Cupertino City Council
October 17, 2023

CERTIFICATION
The Finance Manager hereby certifies to the accuracy of said records and to the availability of funds for payment.

CERTIFIED:

Jonathan Orozco, Finance Manager
132
CC 10-17-2023
132 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
Main Account - Main Checking Account
Check
733426 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Advantage Grafix $4,787.68 Invoice Date Description Amount
47932 09/22/2023 PW SR2S: Color Post Cards $224.46
47928 09/22/2023 PW SR2S: Bike Fest Poster $574.98
47930 09/22/2023 FY23-24 Budget Book printing $3,329.80 47935 09/22/2023 FY23-24 BAAG Printing $233.19
47945 09/22/2023 Garage Sale 2023 Maps $425.25
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$4,362.43
520 - Resource Recovery 520 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$425.25
733427 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable AT&T $6,296.53
Invoice Date Description Amount
000020508011-0 09/12/2023 4087771305 | | 10185 N STELLING RD - Secure FAX $18.99 000020508011-1 09/12/2023 4087771306 | | 10185 N STELLING RD - Sheriff $19.13 000020508011-2 09/12/2023 4087771307 | | 10185 N STELLING RD - Sheriff $19.13 000020508011-3 09/12/2023 4087771311 | | 22221 MC CLELLAN RD - Environmental Education Cen
$24.20
000020508011-4 09/12/2023 4087771318 | | 10555 MARY AV - Traffic Operating Center on Franc
$35.13
000020508011-5 09/12/2023 4087771331 | | 21975 SAN FERNANDO AV - BBFKiosk Alarm$19.63 000020508011-6 09/12/2023 4087771340 | | 10555 MARY AV - Alarm- Service Center
$19.28
000020508011-7 09/12/2023 4087771344 | | 21251 STEVENS CREEK BL - SEN - FAX
$19.13
000020508011-8 09/12/2023 4087771345 - CH- PG&E Meter $19.28 000020508011-9 09/12/2023 4087771346 | | 21111 STEVENS CREEK BL - SPORTS Center - HVAC Lin
$19.28
000020508011-10 09/12/2023 4087771348 | | 10555 MARY AV - Alarm- Service Center
$20.64
000020508011-11 09/12/2023 4087771355 | | 10555 MARY AV - Mechanic Shop FAX
$19.13
000020508011-12 09/12/2023 4087773102 | | 10185 N STELLING RD - Museum/Spare
$19.13
000020508011-13 09/12/2023 4087773103 | | 10185 N STELLING RD - Museum/Spare
$19.13
000020508011-14 09/12/2023 4087773109 - FAX $19.13
000020508011-15 09/12/2023 4087773112 | | 21111 STEVENS CREEK BL - SPORTS- Fire Alarm
$20.55
000020508011-16 09/12/2023 4087773113 | | 21111 STEVENS CREEK BL - SPORTS- Fire Alarm
$19.39
000020508011-17 09/12/2023 4087773137 | | 10185 N STELLING RD - FAX QCC $19.13 000020508011-18 09/12/2023 4087773143 | | 21975 SAN FERNANDO AV - BBF - Retreat Alarm
$19.79
000020508011-19 09/12/2023 4087773145 | | 21975 SAN FERNANDO AV - BBFAlarm Golf Shed$19.28 user: Vi Tran Pages: 1 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 133
CC 10-17-2023
133 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
000020508011-20 09/12/2023 4087773156 | | 21251 STEVENS CREEK BL - SENFAX Work Room$19.13 000020508011-21 09/12/2023 4087773164 | | 21111 STEVENS CREEK BL - Sports Fax
$19.28
000020508011-22 09/12/2023 4087773168 | | 21111 STEVENS CREEK BL - Sports Center Elevator
$19.28
000020508011-23 09/12/2023 4087773254 | | 21975 SAN FERNANDO AV - BBF - Golf Shed
$24.20
000020508011-24 09/12/2023 4087773258 | | 21975 SAN FERNANDO AV - BBFAlarm Café$19.15 000020508011-25 09/12/2023 4087773287 - Comm Hall - Alarm $19.65 000020508011-26 09/12/2023 4087773288 - Comm Hall - Fire Alarm $19.66 000020508011-27 09/12/2023 4087773293 - Comm Hall - Fire Alarm $19.13 000020508011-28 09/12/2023 4087773302 | | 21251 STEVENS CREEK BL - SENCredit Card Front D$19.13 000020508011-29 09/12/2023 4087773305 | | 21251 STEVENS CREEK BL - SENCredit Card Front D$19.13 000020508011-30 09/12/2023 4087773317 - CH- Finance CC VISA $19.28 000020508011-31 09/12/2023 4087773333 - CH- FAX downstairs $19.28 000020508011-32 09/12/2023 4087773365 | | 21251 STEVENS CREEK BL - RNA FAX
$19.13
000020508011-33 09/12/2023 4087773369 | | 21251 STEVENS CREEK BL - SENAlarm Line$21.79 000020508011-34 09/12/2023 4087773370 | | 21251 STEVENS CREEK BL - SENAlarm Line$19.38 000020508011-35 09/12/2023 4087773372 | | 21251 STEVENS CREEK BL - Trane Modem (HVAC)
$19.13
000020508011-36 09/12/2023 4087773387 | | 10555 MARY AV - FAX or Alarm $19.13 000020508011-37 09/12/2023 4087773388 | | 10555 MARY AV - FAX or Alarm $19.13 000020508011-38 09/12/2023 4087773399 | | 10555 MARY AV - FAX $19.31 000020508011-39 09/12/2023 4087773416 | | 21251 STEVENS CREEK BL - SENCr Card$19.13 000020508011-40 09/12/2023 4087773419 | | 21251 STEVENS CREEK BL - SENCr Card$19.13 000020507043-0 09/12/2023 City Clerk $28.36
000020507043-1 09/12/2023 4082558166 - Service Center Admin $28.21 000020507043-2 09/12/2023 City Hall $1,470.05
000020507043-3 09/12/2023 Service Center $111.82
000020507043-4 09/12/2023 Wilson Park $28.21
000020507043-5 09/12/2023 Street Maintenance $28.36
000020507043-6 09/12/2023 Monte Vista - 0720858144 $522.45 000020507043-7 09/12/2023 BBF Golf - 0720858146 $425.90 000020507043-8 09/12/2023 BBF Park - 0720858145 $425.90 000020507043-9 09/12/2023 0720858348 - $425.90
000020507043-10 09/12/2023 0720858349 - 10229 North Portal Avenue $425.90 000020507043-11 09/12/2023 Teleconnect: BTN0720858350 $425.90 000020507043-12 09/12/2023 720858352 $522.45
000020507043-13 09/12/2023 Teleconnect: BTN0722762181 $522.45 000020507043-14 09/12/2023 4084461114 - 10455 Miller Ave $28.21 000020507043-15 09/12/2023 4084461126 - 19784 Wintergreen dr. $28.21 000020507043-16 09/12/2023 4084461164 - 10299 N PORTAL AV $28.21 user: Vi Tran Pages: 2 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 134
CC 10-17-2023
134 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$2,914.40
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$97.78
610 - Innovation & Technology 610 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$3,265.22
630 - Vehicle/Equip Replacement 630 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$19.13
733428 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable CAL-LINE EQUIPMENT CO INC $1,691.84 Invoice Date Description Amount
04016186 09/22/2023 Fleet - Long-Standard C, Long-Short Stan, Winch Brake
$1,267.93
04016255 09/21/2023 Fleet - 5/5-18 Fine Thr $41.29
04016254 09/21/2023 Fleet - Last Chance Cable $170.00
04016295 09/22/2023 Fleet - Winch Brake $212.62
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
630 - Vehicle/Equip Replacement 630 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$1,691.84
733429 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Comcast $967.39 Invoice Date Description Amount
180681853 09/01/2023 Business Class Internet - Mary, Stevens ck, Aug. 2023 $967.39 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
610 - Innovation & Technology 610 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$967.39
733430 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable County of Santa Clara -Office of the Sheriff
$1,465,159.67
Invoice Date Description Amount
1800087068 09/07/2023 Advance for Law Enforcement Sep 2023 $1,463,927.17 1800087081 09/18/2023 Festival Sheriff Charges $1,232.50 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$1,465,159.67
733431 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Dex Systems Engineering $3,315.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
1611 09/10/2023 Audio/Visual broadcast Engineer Support $1,360.00 1613 09/24/2023 A/V broadcast Engineer Support - Sports Center Multipurpose
$1,955.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$3,315.00
733432 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Foster Brothers Security Systems $576.69 Invoice Date Description Amount
3802 09/21/2023 Facilities - Door Lock Leverset $576.69 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$576.69
user: Vi Tran Pages: 3 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 135
CC 10-17-2023
135 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
733433 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Franchise Tax Board $294.27 Invoice Date Description Amount
09222023 09/22/2023 Garnishment - James Silva pp 9/9/23-9/22/23 $294.27 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$294.27
733434 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable HUICHEN LIN $780.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
092223 HL 09/22/2023 September fitness classes $780.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$780.00
733435 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM SAN JOSE INC.
$138.47
Invoice Date Description Amount
60295538 09/19/2023 Fleet - MTP-96R, ATCORE $138.47
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
630 - Vehicle/Equip Replacement 630 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$138.47
733436 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Li-Fen Lin $160.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
092223 LFL 09/22/2023 September fitness classes $160.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$160.00
733437 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Napa Auto Parts $514.86 Invoice Date Description Amount
707223 09/21/2023 Fleet - Air Filter, Spin-On Fluid Filter, Radial Seal Filter $213.59 707224 09/21/2023 Fleet - Radial Seal Filter $59.05
707110 09/20/2023 Fleet - Gas Grande Shock $152.37
707303 09/22/2023 Fleet - Spin-On Fluid Filter $42.85
707314 09/22/2023 Fleet - Impellor, Freight Charges $47.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
630 - Vehicle/Equip Replacement 630 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$514.86
733438 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 $1,474.86
Invoice Date Description Amount
09222023 09/22/2023 Union Dues pp 9/9/23-9/22/23 $1,474.86 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$1,474.86
733439 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Petaluma Museum Association $310.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
00108 08/11/2023 Senior Trip: 10/19/23 - Delightful Day in Petaluma $310.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$310.00
user: Vi Tran Pages: 4 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 136
CC 10-17-2023
136 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
733440 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable PG&E $23,651.25 Invoice Date Description Amount
1715-092023 09/20/2023 4993063171-5 8/16/23-9/14/23 $23,651.25 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$23,651.25
733441 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Royal Coach Tours $1,511.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
27383 10/19/2023 Charter 27383: 10/19/23 - Delightful Day in Petaluma Trip
$1,511.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$1,511.00
733442 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY $72,303.15 Invoice Date Description Amount
04302023 09/26/2023 Water System Upgrades $72,303.15
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$72,303.15
733443 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY $19,071.11 Invoice Date Description Amount
05312023 09/26/2023 Water System Upgrades $19,071.11
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$19,071.11
733444 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY $25,186.07 Invoice Date Description Amount
06302023 09/26/2023 Water System Upgrades $25,186.07
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$25,186.07
733445 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY $140,632.31 Invoice Date Description Amount
022823 09/25/2023 Water System Upgrades $140,632.31
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$140,632.31
733446 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY $4,346.06 Invoice Date Description Amount
013123 09/25/2023 Water System Upgrades $4,346.06
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$4,346.06
733447 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY $9,739.02 Invoice Date Description Amount
033123 09/25/2023 Water System Upgrades $9,739.02
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
user: Vi Tran Pages: 5 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 137
CC 10-17-2023
137 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$9,739.02
733448 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable T-MOBILE $304.22 Invoice Date Description Amount
4158 - 9/21/23 09/21/2023 966594158 - 9/21/23 $124.22
4158 - 72123 07/21/2023 966594158 - 7/21/23 $180.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
610 - Innovation & Technology 610 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$304.22
733449 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable The Lagunitas Brewing Company $657.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
5444786 10/19/2023 Senior Trip: 10/19/23 - Delightful Day in Petaluma $657.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$657.00
733450 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Chapman, Cheri $300.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
2008191.030 09/13/2023 QCC- 9.13.23- Social Room Security Deposit Refund $300.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$300.00
733451 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Cupertino High School Band Program $500.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
2007362.030 05/04/2023 06/03/2023- Cupertino Room Security Deposit Refund $500.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$500.00
733452 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable DING, XINYING $23,300.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
264985 09/26/2023 10395 N STELLING RD, ENCROACHMENT, 264985 $23,300.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$23,300.00
733453 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Peninsula Party Rentals Inc. $2,477.55 Invoice Date Description Amount
17670 09/16/2023 Canopy and Rental Supplies for Bike Fest $2,477.55 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$2,477.55
Type Check Totals: 28 Transactions $1,810,446.00
EFT
38039 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Colonial Life & Accident Insurance $29.16 Invoice Date Description Amount
09222023 09/22/2023 Colonial Products pp 9/9/23-9/22/23 $29.16 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$29.16
user: Vi Tran Pages: 6 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 138
CC 10-17-2023
138 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
38040 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Employment Development $7,045.19 Invoice Date Description Amount
09222023 09/22/2023 State Disability Insurance pp 9/9/23-9/22/23 $7,045.19 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$7,045.19
38041 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable National Deferred (ROTH) $1,506.66 Invoice Date Description Amount
09222023 09/22/2023 Nationwide Roth pp 9/9/23-9/22/23 $1,506.66 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$1,506.66
38042 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable National Deferred Compensatin $25,572.44 Invoice Date Description Amount
09222023 09/22/2023 Nationwide Deferred Compensation pp 9/9/23-9/22/23 $25,572.44 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$25,572.44
38043 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable PERS-457K $12,638.29 Invoice Date Description Amount
09222023 09/22/2023 PERS 457K pp 9/9/23-9/22/23 $12,638.29 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$12,638.29
38044 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable State Disbursement Unit $427.84 Invoice Date Description Amount
09222023 09/22/2023 Child Support pp 9/9/23-9/22/23 $427.84 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$427.84
38045 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable 4LEAF, Inc. $8,215.38 Invoice Date Description Amount
J3872-05B 09/20/2023 Regnart Road Improvements through 080123-083123 $8,215.38 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
420 - Capital Improvement Fund 420 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$8,215.38
38046 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable A-1 FENCE INC. $2,750.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
14630 09/07/2023 Trees/ROW - Lawrence 3 Repair Fence Replace Posts $2,750.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$2,750.00
38047 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable ABOLI JAYDEEP RANADE $273.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
092223 AJR 09/22/2023 September fitness classes $273.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$273.00
user: Vi Tran Pages: 7 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 139
CC 10-17-2023
139 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
38048 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Adam Araza $2,487.81 Invoice Date Description Amount
AdamA092623 09/26/2023 Adam Esri International User Conference July 9 - 14, 2023
$2,487.81
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
610 - Innovation & Technology 610 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$2,487.81
38049 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable ADVANCED CHEMICAL TRANSPORT, INC.
$1,562.78
Invoice Date Description Amount
515761 09/22/2023 Streets - Hazmat Waste Collection $1,562.78 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$1,562.78
38050 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable ALBERT SALVADOR $1,066.46 Invoice Date Description Amount
AlbertS091523 09/15/2023 Albert AutoCad Subscription reimbursement 06/01/23 - 05/31/24
$1,066.46
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$1,066.46
38051 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Amazon Capital Services $498.57 Invoice Date Description Amount
1QVT-7JLY-4X3R 09/11/2023 Amazon(USBC-HDMI adapter; DVD Case; HDMI Splitter)
$129.46
19QD-D7PC-NDCM 09/18/2023 TV screen protector; XLR Plug; Fiber Optic Coverters; DVD cases
$369.11
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$498.57
38052 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Amit Goel $234.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
092223 AG 09/22/2023 September fitness classes $234.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$234.00
38053 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Avocette Technologies Inc. $10,595.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
2308CU1 08/31/2023 Accela Support for Configuration & Support Services August 2023
$10,595.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$10,595.00
38054 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable B&H PHOTO-VIDEO $353.57 Invoice Date Description Amount
216773208 09/18/2023 Wyrestorm ANLG/DGTL Audio Extrct/HDMI Pass-Thru $353.57 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
user: Vi Tran Pages: 8 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 140
CC 10-17-2023
140 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$353.57
38055 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Bikeep Inc. $49.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
18008 09/30/2023 Monthly Bikeep Fee $49.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$49.00
38056 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable BKF Engineers $30,288.50 Invoice Date Description Amount
23091138 09/20/2023 Staff Augmentation through 07312023-08272023 $29,667.00 23090981 09/19/2023 30860 McClellan Road through 07312023-08272023 $621.50 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$30,288.50
38057 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable CDW Government $2,350.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
LX07049 09/14/2023 SolarWinds IP Address Manager - upgrade license - up to 4096 IP
$2,350.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
610 - Innovation & Technology 610 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$2,350.00
38058 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable COLLEEN FERRIS $55.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
ColleenF091623 09/16/2023 cell phone service CF Augl 17 - Sept 16 $55.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$55.00
38059 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable CoreLogic Solutions, LLC. $750.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
30682612 08/31/2023 RQ2 Nationwide Commitment Package 01-AUG-2023 to 31-AUG-2023
$750.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
610 - Innovation & Technology 610 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$750.00
38060 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Cupertino Supply, Inc $309.86 Invoice Date Description Amount
332396 09/18/2023 Facilities - Hose Bibb, Brass Tee, Clamp, Insulator $60.11 332401 09/18/2023 Facilities - Clear Silicone, White Silicone $38.94 332424 09/18/2023 Facilities - Galv Strut, Sealant, Brass Nipple $93.07 332447 09/18/2023 Facilities - Brass Nipple $3.47
332462 09/18/2023 Facilities - Copper Fitting Reducer $3.02 332560 09/19/2023 Facilities - Lead Free Brass Adapter $5.91 332487 09/18/2023 Facilities - Type L Pipe, Cushion Clamp, Pipe Insulator $105.34 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$309.86
user: Vi Tran Pages: 9 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 141
CC 10-17-2023
141 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
38061 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable DAN BARONE $55.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
DanB091823 09/18/2023 Cell Phone Reimbursement - Dan B 08-19-23 to 09-18 -23
$55.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
270 - Transportation Fund 270 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$55.00
38062 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Eflex Group, Inc $4,345.16 Invoice Date Description Amount
09222023 09/22/2023 FSA pp 9/9/23-9/22/23 $4,345.16
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$4,345.16
38063 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable GOT POWER, INC. DBA CD &

POWER, INC
$18.46
Invoice Date Description Amount
01-77909A 08/22/2023 Facilities - City Hall Generator Maint. $18.46 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$18.46
38064 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable GRACE DUVAL $396.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
092223 GD 09/22/2023 September fitness classes $396.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$396.00
38065 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable GRAINGER INC $667.87 Invoice Date Description Amount
9845656454 09/21/2023 Facilities - Duplex Breaker 2-20A/1 Pole $53.92 9843809436 09/19/2023 Facilities - Auto Drain Valve $262.84 9849140604 09/25/2023 Facilities - Credit for Invoice# 9843809436 ($131.15) 9849157228 09/25/2023 Facilities - Auto Drain Valve $130.01 9849157236 09/25/2023 Facilities - Valve, V-Belt $352.25 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$352.25
630 - Vehicle/Equip Replacement 630 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$315.62
38066 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Gym Precision, Inc. $2,565.72 Invoice Date Description Amount
19164 09/11/2023 Console, Labor Time, power cord, Service Order# 22788.
$2,565.72
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$2,565.72
38067 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable IFPTE LOCAL 21 $1,922.70 Invoice Date Description Amount
09222023 09/22/2023 Association Dues - CEA pp 9/9/23-9/22/23 $1,922.70 user: Vi Tran Pages: 10 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 142
CC 10-17-2023
142 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$1,922.70
38068 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Interstate Traffic Control Products, Inc.
$352.46
Invoice Date Description Amount
259252 09/26/2023 Streets - Square Nylon Rain Caps, Nylon Washers $147.66 259253 09/26/2023 Streets - Stencil Guard 5G Pail $204.80 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
270 - Transportation Fund 270 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$352.46
38069 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Jahara Pagadipaala $160.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
092223 JP 09/22/2023 September fitness classes $160.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$160.00
38070 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable JAMES COLVIN $1,976.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
092223 JC 09/22/2023 September PT $1,976.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$1,976.00
38071 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable JENNIFER HILL $246.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
092223 JH 09/22/2023 September fitness classes $246.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$246.00
38072 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable John Raaymakers $55.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
JohnR09192023 09/19/2023 Cell Phone Reimbursement through 08202023- 09192023
$55.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$55.00
38073 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable JULIA KINST $55.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
JuliaK09192023 09/19/2023 Cell Phone Reimbursement through 08202023- 09192023
$55.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$55.00
38074 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable KEVIN RIEDEN $44.87 Invoice Date Description Amount
KevinR09122023 09/12/2023 Cell Phone Reimbursement through 09122023 $44.87 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
user: Vi Tran Pages: 11 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 143
CC 10-17-2023
143 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$44.87
38075 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable KIMBERLY LUNT $35.41 Invoice Date Description Amount
KimL09122023 09/12/2023 Cell Phone Reimbursement through 081323-091223 $35.41 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$35.41
38076 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Macias Catering Events $2,300.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
1 - 2023 09/11/2023 Wellness and Benefits Fair Lunch $2,300.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$2,300.00
38077 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Marlon Aumentado $55.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
MarlonA09152023 09/15/2023 Cell Phone Reimbursement through 081623-091523 $55.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$55.00
38078 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Melisa Stoner $180.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
092223 MS 09/22/2023 September fitness classes $180.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$180.00
38079 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable MissionSquare $18,268.32 Invoice Date Description Amount
09222023 09/22/2023 ICMA pp 9/9/23-9/22/23 $18,268.32
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$18,268.32
38080 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable MONICA G. RANES-GOLDBERG $252.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
092223 MGRG 09/22/2023 September fitness classes $252.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$252.00
38081 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. $33,643.10 Invoice Date Description Amount
0082879 09/22/2023 Lawrence-Mitty Park & Trail Master Plan thru 080123- 083123
$10,719.95
0082918 09/26/2023 All-Inclusive Playground at Jollyman Park through 080123-083123
$22,923.15
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
280 - Park Dedication 280 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$10,719.95
user: Vi Tran Pages: 12 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 144
CC 10-17-2023
144 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
420 - Capital Improvement Fund 420 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$22,923.15
38082 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Moss Adams LLP $700.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
102491521 09/22/2023 Ongoing Program Management services 8/1/23- 8/31/23
$700.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$700.00
38083 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Novedge LLC $600.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
N374086 08/03/2023 2x licenses of Bluebeam Core for Abdullah & Alex (Contractor)
$600.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
610 - Innovation & Technology 610 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$600.00
38084 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Packet Fusion, Inc. $13,048.83 Invoice Date Description Amount
PB15938 09/18/2023 VOIP 10/11/23-10/10/24 Support hardware and software config.
$13,048.83
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
610 - Innovation & Technology 610 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$13,048.83
38085 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable PARS/City of Cupertino $4,373.95 Invoice Date Description Amount
09222023 09/22/2023 PARS pp 9/9/23-9/22/23 $4,373.95
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$4,373.95
38086 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable PayPal Inc. $69.70 Invoice Date Description Amount
PPGW136795753 08/31/2023 VSV0003096477 cupertinoweb4 01-Aug-23 to 31-Aug23$19.95 PPGW136983226 08/31/2023 VSV0001160385 cupertinoweb2 01-Aug-23 to 31- Aug-23
$49.75
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$69.70
38087 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable PTS Communications Inc $543.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
2111774 09/14/2023 payphone svcs 10/1/23-10/31/23 $543.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$482.66
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$60.34
user: Vi Tran Pages: 13 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 145
CC 10-17-2023
145 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
38088 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Quartic Solutions $966.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
3652 09/06/2023 FY24 GIS Support August 2023 $966.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
610 - Innovation & Technology 610 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$966.00
38089 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Raychel Renee Balcioni Cruz $3,660.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
092223 RRBC 09/22/2023 September fitness classes/PT $3,660.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$3,660.00
38090 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Rojin Karimzad $495.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
092223 RK 09/22/2023 September fitness classes $495.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$495.00
38091 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP $13,859.22 Invoice Date Description Amount
283080 09/26/2023 Legal Services, August 2023 $13,859.22 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$13,859.22
38092 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable SimpliGov LLC $30,000.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
2257 08/30/2023 Second Amendment to SimpliGov for additional Support
$30,000.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
610 - Innovation & Technology 610 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$30,000.00
38093 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable SONIA DOGRA $351.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
092223 SD 09/22/2023 September fitness classes $351.00
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
570 - Sports Center 570 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$351.00
38094 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Sonitrol/Pacific West Security, Inc. $195.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
78079 09/25/2023 Facilities - Service Center Trip Charge/Service Call $195.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$195.00
38095 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Starbird Consulting LLC $8,454.76 Invoice Date Description Amount
0239 09/25/2023 Environmental Consulting McClellan Ranch Parking Lot thru 083123
$5,223.51
0240 09/25/2023 Regnart Road Improvements through 08312023 $3,231.25 user: Vi Tran Pages: 14 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 146
CC 10-17-2023
146 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
420 - Capital Improvement Fund 420 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$8,454.76
38096 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable TJKM $8,277.50
Invoice Date Description Amount
0054590 08/31/2023 Cupertino Vision Zero & Action Plan through 080123- 083123
$8,277.50
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
100 - General Fund 100 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$8,277.50
38097 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable WORLD JOURNAL SF LLC $900.00 Invoice Date Description Amount
2737620 09/25/2023 World Journal- 2023 Garage Sale Ad August 4th $225.00 2737621 09/25/2023 World Journal- 2023 Garage Sale Ad August 26th $225.00 2737622 09/25/2023 World Journal- 2023 Garage Sale Ad September 8th $225.00 2737623 09/25/2023 World Journal- 2023 Garage Sale Ad September 22nd $225.00 Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
520 - Resource Recovery 520 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$900.00
38098 09/29/2023 Open Accounts Payable Zoom Video Communications, Inc. $286.72 Invoice Date Description Amount
INV220083777 09/22/2023 Zoom Webinar 1000 Monthly Sep 22, 2023 - Oct 21, 2023
$286.72
Paying Fund Cash Account Amount
610 - Innovation & Technology 610 100-100 (Cash & Investments Assets Operating Cash)
$286.72
Type EFT Totals: 60 Transactions $263,433.26
Main Account - Main Checking Account Totals
Checks Status Count Transaction Amount Reconciled Amount Open 28 $1,810,446.00 $0.00
Reconciled 0 $0.00 $0.00
Voided 0 $0.00 $0.00
Stopped 0 $0.00 $0.00
Total 28 $1,810,446.00 $0.00
EFTs Status Count Transaction Amount Reconciled Amount
Open 60 $263,433.26 $0.00
Reconciled 0 $0.00 $0.00
Voided 0 $0.00 $0.00
Total 60 $263,433.26 $0.00
All Status Count Transaction Amount Reconciled Amount
Open 88 $2,073,879.26 $0.00
Reconciled 0 $0.00 $0.00
Voided 0 $0.00 $0.00
Stopped 0 $0.00 $0.00
user: Vi Tran Pages: 15 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 147
CC 10-17-2023
147 of 474
Number Date Status Void Reason
Reconciled/
Voided Date Source Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
Reconciled
Amount Difference
Total 88 $2,073,879.26 $0.00
Grand Totals:

Checks Status Count Transaction Amount Reconciled Amount Open 28 $1,810,446.00 $0.00
Reconciled 0 $0.00 $0.00
Voided 0 $0.00 $0.00
Stopped 0 $0.00 $0.00
Total 28 $1,810,446.00 $0.00
EFTs Status Count Transaction Amount Reconciled Amount
Open 60 $263,433.26 $0.00
Reconciled 0 $0.00 $0.00
Voided 0 $0.00 $0.00
Total 60 $263,433.26 $0.00
All Status Count Transaction Amount Reconciled Amount
Open 88 $2,073,879.26 $0.00
Reconciled 0 $0.00 $0.00
Voided 0 $0.00 $0.00
Stopped 0 $0.00 $0.00
Total 88 $2,073,879.26 $0.00
user: Vi Tran Pages: 16 of 16 Friday, September 29, 2023 Payment Register
**LIVE** Cupertino **LIVE**
From Payment Date: 9/23/2023 - To Payment Date: 9/29/2023 148
CC 10-17-2023
148 of 474

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
23-12577 Agenda Date:
10/17/2023 Agenda #: 3.

