practice. Each Sunday field permit is for one field only. Sunday access to fields will be granted no earlier than 10 a.m. and use must be completed by 4 p.m. A game or practice is defined as a maximum of two teams participating in a sport.

In addition, two Sunday permit dates/year/organization may be granted by staff to accommodate special tournaments or events (not regularly scheduled league play). Tournaments may be held at multiple fields on the same date. Access to field for tournaments will be granted no earlier than 9 a.m., with games beginning no earlier than 10 a.m. A tournament is defined as at least three teams all participating in a sport or game.

A maximum of 10 Sundays will be allowed to be permitted at any it is for a game, tournament, or practice.

Fields will be permitted for the activities that the field(s) are intended for, designed for, classified as, or for activities conducted in a manner that does not compromise public safety or field quality and integrity.

Athletic Field Permit Application
A completed athletic field reservation application must be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Department to be eligible for a Field Use Permit. All groups are required to follow State and Federal Guidelines regarding mandated reporting, fingerprinting, and concussion protocols. Detailed requirements will be provided to any interested group. For priority use, applications, along with proof of insurance as required by the City, must be submitted before the deadlines listed below. Insurance requirements will be provided to any interested group.

Seasons are as follows:

Season Dates Deadline
Spring January-June December 1st
Fall July-December May 1st
Groups should only request the amount of field space needed for the operation of their programs. It is the responsibility of the permitted organization to notify the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department as soon as possible if it is determined by the permit organization that an approved permit 355
CC 01-18-2022
355 of 365
date(s) is no longer needed. The Parks and Recreation Department has the right to re-assign unused field space as needed.

Priority
1 Field permits are assigned based on the following priority system: City of Cupertino programs at any field and CUSD programs at JUA fields.
2 Nonprofit organizations primarily serving individuals with a disability, with priority given to majority resident groups. Organizations must provide documentation, subject to review by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
3 Resident, nonprofit youth organizations: Organizations must maintain Cupertino resident participation of 51% or greater and must be a recognized nonprofit 501(c)(3) serving youth ages 18 or younger.
4 Non-resident, nonprofit youth organizations: Group must be recognized nonprofit 501(c)(3) serving youth ages 18 or younger.
5 Resident adult or resident for-profit youth organizations. 6 Non-resident adult or non-resident for-profit youth organizations. 7 Organizations that have violated the terms of the field use policy: Any group found violating any term of the field use policy or providing misleading or false information to the City of Cupertino will have last priority for scheduling field time. Any violations may affect future field use permit eligibility.

Seasonal Use Priority
• Baseball/softball organizations will have priority on soccer/baseball joint use fields during the spring.
• Soccer organizations will have priority on soccer/baseball joint use fields during the fall.

Fees
1 City of Cupertino at any field/CUSD programs at JUA fields—no charge 2 Non-profit organizations primarily serving individuals with a disability—no charge 3 Resident, nonprofit youth organizations --$5/hour/field 4 Non-resident, nonprofit youth organizations--$15/hour/field 5 Resident adult or resident for-profit youth organizations--$25/hour/field 6 Non-resident adult or non-resident for-profit youth organizations--$30/hour/field Residency verification
All organizations will be required to submit a roster each season for players scheduled on Cupertino fields. After the request is made, rosters must be submitted within 14 days. Rosters must include the following information: first name, last name, address, city, and zip code. For returning groups, priority will be determined using the prior season’s residency.

Payment of Fees
The City of Cupertino will invoice the organization based on the approved number of hours. Payment will be due 14 days after invoice is received. For groups with seasonal permits, two invoices will be issued each season. The first will be issued halfway through the season and the second will be issued at the end of the season. For single use groups, invoices will be issued upon permit approval. 356
CC 01-18-2022
356 of 365
Cancellations/Refunds
Requests for refunds can be made up to ten (10) working days prior to scheduled use. Requests must be made to the recreation coordinator responsible for field scheduling.

Groups will not be charged for any scheduled field use during a weather or maintenance related field closure.

Field Closures/Field Hotline
Fields may be closed to avoid turf damage due to inclement weather or field saturation. Fields may be closed for field maintenance. Call the field hotline at 408-777-3566 or check @cupertinofields on Twitter to determine whether the fields are open or closed.