Subject: Second reading of Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 9.22, expanding existing property maintenance requirements in accordance with California Health and Safety Code 17970.5 Conduct a second reading and enact Ordinance No. 23-2250: “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9.22 of Title 9 (Health and Sanitation) TO PROHIBIT SUBSTANDARD HOUSING CONDITIONS".

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/11/2023
powered by Legistar™149
CC 10-17-2023
149 of 474

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 17, 2023
Subject
Second reading of amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 9.22, expanding existing property maintenance requirements in accordance with California Health and Safety Code 17970.5.

Recommended Action
Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 23-2250: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending City Code Chapter 9.22 of Title 9 (Health and Sanitation) to Prohibit Substandard Housing Conditions.” Discussion
During a regular City Council Meeting held on September 19, 2023, Council conducted the first reading for this amendment. Staff presented details about the state mandated changes directed by Assembly Bill (AB) 838, which has resulted in a new service being offered to residents: Substandard Housing Enforcement.

Council voted on the amendment to Chapter 9.22 of Title 9 (Health and Sanitation). No changes to the language were requested and this item passed unanimously.

If Council approves these changes today, the proposed ordinance will take effect after thirty (30) days on November 17, 2023.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Monica Diaz, Senior Code Enforcement Officer Reviewed by: Ben Fu, Community Development Director
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Draft Ordinance amending Chapter 9.22
B – Assembly Bill 838
C – California Health and Safety Code section 17970.5
D – California Health and Safety Code section 17920.3
E – California Health and Safety Code section 17920.10
150
CC 10-17-2023
150 of 474
1 ORDINANCE NO. __________________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9.22 of Title 9 (Health and Sanitation) TO

PROHIBIT SUBSTANDARD HOUSING CONDITIONS
The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that:

WHEREAS, the State of California has passed Assembly Bill (AB) 838. The Bill expands existing State Housing Law related to buildings used for human habitation with the addition of California Health and Safety Code section 17970.5 and imposes new duties on Cities and Counties;
WHEREAS, AB 838 requires the City respond to and address complaints involving substandard housing conditions, particularly those involving conditions which violate California Health and Safety Code sections 17920.3 et. seq., and 17920.10 et. seq.; WHEREAS, The City is committed to the prevention and elimination of blight and slum conditions. With the passage of AB 838, the City will have the ability to provide additional health and safety services and thus ensure housing conditions remain standardized for its residency.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Adoption.

The Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment A.

SECTION 2: Severability and Continuity.

The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, the City Council declares that it would have adopted 151
CC 10-17-2023
151 of 474
Ordinance No. __________

the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of such portion, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as an amendment to or readoption of the earlier provisions.

SECTION 3: California Environmental Quality Act.

This Ordinance is not a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility that the action approved may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment.

SECTION 4: Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937.

SECTION 5: Publication.

The City Clerk shall give notice of adoption of this Ordinance as required by law.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be prepared by the City Clerk and published in lieu of publication of the entire text. The City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the Ordinance listing the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on [September 19, 2023] and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on [October 17, 2023] by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
152
CC 10-17-2023
152 of 474
Ordinance No. __________

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
______________________
Hung Wei, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Christopher D. Jensen, City Attorney
________________________
Date
153
CC 10-17-2023
153 of 474
Attachment A – Page 1
Attachment A – An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino establishing property maintenance standards and prohibiting substandard housing conditions.

The sections of the Cupertino Municipal Code set forth below are adopted as follows:

9.22.060 Substandard Housing Conditions Prohibited.

(A)No property owner(s), agent(s), lessee(s), responsible party, any other person(s) or entity having control of, or control over the occupancy of any real property (including City property) within the City shall maintain or allow to be maintained any of the following conditions:
(1) Any building, residence and/or structure, or portion thereof, used for human occupancy in substandard condition, as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 17920.3 et. seq.
(2) Any building, residence and/or structure, or portion thereof, used for human occupancy to create a hazardous condition or environment, as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 17920.10 et. seq. (B) Fees.
(1) Upon receiving a formal notification of any substandard housing violations in accordance with Chapter 1.10, the owner(s), agent(s), lessee(s), responsible party(s), and any other person(s) or entity having control of, or control over the occupancy of any real property shall be jointly responsible to cure the violations by completing any required corrective actions or measures as listed and shall be jointly and severally liable for any liability arising from a violation of this section. (2) Upon deadline lapse and after one (1) re-inspection after which there was no progress noted, the City Manager or their designee may require a re-inspection fee, which may be established by a resolution of the City Council. (3) Nothing herein shall preclude the City Council from imposing additional fees to pay the cost of administering this section; provided, however, that no fee shall be charged for the inspection of or any inspection report about any property done or prepared pursuant to this section unless the inspection reveals one or more material violations of Health & Safety Code section 17920.10 or deems and 154
CC 10-17-2023
154 of 474
Ordinance No. __________

[Brief Description]- Page 2
declares the property substandard pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 17920.3.
(C) Enforcement. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9.22.030, any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be subject to enforcement under Chapter 1.10, including but not limited to section 1.10.070 (C), and to prosecution under Chapter 1.12.
155
CC 10-17-2023
155 of 474
SHARE THIS: Date Published: 09/29/2021 02:00 PM
AB-838 State Housing Law: enforcement response to complaints. (2021-2022) Assembly Bill No. 838
CHAPTER 351
An act to add Section 17970.5 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to building standards. [ Approved by Governor September 28, 2021. Filed with Secretary of State September 28, 2021. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 838, Friedman. State Housing Law: enforcement response to complaints.

Existing law, the State Housing Law, a violation of which is a crime, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes a city or county to designate and charge a specified department or officer with the enforcement of the State Housing Law, the building standards published in the California Building Standards Code, or any other rules and regulations adopted pursuant to the State Housing Law for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare.

Existing law deems a building, portion of a building, or premises on which a building is located to be a substandard building if any one of specified conditions exists to the extent that it endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or its occupants. Existing law deems a building, portion of a building, or premises on which a building is located to be in violation of the State Housing Law if it contains lead hazards, as specified, that are likely to endanger the health of the public or the occupants.

This bill would, beginning July 1, 2022, require a city or county that receives a complaint of a substandard building or a lead hazard violation, as described above, from a tenant, resident, or occupant, or an agent of a tenant, resident, or occupant, except as specified, to inspect the building, portion of the building intended for human occupancy, or premises of the building, document the lead hazard violations that would be discovered based upon a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property, and identify any building, portion of a building intended for human occupancy, or premises on which such a building is located that is determined to be substandard, as applicable. The bill would require the city or county, as applicable, to advise the owner or operator of each violation and of each action that is required to be taken to remedy the violation and to schedule a reinspection to verify correction of the violations. The bill would require a city or county to provide free, certified copies of an inspection report and citations issued, if any, to the complaining tenant, resident, occupant, or agent, and to all potentially affected tenants, residents, occupants, or the agents of those individuals, as specified. The bill would prohibit the inspection or the report from being subject to any unreasonable conditions, as specified, and prohibit a city, county, or city and county from collecting a fee, cost, or charge from a property owner or property owner's agent for any inspection of, or any inspection report about, that owner’s or agent’s property that is conducted or issued pursuant to the bill’s provisions, unless the inspection reveals one or more material lead hazard violations or deems and declares the property substandard, Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites 156
CC 10-17-2023
156 of 474
as described above. The bill would prohibit a city or county from unreasonably refusing to communicate with a tenant, resident, occupant, or agent regarding a matter covered by this bill.

By imposing new duties on local government officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 17970.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
17970.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, a city or county that receives a complaint from a tenant, resident, or occupant, or an agent of a tenant, resident, or occupant, regarding a potential violation of Section 17920.10 or regarding a building being substandard pursuant to Section 17920.3 shall do all of the following:
(1) Inspect the building or portion thereof intended for human occupancy, including any dwelling unit, guestroom, or suite of rooms, or the premises on which it is located, that may be in violation of Section 17920.10 or that may be substandard pursuant to Section 17920.3. (2) Document any violations of Section 17920.10 that would be discovered based upon a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property and identify any building or portion thereof intended for human occupancy, including any dwelling unit, guestroom, or suite of rooms, or the premises on which it is located, that is determined to be substandard pursuant to Section 17920.3, as applicable. The documentation shall be included in the inspection report described in subdivision (d). (3) As applicable, advise the owner or operator of each violation and of each action that is required to be taken to remedy the violation and schedule a reinspection to verify correction of the violations. (b) A city or county shall perform an inspection conducted pursuant to subdivision (a) at least as promptly as that city or county conducts an inspection in response to a request for final inspection pursuant to Section 110 of the California Building Code.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a city or county is not required to conduct an inspection in response to either of the following types of complaints:
(1) A complaint that does not allege one or more substandard conditions. (2) A complaint submitted by a tenant, resident, or occupant who, within the past 180 days, submitted a complaint about the same property that the chief building inspector or their designee reasonably determined, after inspection, was frivolous or unfounded.
(d) A city or county shall provide free, certified copies of an inspection report and citations issued pursuant to this section, if any, to the complaining tenant, resident, occupant, or their agent. If inspection reveals a condition potentially affecting multiple tenants, residents, or occupants, including, but not limited to, conditions relating to the premises, common areas, or structural features, then the city or county shall provide free copies of the inspection report and citations issued to all potentially affected tenants, residents, occupants, or their agents. (e) A city, county, or city and county shall not collect a fee, cost, or charge from a property owner or property owner’s agent for any inspection of, or any inspection report about, that owner’s or agent’s property that is conducted or issued pursuant to this section, unless the inspection reveals one or more material violations of Section 17920.10 or deems and declares the property substandard pursuant to Section 17920.3. (f) Nothing in this section limits or alters the existing authority of a city, county, or city and county to impose fees on rental property owners to support a rental property inspection program, or to otherwise impose generally applicable charges, fees, or assessments to cover the costs of inspections or inspection reports required by this section.
157
CC 10-17-2023
157 of 474
(g) An inspection or report required by this section shall not be subject to any unreasonable conditions, including any requirements that:
(1) The tenant, resident, occupant, or agent first make a demand for correction upon the owner of the property.
(2) The tenant be current on rent.
(3) The tenant otherwise be in compliance with their rental agreement. (4) The tenant, resident, or occupant not be involved in a legal dispute with the owner of the property. (h) A city or county shall not unreasonably refuse to communicate with a tenant, resident, occupant, or the agent of a tenant, resident, or occupant regarding any matter covered by this section. (i) The requirements of this section shall not be construed to impose a mandatory duty pursuant to Section 815.6 of the Government Code, and shall not be construed to affect the availability of any immunity otherwise applicable to the city or county or its employees, including, but not limited to, Sections 818.2, 818.4, 818.6, 820.2, 821, 821.2, and 821.4 of the Government Code.
(j) (1) An action to enforce the requirements of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2) For purposes of Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the requirements of this section shall be construed as acts which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. (k) This section shall become operative July 1, 2022.

SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, and because the only other costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district under this act would result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. 158
CC 10-17-2023
158 of 474
DIVISION 13. HOUSING [17000 - 19997] ( Division 13 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. ) PART 1.5. REGULATION OF BUILDINGS USED FOR HUMAN HABITATION [17910 - 17998.3] ( Part

1.5 added by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1844. )
CHAPTER 5. Administration and Enforcement [17960 - 17992] ( Chapter 5 added by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1844. )
17970.5.

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE - HSC
ARTICLE 2. Inspection [17970 - 17972] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1844. ) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, a city or county that receives a complaint from a tenant, resident, or occupant, or an agent of a tenant, resident, or occupant, regarding a potential violation of Section 17920.10 or regarding a building being substandard pursuant to Section 17920.3 shall do all of the following:
(1) Inspect the building or portion thereof intended for human occupancy, including any dwelling unit, guestroom, or suite of rooms, or the premises on which it is located, that may be in violation of Section 17920.10 or that may be substandard pursuant to Section 17920.3. (2) Document any violations of Section 17920.10 that would be discovered based upon a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property and identify any building or portion thereof intended for human occupancy, including any dwelling unit, guestroom, or suite of rooms, or the premises on which it is located, that is determined to be substandard pursuant to Section 17920.3, as applicable. The documentation shall be included in the inspection report described in subdivision (d). (3) As applicable, advise the owner or operator of each violation and of each action that is required to be taken to remedy the violation and schedule a reinspection to verify correction of the violations. (b) A city or county shall perform an inspection conducted pursuant to subdivision (a) at least as promptly as that city or county conducts an inspection in response to a request for final inspection pursuant to Section 110 of the California Building Code. (c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a city or county is not required to conduct an inspection in response to either of the following types of complaints:
(1) A complaint that does not allege one or more substandard conditions. (2) A complaint submitted by a tenant, resident, or occupant who, within the past 180 days, submitted a complaint about the same property that the chief building inspector or their designee reasonably determined, after inspection, was frivolous or unfounded. (d) A city or county shall provide free, certified copies of an inspection report and citations issued pursuant to this section, if any, to the complaining tenant, resident, occupant, or their agent. If inspection reveals a condition potentially affecting multiple tenants, residents, or occupants, including, but not limited to, conditions relating to the premises, common areas, or structural features, then the city or county shall provide free copies of the inspection report and citations issued to all potentially affected tenants, residents, occupants, or their agents. (e) A city, county, or city and county shall not collect a fee, cost, or charge from a property owner or property owner’s agent for any inspection of, or any inspection report about, that owner’s or agent’s property that is conducted or issued pursuant to this section, unless the inspection reveals one or more material violations of Section 17920.10 or deems and declares the property substandard pursuant to Section 17920.3. (f) Nothing in this section limits or alters the existing authority of a city, county, or city and county to impose fees on rental property owners to support a rental property inspection program, or to otherwise impose generally applicable charges, fees, or assessments to cover the costs of inspections or inspection reports required by this section. (g) An inspection or report required by this section shall not be subject to any unreasonable conditions, including any requirements that:
(1) The tenant, resident, occupant, or agent first make a demand for correction upon the owner of the property. (2) The tenant be current on rent.
(3) The tenant otherwise be in compliance with their rental agreement. 159
CC 10-17-2023
159 of 474
(4) The tenant, resident, or occupant not be involved in a legal dispute with the owner of the property. (h) A city or county shall not unreasonably refuse to communicate with a tenant, resident, occupant, or the agent of a tenant, resident, or occupant regarding any matter covered by this section.
(i) The requirements of this section shall not be construed to impose a mandatory duty pursuant to Section 815.6 of the Government Code, and shall not be construed to affect the availability of any immunity otherwise applicable to the city or county or its employees, including, but not limited to, Sections 818.2, 818.4, 818.6, 820.2, 821, 821.2, and 821.4 of the Government Code. (j) (1) An action to enforce the requirements of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) For purposes of Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the requirements of this section shall be construed as acts which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. (k) This section shall become operative July 1, 2022.
(Added by Stats. 2021, Ch. 351, Sec. 1. (AB 838) Effective January 1, 2022. Operative July 1, 2022, by its own provisions.) 160
CC 10-17-2023
160 of 474
DIVISION 13. HOUSING [17000 - 19997] ( Division 13 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. ) PART 1.5. REGULATION OF BUILDINGS USED FOR HUMAN HABITATION [17910 - 17998.3] ( Part

1.5 added by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1844. )
17920.3.

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE - HSC
CHAPTER 2. Rules and Regulations [17920 - 17929] ( Chapter 2 added by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1844. ) Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building:
(a) Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Lack of, or improper water closet, lavatory, or bathtub or shower in a dwelling unit. (2) Lack of, or improper water closets, lavatories, and bathtubs or showers per number of guests in a hotel. (3) Lack of, or improper kitchen sink.
(4) Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a hotel. (5) Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a dwelling unit. (6) Lack of adequate heating.
(7) Lack of, or improper operation of required ventilating equipment. (8) Lack of minimum amounts of natural light and ventilation required by this code. (9) Room and space dimensions less than required by this code. (10) Lack of required electrical lighting.
(11) Dampness of habitable rooms.
(12) Infestation of insects, vermin, or rodents as determined by a health officer or, if an agreement does not exist with an agency that has a health officer, the infestation can be determined by a code enforcement officer, as defined in Section 829.5 of the Penal Code, upon successful completion of a course of study in the appropriate subject matter as determined by the local jurisdiction. (13) Visible mold growth, as determined by a health officer or a code enforcement officer, as defined in Section 829.5 of the Penal Code, excluding the presence of mold that is minor and found on surfaces that can accumulate moisture as part of their properly functioning and intended use. (14) General dilapidation or improper maintenance.
(15) Lack of connection to required sewage disposal system. (16) Lack of adequate garbage and rubbish storage and removal facilities, as determined by a health officer or, if an agreement does not exist with an agency that has a health officer, the lack of adequate garbage and rubbish removal facilities can be determined by a code enforcement officer as defined in Section 829.5 of the Penal Code.
(b) Structural hazards shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Deteriorated or inadequate foundations.
(2) Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. (3) Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. 161
CC 10-17-2023
161 of 474
(4) Members of walls, partitions, or other vertical supports that split, lean, list, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. (5) Members of walls, partitions, or other vertical supports that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. (6) Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members which sag, split, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration.
(7) Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety.
(8) Fireplaces or chimneys which list, bulge, or settle due to defective material or deterioration. (9) Fireplaces or chimneys which are of insufficient size or strength to carry imposed loads with safety. (c) Any nuisance.
(d) All wiring, except that which conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation if it is currently in good and safe condition and working properly.
(e) All plumbing, except plumbing that conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation and has been maintained in good condition, or that may not have conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation but is currently in good and safe condition and working properly, and that is free of cross connections and siphonage between fixtures. (f) All mechanical equipment, including vents, except equipment that conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation and that has been maintained in good and safe condition, or that may not have conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation but is currently in good and safe condition and working properly. (g) Faulty weather protection, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Deteriorated, crumbling, or loose plaster.
(2) Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations, or floors, including broken windows or doors. (3) Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint, or weathering due to lack of paint or other approved protective covering.
(4) Broken, rotted, split, or buckled exterior wall coverings or roof coverings. (h) Any building or portion thereof, device, apparatus, equipment, combustible waste, or vegetation that, in the opinion of the chief of the fire department or his deputy, is in such a condition as to cause a fire or explosion or provide a ready fuel to augment the spread and intensity of fire or explosion arising from any cause.
(i) All materials of construction, except those that are specifically allowed or approved by this code, and that have been adequately maintained in good and safe condition.
(j) Those premises on which an accumulation of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, offal, rodent harborages, stagnant water, combustible materials, and similar materials or conditions constitute fire, health, or safety hazards. (k) Any building or portion thereof that is determined to be an unsafe building due to inadequate maintenance, in accordance with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code.
(l) All buildings or portions thereof not provided with adequate exit facilities as required by this code, except those buildings or portions thereof whose exit facilities conformed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and that have been adequately maintained and increased in relation to any increase in occupant load, alteration or addition, or any change in occupancy.

When an unsafe condition exists through lack of, or improper location of, exits, additional exits may be required to be installed. (m) All buildings or portions thereof that are not provided with the fire-resistive construction or fire-extinguishing systems or equipment required by this code, except those buildings or portions thereof that conformed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and whose fire-resistive integrity and fire-extinguishing systems or equipment have been adequately maintained and improved in relation to any increase in occupant load, alteration or addition, or any change in occupancy.
(n) All buildings or portions thereof occupied for living, sleeping, cooking, or dining purposes that were not designed or intended to be used for those occupancies.
162
CC 10-17-2023
162 of 474
(o) Inadequate structural resistance to horizontal forces. “Substandard building” includes a building not in compliance with Section 13143.2.

However, a condition that would require displacement of sound walls or ceilings to meet height, length, or width requirements for ceilings, rooms, and dwelling units shall not by itself be considered sufficient existence of dangerous conditions making a building a substandard building, unless the building was constructed, altered, or converted in violation of those requirements in effect at the time of construction, alteration, or conversion. (Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 720, Sec. 3. (SB 655) Effective January 1, 2016.) 163
CC 10-17-2023
163 of 474
DIVISION 13. HOUSING [17000 - 19997] ( Division 13 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. ) PART 1.5. REGULATION OF BUILDINGS USED FOR HUMAN HABITATION [17910 - 17998.3] ( Part

1.5 added by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1844. )
17920.10.

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE - HSC
CHAPTER 2. Rules and Regulations [17920 - 17929] ( Chapter 2 added by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1844. ) (a) Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom, or suite of rooms, or portion thereof, or the premises on which it is located, is deemed to be in violation of this part as to any portion that contains lead hazards. For purposes of this part, “lead hazards” means deteriorated lead-based paint, lead-contaminated dust, lead-contaminated soil, or disturbing lead-based paint without containment, if one or more of these hazards are present in one or more locations in amounts that are equal to or exceed the amounts of lead established for these terms in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 35001) of Division 1 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations or by this section and that are likely to endanger the health of the public or the occupants thereof as a result of their proximity to the public or the occupants thereof.
(b) In the absence of new regulations adopted by the State Department of Health Services in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) further interpreting or clarifying the terms “deteriorated lead-based paint,” “lead-based paint,” “lead-contaminated dust,” “containment,” or “leadcontaminated soil,” regulations in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 35001) of Division 1 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations adopted by the State Department of Health Services pursuant to Sections 105250 and 124150 shall interpret or clarify these terms. If the State Department of Health Services adopts new regulations defining these terms, the new regulations shall supersede the prior regulations for the purposes of this part.
(c) In the absence of new regulations adopted by the State Department of Health Services in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act defining the term “disturbing lead-based paint without containment” or modifying the term “deteriorated lead-based paint,” for purposes of this part “disturbing lead-based paint without containment” and “deteriorated lead-based paint” shall be considered lead hazards as described in subdivision (a) only if the aggregate affected area is equal to or in excess of one of the following:
(1) Two square feet in any one interior room or space.
(2) Twenty square feet on exterior surfaces.
(3) Ten percent of the surface area on the interior or exterior type of component with a small surface area. Examples include window sills, baseboards, and trim.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), “disturbing lead-based paint without containment” and “deteriorated lead-based paint” shall be considered lead hazards, for purposes of this part, if it is determined that an area smaller than those specified in subdivision (c) is associated with a person with a blood lead level equal to or greater than 10 micrograms per deciliter. (e) If the State Department of Health Services adopts regulations defining or redefining the terms “deteriorated lead-based paint,” “leadcontaminated dust,” “lead-contaminated soil,” “disturbing lead-based paint without containment,” “containment,” or “lead-based paint,” the effective date of the new regulations shall be deferred for a minimum of three months after their approval by the Office of Administrative Law and the regulations shall take effect on the next July 1 or January 1 following that three-month period. Until the new definitions apply, the prior definition shall apply.
(Added by Stats. 2002, Ch. 931, Sec. 1.5. Effective January 1, 2003.) 164
CC 10-17-2023
164 of 474

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-11594 Agenda Date:
10/17/2023 Agenda #: 4.

Subject: Second reading of Ordinance No. 23-2251 amending Tobacco Regulation Ordinance Municipal Code chapter 5.50
Conduct a second reading and enact Ordinance No. 23-2251; "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 5.50 TO TITLE 5 (BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS) TO REGULATE THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS".

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/11/2023
powered by Legistar™165
CC 10-17-2023
165 of 474

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 17, 2023
Subject
Amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 5.50 of Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations), regulating the sale of tobacco products.

Recommended Action
Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 23-2251: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 5.50 to Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations) to Regulate the Sale of Tobacco Products.

Reasons for Recommendation
On September 19, 2023 the City Council conducted the first reading of an ordinance amending Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 5.50 to regulate the sale of tobacco products. If the City Council approves the second reading at the October 17, 2023 meeting, the proposed ordinance will take effect on November 16, 2023.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Astrid Robles, Senior Management Analyst
Reviewed by: Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager
Matt Morley, Assistant City Manager
Chris Jensen, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
166
CC 10-17-2023
166 of 474
Attachments:

A – September 19, 2023 Staff Report
B – Draft Ordinance
167
CC 10-17-2023
167 of 474

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 19, 2023
Subject
Amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 5.50 of Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations), regulating the sale of tobacco products.

Recommended Action
Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 23-____: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 5.50 to Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations) to Regulate the Sale of Tobacco Products.

Reason for Recommendation
Tobacco use remains the number one preventable cause of death and disease in California, causing nearly 40,000 deaths in California every year. In Santa Clara County, one in eight deaths annually is attributed to smoking-related illness or diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, and respiratory diseases. More than one in ten youth in the County currently use tobacco products, including electronic smoking devices, and nearly 1 in 3 Santa Clara County teens report that they have used an e-cigarette at least once.

On November 19, 2019, the City of Cupertino adopted Ordinance No. 19-2190, which established that any retailer selling tobacco products would be required to obtain and annually renew a tobacco retailer permit (TRP) to continue selling tobacco in Cupertino. This ordinance was adopted with the understanding that Santa Clara County’s Department of Environmental Health (DEH) would administer, implement, and enforce Cupertino’s ordinance. DEH’s efforts would include monitoring retailers for compliance with tobacco control laws and decoy operations to determine if retailers are illegally selling tobacco products to underage individuals. The specific roles, responsibilities, and protocols for such administration and enforcement were established in an Agreement (Attachment A) between the City and the County. Notably, the County provides these services at no expense to the City. The agreement states that the County’s administration and enforcement under this Agreement is contingent upon the City’s adoption and maintenance of a City Ordinance that is the same as the County Ordinance in all material respects. 168
CC 10-17-2023
168 of 474
2 Discussion
On September 13, 2022, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approved an update to the County Ordinance regarding enforcement changes to the TRP. In order for the City to continue its partnership with the County pertaining to the administration and enforcement, Cupertino must also adopt policy changes similar to those adopted by Santa Clara County. These updates aim to improve enforcement and reduce retailer violations by increasing fines and strengthening consequences for frequent violations. These updates are outlined in the redline draft (Attachment B).

Staff sent individual letters to all tobacco retailers in Cupertino (Attachment D) outlining the following proposed changes:

1. Establish fines of up to $2,500 and up to a 180-day suspension of the business’s TRP permit for a second violation of the TRP ordinance within a 5-year period.

2. Require the permanent removal of a TRP for a third violation within a 5-year period. Any business continuing to sell tobacco products after TRP revocation will be subject to additional fines.

3. Increase fines and penalties for retailers operating without a valid permit as follows:
• Fines up to $2,500 and 30 days of ineligibility for an initial violation. • Fines up to $5,000 and one year of ineligibility for a second violation within a fiveyear period. • Fines up to $10,000 and permanent TRP ineligibility for each subsequent violation within a five-year period.

4. Require businesses that have their TRP suspended to post a prominent public notice at their business during the entire suspension period.

5. Require businesses, as a condition of its TRP, to (1) consent to inspection by the County of all areas and records; and (2) comply with any impound or seizure order issued by the County. Violations of these provisions would be a basis for suspension/revocation of a TRP.

6. Require that if inspections reveal noncompliance with any of the ordinance requirements, such that reinspection is needed to determine compliance, the cost of such reinspection will be billed to the retailer.

7. Clarify that a retailer is liable for all enforcement-related fees and costs.

8. Make explicit that all tobacco retailers are responsible for the actions of their employees relating to the sale and furnishing of tobacco products at the retail location, and that nothing in the ordinance shall be construed to penalize the purchase, use, or possession of a tobacco product by any person not engaged in tobacco retailing.

9. Requires businesses to examine an individual’s identification to confirm the age of that person, regardless of appearance, prior to selling tobacco products to any person.

California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
169
CC 10-17-2023
169 of 474
3 Sustainability Impact
No impact.

Fiscal Impact
If the City adopts the County’s updated regulations, the County will continue to enforce the City’s program at no cost to the City. The County would recover costs through the Tobacco Retailer Permit fee and additional fines.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Astrid Robles, Senior Management Analyst
Reviewed by: Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager
Matt Morley, Assistant City Manager
Chris Jensen, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Agreement Between the County and Cupertino for a Tobacco Retail Permit Program B – Draft Ordinance to Update the Tobacco Retail Permit – Redline C – Draft Ordinance to Update the Tobacco Retail Permit – Clean D – Letter to Tobacco Retailers in Cupertino
170
CC 10-17-2023
170 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
ORDINANCE NO. __________________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 5.50 OF TITLE 5 (BUSINESS LICENSES AND

REGULATIONS) TO REGULATE THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS
The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that:

1. Electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes, e-vaporizers, or electronic nicotine delivery systems, are battery-operated devices that people use to inhale an aerosol that typically contains nicotine. In addition to nicotine, the aerosol from e-cigarettes may include up to 31 other components, including formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, glycidol, acrolein, acetol, and diacetyl. Several of these compounds are likely carcinogens, and acrolein is a powerful irritant. (See 2016 Surgeon General’s Report: E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016),
https://www.cdc.gov./tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/e-cigarettes/index.htm). These products can resemble traditional tobacco cigarettes (cig-a-likes), cigars, or pipes, or even everyday items like pens or USB memory sticks. (See Vaping Devices (Electronic Cigarettes), National Institute for Drug Abuse (2020), https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/vaping-devices-electroniccigarettes). The pervasive use of these and other related electronic cigarette products has given rise to a massive and multifaceted public health crisis. In addition, the Surgeon General has declared the use of e-cigarettes among youth an “epidemic.” Nearly 1 in 3 Santa Clara County teens—31.6 percent—report that they have used an e-cigarette at least once. (See Zhu S-H, et al., Tobacco use among high school students in Santa Clara County: Findings from the 2017-18 California Student Tobacco Survey, Center for Research and Intervention in Tobacco Control (2019)).

2. The City Council of the City of Cupertino held a duly noticed public hearing on February 4
th, 2020, and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof.
171
CC 10-17-2023
171 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Adoption.

The Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment A.

SECTION 2: Severability and Continuity.

The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of such portion, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated.

SECTION 3: California Environmental Quality Act.

This Ordinance is not a project under the requirements of the California Quality Act of 1970, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility that the action approved may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the amendments to the City Code would have no or only a de minimis effect on the environment. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment.

SECTION 4: Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937. However, the Ordinance’s requirements shall not become operative as to tobacco retailers until July 1, 2020, which means that the City, or its designee, will not begin to enforce the provisions and penalties under the Ordinance until July 1, 2020. 172
CC 10-17-2023
172 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
SECTION 5: Publication.

The City Clerk shall give notice of adoption of this Ordinance as required by law.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be prepared by the City Clerk and published in lieu of publication of the entire text. The City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the Ordinance listing the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on February **, 2023 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on February **, 2023 by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
__________________
Hung Wei, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Christopher D. Jensen, City Attorney
________________________
Date
173
CC 10-17-2023
173 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
Attachment A – An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 5.50 of Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations) to Regulate the Sale of Tobacco Products
The sections of the Cupertino Municipal Code set forth below are amended or adopted as follows:

Text added to existing provisions is shown in bold double-underlined text (example) and text to be deleted in shown in strikethrough (example). Text in existing provisions is not amended or readopted by this Ordinance. Text in italics is explanatory and is not an amendment to the Code.

Where the explanatory text indicates that a new section is being added to the City Code, the new section is shown in plain text.

This ordinance amends several portions of the Municipal Code. For ease of review, the amendments advancing the primary objective are presented first followed by conforming amendments. There is a separate heading in bold italics for each portion of the Code being amended. Each portion is shown beginning on a separate page.

1. Chapter 5.50 of Title 5 is amended as follows:

5.50.010 Purpose.

A. This Chapter is adopted to:

1. Ensure compliance with the business standards and practices of the City;

2. Encourage responsible retailing of tobacco products;

3. Discourage violations of laws related to tobacco products, especially those that prohibit or discourage the sale or distribution of tobacco products to persons under twenty-one;

4. Respond to a new wave of addiction to electronic cigarette products;

5. Reduce vulnerability to unexplained illnesses associated with electronic cigarette products; and
174
CC 10-17-2023
174 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products

6. Protect the public health and welfare.

B. This Chapter does not expand or reduce the degree to which the acts regulated by federal or state law are criminally proscribed or alter the penalties provided by such laws.

5.50.020 Definitions.

For the purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply:

A. "Arm's length transaction" means a sale in good faith and for valuable consideration that reflects the fair market value in the open market between two or more informed and willing parties, neither of which is under any compulsion to participate in the transaction. A sale between relatives, related companies or partners, or a sale for which a significant purpose is avoiding the effect of the violations of this Chapter is not an arm's length transaction.

B. "Designee" means the agency or public entity selected or designated by the City to enforce and/or administer the provisions of this Chapter.

C. “Distribute or Distribution” means the transfer, by any person other than a common carrier, of a tobacco product to another person for sale or personal consumption.

D. “Electronic cigarette products” means any of the following products:

1. Any device or delivery system that can be used to deliver nicotine in aerosolized or vaporized form, including, but not limited to, an e-cigarette, ecigar, e-pipe, vape pen, or e-hookah.

2. Any component, part, or accessory of such a device or delivery system that is used during its operation.
175
CC 10-17-2023
175 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products

3. Any flavored or unflavored liquid or substance containing nicotine, whether sold separately or sold in combination with any device or delivery system that could be used to deliver nicotine in aerosolized or vaporized form.

4. Any product for use in an electronic nicotine device or delivery system whether or not it contains nicotine or tobacco or is derived from nicotine or tobacco.

5. Electronic cigarette products shall not include any battery, battery charger, carrying case, or other accessory not used in the operation of the device if sold separately. Electronic cigarette products shall not include any product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other therapeutic purposes where that product is marketed and sold solely for such approved use. See 21 U.S.C. § 387a. As used in this paragraph, nicotine does not include any food products as that term is defined pursuant to Section 6359 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

E. “Impound” means the legal control exercised by the City over the use, sale, disposal, or removal of any Tobacco Products.

F. "Ownership" means possession of a ten percent or greater interest in the stock, assets, or income of a business, other than a security interest for the repayment of debt. Notwithstanding any other definition in this code, an owner means a person who possesses ownership.

G. “Permit” means a valid permit issued by the City or its designee to a person to act as a retailer.
176
CC 10-17-2023
176 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
H. "Retailer" means any person who sells, exchanges, or offers to sell or exchange, for any form of consideration, whether or not they possess a current permit. "Retailing" shall mean the doing of any of these things. This definition is without regard to the quantity of tobacco products sold, exchanged, distributed, or offered for sale or exchange.

I. "School" means a public or private elementary, middle, junior high, or high school.

J. "Tobacco product" means:

1. Any product subject to: 21 U.S.C. § 387 et seq. ("Subchapter IX") of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (See 21 U.S.C. § 387a(b)) ("products subject to [Subchapter IX]"); or 21 C.F.R. §§ 1100.1- 1100.3 ("[tobacco products] are subject to Subchapter IX") and electronic cigarette products. Products subject to Subchapter IX include, but are not limited to, cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, rollyour-own tobacco, smokeless tobacco, cigars, pipe tobacco, and waterpipe tobacco. Products that are not subject to Subchapter IX include accessories of tobacco products, such as, but not limited to, ashtrays, spittoons, and conventional matches and lighters that solely provide an external heat source to initiate but not maintain combustion of a tobacco product.

5.50.030. Requirements and prohibitions.

A. Permit required. It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a retailer of tobacco products in the City without first obtaining and maintaining a valid retailer permit pursuant to this Chapter for each location at which retailing occurs. Tobacco product retailing without a valid tobacco retailer permit is a nuisance as a matter of law.
177
CC 10-17-2023
177 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
B. Lawful business operation. It shall be a violation of this Chapter for any retailer to violate any local, state, or federal law applicable to tobacco products or the retailing of such products.

C. Display of permit. Each current retailer permit shall be prominently displayed in a publicly visible place at the location identified in the permit.

D. Notice of minimum age for purchase of tobacco products. Retailers shall post conspicuously, at each point of purchase, a notice stating that selling tobacco products to anyone under twenty-one years of age is illegal and subject to penalties. Such notice shall be subject to the approval of the City or its designee.

E. Positive identification required. No retailer shall sell or distribute a tobacco product to another person without first examining the customer's identification to confirm that the customer is at least the minimum age required under state law to purchase and possess the tobacco product.

F. Minimum age for individuals selling tobacco products. No individual who is younger than the minimum age established by state law for the purchase or possession of tobacco products shall engage in retailing.

G. False and misleading advertising prohibited. A retailer without a permit:

1. Shall keep all tobacco products out of public view.

2. Shall not display any advertisement relating to tobacco products that promotes the sale or distribution of such products from the retailer's location or that could lead a reasonable consumer to believe that tobacco products can be obtained at that location.
178
CC 10-17-2023
178 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
H. Limitation on storefront advertising. No more than fifteen percent of the square footage of the windows and clear doors of a physical storefront used for retailing tobacco products shall bear advertising or signs of any sort, and all advertising and signage shall be placed and maintained in a manner that ensures that law enforcement personnel have a clear and unobstructed view of the interior of the premises, including the area in which the cash registers are maintained, from the exterior public sidewalk or entrance to the premises. However, this latter requirement of this paragraph shall not apply to an establishment where there are no windows or clear doors, or where existing windows are located only at a height that precludes a view of the interior of the premises by a person standing outside the premises.

I. Flavored tobacco products.

1. No retailer shall sell a tobacco product containing, as a constituent or additive, an artificial or natural flavor or aroma (other than tobacco ) or an herb or spice, including but not limited to strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, mint, menthol, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor or aroma of the tobacco product, smoke or vapor produced by the tobacco product.

2. A tobacco product shall be subject to a rebuttable presumption that the product is prohibited by subparagraph (1) of this paragraph if:
a. The product's manufacturer or any other person associated with the manufacture or sale of tobacco products makes or disseminates public statements or claims to the effect that the product has or produces a characterizing flavor or aroma, other than tobacco; or
179
CC 10-17-2023
179 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
b. The product's label, labeling, or packaging includes a statement or claim— including any text and/or images used to communicate information—that the product has or produces a characterizing flavor or aroma other than tobacco.

J. Vending machines prohibited. No tobacco product shall be sold, offered for sale, or distributed to the public from a vending machine or appliance, or any other coin or token operated mechanical device designed or used for vending purposes, including, but not limited to, machines or devices that use remote control locking mechanisms.

K. Prohibition on sale or distribution of tobacco products to persons under twentyone years. No retailer shall sell, offer for sale, or distribute any tobacco product to any individual who is under twenty-one years of age.

L. Prohibition on sale or distribution of electronic cigarette products. No person in the City, whether or not issued a Permit, shall sell or distribute electronic cigarette products.

5.50.040. Eligibility requirements for a permit.

A. No retailer permit may be issued to authorize retailing at or from other than a fixed location. For example, retailing by persons on foot or from vehicles is prohibited.

B. No retailer permit may be issued to authorize retailing at a temporary or recurring temporary event. For example, retailing at flea markets and farmers' markets is prohibited.

C. No retailer permit may be issued to authorize retailing at any location where the profession of pharmacy is practiced by a pharmacist licensed by the State of 180
CC 10-17-2023
180 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
California in accordance with the Business and Professions Code and where prescription drugs are offered for sale.

D. No retailer permit may be issued to authorize retailing at any location within one thousand feet of a school, as measured by a straight line between any point along the property line of any parcel on which a school is located and any point along the perimeter of the applicant's proposed business location; provided, however, that the prohibition contained in this paragraph shall not apply to the following:

1. Any retailer of tobacco products operating lawfully on the date immediately prior to this Chapter becoming effective provided that the retailer obtains a permit prior to July 1, 2020 pursuant to sections 5.50.050 and 5.50.060, and timely renews its permit pursuant to 5.50.070(B); and

2. Any lawfully operating retailer of tobacco products that would otherwise become ineligible to receive or renew a retailer permit due to the creation or relocation of a school.

E. No retailer permit may be issued to authorize retailing at a location which is within five hundred feet of a location occupied by another retailer, as measured by a straight line between any point along the perimeter of an existing retailer’s business location and any point along the perimeter of the applicant's proposed business location, provided, however, that the prohibition contained in this paragraph shall not apply to existing retailers of tobacco products operating lawfully on the date immediately prior to this Chapter becoming effective provided that the retailers obtain a permit prior to July 1, 2020 pursuant to sections 5.50.050 and 5.50.060, and timely renew their permits pursuant to

5.50.070(B).
181
CC 10-17-2023
181 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
F. Any exemption granted to a retailer pursuant to this Chapter shall cease to apply upon the earlier of the following to occur:

1. The retailer fails to timely renew the retailer permit pursuant to this Chapter.

2. A new person obtains ownership in the business.

5.50.050 Application procedure.

A. It is the responsibility of each retailer to be informed of all laws applicable to retailing, including those laws affecting the issuance of a retailer permit. No retailer may rely on the issuance of a retailer permit as a determination by the City that the retailer has complied with all laws applicable to retailing. A retailer permit issued contrary to this Chapter, contrary to any other law, or on the basis of false or misleading information supplied by a retailer shall be revoked pursuant to this Chapter.

B. All retailer permit applications shall be submitted on a form supplied by the City or its designee to implement this Chapter.

C. A permitted retailer shall inform the City or its designee in writing of any change in the information submitted on an application for a retailer permit within fourteen calendar days of a change.

D. All information specified in an application pursuant to this Chapter shall be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) or any other applicable law, subject to any exemptions.

5.50.060 Permit issuance, denial, and revocation.

A. Upon the receipt of a complete application for a retailer permit, the application fee, and the annual permit fee, the City or its designee shall issue a retailer permit 182
CC 10-17-2023
182 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
unless substantial evidence demonstrates that one or more of the following bases for denial exists:

1. The information presented in the application is inaccurate or false.

2. The application seeks authorization for retailing at a location for which this Chapter prohibits issuance of a retailer permit.

3. The application seeks authorization for retailing by a person to whom this Chapter prohibits issuance of a retailer permit.

4. The application seeks authorization for a retailer whose permit has previously been revoked or who has otherwise violated any provision of this Chapter within the last 60 months.

5. The application seeks authorization for retailing that is prohibited pursuant to this Chapter or that is unlawful pursuant to any other law.

6. The application seeks authorization for Retailing by a Retailer who has failed to pay any fees, penalties, or reinspection fees required by this Chapter.

B. A retailer permit shall be revoked if the City or its designee finds that one or more of the bases for denial of a retailer permit under this Chapter existed at the time application was made or at any time before the retailer permit issued. Such a revocation shall be without prejudice to the filing of a new permit application.

C. A violation of this Chapter may result in suspension or permanent revocation of a permit pursuant to Section 5.50.130.

5.50.070 Permit term, conditions, renewal, and expiration.

A. Term of permit. The term of a retailer permit is one year. A retailer permit is invalid upon expiration.
183
CC 10-17-2023
183 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
B. Conditions of permit. As conditions of permit issuance and retention, retailer shall:

1. Allow compliance inspections as described in this Chapter and expressly consent to inspection of all area and records of retailer’s business required to effectuate the purpose of this Chapter, including unlocking and allowing access to any area of retailer’s business requested by any individual authorized to monitor and facilitate compliance with this Chapter.

2. Comply with any order of the City to impound any product not authorized to be sold by this Chapter and cooperate with any City seizure of any product, subject to appeal of those actions.

3. Failure to comply with these permit conditions may result in permit suspension or revocation as described in Section 5.120.

C. Renewal of permit. The City or its designee shall renew a valid retailer permit upon timely payment of the annual permit fee provided that the retailer complies with this Chapter, as amended. The City or its designee may, in its discretion, agree to renew any expired retailer permit within the three-month period following expiration if the retailer pays the annual permit fee and applicable late charges. For every calendar month, or fraction thereof, that a retailer fails to renew an expired retailer permit, a late charge equal to twenty percent of the annual permit fee shall be assessed. A retailer permit renewed within three calendar months of expiration shall be treated as if timely renewed.

D. Issuance of permit after revocation or expiration of permit. To apply for a new retailer permit more than three calendar months after expiration of a retailer permit or following revocation of a retailer permit that was wrongly issued, a 184
CC 10-17-2023
184 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
retailer must submit a complete application for a retailer permit, along with the application fee and annual permit fee. The City or its designee shall issue a retailer permit pursuant to the requirements of this Chapter.

5.50.080 Permits nontransferable.

A. A retailer permit may not be transferred from one person to another or from one location to another. Whenever a new person obtains ownership in a business for which a retailer permit has been issued, a new retailer permit shall be required, but any exemption granted pursuant to Section 5.50.040(D) or (E) shall cease to apply.

B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, prior violations of this Chapter at a location shall continue to be counted against a location and permit ineligibility and suspension periods shall continue to apply to a location unless:

1. One hundred percent of the interest in the stock, assets, or income of the business, other than a security interest for the repayment of debt, has been transferred to one or more new owners; and

2. The City or its designee is provided with clear and convincing evidence, including an affidavit, that the business has been acquired in an arm's length transaction.

5.50.090 Permit conveys a limited, conditional privilege.

Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to grant any person obtaining and maintaining a retailer permit any status or right other than the limited, conditional privilege to act as a retailer at the location in the City identified on the face of the permit. All permits are issued subject to the City’s right to amend this chapter, and retailers shall comply with all provisions of this Chapter, as amended. 185
CC 10-17-2023
185 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products

5.50.100 Fees.

The City or its designee shall not issue or renew a retailer permit before full payment of any applicable fees. The City shall, from time to time, establish by resolution or ordinance the fees to issue or to renew a retailer permit. The fees shall be calculated so as to recover the cost of administration of this Chapter, including, for example, issuing a permit, administering the permit program, conducting retailer education, routine retailer inspection and compliance, but shall not exceed the cost of the regulatory program authorized by this Chapter. All fees and interest earned from such fees shall be used exclusively to fund administration and enforcement of this Chapter.

5.50.110 Compliance monitoring.

A. Compliance with this Chapter shall be monitored by the City or its designee. In addition, any peace officer may enforce the penal provisions of this Chapter. The City Manager may designate any number of additional persons to monitor and facilitate compliance with this Chapter.

B. The City or its designee shall monitor each retailer at least once per twelve-month period to determine if the retailer is complying with all laws applicable to retailing, other than those laws regulating underage access to tobacco products.

Nothing in this paragraph shall create a right of action in any retailer or other person against the City or its agents.

5.50.120 Prevention of underage sales.

A. The City or its designee shall monitor each retailer to determine whether the retailer is conducting business in a manner that complies with laws regulating youth access to tobacco products. Nothing in this paragraph shall create a right of action in any retailer or other person against the City or its agents. 186
CC 10-17-2023
186 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
B. The City or its designee shall not enforce any law establishing a minimum age for tobacco product purchases against a person who otherwise might be in violation of such law because of the person’s age (“youth decoy”) if the potential violation occurs when:

1. The youth decoy is participating in a compliance check supervised by a peace officer or a code enforcement official of the City or its designee;

2. The youth decoy is acting as an agent of a person designated by the City or its designee to monitor compliance with this Chapter; or

3. The youth decoy is participating in a compliance check funded in part, either directly or indirectly through subcontracting, by the City, or the California Department of Public Health.

5.50.130 Permit suspension or revocation.

A. Permit suspension. In addition to any other penalty authorized by law, the City may suspend a permit if the City demonstrates that the retailer or any of the retailer’s agents or employees has violated any of the requirements, conditions, or prohibitions of this Chapter. The period of the suspension shall be as follows:

1. A suspension not to exceed 30 calendar days for an initial violation.

2. A suspension not to exceed 180 calendar days if a retailer commits a violation or violations during two instances within a 60-month period.

3. When a Permit is suspended based on a violation of this chapter, the City shall post a placard at the physical location used for retailing tobacco products to notify the general public of the suspension. The placard shall be:
187
CC 10-17-2023
187 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
(A) Posted in the front window of the storefront used for retailing tobacco products within five feet of the front door; or
(B) Posted in a display case mounted on the outside front wall of the physical location used for retailing tobacco products within five feet of the front door; or
(C) Posted in a location approved by the Director to ensure proper notice to the general public and to patrons of the physical location used for retailing tobacco products.
(D)Once attached to a building or structure, a placard is not to be removed, altered, or covered until done so by an authorized representative of the City or upon written notification from the City.

B. Permanent permit revocation. In addition to any other penalty authorized by law, the City shall permanently revoke a permit if a retailer commits a violation or violations during three instances within a 60-month period.

C. Waiver or reduction of fines and penalties for first violation. The City or its designee may, in its sole discretion, waive or reduce any fines and penalties for a retailer's first violation of this section, if the retailer admits the violation in writing and agrees to forego a hearing on the allegations. Regardless of the City’s or its designee’s waiver of penalties for a first violation, the violation will be considered in determining the fines and suspension periods or revocation for any future violation. This paragraph shall not apply to any violation involving a law regulating youth access to tobacco products.

D. Corrections period. The City or its designee shall have discretion to allow a retailer a period of time to correct any violation of any requirement, condition or 188
CC 10-17-2023
188 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
prohibition of this Chapter, other than a violation of a law regulating youth access to tobacco products. If the City or its designee exercises its discretion to provide a corrections period and a retailer’s violation is corrected within the time allowed for correction, no penalty shall be imposed under this Chapter.

E. Written notice of penalties. Whenever an administrative citation is issued and/or a permit is suspended or revoked based on a violation of this Chapter, the City or its designee shall provide the retailer written notice of the violation and the fine and suspension or revocation, including when the suspension or revocation shall take effect.

F. Appeals. The suspension or revocation of a permit may be appealed in the same manner as the appeal of an administrative citation pursuant to Section 1.10.090.

G. A timely appeal shall stay enforcement of the appealed penalties until the final administrative decision of the City is issued.

5.50.140 Enforcement.

A. Any violation of this Chapter is subject to administrative citation pursuant to Chapter 1.10.

B. Any violation of this Chapter is hereby declared to be a public nuisance.

C. Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing a violation of any provision of this Chapter shall also constitute a violation of this Chapter.

D. Whenever evidence of a violation of this Chapter is obtained in any part through the participation of a person under the age of eighteen years old, such a person shall not be required over his or her objection to appear or give testimony in any civil or administrative process brought to enforce this Chapter and the alleged 189
CC 10-17-2023
189 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
violation shall be adjudicated based upon the sufficiency and persuasiveness of the evidence presented.

E. Violations of this Chapter may be remedied by a civil action brought by the City.

F. For the purposes of the civil and administrative remedies provided in this Chapter, each day on which a product is offered for sale in violation of this Chapter, and each individual product that is distributed, sold, or offered for sale in violation of this Chapter, shall constitute a separate violation of this Chapter.

G. Impoundment.

1. Based upon inspection findings or other evidence, the City may impound tobacco products that are suspected of being or found to be offered for sale or distribution in violation of this Chapter. The City may affix a label to the product that shall be removed only by the City following final written determination by the City as described below.

2. No impounded tobacco products shall be used, removed, disposed, or offered for sale unless the impoundment has been released.

3. Within 30 days of final determination whether impounded products are authorized for sale under this Chapter, the City shall release the impounded materials or order that unauthorized, impounded product shall be destroyed and properly disposed of at the cost of the retailer. The decision by the City may be appealed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 1.10.090.

H. Seizure. Tobacco products offered for sale in violation of this Chapter are subject to seizure by the City and shall be forfeited after the retailer of the tobacco products seized is given reasonable notice and an opportunity to demonstrate that the tobacco products were not offered for sale in violation of this Chapter. 190
CC 10-17-2023
190 of 474
An Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Tobacco Products
The decision by the City may be appealed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 1.10.090. Forfeited tobacco products shall be destroyed and properly disposed at the cost of the retailer after all administrative appeals have been exhausted and the time in which to seek judicial review has expired.

I. All retailers are responsible for the actions of their employees relating to compliance with this Chapter. The sale, offer to sale, or furnishing of any tobacco products by an employee shall be considered an act of the retailer.

J. Any retailer found to be in violation of this Chapter shall pay all costs related to enforcement to ensure retailer’s compliance with this Chapter, including but not limited to fees for reinspection to determine compliance after a violation, enforcement costs, litigation costs, and attorneys’ fees in any administrative or civil matter in which the City prevails.

K. The remedies provided by this Chapter are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity.

5.50.150 Interpretation.

A. Nothing in this Chapter shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any requirement, power, or duty that is preempted by, or in conflict with, federal or state law, rules, or regulations.

B. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to penalize the purchase, use, or possession of a tobacco product by any person not engaged in the retailing of such products.
191
CC 10-17-2023
191 of 474

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
23-12698 Agenda Date:
10/17/2023 Agenda #: 5.

Subject: Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calabazas Creek Storm Drain Repair Emergency Work status report and authorization to continue.

Receive a status update on the Emergency Work at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calabazas Creek Storm Drain Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) project and authorize the continuation of the emergency action, by four-fifths vote.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/11/2023
powered by Legistar™192
CC 10-17-2023
192 of 474

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 17, 2023
Subject
Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calabazas Creek Storm Drain Repair Emergency Work status report and authorization to continue.

Recommended Action
Receive a status update on the Emergency Work at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calabazas Creek Storm Drain Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) project and authorize the continuation of the emergency action, by four-fifths vote.

Reasons for Recommendation
California Public Contract Code § 22050 (C) requires that the City Council, by four-fifths vote, approve and then approve continuation of an emergency action at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter to confirm that there is need to continue the action.

Background
At the October 10, City Council meeting, City Council approved a resolution declaring an emergency action to streamline the repairs for the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calabazas Creek Storm Drain project. This emergency work is ongoing, and the emergency declaration must remain in effect for work to continue to substantial completion. The current estimated date of completion is November 15.

The Public Works Department will return to City Council on November 7 with an update on the status of the project.

Sustainability Impact
Maintaining the storm drain system allows for proper storm drain run-off management.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact in the continuation of the Emergency work.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
This project is exempt from the CEQA under CEQA Guideline section 15301 (maintenance of existing facilities).
193
CC 10-17-2023
193 of 474
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Susan Michael, Capital Improvement Programs Manager Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Matt Morley, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
194
CC 10-17-2023
194 of 474

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
23-12582 Agenda Date:
10/17/2023 Agenda #: 6.

Subject: Amend the established City Council meeting calendar through January 17, 2024 Adopt Resolution 23-113 amending the established City Council meeting calendar through January 17, 2024
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/11/2023
powered by Legistar™195
CC 10-17-2023
195 of 474

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 17, 2023
Subject
Amend the established City Council meeting calendar through January 17, 2024 Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution No. 23-113 amending the established City Council meeting calendar through January 17, 2024
Reasons for Recommendation
Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.04.010 sets regular City Council meetings on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 6:45 p.m. The City Council may cancel a regular meeting by a vote of a majority of the Council. On regular meeting days, the City Council shall begin any closed session items at 6:00 p.m. City Council meetings that fall on legal holidays shall automatically be moved to the following day. Special meetings that are held outside of the regular meeting day and time may be called at any time by the Mayor or by three Councilmembers. (CMC Section

2.04.020.)
On January 17, Council adopted Resolution No. 23-013 setting an annual City Council meeting calendar through January 2, 2024. The calendar established dates and times to assist City Council and staff with advance planning and scheduling of City business. On March 7, Council adopted Resolution No. 23-027 amending the established City Council calendar for meetings occurring in April, June, July, and September. On June 6, Council adopted Resolution No. 23-084 amending the established City Council meeting dates in October. The draft resolution (Attachment A) amends the established City Council meeting calendar through January 17, 2024. The resolution would amend the Council meeting calendar to avoid having a meeting the day after the holiday on January 15.

The City Council agenda publication process includes supplemental staff responses to Councilmember questions on agenda items. The process begins after the agenda has been published and is completed one day before the Council meeting. These items are also posted to the City website for the public. The supplemental process will be delayed on a Council meeting date that occurs immediately after a holiday closure. The documents would be posted on the day of the meeting instead of one day earlier. Council may consider scheduling the Council meeting
196
CC 10-17-2023
196 of 474
2 one day later, to allow additional time for Council to review the agenda packet and submit questions, and adequate time for staff to prepare responses to the questions. The meeting that is impacted by a holiday is currently scheduled for January 16.

If the regular meeting on January 16 is cancelled, an alternate special meeting date is recommended for January 17. Councilmembers have been polled for availability on this date, and Community Hall Council Chamber is available for use on that date. The special meeting would follow the same format as the regular meeting it replaces (e.g., allowing time for Oral Communications).

It is recommended that City Council adopt Resolution No. 23-___ amending the established City Council meeting calendar through January 17, 2024. If Council wishes to authorize the changes, staff will provide meeting notifications to the public in advance. The proposed resolution does not limit the ability of Council to schedule additional meetings as authorized by the Municipal Code and in compliance with the Brown Act.

AMENDED COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR THROUGH JANUARY
17, 2024
Meeting Date Open
Session
Start Time
Tuesday, February 7, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, February 21, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, March 7, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, March 21, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, April 4, 2023 6:45 PM
Thursday, April 13, 2023 6:45 PM Moved due to Sister City Delegation Visit
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, May 16, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, June 6, 2023 6:45 PM
Wednesday, June 21, 2023 6:45 PM Moved due to Juneteenth Holiday
Thursday, July 6, 2023 6:45 PM Moved due to July 4 Holiday Tuesday, July 18, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, August 1, 2023 6:45 PM Cancelled
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 6:45 PM Cancelled
Wednesday, September 6,
2023
6:45 PM Moved due to Labor Day
Holiday
Tuesday, September 19, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, October 3, 2023 6:45 PM Cancelled
197
CC 10-17-2023
197 of 474
3 Tuesday, October 10, 2023 6:45 PM Special Meeting
Tuesday, October 17, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, November 7, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, November 21, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, December 5, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, December 19, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, January 2, 2024 6:45 PM Cancelled
Tuesday, January 16, 2024 6:45 PM Cancelled
Wednesday, January 17, 2024 6:45 PM Moved due to MLK Jr.