Organizations found playing on a CLOSED field will first receive a written warning from the City. A second offense will result in loss of priority rankings, revocation of existing permits, and/or penalties pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 13.04.240.

Good Neighbor Guidelines
Cupertino’s athletic fields are located on school property and in residential neighborhoods. User groups are expected to be respectful of the schools and neighbors by keeping noise at acceptable levels, cleaning up after use, following speed limits, and parking in designated areas. All participants are expected to abide by park rules and good neighbor guidelines. Failure to follow the rules may result in the denial of future field use or the revoking of existing permits.

General Regulations for Field Use
▪ A copy of the approved permit must be available for inspection when an organization is using the field.
▪ Field users are required to observe all City of Cupertino park regulations. ▪ Field use is limited to the times and dates indicated on the permit, and any changes are subject to availability and approval by the department.
▪ Organizations must notify the Parks and Recreation Department prior to the placement of portable restrooms. Placement must be in a location approved by the Public Works Department.

The responsible party’s contact information must be given to the department. Portable restrooms must be maintained regularly, secured in the approved location, and locked when not in use. ▪ No alcoholic beverages are allowed; violation will result in forfeiture of the permit and no fees will be returned.
▪ No group shall litter, soil, damage, or defile the field, rest rooms, or other park areas. ▪ No group or persons shall use any system to amplify sound whether for speech or music. ▪ No group or person shall make or kindle a fire for any purpose, except at places so designated. ▪ No group shall enter an area posted as “closed to the public” or “field closed.” No persons shall remove such postings.
▪ No group or persons shall indulge in riotous, boisterous, threatening, or indecent conduct.

Goals and Equipment Storage and Safety Requirements
It is each organizations responsibility to ensure safe and secure use of any movable sports goal, net, or cage including but not limited to the following:
▪ The City of Cupertino does not furnish any moveable sports goal, net, or cage for any athletic field use sites. All moveable sports goals, nets, and cages shall be the responsibility of the 357
CC 01-18-2022
357 of 365
permitted youth sports league. Only permitted youth sports leagues can store goals, nets, and cages on site. All equipment and storage containers, as well as their location, must be approved by the Public Works Department. Storage areas must be kept clean and well maintained. ▪ At the beginning of each permitted season (Jan-Jun and July-Dec), all youth sports organizations must inspect all moveable sports goals, nets, and cages located at all athletic field use sites listed in the Athletic Field Use Policy. All movable sports goals, nets, and cages must be in good condition, safe to use, identified with ownership information, and labeled with the following warning:
o “WARNING – KEEP OFF”
o “WARNING - PROPERLY ANCHOR BEFORE USE”
o “WARNING – USE ONLY FOR AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY”
▪ All moveable sports goals, nets, and cages must be removed from athletic fields and stored in an approved area when not in use for games or practices. All moveable sports goals, nets, and cages will be secured with chains and locks. Securing to trees is not an accepted practice. Nets must be removed from the frames of all moveable sports goals, nets, and cages when stored and not in use.
▪ According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), a properly anchored/counterweighted moveable sports goals, nets, and cages is much less likely to tip over.

All moveable sports goals, nets, and cages MUST be anchored and secured to the ground when in use. All anchors are to be flush with the ground and visible. All moveable sports goals, nets, and cages must be anchored using sandbags or gravel bags.
▪ All coaches, officials, volunteers, administrators, and parents participating in permitted activity are required to abide by guidelines relating to the safe and secure storage of moveable sports goals, nets, and cages, proper anchoring, and rules concerning field usage where moveable sports goals, nets and cages are placed. Each youth sports group is responsible for training and notifying their members of their responsibility under this policy. ▪ Every member of each youth sports league is responsible for stopping unauthorized use of moveable sports goals, nets, and cages. This includes but is not limited to moving any moveable sports goal, net, or cage and any use of a moveable sports goal, net, or cage that is inconsistent with sports-related activity such as playing, climbing, or hanging on any part of the moveable sports goal, net, or cage. This especially applies to children climbing on or hanging from nets or frames.
▪ Code Enforcement will cite any moveable sports goal, net, or cage found in violation of this policy. Owner will have one week (7 days) to make them compliant with this policy, or they will be removed from the site by the Public Works Department. Any moveable sports goal, net, or cage removed from athletic field sites may be disposed of at the discretion of the City of Cupertino. Removal, storage, and disposal fees may apply and must be paid before any new athletic field use permit will be issued. Repeated violations of this policy may result in Youth Sports Leagues losing the privilege of storing goals at any or all athletic field use sites listed in the Athletic Field Use Policy.

This policy constitutes the exclusive Field Use Policy surrounding field use for City of Cupertino owned fields and Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) fields specified in the Joint Use Agreement. 358
CC 01-18-2022
358 of 365
Athletic Field Use Policy
The City of Cupertino Athletic Field Use Policy has been established to ensure that all City-managed fields are utilized for recreational, athletic, cultural, educational, social, and community service functions in a manner that preserves neighborhood quality of life and protects the park resource.

Purpose:
• To establish procedures governing the exclusive use of City of Cupertino and Cupertino Union School District playing fields managed by the City of Cupertino. • To ensure that Cupertino residents have priority access to the fields. • To support organizations that foster a sense of community and encourage the development of youth athletes.
• To collect reasonable fees for the use of the fields, in support of their ongoing maintenance. • To incorporate turf recovery periods as needed to maintain safe, quality fields.

Permit Required
Field Use Permits are required for exclusive field use or for any repeated, organized use of athletic fields maintained by the City of Cupertino. The Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department issues Field Use Permits.

City of Cupertino Maintained Fields
The fields listed below are available for permitting through the City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department. City of Cupertino owned fields are noted as ‘City’, and fields under the Cupertino Union School District/City of Cupertino Joint Use Agreement are noted as ‘JUA’. ▪ Creekside Park (City) 3 soccer fields
▪ Jollyman Park (City) 1 baseball/soccer joint use field, 1 soccer field ▪ Hoover Park (City) 2 soccer fields
▪ Wilson Park (City) 2 baseball, 1 soccer/baseball joint use field ▪ Monta Vista Park (City) 2 softball fields
▪ Garden Gate Elementary (JUA) 1 soccer field or 2 fields for younger kids ▪ Eaton Elementary (JUA) 1 soccer field or 2 fields for younger kids ▪ Faria Elementary (JUA) 1 baseball/soccer joint use field ▪ Hyde Middle School (JUA) 1 soccer (track) field, 1 baseball/soccer joint use field ▪ Kennedy Middle School (JUA) 1 baseball Field, 3 baseball/soccer joint use fields ▪ Regnart Elementary (JUA) 1 baseball/soccer joint use field ▪ Stevens Creek Elementary (JUA) 2 soccer fields
▪ Lincoln Elementary (JUA) 1 soccer field or 2 fields for younger kids ▪ Collins Elementary (JUA) 1 baseball/soccer joint use field ▪ Library Field (City) 1 field joint use for youth cricket, soccer, volleyball 359
CC 01-18-2022
359 of 365
Field Availability
City-owned fields Monday-Saturday 9 a.m.-Dusk
CUSD fields under the JUA:

Elementary Schools Monday-Friday 4 p.m.-Dusk
Kennedy/Hyde Middle School Monday-Thursday 5 p.m.-Dusk
All JUA fields Saturdays, School Holidays, School Summer Vacation 9 a.m.-Dusk All fields
Games Sunday 10 a.m.-4 p.m.

Tournaments Sunday 9 a.m.-dusk
Sunday use may be permitted by staff to those organizations already in possession of Monday-Saturday Permits.

Organizations may request two Sunday field permits per year for games or practice. Each Sunday field permit is for one field only. Sunday access to fields will be granted no earlier than 10 a.m. and use must be completed by 4 p.m. A game or practice is defined as a maximum of two teams participating in a sport.

In addition, two Sunday permit dates/year/organization may be granted by staff to accommodate special tournaments or events (not regularly scheduled league play). Tournaments may be held at multiple fields on the same date. Access to field for tournaments will be granted no earlier than 9 a.m., with games beginning no earlier than 10 a.m. A tournament is defined as at least three teams all participating in a sport or game.

A maximum of 10 Sundays will be allowed to be permitted at any it is for a game, tournament, or practice.

Priority groups 1 and 2 (see Priority section) are not subject to these restrictions and will be scheduled as reasonable.

Fields will be permitted for the activities that the field(s) are intended for, designed for, classified as, or for activities conducted in a manner that does not compromise public safety or field quality and integrity.