Holiday
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Draft Resolution
198
CC 10-17-2023
198 of 474
RESOLUTION NO. 23‐

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

AMENDING THE ESTABLISHED CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE
THROUGH JANUARY 17, 2024
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23‐013 setting an annual City Council meeting calendar to establish dates and times assisting City Council and staff with advance planning and scheduling of City business; and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2023 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23‐ 027 amending the established City Council calendar through January 2, 2024 for meetings occurring in April, June, July, and September; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2023 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23‐ 084 amending the established City Council meeting calendar through January 2, 2024 for meetings occurring in October; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.04.010, the calendar was established, notwithstanding the scheduling of additional regular meetings and the addition of special meetings and study sessions pursuant to the Brown Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.04.020, the City Council sets aside a time period for closed sessions before the open session portion of each regular meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council set a recess beginning the first Tuesday in August and ending the Tuesday following the week of Labor Day; and WHEREAS, the City Council established 6:45 p.m. as the regular meeting time for each regular meeting, except when Council is in recess. Closed sessions may be held at 6:00 p.m. No closed session of the regular meeting will be held at that time unless the posted agenda of the regular meeting indicates that such closed session will take place; and
WHEREAS, the City Council amended the meeting calendar to cancel meetings on April 18, 2023, June 20, 2023, July 5, 2023, September 5, 2023, and 199
CC 10-17-2023
199 of 474
Resolution No. 23‐

October 3, 2023 and to call special meetings on April 13, 2023, June 21, 2023, July 6, 2023, September 6, 2023, and October 10, 2023.

WHEREAS, the regular Council meeting scheduled for January 2, 2024 was cancelled; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to cancel the January 16, 2024 and call a special meeting on January 17, 2024. Council will consider a meeting schedule for 2024 at its January 17, 2024 meeting.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby establish and order as follows.

SECTION 1. The City Council establishes the following amended meeting schedule for through January 17, 2024.

AMENDED COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR THROUGH
JANUARY 17, 2024
Meeting Date Open
Session
Start Time

Tuesday, February 7, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, February 21, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, March 7, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, March 21, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, April 4, 2023 6:45 PM
Thursday, April 13, 2023 6:45 PM Moved due to Sister City Delegation Visit
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, May 16, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, June 6, 2023 6:45 PM
Wednesday, June 21, 2023 6:45 PM Moved due to Juneteenth Holiday
Thursday, July 6, 2023 6:45 PM Moved due to July 4
Holiday
Tuesday, July 18, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, August 1, 2023 6:45 PM Cancelled
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 6:45 PM Cancelled
200
CC 10-17-2023
200 of 474
Resolution No. 23‐

Wednesday, September 6,
2023
6:45 PM Moved due to Labor Day
Holiday
Tuesday, September 19,
2023
6:45 PM
Tuesday, October 3, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, October 17, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, November 7,
2023
6:45 PM
Tuesday, November 21,
2023
6:45 PM
Tuesday, December 5, 2023 6:45 PM
Tuesday, December 19,
2023
6:45 PM
Tuesday, January 2, 2024 6:45 PM Cancelled
Tuesday, January 16, 2024 6:45 PM Cancelled
Wednesday, January 17, 2024 6:45 PM Moved due to MLK Jr.

Holiday
SECTION 2. With proper notice during the year, meetings may be cancelled or added as necessary pursuant to the Brown Act.

SECTION 3. The special meeting on January 17, 2023 shall follow the Order of Business for regular meetings established by the Cupertino City Council Rules of Procedure.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of October, 2023, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

201
CC 10-17-2023
201 of 474
Resolution No. 23‐

SIGNED:
________
Hung Wei, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
202
CC 10-17-2023
202 of 474

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
23-12337 Agenda Date:
10/17/2023 Agenda #: 7.

Subject: Options for construction of a City Hall facility Direct staff to pursue conceptual development of a mixed used Public Private Partnership for City Hall and the Sports Center properties
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/11/2023
powered by Legistar™203
CC 10-17-2023
203 of 474

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 17, 2023
Subject
Options for construction of a City Hall facility.

Recommended Action
Direct staff to pursue conceptual development of a mixed used Public Private Partnership for City Hall and the Sports Center properties.

Reasons for Recommendation
On November 15, 2022, following the completion of work by a Council Subcommittee on City Hall, the Council provided direction to include a retrofit project in the Capital Improvement Program. On February 21, the Council re-directed staff to suspend all work on the City Hall renovation plan and to explore options for constructing a new City Hall facility with flexible events programming space and to incorporate other potential city properties in the analysis.

Previous project review has shown that a renovation project would cost approximately $27.5M, while a new facility would approach a cost of $80M. The revised direction from Council seeks to identify ways to deliver a new facility as opposed to renovating the existing facility.

Self-Funding Option
Staff first explored options for self-funding a project. This option has been limited by the significant budget challenges that face the City, as discussed at the October 10 Council Meeting. In summary, in order to issue debt (loans, bonds, etc.) to fund a project, the City would need to have an identified source of funds to pay back that debt. The City currently faces a ten-year structural deficit, meaning ongoing expenses exceed ongoing revenue and thereby not providing for an ongoing source of funds within the City’s current revenue and expenditure structure. The Council may want to explore a future revenue enhancing measure (such as a sales tax increase, property tax assessment, transit occupancy tax increase, etc.). These options will be discussed with Council at a later date this fiscal year. The discussion could include a review of both operating and capital needs that would benefit from increased revenue. 204
CC 10-17-2023
204 of 474
Public-Private Partnership (P3) Option
Public-private partnerships provide alternatives to typical project delivery solutions, bringing the combined resources of a government entity together with a private project delivery partner. P3 projects are inherently complex and difficult to deliver. In this case, the concept project would involve incorporating private use development (residential) and municipal use on one or multiple properties.

Staff enlisted the assistance of the Cumming Group and the Concord Group in a Go/ No Go assessment, leveraging other City properties in an attempt to find a financially feasible option for constructing a new facility through a P3 methodology. This type of assessment is designed to take a preliminary look at the market, potential development opportunities and costs, the potential for a public-private partnership, and to determine if a project is feasible.

In pursuing this direction, the assessment considered city properties where a private use could be combined with a municipal use, thereby creating the partnership that could make for a financially feasible project. Two properties are of a size to make an evaluation worthwhile: City Hall (including Community Hall) and the Sports Center. In both cases a project would involve removing the existing facilities and constructing a mixed use facility that meets a private development need as well as replacing the municipal need.

The evaluation began by looking at the highest and best use for the properties in terms of maximizing the return from a conceptual development perspective. In both cases, the use that would create the greatest return is multi-family residential. This use is not surprising given the private development activity seen in the area.

In this case a P3 project would utilize the profit-making ability of a residential development to carry the additional cost of the municipal use. With this in mind, the analysis focuses heavily on the market elements specific to project costs and revenue opportunities associated with residential development. The City’s contribution to the project would come by way of the land contribution and potentially access to capital funding at a lower rate than is available to private investors. Other resources, including partnering with an experienced below market rate housing developer and exploring grant opportunities may contribute to bottom line calculations.

In support of a potential project, the report findings indicate a strong demand for rental housing in Cupertino, driven by high home ownership costs. This is balanced by high costs of construction and other factors, including inclusionary housing requirements and local appetite for the density of development necessary for a pro-forma calculation to pencil out. In addition, rent levels in Cupertino are just low enough where they cast doubt on the viability of a potential project. All of this is evidenced in the private 205
CC 10-17-2023
205 of 474
development market where interest is strong, but actual development has difficulty taking place, and this without the added complexity of a municipal use detracting from the bottom line.

Additional City Properties
Two additional properties warrant some discussion. The Byrne Avenue Single Family residence is in the surplus property process as directed by the Council. As a result of required noticing, a number of entities expressed interest. The Council will have the opportunity to hear the potential uses from the interested parties and to provide direction on negotiation, which could include a market rate sale or a below market sale to support an alternative use for the property. To the extent there are funds that result from this sale, those funds could help offset a City Hall project cost. The market rate value of this property is approximately $2.73M.

The City purchased the property at 10455 Torre Avenue to provide a customer serving facility during a City Hall renovation or reconstruction project. A future renovation project to bring the Torre Avenue space to a basic level or condition for providing public services is pending completion of design. Should the City invest in that renovation, the renovation costs would likely exceed the ultimate value of the property. The current value of the property is at or slightly more than the $4.45M paid to acquire it.

Next Steps
Although a successful project opportunity is not readily apparent, staff remains committed to exploring all opportunities. Staff recommends that Council provide direction for staff to engage with one or more below market housing developers to explore a conceptual project. In providing the recommendation, Council may wish to provide guidance on the two identified properties (City Hall and the Sports Center) and the viability of each for mixed use solutions.

Sustainability Impact
There is no sustainability impact resulting from the recommended action in this report.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact from the recommended actions in this report.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The actions in this report are ministerial in nature and not a project. _____________________________________
Prepared by: Matt Morley, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
206
CC 10-17-2023
206 of 474
Attachment:

A – Draft Strategic Marketing and Programming Analysis Report 207
CC 10-17-2023
207 of 474
Strategic Market and Programming Analyses in Support of Residential Redevelopment Plans for Cupertino City Hall Annex & Sports Center; Cupertino, CA
Phase I: Go/No Go Assessment
City of Cupertino
208
CC 10-17-2023
208 of 474
CITY OF CUPERTINO September 2023
23148.00 – CUPERTINO, CATABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Market Areas  Macroeconomic Overview of Local Rental Housing Market
 Market-Rate Rental Performance  Affordable Apartment Rent Limits vs. Market Rents
 Product Menu  City Hall Funding Options
209
CC 10-17-2023
209 of 474
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2350 ◦ San Francisco, California 94104 ◦ Phone: (415) 397-5490 San Francisco ◦ Newport Beach ◦ Atlanta ◦ Austin ◦ Portland Executive Summary To: City of Cupertino From: The Concord Group, LLC, in conjunction with Cumming Management Group, Inc.

Date: September 15, 2023 Re: Strategic Market and Programming Analyses in Support of Residential Redevelopment Plans for Cupertino City Hall, Annex & Sports Center Part 1: Go/No-Go Assessment for City Hall and Sports Center Sites BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We understand that the City of Cupertino is evaluating the redevelopment opportunities for the City Hall and Sports Center sites:
 City Hall and Future Annex – 10300/10455 Torre Ave
 Sports Center – 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard
The key objective is to create an economically sustainable project that may incorporate revenue generating uses in addition to the required Cupertino City functions. In this initial analysis, The Concord Group (TCG )has determined that due to the strong demand for housing, current supply gap in market and potential for revenue generation, residential redevelopment is the highest and best use of these sites. Other potential commercial uses, while considered, may be included as ancillary opportunities but are not recommended as key development uses relative to housing development. 210
CC 10-17-2023
210 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 2 SCOPE OF WORK: The “Go/No-Go Assessment” covered the following analyses, leading to initial recommendations for residential product types, focusing on mixed income (market-rate and below market-rate) or standalone affordable rental apartments compatible with civic uses.  Below Market Rate (“BMR”) is defined as rental units affordable to households earning typically below 80% of County Area Median Income (“AMI”).
o Housing development options based on market depth of demand, rent levels (market-rate and BMR), unit types and mix. o Overview of public-private partnership (P3) opportunities and project delivery approaches including financial tools and structures that can be used in the redevelopment process.

This package provides a high-level summary of findings and recommendations, supported by a detailed Appendix of supporting data and analyses.

KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSOverall, the initial market reconnaissance indicates strong demand and significant undersupply of rental housing in the City of Cupertino. High home ownership costs due to rising interest rates, rapid home price appreciation, and scarcity of housing stock are putting upward pressure on rental housing demand while worsening overall housing affordability. Housing market conditions are summarized on Pages 5-6.
 The average age of Class A rental product in Cupertino is 1991, far older than in neighboring cities Mountain View (2021), Sunnyvale (2020), and Santa Clara (2017), thus reflecting the need for new housing supply. Since 2018, there have been no major Class A apartment deliveries in Cupertino.  The current gap between average monthly owner costs and average rent in Cupertino is over 100%. Rentership is thus likely to increase even further in the coming years as homeownership is farther out of reach.

Despite strong demand for new, quality rental housing in Cupertino, the current market conditions for rental development are extremely challenging with high costs for both financing and construction. Furthermore, given requirements for inclusionary housing in Santa Clara County, a minimum of 15% of units will need to be offered at below market rate (“BMR”) rents.  Importantly, financially feasible rental development (mixed income or standalone affordable) requires a finance plan that may include housing grants, low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC), tax abatements/exemptions, and other regulatory incentives. The menu of supportable housing types is shown on Pages 7-8.  For any rental development to be financially feasible, the City will likely need to bridge the funding gap between BMR rents and development costs of delivering a building through a public-private partnership. 211
CC 10-17-2023
211 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 3 Public-private partnership (P3) tools are available to facilitate the new development:
 Provide the opportunity to deliver a project that organically cannot be supported by the market.  Help governments leverage the expertise and efficiency of the private sector for vertical development, raise capital, and spur private development.
 Create revenue streams by unlocking the value of surplus public property with private development that can be used to support construction of new civic facilities and BMR housing.
 Hold significant benefits that are identified in this report. They also present challenges requiring time and resources to achieve collaboration between public and private partners related to complex deal structures.

The conclusion and recommendation of this report is that the best opportunity to financially support a new City Hall and BMR at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers is to further examine and investigate each of the strategies, including P3 approaches, identified in this initial phase of work. Further detail outlining funding options, P3 and their respective opportunities and challenges are provided starting on Page 8.

Ultimately, even with a robust public-private partnership, there are still clear challenges moving forward. The magnitude of development needs to be correctly determined and P3’s are not a guaranteed solution to address all subsequent funding gap or feasibility concerns. Nonetheless, P3’s are an avenue worth exploring. An actionable next step would be to reach out to affordable housing developers in the area and see if there is a viable partnership/financial structure that works for both entities. 212
CC 10-17-2023
212 of 474
Executive Summary Appendix
213
CC 10-17-2023
213 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 4 Market Areas:
 The red outlined area is the Competitive Market Area (CMA), the source of competitive rental supply. This area is defined by zip codes and consists of all or most of Cupertino, Mountain View/ Los Altos, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara.  The blue outlined area represents the Primary Market Area (PMA), the geographical focus of this study and the main source of rental demand. This area is defined by zip code and stretches from Palo Alto down through the southern edge of Los Gatos.

Macroeconomic Overview of Local Rental Housing Market:
214
CC 10-17-2023
214 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 5
 Population:
o Cupertino has a population of 62,426 people and 21,334 households, of which 40% rent and 60% own. Both population and households are projected to decrease over the next five years by around 0.5%, making Cupertino the only market in the CMA experiencing population decline.
o Cupertino is the smallest market in the CMA with the lowest share of renters: Sunnyvale has 60,328 households of which 55% rent, Santa Clara has 47,941 households of which 58% rent, and Mountain View has 50,941 households of which 47% rent. Lack of adequate rental supply is likely contributing to the relatively low rentership rate.  Incomes:
o Cupertino is the most affluent submarket in our CMA: 52% of households earn over $200k and the average net worth is over $3 million.
o 53% of renter households spend under 20% of their incomes on housing. There is thus room for rents to grow further.  Rentership:
o Due to astronomical home ownership costs and a lack of adequate supply, an increasing number of high earners still rent in Cupertino. In 2021, 37% of households that earned over $150k rented, marking a 54% increase from 2016. o Because of rising interest rates and rapid home price appreciation, the current gap between average monthly owner costs and average rent is a whopping 118%. Rentership is thus likely to increase even further in the coming years.  Age:
o Cupertino has a median age of 41.7, the highest across the CMA. Only 24% of the population is between the ages of 25 and 44, while 45% are over 45. Lack of adequate rental supply targeting young adults is likely contributing to the relatively high median age. o Overall, the population is aging rapidly and the 75+ population is projected to increase 2.3% per year over the next five years. Seniors who want to downsize but still live in Cupertino will likely help drive rental demand.  Employment:
o Cupertino boasts strong employment numbers primarily due to the presence of numerous tech campuses, primarily Apple.

There are 50,298 jobs in the market but only 26,701 of those live in Cupertino, resulting in a net inflow of around 23,597 workers. Increased rental supply may help bridge the discrepancy between jobs and local workers. 215
CC 10-17-2023
215 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 6 Market-Rate Rental Performance:
 To understand the current rental housing conditions, TCG surveyed 23 Class A apartment communities across four submarkets:

Cupertino, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara. Across the four submarkets, communities in Cupertino had the lowest average base rent and PSF: $3,879 & $3.90 vs. $4,678 & $5.42 in Mountain View, $3,935 & $4.20 in Sunnyvale, and $3,985 & $4.01 in Santa Clara.  This disparity in rents, although minor, is likely attributed to the average age of product in Cupertino: 1991. The average age of surveyed product in Mountain View (2021), Sunnyvale (2020), and Santa Clara (2017) is much newer, thus reflecting the need for new housing supply in Cupertino.  Furthermore, even with 70s & 90s built products, Cupertino is reaching rents near the level of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara, hence demonstrating the inherent demand for housing in the area and Cupertino’s relative desirability to live in. Since 2018, there have been no major Class A apartment deliveries in Cupertino. $500
$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500$4,000$4,500$5,000$5,500$6,000$6,500$7,000$7,500$8,000 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Base Rent
Unit Size
Color = Submarket
Red = Cupertino
Orange = Sunnyvale
Cyan = Mountain View
Yellow = Santa Clara
120% AMI
Studio
1-Bedroom
2-Bedroom
3-Bedroom
80% AMI
50% AMI 30% AMI
216
CC 10-17-2023
216 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 7 Affordable Apartment Rent Limits vs. Market Rents:
 Workforce housing is defined as housing affordable for those earning between 80% and 120% of area median income (AMI).  When comparing area median income (AMI) rent limits in Santa Clara County to the CMA market averages per bed type, there are significant gaps across the 50%, 80%, and 100% AMI rent limits. However, rent limits at the 120% AMI level exceed the CMA market averages.
 Given that average market rate rents are below the 120% AMI rent limit and already considered workforce, BMR rents should be targeted at or below the 100% AMI level in order to have an impact on affordability. $3,746
$4,015
$4,817
$5,566
$3,400
$3,755
$4,628
$5,002
$3,122
$3,346
$4,014
$4,638
$2,498 $2,677
$3,211
$3,710
$1,561 $1,673
$2,007
$2,319
$0
$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000
Studio 1-Bed 2-Bed 3-Bed
AMI Rent Limits vs. CMA Market Averages
120% AMI CMA Market Avg. 100% AMI 80% AMI 50% AMI
217
CC 10-17-2023
217 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 8
Product Menu:  The market analysis concludes to the following product menu outlining target product types, target audiences, and ranges for expected building types and achievable rents across the market and BMR rent levels:
 Market rate product ranges in construction type, density, and target renter audiences with varying degrees of financially feasibility at the Site due to growing construction costs and physical site limitations.

Land Use/Product Type Const. Avg. Size Range TCG Pricing Description Target Market Audiences Type Density Avg. Size Recommendation Range Market-Rate Residential Units (Maximum 85% MR) Type DU/AC SF Avg. Rent ($/PSF) Garden Walk-Up • Entry-level programmers; young V 30 - 50 Weighted: 759 Weighted: $4,225 Walk-up three- to four-story families; down-sizing retireeswood-frame construction with local renters seeking new product; surface parking. Product type roommates
returns modest densities andlower costs.

Traditional Wrap • Entry-level programmers; young III 80 - 100 Weighted: 736 Weighted: $4,265 Four- to five-story construction families; local renters seeking new built around a centralized product; roommatesmulti-story concrete parkingstructure.

Traditional Podium • Dual-income couples; mid-level in III / I 100 - 120 Weighted: 708 Weighted: $4,317 Four- to five-story of light framing tech or professional services; youngover one to two levels of families; roommatesconcrete podium. Podium primarilyused for parking and may includeone level below grade. Commonlyincludes ground floor retail. 218
CC 10-17-2023
218 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 9
Product Menu (continued):
 BMR units can be offered across a range of densities from Garden/Walk-Up product (50 DU/AC) to Podium product (100+ DU/AC) however collected rents will remain at the respective AMI rent limits regardless of product type.

Land Use/Product Type Const. Avg. Size Range TCG Pricing Description Target Market Audiences Type Density Avg. Size Recommendation Range Below Market-Rate Residential Units (Minimum 15% BMR) Type DU/AC SF AMI Rent Limit Affordable (50% AMI) • Locally employed at retail centers; --- 50 - 100+ 450 - 1,175 $1,561 - $2,319 in hospitality; service industry; or an $3.47 - $1.97
administrative position at various techcompanies
AMI Income Range:
$62,450 - $89,200
Affordable (80% AMI) • Locally employed at De Anza --- 50 - 100+ 450 - 1,175 $2,498 - $3,710 College; healthcare professionals; $5.55 - $3.16entry-level professional services;administrative position at various tech companies AMI Income Range:
$99,920 - $142,720
219
CC 10-17-2023
219 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 10 City Hall Funding Options: In this initial step of work, we have identified a menu of public-private partnership and project delivery approaches (i.e., financial tools and structures) that can be used in the project. A public-private partnership (P3) is a creative alliance between a government entity(s) & private developer(s) to achieve a common purpose. Some states have P3’s embedded in their legislation, making it much easier for local governments and the private sector to enter into a P3. Some have limitations, prohibiting the gift or lending of public funds. P3’s offer the potential to realize mutually beneficial goals while mitigating risk to the state and private investment. P3’s are used locally and across the country to develop or redevelop an area or site, often blighted or underused. They are typically and proactively initiated by a municipality to achieve key public objectives:
 Public Amenity or facility  Mixed use development  Transit-oriented development  Recreational facility  Downtown revitalization  Affordable housing  Industrial and commercial development We often see P3’s in the development of infrastructure where a partnership in the form of a long-term performance-based contract between the public sector (any level of government) and the private sector is created to deliver public infrastructure or facilities. We also see P3’s where partnerships are designed that unlock the existing monetary value found in public assets through:
 Ground lease  Outright sale  Other transaction mechanism All P3’s start with a shared vision just like any land use and development process. P3’s and land use processes that begin from a shared vision have a far better chance of surviving economic downturns and changes in political leadership because they can withstand a longer implementation schedule based on their community support. 220
CC 10-17-2023
220 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 11 Some key P3 points:
 Without a vision, the project will most likely fail  Far more extensive, expensive, and time-consuming than either private developers or many public officials would like  Emanates from a community planning or visioning process; a developer-generated vision; or a combination of both  Public participation and engagement are critical  Public Purpose is both a legal requirement and the core reason for a P3 project P3’s also include some common principles. These have been published by the Urban Land Institute – a nonprofit research and education organization support by its nearly 40,000 members comprised of private and public real estate and land use professionals engaged in the exchange of ideas and information dedicated to creating better places. Ten principles for successful public-private partnerships

1. Prepare properly for public/private partnerships 2. Create a shared vision 3. Understand your partners and key players

4. Be clear on the risks and rewards for all parties 5. Establish a clear and rational decision-making process 6. Make sure all parties do their homework 7. Secure consistent and coordinated leadership 8. Communicate early and often 9. Negotiate a fair deal structure 10. Build trust as a core value Typical benefits/assets that the public sector can offer as part of a P3  Vision/Political & Organizational Support  Land (discounted or provided at no cost)  Regulatory incentives (height, parking reductions, shared parking provisions, fee waivers/caps  Infrastructure contributions  Contribution of funds from existing sources, grants, debt issuance, or public vote for new revenue source  Ability to share operational/capital costs with private partner 221
CC 10-17-2023
221 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 12 Typical benefits/assets that the private sector can offer as part of a P3  Needed capital to develop project
 Expertise and efficiency of vertical construction resulting in potentially lower cost  Ability to share operational/capital costs with public partner Typical P3 Time Frame - Surplus Land Sale Transaction/Development Implementation Step Timing (Months)  Identify Potential Catalyst Surplus Site: 2-3  RFQ/RFP Development with City Incentives: 2-3  Recruit and Solicit Development Proposals: 2  Evaluation/Interview and Selection: 2  Negotiation of MOU/PSA/DA: 3-6  Developer Due Diligence: 12  Entitlements: 6  Construction: 12-24  Total Timeline: 40-68 Months (3-6 Years)
Preliminary findings of residual land value from private housing development indicate that both traditional and various public-private partnership (P3) opportunities can be implemented to construct a quality civic center project at the lowest possible cost to the public. In context, the ability to fund a new city hall may be one of the most difficult challenges facing local government, especially in the environment where expenses are rising faster than a city’s ability to raise revenue via property tax, sales tax, and other tax sources that are discretionary and not restricted for a specific use. Structural deficits cause many governments to forgo necessary facility expansion, improvements, and/or new construction creating a modern, efficient, sustainable office and civic spaces that express the community’s values and open engagement. Older public facilities may not meet today’s seismic standards, especially if that public facility is identified as an essential facility under city or state regulations, leaving the local government with a substantial life safety and economic risk during a seismic event. Additionally, these same facilities lack current accessibility features or improvements required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Local governments that are successful with funding new civic facilities have been able to generate a renewed civic pride, spark economic development efforts, increase employee retention, attract new talent, and provide for needed accessible public space for community gatherings, meetings, and celebrations. 222
CC 10-17-2023
222 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 13 As identified in the preliminary market analysis, there are development scenarios that can generate revenues from the sale/lease of land not needed for civic uses. The important finding suggests opportunities to lower anticipated taxpayer expense for civic facilities and/or enhance the experience when visiting the civic center by inviting, planning, and accommodating some private uses (in this case residential, with the possibility of ancillary commercial) on the site. Mixed-use public-private developments can occur based on existing market conditions and interest by the development community or incentivized by the public sector by offering the land at market rate values. The City of Cupertino is fortunate to have strong underlying market demand for housing in its favor to attract investment. There may be other opportunities to further enhance interest in the properties and to advance the city’s broader objectives, such as a package of other project-level incentives (e.g., shared parking, infrastructure contributions) to support the type of use(s) and design criteria that may not be possible otherwise. The various project delivery options will include:
 Design-Bid-Build.
 General Contractor/Construction Manager (AKA Construction Manager at Risk).  Progressive Design Build.  63-20 Progressive Design Build.

In next stages of project planning, each delivery option will require an assessment of advantages and disadvantages available to the City to achieve the desired civic center project with an emphasis of examining public-private project delivery approaches to maximize public sector benefits while minimizing costs. Below is a summary outline of the key elements or strategies to achieve the desired civic center at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayers of Cupertino. The key strategies fall within two categories of Revenue Generation and Cost Reduction. The strategies that likely will have the most financial impact are those that are identified in bold below. Once the City determines the likely financial impact of these strategies, the future phase of work will examine how viable the other strategies will be in filling any financial gap that exists to fund and construct a new City facility.
223
CC 10-17-2023
223 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 14 Revenue Generation Strategies  City allocation of funds over a number of years into capital account (cash option).  City issuance of debt and obligation of debt service to be paid with specific tax revenue stream.  Voted ballot measure to support some or all of debt service.  Surplus and sale of public property for private development to create funds (cash option via P3).  Philanthropic contributions toward civic facilities and for any below market housing that may be included on the site (e.g., Apple Affordable Housing Fund).

Cost Reduction Strategies
 Right-size facility (not too big and large enough to meet future needs). o Evaluate the same size of facility for construction and evaluation purposes – 21,450 SF. o Modifications to the size of facility may be directed by the City based on different growth scenarios. o Rough order of magnitude cost estimates are required to calculate debt service based on terms (e.g., 5 percent over 25 years) as directed by the City.
 P3 delivery approaches to produce quality facility at reduced cost.  Public agency partner(s) to share common spaces and facilities reducing overall costs.  Private entity partners for shared space (e.g., parking) to reduce costs and create additional site amenities.

Pros and Cons of P3’s
Pro’s
 Better return on investment; lower costs and taxpayer expense  Faster completion  Better solutions  Ability to complete project that otherwise would not be possible Con’s
 Increased implementation risk  Increase time, effort, and expense upfront as deals can be complicated  Lack of familiarity by public entity to manage process 224
CC 10-17-2023
224 of 474
City of Cupertino September 2023
23148.00 Cupertino, CA 15 Potential P3 Funding Example Below is a diagram that illustrates a possible example of how a P3 approach and funding strategy can be used to bridge a financial gap that otherwise would have to be paid by the taxpayers of Cupertino. Bottom Line:P3’s provide the opportunity to deliver a project that cannot be organically supported by the market given cost and financing constraints. However, even the best organized P3 will be a complicated deal structures and will take time (years) to develop. The above strategies represent the best opportunity to financially support a new City Hall and BMR at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers. The next phase of our work will involve working collaboratively with the City to examine and investigate each of the P3 strategies identified in this initial phase of work to assess the best path forward.
****
This assignment was completed by Matthew Kim, Paolo Vera, Ethan Huang, Brian Nguyen under the direction of Richard M. Gollis, along with Bob Stowe. We have enjoyed working with you on this assignment and look forward to our continued involvement with your team. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. 225
CC 10-17-2023
225 of 474
CITY OF CUPERTINO September 2023
23148.00 – CUPERTINO, CALIST OF EXHIBITSEXECUTIVE SUMMARYSITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS

1. Local Setting 2. Site Assessment 3. Product Menu 4. Product Program Positioning 5. AMI Rent Limits DATA APPENDIXI. MARKET OVERVIEW

1. Regional Location and Submarket Delineation 2. Demographics A. Summary B. Demographic Change Summary C. Renter Demographics D. Changing Nature of Rentership E. Senior Demographics

3. Employment Trends
A. Total B. By Industry C. Commute

4. Home Prices, Rents, and Owner Cost
II. MARKET-RATE OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS

1. Market-Rate Trends
A. Overall B. Class A C. Class A vs Class B

2. Market-Rate Inventory Performance
A. Select Apartment Inventory B. Select Apartment Inventory Locations C. Lease-up & Absorption D. Apartment Product Indicators E. Amenity and Service Profile

3. Shadow Market Analysis 4. Market Rate Demand
A. MR Demand Summary B. MR Demand Capture Scenarios

5. Building Trades
III. BELOW MARKET-RATE OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS

1. Below Market-Rate Trends 2. Below Market-Rate Inventory A. Select BMR Inventory B. Select BMR Inventory Locations C. AMI Rent Limits

3. Below Market Rate Demand Summary 4. Building Trades
226
CC 10-17-2023
226 of 474
EXHIBIT 1

LOCAL SETTING

CUPERTINO, CA
AUGUST 2023
Key
Pink = Education
Purple = Medical
Red = Hospitality
Orange = Employment Nodes
Green = Recreation
Blue = Dining and Culture
Harbor Freight,
Safeway, World
Market, Philz
Apple Park
Kaiser Permanente
Subject Sites
Subject Site
Whole Foods,
Target, Marina
Food, TJ Maxx,
Starbucks
Apple Infinite Loop
Oakmont Produce
Market, Oakmont
Sandwiches, New
York Pizza
Nelson S.

Dilworth
Elementary Safeway, Chase Bank
Hyde Middle
School
Cupertino High
School JOANN Fabrics,
Marukai Market,
Shane Co.

De Anza College
Home Depot, H Mart,
McDonalds, Trader
Joes, Chipotle
John F.

Kennedy Middle
School
Monta Vista High
School
Apple Results
Way Campus
Blackberry Farm
Golf Course and
Recreation
McClellan Ranch
Preserve, Deep
Cliff Golf Course
Cupertino Memorial
Park and Sports
Center
Wilson Park
Jollyman
Park
Residence Inn
Juniper Hotel
Marriot,
Hilton, Hyatt
Highway 85
Highway 280
Ortega Park
Homestead High
School
Cupertino Middle
School
Ortega Park
Crunch Fitness,
McDonald's,
Stocklmeir
Elementary
School
Panama Park
Peterson
Middle School
PG&E Trailhead,
Canyon Oak Park,
Permanente Creek
Picnic Area
23148.00 Local Setting: Local THE CONCORD GROUP
DRAFT
227
CC 10-17-2023
227 of 474
EXHIBIT 1

LOCAL SETTING - ZOOM

CUPERTINO, CA
AUGUST 2023
Whole Foods,
Target, Marina
Food, TJ Maxx,
Starbucks
Monta Vista High
School, Monta
Vista High School
De Anza
99 Ranch
Market
The Watercube Spa,
Lee's Sandwiches, DHL
Express Service Point
Eaton Elementary
School, CalColor
Academy
William
Faria
Elementary
School
Sam H. Lawson
Middle School
Apple
Results Way
Campus
Northwest
YMCA
Cupertino
Library and
Park
Memorial Park
Tennis Court
Quinlan
Community
Juniper Hotel
Key
Pink = Education
Purple = Medical
Red = Hospitality
Orange = Employment Nodes
Green = Recreation
Blue = Dining and Culture
Highway 85
23148.00 Local Setting: Local Zoom THE CONCORD GROUP
DRAFT
228
CC 10-17-2023
228 of 474
EXHIBIT 2

SITE ASSESSMENT

CUPERTINO, CA
AUGUST 2023
Physical Site: ● Density (DU/AC): 30 - 120 ● Density (DU/AC): 30 - 120 ● Density (DU/AC): --- ● GSF: 273,708 SF ● GSF: 144,279 SF ● GSF: 21,453 SF
Surrounding ● Adjacent to a townhome development and ● Surrounded by a mix of single family homes, ● Surrounded by offices, primarily medical, andLand Uses: Memorial Park; one block away from Whole Foods; townhome developments, offices, medical centers townhome developments; across the street from across the street from De Anza College and retail; adjacent to Civic Center and Library Cupertino Library Park Transportation ● Good visibility along major thoroughfare Stevens ● Good visibility at corner of Torre and Rodrigues, ● Good visibility at corner of Torre and Pacifica, & Access: Creek Blvd; easy access to Highway 85 and I-280; no existing bus stops but a short walk away from no existing bus stops but a short walk away from existing bus stop for routes 23 and 51 multiple stops on De Anza Blvd multiple stops on De Anza Blvd Suitability for ● Large site with lots of underutilized space; strategic ● Site is large enough and character of site is ● Site is likely too small for a housing development;Housing location by major thoroughfares, retail nodes, suited for housing, but replacing city hall will considering construction costs and physical site Development: public amenities and De Anza College likely be politically contentious constraints residential uses will be challenging to finance
Overall Ranking:

Sports Center - 21111 Stevens Creek Blvd City Hall - 10300 Torre Ave Future Annex - 10455 Torre Ave Strong Strong Moderate
Strong Moderate Weak
Strong Moderate ModerateStrong Moderate Weak
23148.00 Site Assessment: Int The Concord Group
DRAFT
229
CC 10-17-2023
229 of 474
EXHIBIT 3

RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT MENU

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 2023
Land Use/Product Type Const. Avg. Size Range TCG Pricing Description Target Market Audiences Type Density Avg. Size Recommendation Range Market-Rate Residential Units (Maximum 85% MR) Type DU/AC SF Avg. Rent ($/PSF) Garden Walk-Up
Traditional Wrap
Traditional Podium
Below Market-Rate Residential Units (Minimum 15% BMR) Type DU/AC SF AMI Rent Limit Affordable (50% AMI)
Affordable (80% AMI)
Affordable (120% AMI)
DRAFT
230
CC 10-17-2023
230 of 474
EXHIBIT 4

RENT POSITIONING (RENT TO SIZE) - KEY COMPARABLES

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Note: AMI marker points are located at Competitive Market Area average unit sizes. $500
$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500$4,000$4,500$5,000$5,500$6,000$6,500$7,000$7,500$8,000 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Base Rent
Unit Size
Garden Walk-Up Traditional Wrap Traditional Podium Cupertino City Center (1989, 92%)Main Street Cupertino Lofts (2018, 96%) Nineteen800 (2014, 96%) Landsby (2022, 51%) MV Apartments (2021, 97%)The Hadley (2022, 40%) The Tillery (2023, 59%) 1250 Lakeside (2021, 92%) Maxwell (2022, 100%)The Murphy Station (2022, 91%) Prado (2021, 93%) Santa Clara Square Apartments (2018, 99%) Color = Submarket
Red = Cupertino
Orange = Sunnyvale
Cyan = Mountain View
Yellow = Santa Clara
Nineteen800
Main Street Cupertino Lofts
Cupertino City Center
The Hadley
Landsby
The Tillery
MV Apartments
Santa Clara Square
Prado
50% AMI
80% AMI
120% AMI
Studio 1-Bedroom
2-Bedroom
3-Bedroom
23148.00 RecComps v2.19 Run: RS The Concord Group
DRAFT
231
CC 10-17-2023
231 of 474
EXHIBIT 4
RENT POSITIONING (RENT TO SIZE) - STUDIOS/OPEN 1-BEDROOMS

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
$500
$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500$4,000$4,500
400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200
Base Rent
Unit Size
Studios/Open 1-Bedrooms
Garden Walk-Up Traditional Wrap Traditional Podium Main Street Cupertino Lofts (2018, 96%) Landsby (2022, 51%)The Dean (2020, 91%) The Hadley (2022, 40%) The Tillery (2023, 59%) 1250 Lakeside (2021, 92%) Maxwell (2022, 100%)The Murphy Station (2022, 91%) Monticello Apts (2016, 97%) Santa Clara Square Apartments (2018, 99%) The Tillery The HadleySanta Clara Square Apartments Main Street Cupertino Lofts 1250 Lakeside Landsby Color = Submarket
Red = Cupertino
Orange = Sunnyvale
Cyan = Mountain View
Yellow = Santa Clara
50% AMI
80% AMI
120% AMI
23148.00 RecComps v2.19 Run: RS0 The Concord Group
DRAFT
232
CC 10-17-2023
232 of 474
EXHIBIT 4
RENT POSITIONING (RENT TO SIZE) - 1-BEDROOMS

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
$500
$1,500$2,500$3,500$4,500$5,500$6,500
400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Base Rent
Unit Size
1-Bedrooms
Garden Walk-Up Traditional Wrap Traditional Podium Arioso (1999, 92%) Cupertino City Center (1989, 92%)Cupertino Park Center (1997, 94%) Main Street Cupertino Lofts (2018, 96%) Markham Apartments (1972, 93%) The Biltmore Apartments (1973, 95%) The Hamptons (1999, 99%)Landsby (2022, 51%) MV Apartments (2021, 97%) The Dean (2020, 91%) The Hadley (2022, 40%) The Tillery (2023, 59%)1250 Lakeside (2021, 92%) Maxwell (2022, 100%) Savoy (2020, 87%) The Flats at City Line (2018, 92%) The Murphy Station (2022, 91%)Hearth Apartments (2014, 93%) Monticello Apts (2016, 97%) Mylo Santa Clara (2019, 96%) Prado (2021, 93%) Santa Clara Square Apartments (2018, 99%)The Tillery Maxwell The Hadley Prado Santa Clara Square ApartmentsCupertino City Center Main Street Cupertino Lofts 1250 Lakeside Landsby MV Apartments Color = Submarket
Red = Cupertino
Orange = Sunnyvale
Cyan = Mountain View
Yellow = Santa Clara
50% AMI
80% AMI
120% AMI
23148.00 RecComps v2.19 Run: RS1 The Concord Group
DRAFT
233
CC 10-17-2023
233 of 474
EXHIBIT 4
RENT POSITIONING (RENT TO SIZE) - 2-BEDROOMS

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000
800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 Base Rent
Unit Size
2-Bedrooms
Garden Walk-Up Traditional Wrap Traditional Podium Arioso (1999, 92%) Cupertino City Center (1989, 92%)Cupertino Park Center (1997, 94%) Markham Apartments (1972, 93%) Nineteen800 (2014, 96%) The Biltmore Apartments (1973, 95%) The Hamptons (1999, 99%)Landsby (2022, 51%) MV Apartments (2021, 97%) The Dean (2020, 91%) The Hadley (2022, 40%) The Tillery (2023, 59%)1250 Lakeside (2021, 92%) Maxwell (2022, 100%) Savoy (2020, 87%) The Flats at City Line (2018, 92%) The Murphy Station (2022, 91%)Hearth Apartments (2014, 93%) Monticello Apts (2016, 97%) Mylo Santa Clara (2019, 96%) Prado (2021, 93%) Santa Clara Square Apartments (2018, 99%)The Tillery Maxwell The Hadley Prado Santa Clara Square ApartmentsCupertino City Center Nineteen800 1250 Lakeside Landsby MV Apartments Color = Submarket
Red = Cupertino
Orange = Sunnyvale
Cyan = Mountain View
Yellow = Santa Clara
50% AMI
80% AMI
120% AMI
23148.00 RecComps v2.19 Run: RS2 The Concord Group
DRAFT
234
CC 10-17-2023
234 of 474
EXHIBIT 4
RENT POSITIONING (RENT TO SIZE) - 3+ BEDROOMS

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 Base Rent
Unit Size
3+ Bedrooms
Garden Walk-Up Traditional Wrap Traditional Podium Markham Apartments (1972, 93%) Nineteen800 (2014, 96%)The Biltmore Apartments (1973, 95%) The Hamptons (1999, 99%) Landsby (2022, 51%) The Dean (2020, 91%) The Hadley (2022, 40%)The Tillery (2023, 59%) The Flats at City Line (2018, 92%) 50% 80% 120%The Tillery The Hadley Nineteen800 Landsby Color = Submarket
Red = Cupertino
Orange = Sunnyvale
Cyan = Mountain View
Yellow = Santa Clara
50% AMI
80% AMI
120% AMI
23148.00 RecComps v2.19 Run: RS3 The Concord Group
DRAFT
235
CC 10-17-2023
235 of 474
EXHIBIT 5

AFFORDABLE APARTMENT DEMAND - AMI INCOME AND RENT LIMITS

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
2022
Santa Clara County AMI by Household Size: 2023
AMI Level 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person 6-Person 7-Person 8-Person 30%
40%
50%
60%
80%
100%
120%
150%
200%
Santa Clara County Maximum Rent by AMI and Unit Type: 2023 AMI Level Studio 1-Bed 2-Bed 3-Bed 4-Bed 5-Bed
30%
40%
50%
60%
80%
100%
120%
150%
200%
DRAFT
236
CC 10-17-2023
236 of 474
Data Appendix
DRAFT
237
CC 10-17-2023
237 of 474
I. Market Overview
DRAFT
238
CC 10-17-2023
238 of 474
EXHIBIT I-1

REGIONAL LOCATION AND SUBMARKET DELINEATION

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
The multi-colored regions
represent the various
submarkets of the PMA.

Palo Alto
Mountain View/
Los Altos
Sunnyvale
Santa
Clara
Central
San Jose
Milpitas/ North
San Jose
East San Jose
Campbell/
South San Jose
Saratoga/ Los
Gatos
Cupertino
The red outlined area is the Competitive Market Area, ("CMA"), the source of competitive rental supply. This area is defined by zip codes and consists of all or most of Mountain View/ Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Cupertino and Santa Clara.

The blue outlined area represents the Primary Market Area ("PMA"), the geographical focus of this study and the main source of rental demand. This area is defined by zip code and stretches from Palo Alto down through the southern edge of Los Gatos.

Subject Site
23148.00 RegLoc PV: RegLocSC Page 1 of 2 THE CONCORD GROUP DRAFT
239
CC 10-17-2023
239 of 474
EXHIBIT I-1

REGIONAL LOCATION AND SUBMARKET DELINEATION - DRIVE TIME

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Subject Site
10 Minute
20 Minute
30 Minute
23148.00 RegLoc PV: Drive Time Page 2 of 2 THE CONCORD GROUP DRAFT
240
CC 10-17-2023
240 of 474
EXHIBIT I-2Ai

DEMOGRAPHICS - SUMMARY - SCALE

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022 THROUGH 2027
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara
Mountain View/ Los
Altos CMA Palo Alto
Saratoga/ Los
Gatos
Campbell/ South
San Jose Central San Jose
Milpitas/ North San
Jose East San Jose PMA United States
Population
2022 62,426 162,189 130,301 129,705 484,621 125,925 110,418 406,029 164,418 185,775 380,245 1,857,431 335,707,897 2027 60,591 162,921 130,802 129,713 484,027 122,572 106,578 395,221 167,405 183,096 368,368 1,827,267 339,902,796 Gr/Yr ('22-'27) (Num.) (367) 146 100 2 (119) (671) (768) (2,162) 597 (536) (2,375) (6,033) 838,980 Gr/Yr ('22-'27) (%) (0.6%) 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% (0.0%) (0.5%) (0.7%) (0.5%) 0.4% (0.3%) (0.6%) (0.3%) 0.2% Households
2010 21,019 54,091 42,880 47,072 165,062 39,595 38,717 138,083 52,527 46,602 97,070 577,656 116,716,2922022 21,334 60,328 47,941 50,941 180,544 41,046 39,013 144,455 62,418 60,764 102,551 630,791 128,657,669 % of PMA 3.4% 9.6% 7.6% 8.1% 28.6% 6.5% 6.2% 22.9% 9.9% 9.6% 16.3% -- -- Gr/Yr ('10-'22) (Num.) 26 520 422 322 1,290 121 25 531 824 1,180 457 4,428 995,115 % of PMA 0.6% 11.7% 9.5% 7.3% 29.1% 2.7% 0.6% 12.0% 18.6% 26.7% 10.3% -- -- Gr/Yr ('10-'22) (%) 0.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% 1.4% 2.2% 0.5% 0.7% 0.8% 2027 20,911 61,398 48,691 51,473 182,473 40,267 38,065 142,009 64,498 60,544 100,510 628,366 130,651,872 Gr/Yr ('22-'27) (Num.) (85) 214 150 106 386 (156) (190) (489) 416 (44) (408) (485) 398,841 % of PMA 17.4% (44.1%) (30.9%) (21.9%) (79.5%) 32.1% 39.1% 100.9% (85.8%) 9.1% 84.2% -- -- Gr/Yr ('22-'27) (%) (0.4%) 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% (0.4%) (0.5%) (0.3%) 0.7% (0.1%) (0.4%) (0.1%) 0.3% Employees
2022 25,127 66,384 118,733 117,424 327,668 89,797 37,523 130,982 139,710 142,089 66,455 934,224 151,363,907 % of PMA 2.7% 7.1% 12.7% 12.6% 35.1% 9.6% 4.0% 14.0% 15.0% 15.2% 7.1% -- -- Employees Per HH ('22) 1.18 1.10 2.48 2.31 1.81 2.19 0.96 0.91 2.24 2.34 0.65 1.48 1.18 Rentership ('22)
% Rent 40% 55% 58% 47% 52% 50% 21% 41% 67% 47% 37% 46% 35% Renter HHs 8,587 33,099 27,782 24,144 93,612 20,351 8,214 59,422 41,705 28,336 38,275 289,915 45,512,259 % of PMA 3.0% 11.4% 9.6% 8.3% 32.3% 7.0% 2.8% 20.5% 14.4% 9.8% 13.2% -- -- % Rent SFD 21% 13% 15% 13% 15% 25% 36% 22% 14% 17% 35% 20% 27% % Rent 1-4 Unit Attached 32% 25% 22% 22% 24% 13% 28% 28% 21% 17% 26% 23% 24% % Rent 5-50 Unit Attached 23% 35% 33% 39% 34% 40% 21% 30% 32% 16% 21% 29% 31% % Rent 50+ Unit Attached 25% 25% 30% 24% 26% 22% 15% 19% 32% 49% 15% 26% 14% Ownership ('22)
% Own 60% 45% 42% 53% 48% 50% 79% 59% 33% 53% 63% 54% 65% Owner HHs 12,747 27,230 20,159 26,795 86,931 20,696 30,799 85,032 20,712 32,429 64,277 340,876 83,145,410 % of PMA 3.7% 8.0% 5.9% 7.9% 25.5% 6.1% 9.0% 24.9% 6.1% 9.5% 18.9% -- -- % Own SFD 81% 69% 75% 74% 74% 85% 87% 80% 67% 68% 77% 77% 82% % Own 1-4 Unit Attached 15% 16% 17% 15% 16% 6% 10% 13% 13% 21% 15% 14% 8% % Own 5-50 Unit Attached 1% 4% 5% 5% 4% 5% 2% 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% % Own 50+ Unit Attached 3% 1% 3% 2% 2% 3% 0% 1% 11% 2% 0% 2% 1% Source: Esri; U.S. Census (American Community Survey)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
(0.6%)(0.4%)(0.2%)

0.0%0.2%0.4%0.6%0.8%
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara Mountain View/ Los Altos CMA Palo Alto Saratoga/ Los Gatos Campbell/ South San Jose Central San Jose Milpitas/ North San Jose East San Jose PMA United States Projected Annual Household Growth ('22-'27) & Current Rate of Rentership Projected Annual HH Growth ('22-'27) (Left Axis) 2022 Rentership (Right Axis) 23148.00 DemoDemand v1.38 Clean: DS1 the concord group
DRAFT
241
CC 10-17-2023
241 of 474
EXHIBIT I-2Aii

DEMOGRAPHICS - SUMMARY - INCOME

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022 THROUGH 2027
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara
Mountain View/ Los
Altos CMA Palo Alto
Saratoga/ Los
Gatos
Campbell/ South
San Jose Central San Jose
Milpitas/ North San
Jose East San Jose PMA United States
Households
2022 21,334 60,328 47,941 50,941 180,544 41,046 39,013 144,455 62,418 60,764 102,551 630,791 128,657,669 Growth Projections ('22-'27)
Annual HH Growth (85) 214 150 106 386 (156) (190) (489) 416 (44) (408) (485) 398,841 Over $100K HH Gr/Yr 250 1,180 743 857 3,030 509 391 2,083 1,293 1,005 1,046 9,357 1,967,344Under $100K HH Gr/Yr (334) (966) (593) (751) (2,645) (665) (581) (2,572) (877) (1,049) (1,454) (9,842) (1,568,504) HH Income Breakdown ('22)
Median Income $200,001 $166,001 $146,653 $188,313 $168,842 $160,882 $200,001 $147,131 $106,313 $155,166 $109,817 $148,926 $72,414 vs. PMA +34% +11% -2% +26% +13% +8% +34% -1% -29% +4% -26% -- -51% Average Income $254,131 $210,795 $180,768 $250,623 $219,180 $229,638 $292,135 $186,729 $151,964 $192,311 $149,602 $196,390 $105,029 Under $50K 9% 11% 15% 12% 12% 18% 9% 14% 23% 12% 21% 15% 34% $50-$75K 6% 8% 10% 7% 8% 9% 6% 10% 13% 8% 13% 10% 17%
$75-$100K 6% 8% 8% 6% 7% 7% 6% 9% 11% 9% 11% 9% 13%
$100-$150K 13% 17% 18% 14% 16% 12% 11% 17% 17% 19% 19% 16% 17% $150-$200K 14% 15% 17% 13% 15% 11% 12% 16% 13% 17% 13% 14% 8% Over $200K 52% 41% 32% 48% 42% 42% 56% 34% 24% 35% 23% 35% 10% % HHs Income Over $75K 85% 81% 75% 81% 80% 73% 85% 76% 64% 81% 66% 75% 49% HH Net Worth Breakdown ('22)
Median Net Worth $653,352 $257,758 $199,220 $422,244 $293,861 $321,410 $1,467,277 $365,146 $98,736 $289,781 $246,177 $294,829 $155,942 vs. PMA +122% -13% -32% +43% -0% +9% +398% +24% -67% -2% -17% -- -47% Average Net Worth $3,020,466 $1,761,824 $1,137,246 $2,717,085 $2,014,225 $2,682,114 $4,593,942 $1,909,241 $714,327 $1,596,128 $1,500,061 $1,940,720 $961,924 Under $50K 11% 17% 22% 17% 18% 25% 6% 18% 37% 16% 23% 20% 32% $50-$250K 22% 32% 33% 25% 29% 22% 12% 26% 32% 31% 27% 27% 29% $250-$500K 11% 13% 13% 11% 12% 9% 9% 12% 10% 13% 12% 12% 14% $500-$1MM 13% 11% 12% 10% 11% 9% 14% 14% 8% 15% 13% 12% 11% $1-$1.5MM 8% 6% 5% 7% 6% 6% 10% 7% 3% 7% 6% 6% 4%
$1.5-$2MM 8% 5% 4% 6% 5% 5% 11% 5% 2% 4% 4% 5% 2%
Over $2MM 27% 16% 11% 24% 18% 24% 39% 18% 7% 14% 14% 18% 7% Source: Esri; U.S. Census (American Community Survey)
9%
6% 6%
13%
14%
52%
11%
8% 8%
17%
15%
41%
15%
10%
8%
18%
17%
32%
12%
7% 6%
14%
13%
48%
12%
8% 7%
16%
15%
42%
18%
9%
7%
12%
11%
42%
9%
6% 6%
11%
12%
56%
14%
10% 9%
17%
16%
34%
23%
13%
11%
17%
13%
24%
12%
8%
9%
19%
17%
35%
21%
13%
11%
19%
13%
23%
15%
10%
9%
16%
14%
35%
34%
17%
13%
17%
8%
10%
0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%
Under $50K $50-$75K $75-$100K $100-$150K $150-$200K Over $200K Household Income Distribution (2022)
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara Mountain View/ Los Altos CMA Palo Alto Saratoga/ Los Gatos Campbell/ South San Jose Central San Jose Milpitas/ North San Jose East San Jose PMA United States 23148.00 DemoDemand v1.38 Clean: DS2 the concord group
DRAFT
242
CC 10-17-2023
242 of 474
EXHIBIT I-2Aiii

DEMOGRAPHICS - SUMMARY - AGE

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022 THROUGH 2027
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara
Mountain View/ Los
Altos CMA Palo Alto
Saratoga/ Los
Gatos
Campbell/ South
San Jose Central San Jose
Milpitas/ North San
Jose East San Jose PMA United States
Population
2022 62,426 162,189 130,301 129,705 484,621 125,925 110,418 406,029 164,418 185,775 380,245 1,857,431 335,707,897 Population Age Breakdown ('22)
Median Age 41.7 38.2 36.1 40.9 38.6 33.5 48.9 39.4 34.7 38.4 35.4 37.9 38.9 vs. PMA +10% +1% -5% +8% +2% -12% +29% +4% -8% +1% -7% -- +3%Under 20 26% 25% 25% 23% 25% 27% 23% 25% 24% 24% 28% 25% 24% 20-24 5% 5% 7% 5% 5% 11% 4% 6% 9% 5% 6% 6% 7%
25-34 10% 14% 17% 14% 14% 14% 7% 13% 18% 15% 15% 14% 14% 35-44 15% 17% 16% 14% 15% 11% 10% 14% 16% 16% 14% 14% 13%45-54 16% 13% 12% 13% 13% 11% 16% 14% 12% 13% 12% 13% 12%55-64 13% 11% 11% 13% 12% 11% 17% 13% 10% 12% 11% 12% 13%65-74 9% 8% 7% 10% 8% 8% 13% 9% 7% 9% 8% 8% 10% 75+ 7% 6% 6% 8% 7% 7% 10% 7% 5% 6% 5% 6% 7%
% Population Age 25-44 24% 31% 33% 27% 30% 25% 17% 27% 34% 31% 29% 28% 27% HH Size Breakdown ('22)
Average HH Size 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.5 3.0 3.7 2.9 2.6 vs. PMA +1% -7% -8% -13% -8% -5% -2% -3% -14% +5% +28% -- -11% 1-Person 19% 22% 23% 27% 23% 25% 17% 21% 32% 16% 13% 21% 28% 2-Person 25% 32% 34% 34% 32% 32% 35% 31% 33% 32% 23% 30% 34% 3-Person 24% 21% 20% 16% 20% 17% 20% 20% 16% 21% 19% 19% 16% 4+ Person 32% 24% 23% 23% 24% 27% 29% 28% 19% 32% 46% 29% 23% Source: Esri; U.S. Census (American Community Survey)
24%
31%
33%
27%
30%
25%
17%
27%
34%
31%
29%
28%
27%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
0 102030405060
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara Mountain View/ Los Altos CMA Palo Alto Saratoga/ Los Gatos Campbell/ South San Jose Central San Jose Milpitas/ North San Jose East San Jose PMA United States Median Age and Target Population Share (2022)
% Population Age 25-44 (Right Axis) Median Age (Left Axis) 23148.00 DemoDemand v1.38 Clean: DS3 the concord group
DRAFT
243
CC 10-17-2023
243 of 474
EXHIBIT I-2B

DEMOGRAPHICS - CHANGE METRICS

CUPERTINO AND CMA
2010 THROUGH 2027
Annual Change Annual Change
Historical ('10-'22) Projected ('22-'27) Historical ('10-'22) Projected ('22-'27) 2010 2022 2027 Num. Perc. Num. Perc. 2010 2022 2027 Num. Perc. Num. Perc.