Athletic Field Permit Application
A completed athletic field reservation application must be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Department to be eligible for a Field Use Permit. All groups are required to follow State and Federal Guidelines regarding mandated reporting, fingerprinting, and concussion protocols. Detailed requirements will be provided to any interested group. For priority use, applications, along with proof of insurance as required by the City, must be submitted before the deadlines listed below. Insurance requirements will be provided to any interested group.

Seasons are as follows:

Season Dates Deadline
Spring January-June December 1st
Fall July-December May 1st
360
CC 01-18-2022
360 of 365
Groups should only request the amount of field space needed for the operation of their programs. It is the responsibility of the permitted organization to notify the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department as soon as possible if it is determined by the permit organization that an approved permit date(s) is no longer needed. The Parks and Recreation Department has the right to re-assign unused field space as needed.

Priority
1 Field permits are assigned based on the following priority system: City of Cupertino programs at any field and CUSD programs at JUA fields.
2 Nonprofit organizations primarily serving individuals with a disability, with priority given to majority resident groups. Organizations must provide documentation, subject to review by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
3 Resident, nonprofit youth organizations: Organizations must maintain Cupertino resident participation of 51% or greater and must be a recognized nonprofit 501(c)(3) serving youth ages 18 or younger.
4 Non-resident, nonprofit youth organizations: Group must be recognized nonprofit 501(c)(3) serving youth ages 18 or younger.
5 Resident adult or resident for-profit youth organizations. 6 Non-resident adult or non-resident for-profit youth organizations. 7 Organizations that have violated the terms of the field use policy: Any group found violating any term of the field use policy or providing misleading or false information to the City of Cupertino will have last priority for scheduling field time. Any violations may affect future field use permit eligibility.

Seasonal Use Priority
• Baseball/softball organizations will have priority on soccer/baseball joint use fields during the spring.
• Soccer organizations will have priority on soccer/baseball joint use fields during the fall.

Fees
1 City of Cupertino at any field/CUSD programs at JUA fields—no charge 2 Non-profit organizations primarily serving individuals with a disability—no charge 3 Resident, nonprofit youth organizations --$5/hour/field 4 Non-resident, nonprofit youth organizations--$15/hour/field 5 Resident adult or resident for-profit youth organizations--$25/hour/field 6 Non-resident adult or non-resident for-profit youth organizations--$30/hour/field Residency verification
All organizations will be required to submit a roster each season for players scheduled on Cupertino fields. After the request is made, rosters must be submitted within 14 days. Rosters must include the following information: first name, last name, address, city, and zip code. For returning groups, priority will be determined using the prior season’s residency.

Payment of Fees
The City of Cupertino will invoice the organization based on the approved number of hours. Payment will be due 14 days after invoice is received. For groups with seasonal permits, two invoices will be 361
CC 01-18-2022
361 of 365
issued each season. The first will be issued halfway through the season and the second will be issued at the end of the season. For single use groups, invoices will be issued upon permit approval.

Cancellations/Refunds
Requests for refunds can be made up to ten (10) working days prior to scheduled use. Requests must be made to the recreation coordinator responsible for field scheduling.

Groups will not be charged for any scheduled field use during a weather or maintenance related field closure.

Field Closures/Field Hotline
Fields may be closed to avoid turf damage due to inclement weather or field saturation. Fields may be closed for field maintenance. Call the field hotline at 408-777-3566 or check @cupertinofields on Twitter to determine whether the fields are open or closed.

Organizations found playing on a CLOSED field will first receive a written warning from the City. A second offense will result in loss of priority rankings, revocation of existing permits, and/or penalties pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 13.04.240.

Good Neighbor Guidelines
Cupertino’s athletic fields are located on school property and in residential neighborhoods. User groups are expected to be respectful of the schools and neighbors by keeping noise at acceptable levels, cleaning up after use, following speed limits, and parking in designated areas. All participants are expected to abide by park rules and good neighbor guidelines. Failure to follow the rules may result in the denial of future field use or the revoking of existing permits.

General Regulations for Field Use
▪ A copy of the approved permit must be available for inspection when an organization is using the field.
▪ Field users are required to observe all City of Cupertino park regulations. ▪ Field use is limited to the times and dates indicated on the permit, and any changes are subject to availability and approval by the department.
▪ Organizations must notify the Parks and Recreation Department prior to the placement of portable restrooms. Placement must be in a location approved by the Public Works Department.

The responsible party’s contact information must be given to the department. Portable restrooms must be maintained regularly, secured in the approved location, and locked when not in use. ▪ No alcoholic beverages are allowed; violation will result in forfeiture of the permit and no fees will be returned.
▪ No group shall litter, soil, damage, or defile the field, rest rooms, or other park areas. ▪ No group or persons shall use any system to amplify sound whether for speech or music. ▪ No group or person shall make or kindle a fire for any purpose, except at places so designated. ▪ No group shall enter an area posted as “closed to the public” or “field closed.” No persons shall remove such postings.
▪ No group or persons shall indulge in riotous, boisterous, threatening, or indecent conduct.

Goals and Equipment Storage and Safety Requirements
362
CC 01-18-2022
362 of 365
It is each organizations responsibility to ensure safe and secure use of any movable sports goal, net, or cage including but not limited to the following:
▪ The City of Cupertino does not furnish any moveable sports goal, net, or cage for any athletic field use sites. All moveable sports goals, nets, and cages shall be the responsibility of the permitted youth sports league. Only permitted youth sports leagues can store goals, nets, and cages on site. All equipment and storage containers, as well as their location, must be approved by the Public Works Department. Storage areas must be kept clean and well maintained. ▪ At the beginning of each permitted season (Jan-Jun and July-Dec), all youth sports organizations must inspect all moveable sports goals, nets, and cages located at all athletic field use sites listed in the Athletic Field Use Policy. All movable sports goals, nets, and cages must be in good condition, safe to use, identified with ownership information, and labeled with the following warning:
o “WARNING – KEEP OFF”
o “WARNING - PROPERLY ANCHOR BEFORE USE”
o “WARNING – USE ONLY FOR AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY”
▪ All moveable sports goals, nets, and cages must be removed from athletic fields and stored in an approved area when not in use for games or practices. All moveable sports goals, nets, and cages will be secured with chains and locks. Securing to trees is not an accepted practice. Nets must be removed from the frames of all moveable sports goals, nets, and cages when stored and not in use.
▪ According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), a properly anchored/counterweighted moveable sports goals, nets, and cages is much less likely to tip over.

All moveable sports goals, nets, and cages MUST be anchored and secured to the ground when in use. All anchors are to be flush with the ground and visible. All moveable sports goals, nets, and cages must be anchored using sandbags or gravel bags.
▪ All coaches, officials, volunteers, administrators, and parents participating in permitted activity are required to abide by guidelines relating to the safe and secure storage of moveable sports goals, nets, and cages, proper anchoring, and rules concerning field usage where moveable sports goals, nets and cages are placed. Each youth sports group is responsible for training and notifying their members of their responsibility under this policy. ▪ Every member of each youth sports league is responsible for stopping unauthorized use of moveable sports goals, nets, and cages. This includes but is not limited to moving any moveable sports goal, net, or cage and any use of a moveable sports goal, net, or cage that is inconsistent with sports-related activity such as playing, climbing, or hanging on any part of the moveable sports goal, net, or cage. This especially applies to children climbing on or hanging from nets or frames.
▪ Code Enforcement will cite any moveable sports goal, net, or cage found in violation of this policy. Owner will have one week (7 days) to make them compliant with this policy, or they will be removed from the site by the Public Works Department. Any moveable sports goal, net, or cage removed from athletic field sites may be disposed of at the discretion of the City of Cupertino. Removal, storage, and disposal fees may apply and must be paid before any new athletic field use permit will be issued. Repeated violations of this policy may result in Youth Sports Leagues losing the privilege of storing goals at any or all athletic field use sites listed in the Athletic Field Use Policy.

This policy constitutes the exclusive Field Use Policy surrounding field use for City of Cupertino owned fields and Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) fields specified in the Joint Use Agreement. 363
CC 01-18-2022
363 of 365
364
CC 01-18-2022
364 of 365

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-10301 Agenda Date: 1/18/2022
Agenda #: 17.

Subject: Adjourn in memory of former Cupertino Mayor John Gatto CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1/12/2022
powered by Legistar™365
CC 01-18-2022
365 of 365