General
Population 60,434 62,426 60,591 166 +0.3% (367) -0.6% 434,424 484,621 484,027 4,183 +0.9% (119) -0.0% Households 21,019 21,334 20,911 26 +0.1% (85) -0.4% 165,062 180,544 182,473 1,290 +0.7% 386 +0.2% Average Household Size 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.0 +0.1% (0.0) -0.2% 2.6 2.7 2.6 0.0 +0.1% (0.0) -0.2% HH Income Breakdown
Median Income $122,600 $200,001 $200,001 $6,450 +4.2% $0 +0.0% $49,174 $168,842 $193,642 $9,972 +10.8% $4,960 +2.8% Average Income $145,502 $254,131 $290,739 $9,052 +4.8% $7,322 +2.7% $47,424 $219,180 $250,998 $14,313 +13.6% $6,364 +2.7% Under $50K 19%9%5% (174) -5.9% (160) -10.2% 25% 12% 8% (1,593) -5.1% (1,639) -8.8% $50-$75K 10% 6% 4% (73) -4.4% (96) -9.5% 12%8%6% (545) -3.1% (694) -5.5% $75-$100K 10% 6% 4% (70) -4.4% (79) -7.8% 12%7%6% (591) -3.5% (311) -2.5%$100-$150K 22% 13% 11% (149) -4.1% (76) -2.9% 21% 16% 15% (434) -1.4% (200) -0.7% $150-$200K 15% 14% 16% 3 +0.1% 49 +1.6% 12% 15% 17% 544 +2.3% 651 +2.3% Over $200K 25% 52% 60% 489 +6.4% 276 +2.4% 17% 42% 48% 3,909 +8.5% 2,579 +3.2% % HHs Income Over $75K 71% 85% 91% 274 +1.7% 171 +0.9% 63% 80% 87% 3,429 +2.8% 2,719 +1.8% Population Age Breakdown
Median Age 39.5 41.7 42.6 0.2 +0.5% 0.2 +0.4% 36.7 38.6 39.1 0.2 +0.4% 0.1 +0.3% Under 20 29% 26% 24% (134) -0.8% (353) -2.3% 25% 25% 23% 966 +0.9% (1,186) -1.0% 20-24 4%5%5% 56 +2.1% (29) -1.0% 5% 5% 6% 300 +1.2% 357 +1.3% 25-34 9% 10% 11% 52 +0.9% 76 +1.2% 17% 14% 15% (433) -0.6% 601 +0.9% 35-44 18% 15% 14% (156) -1.5% (98) -1.1% 17% 15% 14% 228 +0.3% (940) -1.3% 45-54 17% 16% 15% (55) -0.5% (153) -1.6% 14% 13% 13% 148 +0.2% 26 +0.0% 55-64 10% 13% 13% 167 +2.4% (31) -0.4% 10% 12% 11% 1,153 +2.3% (512) -0.9% 65-74 6% 9% 10% 164 +3.6% 112 +1.9% 6% 8% 9% 1,186 +3.7% 737 +1.8% 75+ 6%7%8% 73 +1.9% 107 +2.3% 6% 7% 8% 635 +2.2% 796 +2.3% % Population Age 25-44 27% 24% 25% (104) -0.7% (22) -0.1% 34% 30% 29% (205) -0.1% (339) -0.2% Source: Esri; U.S. Census (American Community Survey)
Cupertino CMA
-2.3%
-1.0%
+1.2%
-1.1%
-1.6%
-0.4%
+1.9%
+2.3%
-1.0%
+1.3%
+0.9%
-1.3%
+0.0%
-0.9%
+1.8%
+2.3%
-3%-2%-1%
0%
+1%+2%+3%
Under 20 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Projected Annual Population Change by Age Bracket (2022 - 2027) Cupertino CMA
-10.2%
-9.5%
-7.8%
-2.9%
+1.6%
+2.4%
-8.8%
-5.5%
-2.5%
-0.7%
+2.3%
+3.2%
-12.0%-10.0%
-8.0%-6.0%-4.0%-2.0%
0%
+2.0%+4.0%
Under $50K $50-$75K $75-$100K $100-$150K $150-$200K Over $200K Projected Annual Household Change by Income Bracket (2022 - 2027) Cupertino CMA
23148.00 DemoDemand v1.38 Clean: DChg the concord group DRAFT
244
CC 10-17-2023
244 of 474
EXHIBIT I-2C

DEMOGRAPHICS - RENTERS

CUPERTINO, CMA AND PMA
2022
All Households Renter Households All Households Renter Households All Households Renter Households Num. Perc. % Rent Num. Perc. Num. Perc. % Rent Num. Perc. Num. Perc. % Rent Num. Perc.

Households
2022 21,334 100% 40% 8,587 100% 180,544 100% 52% 93,612 100% 630,791 100% 46% 289,915 100% Households by Income
Under $50K 1,925 9% 43% 819 10% 22,114 12% 54% 11,885 13% 96,697 15% 51% 49,689 17% $50-$75K 1,224 6% 41% 497 6% 14,045 8% 62% 8,732 9% 60,672 10% 61% 37,109 13%$75-$100K 1,182 6% 44% 520 6% 13,334 7% 60% 8,030 9% 55,551 9% 59% 32,584 11%$100-$150K 2,751 13% 50% 1,373 16% 28,649 16% 62% 17,657 19% 104,072 16% 54% 55,834 19% Over $150K 14,252 67% 38% 5,379 63% 102,402 57% 46% 47,308 51% 313,797 50% 37% 114,699 40% HHs Income Over $75K 18,185 85% 44% 7,978 93% 144,385 80% 56% 80,880 86% 473,420 75% 50% 234,907 81% Households by Age of Householder
Under 25 455 2% 99% 449 5% 5,441 3% 100% 5,441 6% 18,693 3% 97% 18,165 6% 25-34 1,955 9% 85% 1,668 19% 28,452 16% 90% 25,673 27% 93,392 15% 81% 75,899 26% 35-44 4,318 20% 65% 2,823 33% 39,422 22% 68% 26,700 29% 128,611 20% 56% 71,951 25% 45-54 5,178 24% 37% 1,930 22% 35,328 20% 43% 15,128 16% 126,709 20% 40% 50,789 18% 55-64 4,255 20% 18% 780 9% 31,055 17% 32% 9,956 11% 115,784 18% 29% 33,606 12%65-74 2,652 12% 13% 344 4% 21,578 12% 25% 5,436 6% 82,009 13% 25% 20,763 7%75+ 2,518 12% 24% 593 7% 19,259 11% 27% 5,160 6% 65,562 10% 29% 18,742 6%Householder Age 25-44 6,273 29% 75% 4,727 55% 67,874 38% 79% 53,608 57% 222,003 35% 69% 152,310 53% Households by Size
1-Person 3,722 17% 51% 1,894 22% 45,655 25% 63% 28,554 31% 139,115 22% 58% 80,607 28% 2-Person 5,606 26% 25% 1,393 16% 55,872 31% 50% 27,811 30% 181,784 29% 44% 80,654 28% 3+ Person 12,006 56% 44% 5,300 62% 79,017 44% 47% 37,247 40% 309,892 49% 42% 128,654 44% Units in Building Structure
SFD 12,093 57% 15% 1,769 21% 78,252 43% 18% 13,768 15% 325,367 52% 18% 59,405 20% 1-4 Unit Attached 4,581 21% 59% 2,718 32% 35,918 20% 62% 22,369 24% 114,758 18% 59% 67,426 23% 5-50 Unit Attached 2,126 10% 93% 1,968 23% 35,422 20% 91% 32,166 34% 93,631 15% 91% 85,389 29% 50+ Unit Attached 2,488 12% 85% 2,116 25% 26,102 14% 93% 24,382 26% 79,051 13% 94% 74,490 26% Source: Esri; U.S. Census (American Community Survey)
Cupertino CMA PMA
43%
41%
44%
50%
38%
54%
62%
60% 62%
46%
51%
61%
59%
54%
37%
0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Under $50K $50-$75K $75-$100K $100-$150K Over $150K
Percent Rent by HH Income
Cupertino CMA PMA
99%
85%
65%
37%
18%
13%
24%
100%
90%
68%
43%
32%
25% 27%
97%
81%
56%
40%
29%
25%
29%
0%
20%40%60%80%
100%120%
Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Percent Rent by Householder Age
Cupertino CMA PMA
23148.00 DemoDemand v1.38 Clean: DRen the concord group DRAFT
245
CC 10-17-2023
245 of 474
EXHIBIT I-2D

DEMOGRAPHICS - CHANGING NATURE OF RENTERSHIP

CUPERTINO AND CMA
2016 THROUGH 2021
2016 2021 5-Yr (Cumulative) 2016 2021 5-Yr (Cumulative) Total % Renter HHs Total % Renter HHs ∆ In Renter HHs Total % Renter HHs Total % Renter HHs ∆ In Renter HHs HHs Rent Num. Perc. HHs Rent Num. Perc. Num. Perc. HHs Rent Num. Perc. HHs Rent Num. Perc. Num. Perc.

Households
Overall 21,360 39% 8,367 100% 21,646 40% 8,765 100% 398 +5% 169,506 50% 85,169 100% 175,609 51% 90,208 100% 5,039 +6% HH Income Breakdown
Under $35K 2,308 51% 1,188 14% 2,498 51% 1,267 14% 79 +7% 25,328 65% 16,371 19% 17,897 59% 10,598 12% (5,773) -35%$35-$50K 1,026 37% 375 4% 667 42% 283 3% (92) -25% 11,254 59% 6,603 8% 7,107 58% 4,151 5% (2,452) -37%$50-$75K 2,130 42% 901 11% 1,345 40% 533 6% (368) -41% 18,864 56% 10,658 13% 14,064 60% 8,475 9% (2,183) -20% $75-$100K 1,621 40% 647 8% 1,390 43% 597 7% (50) -8% 16,993 58% 9,875 12% 14,012 58% 8,179 9% (1,696) -17% $100-$150K 3,941 52% 2,056 25% 2,357 49% 1,149 13% (907) -44% 32,907 56% 18,333 22% 26,329 60% 15,728 17% (2,605) -14%Over $150K 10,334 31% 3,200 38% 13,389 37% 4,936 56% 1,736 +54% 64,160 36% 23,329 27% 96,200 45% 43,077 48% 19,748 +85% HHs Income Over $75K 15,896 37% 5,903 71% 17,136 39% 6,682 76% 779 +13% 114,060 45% 51,537 61% 136,541 49% 66,984 74% 15,447 +30% Householder Age Breakdown
15-24 296 92% 273 3% 371 95% 351 4% 78 +29% 4,917 95% 4,679 5% 4,726 94% 4,459 5% (220) -5% 25-34 1,705 85% 1,447 17% 2,207 82% 1,804 21% 357 +25% 33,861 85% 28,636 34% 39,568 83% 32,974 37% 4,338 +15%35-44 5,548 60% 3,333 40% 4,967 63% 3,111 35% (222) -7% 38,854 59% 22,782 27% 38,203 63% 23,896 26% 1,114 +5% 45-54 6,119 32% 1,934 23% 5,630 36% 2,010 23% 76 +4% 34,630 38% 13,149 15% 32,352 40% 12,794 14% (355) -3% 55-64 3,455 18% 613 7% 3,759 18% 660 8% 47 +8% 25,657 31% 7,860 9% 26,807 30% 7,937 9% 77 +1%65-74 2,006 8% 167 2% 2,309 12% 287 3% 120 +72% 16,334 24% 3,850 5% 17,170 23% 3,995 4% 145 +4%75+ 2,231 27% 600 7% 2,403 23% 542 6% (58) -10% 15,253 28% 4,213 5% 16,783 25% 4,153 5% (60) -1% HH Size Breakdown
1-Person 3,869 43% 1,673 20% 4,164 51% 2,110 24% 437 +26% 41,302 59% 24,171 28% 40,899 62% 25,475 28% 1,304 +5%2-Person 5,347 28% 1,514 18% 5,362 25% 1,327 15% (187) -12% 53,059 47% 24,862 29% 56,812 50% 28,163 31% 3,301 +13% 3-Person 4,593 47% 2,150 26% 5,249 47% 2,489 28% 339 +16% 31,811 52% 16,395 19% 35,033 52% 18,065 20% 1,670 +10%4+ Person 7,563 40% 3,029 36% 6,871 41% 2,839 32% (190) -6% 43,362 46% 19,748 23% 42,865 43% 18,505 21% (1,243) -6% % Income Spent on Housing Breakdown (Over $75K HH Income) Under 20% 8,382 33% 2,727 46% 10,329 34% 3,472 53% 745 +27% 63,618 43% 27,656 54% 75,917 43% 32,516 49% 4,860 +18%20% to 29% 4,674 46% 2,161 37% 3,802 50% 1,895 29% (266) -12% 32,927 52% 17,030 33% 35,453 60% 21,333 32% 4,303 +25% Over 30% 2,822 35% 997 17% 2,884 41% 1,194 18% 197 +20% 16,872 37% 6,208 12% 24,218 50% 12,182 18% 5,974 +96% Source: U.S. Census (American Community Survey)
Cupertino CMA
1,188
375
901 647
2,056
3,200
1,267
283 533 597
1,149
4,936
0 1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000
Under $35K $35-$50K $50-$75K $75-$100K $100-$150K Over $150K Cupertino Renters by HH Income
2016 2021
16,371
6,603
10,658 9,875
18,333
23,329
10,598
4,151
8,475 8,179
15,728
43,077
0 10,00020,00030,00040,00050,000
Under $35K $35-$50K $50-$75K $75-$100K $100-$150K Over $150K CMA Renters by HH Income
2016 2021
2,727
2,161
997
3,472
1,895
1,194
0 1,0002,0003,0004,0005,000
Under 20% 20% to 29% Over 30%
Cupertino $75K+ Renter HHs by Income Spent on Rent
2016 2021
27,656
17,030
6,208
32,516
21,333
12,182
0 10,00020,00030,00040,000
Under 20% 20% to 29% Over 30%
CMA $75K+ Renter HHs by Income Spent on Rent
2016 2021
23148.00 DemoDemand v1.38 Clean: DChR the concord group DRAFT
246
CC 10-17-2023
246 of 474
EXHIBIT I-2E

SENIOR DEMOGRAPHICS SUMMARY

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022 THROUGH 2027
567819 11 20
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara
Mountain View/ Los
Altos CMA PMA U.S.

Geography: Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc.

Total Population / Households
Population
2022 62,426 162,189 130,301 129,705 484,621 1,857,431 335,707,897 2027 60,591 162,921 130,802 129,713 484,027 1,827,267 339,902,796 Gr./ Yr. -367 -0.6% 146 0.1% 100 0.1% 2 0.0% -119 0.0% -6,033 -0.3% 838,980 0.2% Households
2010 21,019 54,091 42,880 47,072 165,062 577,656 116,716,292 2022 21,334 60,328 47,941 50,941 180,544 630,791 128,657,669 Gr./ Yr. 26 0.1% 520 0.9% 422 0.9% 322 0.7% 1,290 0.7% 4,428 0.7% 995,115 0.8% 2027 20,911 61,398 48,691 51,473 182,473 628,366 130,651,872 Gr./ Yr. -85 -0.4% 214 0.4% 150 0.3% 106 0.2% 386 0.2% -485 -0.1% 398,841 0.3% Owners ('22) 12,747 60% 27,230 45% 20,159 42% 26,795 53% 86,931 48% 340,876 54.0% 83,145,410 65% Home Values ('22) %HHs %HHs %HHs %HHs %HHs %HHs %HHs
Median (000s) $1,911 $1,464 $1,274 $2,000 $1,633 $1,281 $283 Homes $500K+ 100 0% 709 1% 771 2% 407 1% 1,987 1% 26,237 4% 9,840,991 8% Age Profile ('22)
Median - Pop. 42 38 36 41 39 38 39
Householder %HHs %HHs %HHs %HHs %HHs %HHs %HHs
Under 26 455 2% 1,786 3% 1,648 3% 1,552 3% 5,441 3% 18,693 3% 5,005,172 4% 26-34 1,955 9% 9,324 15% 9,257 19% 7,916 16% 28,452 16% 93,392 15% 19,814,722 15% 35-44 4,318 20% 14,663 24% 11,257 23% 9,184 18% 39,422 22% 128,611 20% 21,952,907 17% 45-54 5,178 24% 11,997 20% 8,605 18% 9,548 19% 35,328 20% 126,709 20% 21,669,821 17% 55-64 4,255 20% 9,885 16% 7,585 16% 9,330 18% 31,055 17% 115,784 18% 24,313,589 19% 65-74 2,652 12% 6,784 11% 5,153 11% 6,989 14% 21,578 12% 82,009 13% 20,535,531 16% 75 Plus 2,518 12% 5,888 10% 4,434 9% 6,419 13% 19,259 11% 65,562 10% 15,362,341 12% Median Income (000s)
2022 $200 $166 $147 $188 $169 $149 $72
2027 $200 $192 $166 $200 $194 $171 $84
Gr./ Yr. $0 0.0% $5 2.9% $4 2.5% $2 1.2% $5 2.8% $4 2.8% $2 3.1% Income Profile ('22) %HHs %HHs %HHs %HHs %HHs %HHs %HHs Over $50K 1,224 6% 4,749 8% 4,637 10% 3,435 7% 14,045 8% 60,672 10% 21,752,562 17% Over $75K 1,182 6% 4,900 8% 3,983 8% 3,269 6% 13,334 7% 55,551 9% 16,970,915 13% Over $100K 2,751 13% 10,043 17% 8,551 18% 7,304 14% 28,649 16% 104,072 16% 22,166,379 17% Over $150K 3,084 14% 9,314 15% 8,062 17% 6,574 13% 27,034 15% 90,732 14% 10,814,812 8% Over $210K 11,168 52% 24,479 41% 15,499 32% 24,222 48% 75,368 42% 223,065 35% 12,737,741 10% Source: ESRI
12%
10%
9%
13%
11%
10%
12% $200,001
$166,001
$146,653
$188,313
$168,842
$148,926
$72,414
$0
$25,000
$50,000
$75,000
$100,000
$125,000
$150,000
$175,000
$200,000
$225,000
$250,000
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
13%
14%
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara Mountain View/ Los Altos CMA PMA U.S. % HHs Age 75 Plus (left axis) & Median Income (right axis) % Age 75+ HHs Median Income
23148.00 DemosDemand Senior:DemoCL Page 1 of 4 THE CONCORD GROUP DRAFT
247
CC 10-17-2023
247 of 474
EXHIBIT I-2E

SENIOR DEMOGRAPHICS SUMMARY

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022 THROUGH 2027
567819 11 20
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara
Mountain View/ Los
Altos CMA PMA U.S.

Geography: Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc.

Target Resident - Age 55 Plus Population / Households
Population % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov
2022 18,242 29% 41,074 25% 30,862 24% 40,343 31% 130,521 27% 497,635 27% 101,673,395 30% 2027 19,184 32% 43,016 26% 32,235 25% 41,196 32% 135,631 28% 514,622 28% 106,187,319 31% Gr./Yr. # 188 -51% 388 265% 275 274% 171 10663% 1,022 -860% 3,397 -56% 902,785 108% Gr./Yr. % 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.4% 0.8% 0.7% 0.9%
Households % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov
2022 9,425 44% 22,557 37% 17,172 36% 22,738 45% 71,892 40% 263,355 42% 60,211,461 47% 2027 9,724 47% 23,672 39% 17,981 37% 23,255 45% 74,632 41% 270,115 43% 62,355,903 48% Gr./Yr. # 60 -71% 223 104% 162 108% 103 97% 548 142% 1,352 -279% 428,888 108% Gr./Yr. % 0.6% 1.0% 0.9% 0.5% 0.8% 0.5% 0.7%
HH Size ('22) 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.7
Ownership ('22) 5,861 62% 13,305 59% 9,762 57% 13,543 60% 42,525 59% 160,075 61% 36,009,561 60% Age Profile ('22) % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ Population
55-59 4,390 24% 9,523 23% 7,137 23% 8,785 22% 29,835 23% 115,977 23% 21,675,172 21% 60-69 6,884 38% 15,870 39% 12,058 39% 15,066 37% 49,878 38% 192,860 39% 40,298,479 40% 70-79 4,467 24% 9,732 24% 7,312 24% 10,267 25% 31,778 24% 122,163 25% 26,075,989 26% 80-84 1,194 7% 2,888 7% 2,057 7% 2,912 7% 9,051 7% 32,793 7% 6,733,102 7% 85 Plus 1,307 7% 3,061 7% 2,298 7% 3,313 8% 9,979 8% 33,842 7% 6,890,653 7% Households
55-59 2,268 24% 5,230 23% 3,971 23% 4,951 22% 16,433 23% 61,377 23% 12,836,138 21% 60-69 3,557 38% 8,715 39% 6,709 39% 8,491 37% 27,473 38% 102,064 39% 23,864,948 40% 70-79 2,308 24% 5,345 24% 4,068 24% 5,787 25% 17,504 24% 64,650 25% 15,442,323 26% 80-84 617 7% 1,586 7% 1,145 7% 1,641 7% 4,985 7% 17,354 7% 3,987,375 7% 85 Plus 675 7% 1,681 7% 1,279 7% 1,867 8% 5,497 8% 17,910 7% 4,080,677 7% Income ('22, $000s)
Median $147 $132 $107 $157 $138 $118 $61
Average $222 $182 $149 $240 $198 $174 $93
Income Profile ('22) % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ Over $50K 8,321 88% 18,809 83% 13,556 79% 19,334 85% 60,020 83% 210,758 80% 35,839,231 60% Over $75K 7,450 79% 16,187 72% 11,071 64% 17,352 76% 52,060 72% 179,100 68% 25,743,252 43% Over $100K 6,776 72% 14,254 63% 9,551 56% 15,884 70% 46,465 65% 155,870 59% 18,460,298 31% Over $150K 5,580 59% 11,100 49% 6,991 41% 13,046 57% 36,717 51% 117,099 44% 9,687,373 16% Over $210K 4,377 46% 7,836 35% 4,526 26% 10,424 46% 27,163 38% 84,073 32% 5,343,178 9% Net Worth ('22) % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ % 55+ $1MM Plus 3,062 32% 4,811 21% 2,959 17% 5,662 25% 16,494 23% 58,448 22% 5,192,849 9% Source: ESRI
6,776
14,254 9,551 15,884
46,465
155,870
$146,684
$132,340
$106,802
$156,692
$138,307
$118,332
$61,116
$0
$25,000
$50,000
$75,000
$100,000
$125,000
$150,000
$175,000
$200,000
$225,000
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara Mountain View/ Los Altos CMA PMA U.S.

Age 55+ Households with $100K+ Incomes & Median Income
Age 55+ HHs, $100K Plus Income Age 55+ Median Income
188
388 275 171
1,022
3,397
29%
25% 24%
31%
27% 27%
30%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara Mountain View/ Los Altos CMA PMA U.S.

Age 55+ Annual Household Growth ('20-'25) & % of Households Age 75+ Age 55+ HH Growth (Annual, 2022-2027) % HH Age 55+
23148.00 DemosDemand Senior:DemoCL Page 2 of 4 THE CONCORD GROUP DRAFT
248
CC 10-17-2023
248 of 474
EXHIBIT I-2E

SENIOR DEMOGRAPHICS SUMMARY

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022 THROUGH 2027
567819 11 20
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara
Mountain View/ Los
Altos CMA PMA U.S.

Geography: Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc.

Target Resident - Age 75 Plus Population / Households
Population % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov
2022 4,404 7% 10,029 6% 7,405 6% 10,721 8% 32,559 7% 118,022 6% 24,339,995 7% 2027 4,939 8% 11,334 7% 8,434 6% 11,834 9% 36,541 8% 134,738 7% 29,135,266 9% Gr./Yr. # 107 -29% 261 178% 206 205% 223 13913% 796 -670% 3,343 -55% 959,054 114% Gr./Yr. % 2.3% 2.5% 2.6% 2.0% 2.3% 2.7% 3.7%
Households % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov
2022 2,518 12% 5,888 10% 4,434 9% 6,419 13% 19,259 11% 65,562 10% 15,362,341 12% 2027 2,764 13% 6,655 11% 5,040 10% 7,067 14% 21,526 12% 73,794 12% 18,148,498 14% Gr./Yr. # 49 -58% 153 72% 121 81% 130 122% 453 118% 1,646 -339% 557,231 140% Gr./Yr. % 1.9% 2.5% 2.6% 1.9% 2.3% 2.4% 3.4%
HH Size ('22) 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.6
Ownership ('22) 1,319 52% 3,725 63% 2,767 62% 4,216 66% 11,940 62% 35,658 54% 9,325,106 61% Age Profile ('22) % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ Population
75-84 3,097 17% 6,968 17% 5,107 17% 7,408 18% 22,580 17% 84,180 17% 17,449,342 17% 85 Plus 1,307 7% 3,061 7% 2,298 7% 3,313 8% 9,979 8% 33,842 7% 6,890,653 7% Households
75-84 427 17% 999 17% 734 17% 1,179 18% 3,332 17% 11,090 17% 2,636,508 17% 85 Plus 180 7% 439 7% 330 7% 527 8% 1,472 8% 4,459 7% 1,041,143 7% Income ('22, $000s)
Median $82 $82 $62 $105 $82 $67 $40
Average $148 $136 $107 $178 $145 $125 $69
Income Profile ('22) % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ Over $50K 1,848 20% 4,039 18% 2,659 15% 4,650 20% 13,196 18% 40,692 15% 6,247,253 10% Over $75K 1,332 14% 3,102 14% 1,891 11% 3,802 17% 10,127 14% 30,152 11% 3,956,357 7% Over $100K 1,108 12% 2,630 12% 1,549 9% 3,342 15% 8,629 12% 24,764 9% 2,640,790 4% Over $150K 805 9% 1,944 9% 1,109 6% 2,389 11% 6,247 9% 17,206 7% 1,353,082 2% Over $210K 562 6% 1,089 5% 542 3% 1,735 8% 3,928 5% 10,759 4% 695,624 1% Net Worth ('22) % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ % 75+ $1MM Plus 1,310 14% 2,861 13% 1,657 10% 3,711 16% 9,539 13% 27,326 10% 3,133,383 5% Source: ESRI
1,108
2,630
1,549
3,342
8,629
24,764
$81,904 $82,154
$62,071
$105,008
$82,107
$66,982
$40,339
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara Mountain View/ Los Altos CMA PMA U.S.

Age 75+ Households with $100K+ Incomes & Median Income
Age 75+ HHs, $100K Plus Income Age 75+ Median Income
107 261 206 223
796
3,343
7%
6%
6%
8%
7%
6%
7%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara Mountain View/ Los Altos CMA PMA U.S.

Age 75+ Annual Household Growth ('20-'25) & % of Households Age 75+ Age 75+ HH Growth (Annual, 2022-2027) % HH Age 75+
23148.00 DemosDemand Senior:DemoCL Page 3 of 4 THE CONCORD GROUP DRAFT
249
CC 10-17-2023
249 of 474
EXHIBIT I-2E

SENIOR DEMOGRAPHICS SUMMARY

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022 THROUGH 2027
567819 11 20
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara
Mountain View/ Los
Altos CMA PMA U.S.

Geography: Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc.

Caregiver - Age 45-64 Population / Households
Population % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov
2022 17,901 29% 40,230 25% 29,597 23% 34,481 27% 122,209 25% 467,035 25% 83,485,245 25% 2027 16,983 28% 40,849 25% 29,565 23% 32,381 25% 119,778 25% 449,822 25% 79,872,223 23% Gr./Yr. # -184 124 -6 -420 -486 -3,443 -722,604
Gr./Yr. % -1.0% 0.3% 0.0% -1.2% -0.4% -0.7% -0.9%
Households % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov % Ov
2022 9,433 44% 21,882 36% 16,190 34% 18,878 37% 66,383 37% 242,493 38% 45,983,410 36% 2027 8,803 42% 22,353 36% 16,256 33% 17,813 35% 65,225 36% 232,438 37% 43,510,743 33% Gr./Yr. # -126 94 13 -213 -232 -2,011 -494,533
Gr./Yr. % -1.4% 0.4% 0.1% -1.2% -0.4% -0.8% -1.1%
HH Size ('21) 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8
Age Profile ('21) % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 Households
45-54 5,178 55% 11,997 55% 8,605 53% 9,548 51% 35,328 53% 126,709 52% 21,669,821 47% 55-64 4,255 45% 9,885 45% 7,585 47% 9,330 49% 31,055 47% 115,784 48% 24,313,589 53% Income ('21, $000s)
Median $200 $200 $180 $200 $200 $195 $93
Average $305 $253 $217 $309 $267 $241 $129
Income Profile ('21) % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 Over $75K 8,867 94% 19,325 88% 13,530 84% 17,015 90% 58,737 88% 204,727 84% 26,350,194 57% Over $100K 8,627 91% 17,860 82% 12,376 76% 16,252 86% 55,115 83% 187,813 77% 20,123,971 44% Over $150K 7,617 81% 14,378 66% 9,453 58% 14,103 75% 45,551 69% 149,721 62% 11,101,345 24% Net Worth ('21) % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 % 45-64 $1MM Plus 5,514 58% 8,804 40% 5,089 31% 10,046 53% 29,453 44% 104,505 43% 8,340,654 18% Source: ESRI
7,617
14,378
9,453
14,103
45,551
149,721
$200,001 $200,001
$179,758
$200,001 $200,001
$194,575
$93,202
$0
$30,000
$60,000
$90,000
$120,000
$150,000
$180,000
$210,000
$240,000
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara Mountain View/ Los Altos CMA PMA U.S.

Age 45-64 Households with $200K+ Incomes & Median Income Age 45-64 HHs, $150K Plus Income Age 45-64 Median Income 23148.00 DemosDemand Senior:DemoCL Page 4 of 4 THE CONCORD GROUP DRAFT
250
CC 10-17-2023
250 of 474
EXHIBIT I-3A

EMPLOYMENT - OVERALL

SAN JOSE MSA
1991 THROUGH 2027
Total Growth Total Growth
Period Jobs Num. Perc. Jobs Num. Perc.Historical - Annual (000s) 1991 823 --- --- 108,434 --- ---
1992 809 (14) -1.7% 108,793 359 0.3%
1993 814 5 0.6% 110,935 2,142 2.0%
1994 817 3 0.3% 114,386 3,451 3.1%1995 850 33 4.0% 117,410 3,025 2.6%1996 899 49 5.8% 119,819 2,409 2.1%1997 947 48 5.4% 122,930 3,111 2.6%1998 978 31 3.2% 126,137 3,207 2.6%1999 991 13 1.4% 129,229 3,092 2.5%2000 1,051 59 6.0% 132,018 2,789 2.2%2001 1,024 (27) -2.5% 132,078 60 0.0% 2002 924 (100) -9.8% 130,635 (1,444) -1.1%
2003 878 (46) -4.9% 130,327 (308) -0.2%2004 873 (6) -0.7% 131,755 1,428 1.1% 2005 882 9 1.1% 134,021 2,266 1.7%2006 905 22 2.5% 136,432 2,411 1.8%2007 926 21 2.3% 137,979 1,547 1.1%2008 933 7 0.8% 137,225 (754) -0.5% 2009 877 (56) -6.0% 131,290 (5,935) -4.3%2010 875 (2) -0.2% 130,335 (955) -0.7%2011 896 21 2.4% 131,920 1,585 1.2% 2012 931 35 3.9% 134,154 2,235 1.7%2013 968 37 4.0% 136,358 2,204 1.6%2014 1,009 41 4.2% 138,920 2,561 1.9%2015 1,048 39 3.9% 141,801 2,882 2.1%2016 1,083 35 3.3% 144,332 2,531 1.8%2017 1,108 25 2.3% 146,611 2,279 1.6%2018 1,128 19 1.8% 148,897 2,286 1.6%2019 1,148 21 1.8% 150,891 1,994 1.3%2020 1,077 (72) -6.2% 142,153 (8,738) -5.8% 2021 1,099 22 2.1% 146,281 4,128 2.9%
2022 1,157 58 5.3% 152,625 6,344 4.3%
Historical - Annual Average (Through '22)
5-Yr 10 0.9% 1,203 0.8%10-Yr 23 2.2% 1,847 1.3%
20-Yr 12 1.1% 1,100 0.8%
30-Yr 12 1.2% 1,461 1.1%
Forecast
2023 1,185 27 2.4% 155,525 2,900 1.9%
2024 1,195 10 0.9% 156,030 505 0.3%
2025 1,208 13 1.0% 156,929 899 0.6%2026 1,215 7 0.6% 157,564 634 0.4%2027 1,219 5 0.4% 158,167 603 0.4%5-Yr 12 1.0% 1,108 0.7% Source: Moody's Analytics / Economy.com (July 2023); BLS San Jose MSA United States
02004006008001,0001,2001,400
(12.0%)(10.0%)
(8.0%)(6.0%)(4.0%)(2.0%)

0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%
'92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 Total Employment (000s)
Annual Employment Change
Total Employment and Annual Employment Change
San Jose MSA Total Employment (Right Axis) San Jose MSA Ann. Change (Left Axis) U.S. Ann. Change (Left Axis) 23148.00 EmpTrends v0.22: EmpO the concord group
DRAFT
251
CC 10-17-2023
251 of 474
EXHIBIT I-3B

EMPLOYMENT - INDUSTRY TRENDS

SAN JOSE MSA
2005 THROUGH 2027
Annual Growth Share of Total Employment
Forecast '22-'27 Shift Share
Employment Industry 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 '17-'22 % # 2022 2027 Nom. % Professional & Business Services 168.7 175.1 181.5 182.2 164.7 165.6 172.1 184.0 197.7 209.7 223.6 232.1 236.1 236.2 243.2 237.4 242.5 253.6 256.9 255.9 258.2 261.8 265.5 1.4% 0.9% 2.4 22% 22% 0.99 -1% Financial Activities 36.1 36.9 36.9 34.3 31.5 31.0 32.3 33.2 33.7 34.1 34.6 35.6 36.1 36.7 37.9 38.0 38.4 38.0 37.6 37.6 37.7 37.9 38.0 1.0% 0.0% 0.0 3% 3% 0.95 -5% Health Care & Social Assistance 76.3 79.6 82.7 89.2 92.6 93.0 93.6 99.6 105.6 109.9 114.7 119.9 124.9 128.5 130.8 129.0 134.3 140.1 146.0 147.1 147.9 148.7 149.2 2.3% 1.3% 1.8 12% 12% 1.01 +1% Government 95.9 96.5 97.2 97.8 96.4 94.5 92.7 91.4 91.7 93.4 92.9 94.1 95.6 96.7 97.4 93.9 93.3 95.9 96.6 96.7 96.7 96.8 97.1 0.1% 0.2% 0.2 8% 8% 0.96 -4% Educational services 29.0 30.2 31.5 33.0 33.0 35.5 37.3 38.7 39.9 42.4 44.1 45.2 47.0 47.7 47.9 43.5 44.0 46.9 49.3 50.2 50.8 51.3 51.6 -0.0% 1.9% 0.9 4% 4% 1.04 +4%Leisure & Hospitality 73.5 75.9 77.3 78.5 75.3 75.2 77.7 82.8 87.8 92.8 96.7 100.6 103.4 105.7 107.6 73.4 78.8 96.5 105.7 111.7 115.6 116.6 116.8 -1.4% 3.9% 4.1 8% 10% 1.15 +15% Retail Trade 83.6 85.5 86.1 84.1 78.5 78.0 81.0 83.2 83.9 85.3 86.6 85.8 85.8 85.7 83.1 73.0 73.7 73.6 74.1 74.7 75.5 75.7 75.8 -3.0% 0.6% 0.4 6% 6% 0.98 -2% Information 35.9 38.1 40.1 42.7 43.0 45.5 50.1 52.8 56.9 63.7 68.9 76.0 85.3 92.1 100.6 105.8 107.0 106.4 106.3 106.7 107.0 106.9 106.9 4.5% 0.1% 0.1 9% 9% 0.95 -5% Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities 13.1 12.9 13.5 13.5 12.1 12.0 12.1 12.8 13.8 14.3 14.6 15.5 15.4 15.8 16.1 15.8 16.9 19.2 20.9 21.1 21.2 21.4 21.5 4.5% 2.3% 0.5 2% 2% 1.06 +6% Wholesale Trade 34.9 37.4 39.0 39.2 35.1 34.4 33.5 34.5 35.7 35.8 35.8 35.5 33.5 32.2 31.4 29.2 28.3 29.0 28.8 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.7 -2.8% -0.2% 0.1 3% 2% 0.94 -6%Manufacturing 165.5 164.3 167.0 168.3 155.5 153.5 157.5 158.3 158.4 161.6 164.7 166.6 166.7 171.2 170.3 165.6 167.4 179.0 182.6 185.6 188.7 189.6 189.0 1.4% 1.1% 2.0 15% 16% 1.00 +0% Construction 44.8 47.1 47.5 44.5 34.7 32.4 31.8 34.8 37.5 39.7 43.9 48.2 49.4 49.9 53.0 50.1 51.7 53.9 54.8 53.7 53.8 53.4 52.9 1.8% -0.4% 0.2 5% 4% 0.93 -7% Natural Resources & Mining 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 -0.0% 2.3% 0.0 0% 0% 1.07 +7% Other Services (Except Public Admin.) 24.6 24.8 25.1 25.4 24.5 24.3 24.6 24.7 25.4 26.4 26.9 27.6 28.9 28.9 28.9 22.1 22.8 25.1 24.8 25.1 25.7 25.9 26.0 -2.8% 0.7% 0.2 2% 2% 0.98 -2% Total Nonfarm Employment 882 905 926 933 877 875 896 931 968 1,009 1,048 1,083 1,108 1,128 1,148 1,077 1,099 1,157 1,185 1,195 1,208 1,215 1,219 0.9% 1.0% 12.4 100% 100% YOY Change (000s) 9.4 22.4 21.2 7.2 -56.1 -1.8 21.4 34.7 37.2 40.9 39.1 34.8 25.1 19.4 20.8 -71.5 22.4 58.0 27.2 10.4 12.5 7.2 4.6 % Change1.1% 2.5% 2.3% 0.8% -6.0% -0.2% 2.4% 3.9% 4.0% 4.2% 3.9% 3.3% 2.3% 1.8% 1.8% -6.2% 2.1% 5.3% 2.4% 0.9% 1.0% 0.6% 0.4% Cumulative Gain/Loss +6.9% -6.2% +31.2% -6.2% +7.5% +5.4% Source: Moody's Analytics / Economy.com; BLS
Annual Employment (Total Jobs) (000s)
Historical
22%
3%
12%
8%
8% 4%
6%
9%
2%3%
15%
5% 0%2%
2022 San Jose MSA Employment
Composition
Professional & Business ServicesFinancial ActivitiesHealth Care & Social AssistanceGovernmentEducational servicesLeisure & HospitalityRetail TradeInformationTransportation, Warehousing & UtilitiesWholesale TradeManufacturingConstructionNatural Resources & MiningOther Services (Except Public Admin.) 02004006008001,0001,2001,400
(12.0%)(10.0%)
(8.0%)(6.0%)(4.0%)(2.0%)

0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total Nonfarm Employment (000s)
YOY Employment Change
San Jose MSA YOY Employment Change & Annual Total Nonfarm Employment (Historical & Forecast) Total Nonfarm Employment (Historical) Total Nonfarm Employment (Forecast) YOY Nonfarm Employment Change (Historical) YOY Nonfarm Employment Change (Forecast) 23148.00 EmpTrends v0.22: EmpT the concord group
DRAFT
252
CC 10-17-2023
252 of 474
EXHIBIT I-3B

EMPLOYMENT - INDUSTRY GROWTH BY TIME PERIOD

SAN JOSE MSA
2010 THROUGH 2027
2010 to 2019 2019 to 2020 2020 to 2022 2022 to 2027
2010 2019 Shift Growth / Yr 2020 Shift Growth / Yr 2022 Shift Growth / Yr 2027 Shift Growth / Yr Industry Num. Share Num. Share Share Num. Perc. Num. Share Share Num. Perc. Num. Share Share Num. Perc. Num. Share Share Num. Perc.

Prof/Biz Services 165.6 19% 243.2 21% 1.12 8.6 4.4% 237.4 22% 1.04 -5.8 -2.4% 253.6 22% 0.99 8.1 3.3% 265.5 22% 0.99 2.4 0.9% Financial Activities 31.0 4% 37.9 3% 0.93 0.8 2.2% 38.0 4% 1.07 0.1 0.4% 38.0 3% 0.93 -0.0 -0.0% 38.0 3% 0.95 0.0 0.0% Health Care 93.0 11% 130.8 11% 1.07 4.2 3.9% 129.0 12% 1.05 -1.8 -1.4% 140.1 12% 1.01 5.6 4.2% 149.2 12% 1.01 1.8 1.3% Government 94.5 11% 97.4 8% 0.79 0.3 0.3% 93.9 9% 1.03 -3.5 -3.6% 95.9 8% 0.95 1.0 1.1% 97.1 8% 0.96 0.2 0.2% Education 35.5 4% 47.9 4% 1.03 1.4 3.4% 43.5 4% 0.97 -4.4 -9.2% 46.9 4% 1.00 1.7 3.8% 51.6 4% 1.04 0.9 1.9% Leisure/Hospitality 75.2 9% 107.6 9% 1.09 3.6 4.1% 73.4 7% 0.73 -34.2 -31.8% 96.5 8% 1.22 11.5 14.7% 116.8 10% 1.15 4.1 3.9% Retail Trade 78.0 9% 83.1 7% 0.81 0.6 0.7% 73.0 7% 0.94 -10.2 -12.2% 73.6 6% 0.94 0.3 0.5% 75.8 6% 0.98 0.4 0.6%Information 45.5 5% 100.6 9% 1.68 6.1 9.2% 105.8 10% 1.12 5.2 5.2% 106.4 9% 0.94 0.3 0.3% 106.9 9% 0.95 0.1 0.1%Construction/Nat. Res. 32.6 4% 53.2 5% 1.25 2.3 5.6% 50.3 5% 1.01 -3.0 -5.6% 54.1 5% 1.00 1.9 3.7% 53.1 4% 0.93 -0.2 -0.4%Transportation/Utils 12.0 1% 16.1 1% 1.02 0.5 3.3% 15.8 1% 1.05 -0.3 -1.7% 19.2 2% 1.13 1.7 10.2% 21.5 2% 1.06 0.5 2.3% Wholesale Trade 34.4 4% 31.4 3% 0.70 -0.3 -1.0% 29.2 3% 0.99 -2.3 -7.2% 29.0 3% 0.93 -0.1 -0.2% 28.7 2% 0.94 -0.1 -0.2% Manufacturing 153.5 18% 170.3 15% 0.85 1.9 1.2% 165.6 15% 1.04 -4.7 -2.8% 179.0 15% 1.01 6.7 3.9% 189.0 16% 1.00 2.0 1.1% Other Services 24.3 3% 28.9 3% 0.91 0.5 2.0% 22.1 2% 0.81 -6.8 -23.6% 25.1 2% 1.06 1.5 6.5% 26.0 2% 0.98 0.2 0.7% Total 875.1 1,148.5 30.4 3.1% 1,077.0 -71.5 -6.2% 1,157.3 40.2 3.7% 1,219.3 12.4 1.0% Prof/Biz Services 16,819 13% 21,334 14% 1.10 502 2.7% 20,372 14% 1.01 -963 -4.5% 22,577 15% 1.03 1,103 5.3% 23,764 15% 1.02 237 1.0%Financial Activities 7,695 6% 8,754 6% 0.98 118 1.4% 8,704 6% 1.06 -50 -0.6% 9,043 6% 0.97 169 1.9% 9,140 6% 0.98 19 0.2%Health Care 16,820 13% 20,420 14% 1.05 400 2.2% 19,795 14% 1.03 -626 -3.1% 20,556 13% 0.97 381 1.9% 21,562 14% 1.01 201 1.0%Government 22,490 17% 22,609 15% 0.87 13 0.1% 21,982 15% 1.03 -627 -2.8% 22,178 15% 0.94 98 0.4% 22,909 14% 1.00 146 0.7%Education 3,153 2% 3,741 2% 1.03 65 1.9% 3,476 2% 0.99 -265 -7.1% 3,796 2% 1.02 160 4.5% 4,092 3% 1.04 59 1.5%Leisure/Hospitality 13,042 10% 16,587 11% 1.10 394 2.7% 13,131 9% 0.84 -3,455 -20.8% 15,850 10% 1.12 1,359 9.9% 17,009 11% 1.04 232 1.4% Retail Trade 14,407 11% 15,552 10% 0.93 127 0.9% 14,814 10% 1.01 -738 -4.7% 15,487 10% 0.97 336 2.2% 15,694 10% 0.98 41 0.3%Information 2,707 2% 2,863 2% 0.91 17 0.6% 2,721 2% 1.01 -143 -5.0% 3,073 2% 1.05 176 6.3% 3,102 2% 0.97 6 0.2%Construction/Nat. Res. 6,223 5% 8,221 5% 1.14 222 3.1% 7,857 6% 1.01 -364 -4.4% 8,354 5% 0.99 249 3.1% 8,406 5% 0.97 10 0.1%Transportation/Utils 4,733 4% 6,214 4% 1.13 165 3.1% 6,176 4% 1.05 -38 -0.6% 7,212 5% 1.09 518 8.1% 7,551 5% 1.01 68 0.9% Wholesale Trade 5,387 4% 5,888 4% 0.94 56 1.0% 5,632 4% 1.02 -256 -4.3% 5,964 4% 0.99 166 2.9% 6,087 4% 0.98 25 0.4% Manufacturing 11,529 9% 12,816 8% 0.96 143 1.2% 12,165 9% 1.01 -651 -5.1% 12,827 8% 0.98 331 2.7% 13,046 8% 0.98 44 0.3% Other Services 5,331 4% 5,890 4% 0.95 62 1.1% 5,328 4% 0.96 -563 -9.6% 5,708 4% 1.00 190 3.5% 5,805 4% 0.98 19 0.3% Total 130,335 150,891 2,284 1.6% 142,153 -8,738 -5.8% 152,625 5,236 3.6% 158,167 1,108 0.7% Source: Moody's Analytics / Economy.com (July 2023); BLS United States Jobs (000s)
>> 2010 to 2019 >> >> 2019 to 2020 >> >> 2020 to 2022 >> >> 2022 to 2027 >> San Jose MSA Jobs (000s)
(1.0%)(0.5%)0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%4.5%
0%5%
10%15%20%25%
Prof/Biz Services Financial Activities Health Care Government Education Leisure/Hospitality Retail Trade Information Construction/Nat. Res. Transportation/Utils Wholesale Trade Manufacturing Other Services Annual Growth Forecast (Circle)
Share of Total Jobs (Bar)
Share of Jobs ('22, Bar) and Annual Growth Forecast ('22-'27, Circle) San Jose MSA United States San Jose MSA '22-'27 Annual Growth Forecast United States '22-'27 Annual Growth Forecast 23148.00 EmpTrends v0.22: EmpP the concord group
DRAFT
253
CC 10-17-2023
253 of 474
EXHIBIT I-3C

EMPLOYMENT - COMMUTE

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2020
Num. Perc. Num. Perc. Num. Perc.

Jobs/Labor Ratio
Jobs 50,298 381,975 1,026,275
Employed Labor 26,701 232,685 860,039
Net Inflow / (Outflow) 23,597 149,290 166,236
Jobs/Labor 1.9 1.6 1.2
Commute Distance & Direction (Living in Geography)
Distance to Work
Under 10 Miles 16,523 61.9% 153,523 66.0% 489,870 57.0%10-24 Miles 5,130 19.2% 39,281 16.9% 195,502 22.7%25-50 Miles 2,892 10.8% 23,378 10.0% 98,653 11.5%Over 50 Miles 2,156 8.1% 16,503 7.1% 76,014 8.8% Direction of Work
Northerly 19,571 73.3% 136,678 58.7% 502,443 58.4%
Southerly 3,230 12.1% 46,645 20.0% 188,451 21.9%
Easterly 12,994 48.7% 92,301 39.7% 218,441 25.4%
Westerly 7,629 28.6% 97,063 41.7% 458,648 53.3%
Residents Commute To (Living in Geography)
Location of Work
San Jose city, CA 5,235 19.6% 37,969 16.3% 251,334 29.2% Mountain View city, CA 1,976 7.4% 26,207 11.3% 52,027 6.0% Sunnyvale city, CA 2,210 8.3% 23,095 9.9% 54,445 6.3%
Santa Clara city, CA 2,289 8.6% 20,582 8.8% 65,856 7.7% Palo Alto city, CA 1,724 6.5% 18,111 7.8% 45,083 5.2%
Cupertino city, CA 2,980 11.2% 12,982 5.6% 31,931 3.7%
San Francisco city, CA 1,481 5.5% 12,667 5.4% 38,891 4.5% Menlo Park city, CA 772 2.9% 9,040 3.9% 18,586 2.2%
Redwood City city, CA 655 2.5% 6,405 2.8% 15,751 1.8%
Fremont city, CA 659 2.5% 6,214 2.7% 30,842 3.6%
All Other Cities 6,720 25.2% 59,413 25.5% 255,293 29.7% Total 26,701 100.0% 232,685 100.0% 860,039 100.0%
Workers Commute From (Working in Geography)
Location of Residence
San Jose city, CA 14,142 28.1% 98,349 25.7% 327,390 31.9% Sunnyvale city, CA 4,179 8.3% 31,853 8.3% 53,932 5.3%
Santa Clara city, CA 3,485 6.9% 24,274 6.4% 45,420 4.4% Fremont city, CA 1,393 2.8% 16,293 4.3% 38,754 3.8%
Mountain View city, CA 1,446 2.9% 16,292 4.3% 27,748 2.7% San Francisco city, CA 3,132 6.2% 15,491 4.1% 33,315 3.2% Cupertino city, CA 2,980 5.9% 10,100 2.6% 18,491 1.8%
Milpitas city, CA 900 1.8% 9,106 2.4% 26,670 2.6%
Palo Alto city, CA 699 1.4% 6,364 1.7% 17,263 1.7%
Campbell city, CA 1,101 2.2% 5,269 1.4% 14,938 1.5%
All Other Cities 16,841 33.5% 148,584 38.9% 422,354 41.2% Total 50,298 100.0% 381,975 100.0% 1,026,275 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Center for Economic Studies / OnTheMap / LEHD) Cupertino
Competitive
Market Area
Primary Market
Area Employed Labor Living in Competitive Market Area - Location of Work North
Northeast
East
Southeast
South
Southwest
West
Northwest
Over 50 Miles 25-50 Miles 10-24 Miles Under 10 Miles
Residents Commuting
Over 50 Miles 16,50325-50 Miles 23,37810-24 Miles 39,281Under 10 Miles 153,523 66%17%10%
7%
0 50,000
100,000150,000200,000250,000
Competitive Market Area Residents Commute Distance/Direction (Home to Work) 23148.00 EmpTrends v0.22: EmpC the concord group
DRAFT
254
CC 10-17-2023
254 of 474
EXHIBIT I-4

GROWTH IN HOME PRICES, RENTS AND OWNER COSTS

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
2005 THROUGH 2023
Annual YTD Growth/Yr
Year: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 5-Yr 10-YrEffective Rent $1,899 $2,097 $2,255 $2,290 $2,099 $2,218 $2,296 $2,411 $2,541 $2,685 $2,817 $2,833 $2,882 $3,041 $3,133 $2,746 $2,986 $3,043 $3,119 Chg/Yr (%) --- 10.4% 7.5% 1.6% (8.3%) 5.7% 3.5% 5.0% 5.4% 5.7% 4.9% 0.6% 1.7% 5.5% 3.0% (12.4%) 8.7% 1.9% 2.5% 0.5% 2.1% Median Home Price (000s) $595 $645 $644 $528 $402 $400 $371 $377 $449 $517 $574 $620 $674 $868 $939 $970 $1,054 $1,157 $1,110 Chg/Yr (%) --- 8.4% (0.1%) (18.1%) (23.8%) (0.6%) (7.2%) 1.6% 19.1% 15.0% 11.0% 8.0% 8.6% 28.8% 8.3% 3.2% 8.7% 9.8% (4.1%) 5.1% 9.5% Mortgage Rate 5.8% 6.4% 6.3% 6.0% 5.0% 4.7% 4.5% 3.7% 4.0% 4.2% 3.9% 3.7% 4.3% 4.5% 3.9% 3.1% 3.0% 4.3% 7.0% Monthly Mort. Payment $2,802 $3,231 $3,203 $2,540 $1,736 $1,657 $1,496 $1,382 $1,712 $2,015 $2,153 $2,270 $2,651 $3,533 $3,562 $3,317 $3,537 $4,592 $5,878 Home Insurance (mo.) $14 $16 $16 $13 $9 $8 $7 $7 $9 $10 $11 $11 $13 $18 $18 $17 $18 $23 $29 Property Tax (mo.) $496 $538 $537 $440 $335 $333 $309 $314 $375 $431 $478 $517 $561 $723 $783 $808 $878 $964 $925 Ownership Housing Cost $3,312 $3,785 $3,756 $2,992 $2,080 $1,999 $1,813 $1,704 $2,096 $2,456 $2,642 $2,798 $3,225 $4,274 $4,362 $4,141 $4,433 $5,579 $6,833 Chg/Yr (%) --- 14.3% (0.8%) (20.3%) (30.5%) (3.9%) (9.3%) (6.0%) 23.0% 17.2% 7.6% 5.9% 15.3% 32.5% 2.1% (5.1%) 7.0% 25.9% 22.5% 9.8% 12.5% Ownership Premium/Discount 74% 80% 67% 31% -1% -10% -21% -29% -18% -9% -6% -1% 12% 41% 39% 51% 48% 83% 119% 46% Atlanta 14% 12% 7% 12% 38% 44% 59% 87% 62% 48% 58% 57% 45% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A --- --- #N/A Dallas -33% -37% -36% -34% -31% -33% -34% -35% -38% -40% -41% -45% -43% -43% -43% -41% -39% --- --- -43% East Bay Area 20% 18% 36% 38% 64% 95% 116% 119% 15% -37% -24% -33% -31% 0% 15% 20% 61% --- --- 5% Greenville 104% 106% 39% 67% 77% 53% 47% 33% 33% 61% 46% 65% 67% 34% 61% 48% 49% --- --- 54% Portland -17% -19% -14% -11% 0% 18% 39% 43% 33% 17% 5% -6% -9% 2% 11% 10% 18% --- --- 4% Note: Monthly owner cost assumes 30-year fixed at 4.5% interest rate and 10% or 20% down payment Note: Home prices assume 30 year fixed mortgage at average interest rate at time of purchase, 20% down payment and estimate property tax rate of 1.0%. Home insurance is factored in at 0.5% of the monthly mortgage cost.

Sources: CoStar, Zillow
(25%)(20%)(15%)(10%)
(5%)
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%
2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Annual % Change
Year
% Change in Rent % Change in Existing Home Price
$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000$9,000
$10,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Average Monthly Owner Costs
Year
Average Monthly Renter Costs Average Monthly Owner Costs Pre-2008 Recession Gap: 78% 2023 Gap: 118%
5-year average gap: 68% 10-year average gap: 39%
23148.00 Price.Rents.Costs:RentvOwn Page 1 of 2 THE CONCORD GROUP DRAFT
255
CC 10-17-2023
255 of 474
EXHIBIT I-4

GROWTH IN HOME PRICES, RENTS AND OWNER COSTS - REAL TIME

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
JULY 2023
Note: Home prices assume 30 year fixed mortgage at 6.95% interest rate, 20% down payment and estimate property tax rate of 1%. Home insurance is factored in at 0.5% of the home sale price.

Sources: Redfin, TCG
$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000$9,000
$10,000$11,000$12,000$13,000$14,000$15,000
500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 Monthly Housing Cost
Unit Size (SF)
Rental Comps CMA L6M Resales (20% Down) CMA L3M Resales (10% Down) Shadow Market CMA L6M Resale Monthly Payment
(10% Down)
CMA Class A Rental
Comparables
Shadow Market
-46%
-36%
-40%
-42%
-44%
CMA L6M Resale
Monthly Payment
(20% Down)
23148.00 Price.Rents.Costs:Price to Size Page 2 of 2 THE CONCORD GROUP DRAFT
256
CC 10-17-2023
256 of 474
EXHIBIT I-4

HOUSING COST CASE STUDY - SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
LAST THREE YEARS ENDING 2023
CMA Resales Monthly Home Payment Increase: Case Study: 10570 Deodara Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014Case Study: 10570 Deodara Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014 Note: Monthly home payments assume 30Y fixed rate mortgage, 20% down, 1.0% property tax, 0.5% insurance costs, and $150 HOA Fee. 2021 2022 2023 2023 Redfin Estimate
Monthly $12,010 $14,891 $17,034 $18,718Monthly 2.96% 5.34% 6.95% 6.95% 0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%
$0
$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000
$10,000$12,000$14,000$16,000$18,000$20,000
30Y Mortgage Rate
Monthly Payment
+41.8% based on
interest rate
increase alone
+55.9% when
accounting for
HPA
Monthly Home Payment
2021 2022 2023
Monthly $5,033 $6,814 $7,471Rate 2.96% 5.34% 6.95%
0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%
$0
$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000
30Y Mortgage Rate
Monthly Payment
CMA Resales Monthly Home
+48.5% increase in monthly
housing costs when factoring
in interest rate increases and
HPA for the average home
The average home price in the CMA increased by 5.3% from 2021 to 2023. When factoring in home price appreciation and interest rate appreciation, the average monthly housing payment in the CMA increased by 48.5% from 2021 to 2023.

The 3 bedroom home shown to the right last sold for $2,560,000 in August 2021. Redfin estimates that its value in 2023 is $2,815,299, which equates to a 10.0% increase in home value in approximately two years.

When factoring in the rapid increase in mortgage interest rates alone, the monthly owner cost would be 41.8% greater than the ownership cost in 2023 ($17,034 vs. $12,010) if this home sold at its 2021 sale price.

When factoring in both home value appreciation and higher interest rates, the monthly mortgage payment would increase by 55.9% ($18,718 vs. $12,010). 23148.00 Housing Cost Case Study v1.03 BRN: SFD The Concord Group DRAFT
257
CC 10-17-2023
257 of 474
EXHIBIT I-4

HOUSING COST CASE STUDY - TOWNHOME

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
LAST THREE YEARS ENDING 2023
CMA Resales Monthly Home Payment Increase: Case Study: 10830 Northoak Sq, Cupertino, CA 95014 Case Study: 10830 Northoak Sq, Cupertino, CA 95014
Note: Monthly home payments assume 30Y fixed rate mortgage, 20% down, 1.0% property tax, 0.5% insurance costs, and $150 HOA Fee. 2021 2022 2023 2023 Redfin Estimate
Monthly $6,265 $7,751 $8,856 $9,232Monthly 2.96% 5.34% 6.95% 6.95% 0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%
$0
$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000
$10,000
30Y Mortgage Rate
Monthly Payment
+41.4% based on
interest rate
increase alone
+47.4% when
accounting for
HPA
Monthly Home Payment
2021 2022 2023
Monthly $5,033 $6,814 $7,471Rate 2.96% 5.34% 6.95%
0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%
$0
$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000
30Y Mortgage Rate
Monthly Payment
CMA Resales Monthly Home
+48.5% increase in monthly
housing costs when factoring
in interest rate increases and
HPA for the average home
The average home price in the CMA increased by 5.3% from 2021 to 2023. When factoring in home price appreciation and interest rate appreciation, the average monthly housing payment in the CMA increased by 48.5% from 2021 to 2023.

The 2 bedroom townhome shown to the right last sold for $1,320,000 in August 2021. Redfin estimates that its value in 2023 is $1,376,988, which equates to a 4.3% increase in home value in approximately two years.

When factoring in the rapid increase in mortgage interest rates alone, the monthly owner cost would be 41.4% greater than the ownership cost in 2023 ($8,856 vs. $6,265) if this home sold at its 2021 sale price.

When factoring in both home value appreciation and higher interest rates, the monthly mortgage payment would increase by 47.4% ($9,232 vs. $6,265). 23148.00 Housing Cost Case Study v1.03 BRN: TH The Concord Group DRAFT
258
CC 10-17-2023
258 of 474
EXHIBIT I-4

HOUSING COST CASE STUDY - CONDO

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
LAST THREE YEARS ENDING 2023
CMA Resales Monthly Home Payment Increase: Case Study: 10570 Deodara Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014Case Study: 10570 Deodara Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014 Note: Monthly home payments assume 30Y fixed rate mortgage, 20% down, 1.0% property tax, 0.5% insurance costs, and $150 HOA Fee. 2021 2022 2023 2023 Redfin Estimate
Monthly $5,339 $6,599 $7,537 $7,836Monthly 2.96% 5.34% 6.95% 6.95% 0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%
$0
$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000
$10,000
30Y Mortgage Rate
Monthly Payment
+41.2% based on
interest rate
increase alone
+46.8% when
accounting for
HPA
Monthly Home Payment
2021 2022 2023
Monthly $5,033 $6,814 $7,471Rate 2.96% 5.34% 6.95%
0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%
$0
$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000
30Y Mortgage Rate
Monthly Payment
CMA Resales Monthly Home
+48.5% increase in monthly
housing costs when factoring
in interest rate increases and
HPA for the average home
The average home price in the CMA increased by 5.3% from 2021 to 2023. When factoring in home price appreciation and interest rate appreciation, the average monthly housing payment in the CMA increased by 48.5% from 2021 to 2023.

The 2 bedroom condo shown to the right last sold for $1,120,000 in October 2021. Redfin estimates that its value in 2023 is $1,165,326, which equates to a 4.0% increase in home value in approximately two years.

When factoring in the rapid increase in mortgage interest rates alone, the monthly owner cost would be 41.2% greater than the ownership cost in 2023 ($7,537 vs. $5,339) if this home sold at its 2021 sale price.

When factoring in both home value appreciation and higher interest rates, the monthly mortgage payment would increase by 46.8% ($7,836 vs. $5,339). 23148.00 Housing Cost Case Study v1.03 BRN: Condo The Concord Group DRAFT
259
CC 10-17-2023
259 of 474
II. Market-Rate Opportunity Analysis
DRAFT
260
CC 10-17-2023
260 of 474
EXHIBIT II-1A

MULTIFAMILY MARKET TRENDS

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2000 THROUGH YTD (AUGUST 2023)
5-Yr
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Avg Q3 '22 Q3 '23 L4Q Competitive Market Area
Inventory Units 54,117 54,473 54,473 54,903 54,903 55,173 55,457 55,793 56,327 58,226 59,064 61,255 61,987 64,271 65,631 67,004 68,087 69,489 66,896 69,018 69,715 Gross Deliveries 250 356 0 430 0 270 284 336 534 1,899 838 2,191 732 2,284 1,360 1,373 1,083 1,402 1,500 -- -- 697Net Absorption 941 778 (163) (408) (110) 642 272 377 398 1,697 976 441 1,796 1,842 953 (1,796) 4,233 1,664 1,379 -- -- 940 Vacancy Rate (1) 3.9% 3.1% 3.4% 4.9% 5.1% 4.4% 4.4% 4.3% 4.5% 4.7% 4.4% 7.1% 5.3% 5.8% 6.3% 10.9% 6.1% 5.6% 6.9% 5.1% 4.7% Effective Rent /Unit $1,807 $1,972 $2,138 $2,133 $1,942 $2,059 $2,148 $2,267 $2,408 $2,567 $2,719 $2,688 $2,779 $2,904 $2,988 $2,602 $2,864 $3,024 $2,876 $3,117 $3,105 % Change (YOY) 3.7% 9.1% 8.4% (0.2%) (9.0%) 6.0% 4.3% 5.5% 6.2% 6.6% 5.9% (1.1%) 3.4% 4.5% 2.9% (12.9%) 10.1% 5.6% 1.7% (0.4%) Primary Market Area
Inventory Units 118,573 119,738 120,292 120,772 121,015 121,498 121,872 125,554 127,337 132,854 137,205 140,966 142,651 147,242 149,712 153,227 156,469 159,156 153,161 158,680 159,794 Gross Deliveries 795 1,165 554 480 243 483 374 3,682 1,783 5,517 4,351 3,761 1,685 4,591 2,470 3,515 3,242 2,687 3,301 -- -- 1,114Net Absorption 2,410 2,432 296 (986) (373) 1,066 601 2,641 2,201 4,726 3,717 2,712 2,582 3,317 2,322 (2,212) 8,720 3,006 3,031 -- -- 1,534Vacancy Rate (1) 4.3% 3.2% 3.4% 4.6% 5.1% 4.6% 4.4% 5.1% 4.7% 5.1% 5.4% 6.0% 5.3% 6.0% 6.0% 9.6% 5.9% 5.6% 6.6% 5.3% 5.0% Effective Rent /Unit $1,742 $1,876 $2,020 $2,043 $1,872 $1,955 $2,035 $2,131 $2,250 $2,374 $2,532 $2,513 $2,592 $2,691 $2,765 $2,489 $2,704 $2,848 $2,699 $2,917 $2,937 % Change (YOY) 3.0% 7.7% 7.7% 1.1% (8.4%) 4.4% 4.1% 4.7% 5.6% 5.5% 6.7% (0.8%) 3.1% 3.8% 2.7% (10.0%) 8.6% 5.3% 1.9% 0.7% Source: CoStar; The Concord Group
0%2%4%6%8%10%12%
(3,000)(2,000)(1,000)
0 1,0002,0003,0004,0005,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Annual Competitive Market Area Gross Deliveries, Net Absorption and Vacancy Rate Gross Deliveries (Units - Left Axis) Net Absorption (Units - Left Axis) Vacancy Rate (Right Axis) $0$500$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500
(15.0%)(10.0%)
(5.0%)

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Competitive Market Area Effective Rent Per Unit and YOY Rent Change Average Effective Rent Per Unit (Right Axis) Effective Rent Change (YOY - Left Axis) 23148.00 EmpTrends v0.22: MFTrO the concord group
DRAFT
261
CC 10-17-2023
261 of 474
EXHIBIT II-1A

MULTIFAMILY MARKET TRENDS - SCALE

SAN JOSE MSA
2000 THROUGH YTD (AUGUST 2023)
Aug 2023
Annual AverageU/C
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr YTD Units %Inv Employment Growth
San Jose MSA (4.9%) (0.7%) 1.1% 2.5% 2.3% 0.8% (6.0%) (0.2%) 2.4% 3.9% 4.0% 4.2% 3.9% 3.3% 2.3% 1.8% 1.8% (6.2%) 2.1% 5.3% 0.9% 2.2% 1.1% Inventory (000s)
San Jose MSA 118.9 120.1 120.9 122.3 123.2 123.7 124.0 124.4 124.8 128.5 130.3 135.8 140.2 144.0 145.7 150.4 152.9 156.7 160.0 162.7 163.4 Primary Market Area 116.6 117.8 118.6 119.7 120.3 120.8 121.0 121.5 121.9 125.6 127.3 132.9 137.2 141.0 142.7 147.2 149.7 153.2 156.5 159.2 159.8 % MSA 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% Competitive Market Area 53.5 53.9 54.1 54.5 54.5 54.9 54.9 55.2 55.5 55.8 56.3 58.2 59.1 61.3 62.0 64.3 65.6 67.0 68.1 69.5 69.7 % PMA 46% 46% 46% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 46% 44% 44% 44% 43% 43% 43% 44% 44% 44% 44% 44% 44% Gross Deliveries (000s)
San Jose MSA 0.1 1.2 0.8 1.4 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 3.7 1.8 5.5 4.5 3.8 1.7 4.7 2.5 3.8 3.3 2.7 3.4 3.4 2.2 0.8 0.0 0.0%Primary Market Area 0.1 1.2 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.4 3.7 1.8 5.5 4.4 3.8 1.7 4.6 2.5 3.5 3.2 2.7 3.3 3.4 2.1 0.6 0.0 0.0% % MSA 100% 100% 100% 84% 62% 93% 97% 97% 100% 101% 100% 100% 97% 100% 99% 98% 100% 93% 98% 100% 97% 98% 97% 84% 0% Competitive Market Area 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.9 0.8 2.2 0.7 2.3 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0% % PMA 0% 33% 31% 31% 0% 90% 0% 56% 76% 9% 30% 34% 19% 58% 43% 50% 55% 39% 33% 52% 45% 41% 38% 35% 0% Net Absorption (000s)
San Jose MSA 0.2 1.6 2.4 2.6 0.7 -0.9 -0.4 1.3 0.2 2.7 2.2 4.7 4.0 2.6 2.5 3.5 2.3 -2.1 9.1 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.1 1.7 Primary Market Area 0.2 1.6 2.4 2.4 0.3 -1.0 -0.4 1.1 0.6 2.6 2.2 4.7 3.7 2.7 2.6 3.3 2.3 -2.2 8.7 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.0 1.6 % MSA 99% 99% 99% 95% 40% 114% 98% 79% 258% 97% 99% 100% 94% 106% 104% 94% 99% 106% 96% 99% 95% 98% 97% 92% Competitive Market Area 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.8 -0.2 -0.4 -0.1 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.7 1.0 0.4 1.8 1.8 1.0 -1.8 4.2 1.7 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.8 % PMA 0% 37% 39% 32% 0% 41% 29% 60% 45% 14% 18% 36% 26% 16% 70% 56% 41% 81% 49% 55% 46% 39% 37% 54% Source: CoStar; The Concord Group
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000
(12%)(10%)
(8%)(6%)(4%)(2%)
0%2%4%6%8%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Units Delivered (Bar)
Employment Growth (Line)
Annual Gross Deliveries and Employment Growth
Competitive Market Area Rem. Primary Market Area Rem. San Jose MSA San Jose MSA Employment Growth 23148.00 EmpTrends v0.22: MFTrS the concord group
DRAFT
262
CC 10-17-2023
262 of 474
EXHIBIT II-1A

MULTIFAMILY MARKET TRENDS - RENTS & OCCUPANCY

SAN JOSE MSA
2000 THROUGH YTD (AUGUST 2023)
Annual Average
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr 3Q22 3Q23 Effective Rent Per Unit ($)
San Jose MSA 1,767 1,707 1,756 1,888 2,034 2,060 1,887 1,970 2,048 2,151 2,278 2,405 2,565 2,576 2,647 2,739 2,790 2,565 2,761 2,883 2,922 2,941 Gr/Yr (7.3%) (3.4%) 2.9% 7.5% 7.7% 1.3% (8.4%) 4.4% 4.0% 5.0% 5.9% 5.6% 6.7% 0.4% 2.8% 3.5% 1.9% (8.1%) 7.6% 4.4% 1.7% 3.0% 2.1% YOY: 0.7% Primary Market Area 1,761 1,702 1,752 1,886 2,031 2,062 1,885 1,967 2,045 2,150 2,277 2,404 2,566 2,578 2,650 2,742 2,794 2,567 2,757 2,879 2,917 2,937 Gr/Yr (7.3%) (3.4%) 2.9% 7.6% 7.7% 1.5% (8.6%) 4.4% 4.0% 5.1% 5.9% 5.6% 6.7% 0.5% 2.8% 3.5% 1.9% (8.1%) 7.4% 4.4% 1.7% 3.0% 2.1% YOY: 0.7% Competitive Market Area 1,813 1,754 1,817 1,982 2,149 2,154 1,955 2,071 2,159 2,287 2,436 2,599 2,751 2,757 2,847 2,957 3,017 2,695 2,923 3,066 3,117 3,105 Gr/Yr (8.9%) (3.3%) 3.6% 9.1% 8.4% 0.2% (9.2%) 5.9% 4.2% 5.9% 6.5% 6.7% 5.8% 0.2% 3.3% 3.9% 2.0% (10.7%) 8.5% 4.9% 1.5% 3.0% 2.2% YOY: (0.4%) Effective Rent PSF ($)
San Jose MSA 2.06 2.00 2.05 2.21 2.38 2.41 2.21 2.30 2.40 2.52 2.67 2.82 3.00 3.01 3.10 3.20 3.26 3.00 3.23 3.37 3.42 3.44 Gr/Yr (7.6%) (2.9%) 2.5% 7.8% 7.7% 1.3% (8.3%) 4.1% 4.3% 5.0% 6.0% 5.6% 6.4% 0.3% 3.0% 3.2% 1.9% (8.0%) 7.7% 4.3% 1.7% 2.9% 2.1% YOY: 0.6% Primary Market Area 2.07 2.00 2.06 2.22 2.39 2.42 2.21 2.31 2.40 2.53 2.68 2.83 3.02 3.03 3.11 3.22 3.28 3.01 3.24 3.38 3.43 3.45 Gr/Yr (7.2%) (3.4%) 3.0% 7.8% 7.7% 1.3% (8.7%) 4.5% 3.9% 5.4% 5.9% 5.6% 6.7% 0.3% 2.6% 3.5% 1.9% (8.2%) 7.6% 4.3% 1.7% 2.9% 2.1% YOY: 0.6% Competitive Market Area 2.12 2.05 2.12 2.32 2.51 2.52 2.29 2.42 2.53 2.68 2.85 3.04 3.22 3.23 3.33 3.46 3.53 3.15 3.42 3.58 3.65 3.63 Gr/Yr (9.0%) (3.3%) 3.4% 9.4% 8.2% 0.4% (9.1%) 5.7% 4.5% 5.9% 6.3% 6.7% 5.9% 0.3% 3.1% 3.9% 2.0% (10.8%) 8.6% 4.7% 1.5% 2.9% 2.2% YOY: (0.5%) Occupancy
San Jose MSA 94% 94% 96% 97% 97% 96% 95% 96% 96% 95% 95% 95% 95% 94% 95% 94% 94% 91% 94% 95% 94% 94% 95% 94.9% 95.2%Primary Market Area 94% 94% 96% 97% 97% 95% 95% 95% 96% 95% 95% 95% 95% 94% 95% 94% 94% 90% 94% 94% 93% 94% 95% 94.7% 95.0% Competitive Market Area 94% 95% 96% 97% 97% 95% 95% 96% 96% 96% 96% 95% 96% 93% 95% 94% 94% 89% 94% 94% 93% 94% 95% 94.9% 95.3% Source: CoStar; The Concord Group
84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%
(15%)(10%)
(5%)
0%5%
10%15%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Occupancy
Annual Rent Growth
Annual Effective Rent Growth and Occupancy
Competitive Market Area Rent Change (Left Axis) Primary Market Area Rent Change (Left Axis) San Jose MSA Rent Change (Left Axis)Competitive Market Area Occupancy (Right Axis) Primary Market Area Occupancy (Right Axis) San Jose MSA Occupancy (Right Axis) 23148.00 EmpTrends v0.22: MFTrR the concord group
DRAFT
263
CC 10-17-2023
263 of 474
EXHIBIT II-1B

MULTIFAMILY MARKET TRENDS - CLASS A

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2000 THROUGH YTD (AUGUST 2023)
5-Yr
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Avg Q3 '22 Q3 '23 L4Q Competitive Market Area
Inventory Units 923 923 923 1,353 1,353 1,623 1,907 2,243 2,574 3,120 3,958 5,882 6,614 8,766 10,114 11,361 12,217 13,503 11,192 13,032 13,729 Gross Deliveries 0 0 0 430 0 270 284 336 331 546 838 1,924 732 2,152 1,348 1,247 856 1,286 1,378 -- -- 697Net Absorption 5 (6) (3) 273 96 233 323 232 281 587 758 972 1,444 1,629 822 405 1,847 1,217 1,184 -- -- 652 Vacancy Rate (1) 3.0% 3.6% 3.9% 14.3% 7.2% 8.3% 5.0% 8.9% 9.7% 6.7% 7.3% 21.1% 8.0% 12.0% 15.6% 21.3% 11.7% 11.1% 14.3% 8.4% 8.3% Effective Rent /Unit $2,510 $2,709 $2,940 $2,932 $2,665 $2,837 $2,901 $2,954 $3,061 $3,242 $3,378 $3,367 $3,494 $3,640 $3,747 $3,160 $3,626 $3,741 $3,583 $3,928 $3,834 % Change (YOY) 2.7% 7.9% 8.5% (0.3%) (9.1%) 6.5% 2.3% 1.8% 3.6% 5.9% 4.2% (0.3%) 3.8% 4.2% 2.9% (15.7%) 14.7% 3.2% 1.4% (2.4%) Primary Market Area
Inventory Units 3,871 4,605 5,050 5,480 5,480 5,963 6,247 8,925 10,412 12,975 16,597 19,621 21,116 24,795 27,253 30,541 33,254 34,999 30,168 34,528 35,591 Gross Deliveries 535 734 445 430 0 483 284 2,678 1,487 2,563 3,622 3,024 1,495 3,679 2,458 3,288 2,713 1,745 2,777 -- -- 1,063Net Absorption 423 773 500 210 126 301 336 1,877 1,532 2,868 2,828 2,679 1,827 2,715 1,677 1,408 4,702 1,885 2,477 -- -- 947 Vacancy Rate (1) 7.8% 5.7% 4.1% 7.8% 5.5% 8.1% 6.9% 13.8% 11.4% 6.8% 10.1% 10.3% 8.0% 10.7% 12.6% 17.4% 10.0% 9.1% 12.0% 7.6% 7.7% Effective Rent /Unit $2,302 $2,461 $2,660 $2,672 $2,455 $2,566 $2,626 $2,674 $2,766 $2,890 $3,027 $3,028 $3,117 $3,207 $3,283 $2,864 $3,244 $3,393 $3,198 $3,517 $3,497 % Change (YOY) 2.6% 6.9% 8.1% 0.5% (8.1%) 4.5% 2.3% 1.8% 3.4% 4.5% 4.7% 0.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.4% (12.8%) 13.3% 4.6% 1.7% (0.6%) Source: CoStar; The Concord Group
0%5%10%15%20%25%
(500)
0 500
1,0001,5002,0002,500
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Annual Competitive Market Area Gross Deliveries, Net Absorption and Vacancy Rate Gross Deliveries (Units - Left Axis) Net Absorption (Units - Left Axis) Vacancy Rate (Right Axis) $0$500$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500$4,000
(20.0%)(15.0%)(10.0%)
(5.0%)

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Competitive Market Area Effective Rent Per Unit and YOY Rent Change Average Effective Rent Per Unit (Right Axis) Effective Rent Change (YOY - Left Axis) 23148.00 EmpTrends v0.22: MFTrO cA the concord group
DRAFT
264
CC 10-17-2023
264 of 474
EXHIBIT II-1B

MULTIFAMILY MARKET TRENDS - SCALE - CLASS A

SAN JOSE MSA
2000 THROUGH YTD (AUGUST 2023)
Aug 2023
Annual AverageU/C
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr YTD Units %Inv Employment Growth
San Jose MSA (4.9%) (0.7%) 1.1% 2.5% 2.3% 0.8% (6.0%) (0.2%) 2.4% 3.9% 4.0% 4.2% 3.9% 3.3% 2.3% 1.8% 1.8% (6.2%) 2.1% 5.3% 0.9% 2.2% 1.1% Inventory (000s)
San Jose MSA 3.1 3.3 3.9 4.6 5.3 5.8 5.8 6.3 6.5 9.2 10.7 13.3 17.0 20.0 21.5 25.2 27.7 31.1 33.8 35.6 36.3 Primary Market Area 3.1 3.3 3.9 4.6 5.1 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.2 8.9 10.4 13.0 16.6 19.6 21.1 24.8 27.3 30.5 33.3 35.0 35.6 -- 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Competitive Market Area 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.6 3.1 4.0 5.9 6.6 8.8 10.1 11.4 12.2 13.5 13.7 % PMA 28% 28% 24% 20% 18% 25% 25% 27% 31% 25% 25% 24% 24% 30% 31% 35% 37% 37% 37% 39% 39% Gross Deliveries (000s)
San Jose MSA 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.3 2.7 1.5 2.6 3.7 3.0 1.5 3.7 2.5 3.5 2.7 1.7 2.8 2.6 1.6 0.7 0.0 0.0%Primary Market Area 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.3 2.7 1.5 2.6 3.6 3.0 1.5 3.7 2.5 3.3 2.7 1.7 2.8 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.0% -- 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Competitive Market Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.9 0.7 2.2 1.3 1.2 0.9 1.3 1.4 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0% % PMA 0% 19% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 56% 100% 13% 22% 21% 23% 64% 49% 58% 55% 38% 32% 74% 50% 43% 40% 38% 0% Net Absorption (000s)
San Jose MSA 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 1.9 1.5 2.9 2.9 2.7 1.9 2.7 1.7 1.5 4.8 1.9 2.5 2.4 1.5 1.2Primary Market Area 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 1.9 1.5 2.9 2.8 2.7 1.8 2.7 1.7 1.4 4.7 1.9 2.5 2.4 1.5 1.0 -- 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Competitive Market Area 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.6 0.8 0.4 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.6 % PMA 15% 20% 1% 0% 0% 130% 76% 77% 96% 12% 18% 20% 27% 36% 79% 60% 49% 29% 39% 65% 48% 41% 38% 56% Source: CoStar; The Concord Group
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000
(12%)(10%)
(8%)(6%)(4%)(2%)
0%2%4%6%8%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Units Delivered (Bar)
Employment Growth (Line)
Annual Gross Deliveries and Employment Growth
Competitive Market Area Rem. Primary Market Area San Jose MSA San Jose MSA Employment Growth 23148.00 EmpTrends v0.22: MFTrS cA the concord group
DRAFT
265
CC 10-17-2023
265 of 474
EXHIBIT II-1B

MULTIFAMILY MARKET TRENDS - RENTS & OCCUPANCY - CLASS A

SAN JOSE MSA
2000 THROUGH YTD (AUGUST 2023)
Annual Average
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5-Yr 10-Yr 20-Yr 3Q22 3Q23 Effective Rent Per Unit ($)
San Jose MSA 2,381 2,254 2,313 2,470 2,668 2,707 2,469 2,578 2,633 2,702 2,821 2,924 3,068 3,101 3,171 3,276 3,333 3,052 3,328 3,450 3,508 3,495 Gr/Yr (7.1%) (5.3%) 2.6% 6.8% 8.0% 1.5% (8.8%) 4.4% 2.1% 2.6% 4.4% 3.7% 4.9% 1.1% 2.3% 3.3% 1.7% (8.4%) 9.0% 3.7% 1.7% 2.5% 1.5% YOY: (0.4%) Primary Market Area 2,384 2,258 2,317 2,474 2,674 2,712 2,472 2,582 2,638 2,707 2,825 2,928 3,072 3,107 3,177 3,283 3,337 3,054 3,333 3,454 3,517 3,497 Gr/Yr (7.0%) (5.3%) 2.6% 6.8% 8.1% 1.4% (8.8%) 4.4% 2.2% 2.6% 4.4% 3.6% 4.9% 1.1% 2.3% 3.3% 1.6% (8.5%) 9.1% 3.6% 1.7% 2.5% 1.5% YOY: (0.6%) Competitive Market Area 2,608 2,461 2,526 2,722 2,954 2,984 2,685 2,854 2,914 2,998 3,132 3,279 3,419 3,465 3,580 3,728 3,792 3,411 3,715 3,856 3,928 3,834 Gr/Yr (9.7%) (5.6%) 2.6% 7.8% 8.5% 1.0% (10.0%) 6.3% 2.1% 2.9% 4.5% 4.7% 4.3% 1.3% 3.3% 4.1% 1.7% (10.0%) 8.9% 3.8% 1.5% 2.5% 1.5% YOY: (2.4%) Effective Rent PSF ($)
San Jose MSA 2.54 2.41 2.47 2.64 2.85 2.89 2.63 2.75 2.81 2.88 3.01 3.12 3.27 3.31 3.38 3.50 3.56 3.26 3.55 3.68 3.74 3.73 Gr/Yr (7.0%) (5.1%) 2.5% 6.9% 8.0% 1.4% (9.0%) 4.6% 2.2% 2.5% 4.5% 3.7% 4.8% 1.2% 2.1% 3.6% 1.7% (8.4%) 8.9% 3.7% 1.7% 2.5% 1.5% YOY: (0.3%) Primary Market Area 2.55 2.41 2.48 2.65 2.86 2.90 2.64 2.76 2.82 2.90 3.02 3.13 3.29 3.32 3.40 3.51 3.57 3.27 3.56 3.70 3.76 3.74 Gr/Yr (6.9%) (5.5%) 2.9% 6.9% 7.9% 1.4% (9.0%) 4.5% 2.2% 2.8% 4.1% 3.6% 5.1% 0.9% 2.4% 3.2% 1.7% (8.4%) 8.9% 3.9% 1.7% 2.5% 1.5% YOY: (0.5%) Competitive Market Area 2.77 2.62 2.69 2.89 3.14 3.17 2.86 3.04 3.10 3.19 3.33 3.49 3.64 3.68 3.81 3.97 4.03 3.63 3.95 4.10 4.18 4.08 Gr/Yr (9.8%) (5.4%) 2.7% 7.4% 8.7% 1.0% (9.8%) 6.3% 2.0% 2.9% 4.4% 4.8% 4.3% 1.1% 3.5% 4.2% 1.5% (9.9%) 8.8% 3.8% 1.5% 2.5% 1.5% YOY: (2.4%) Occupancy
San Jose MSA 91% 94% 92% 94% 96% 93% 95% 92% 93% 87% 89% 93% 90% 90% 92% 89% 88% 83% 90% 91% 88% 89% 91% 92.4% 92.3%Primary Market Area 91% 94% 92% 94% 96% 92% 95% 92% 93% 86% 89% 93% 90% 90% 92% 89% 87% 83% 90% 91% 88% 89% 91% 92.4% 92.3% Competitive Market Area 94% 97% 97% 96% 96% 86% 93% 92% 95% 91% 90% 93% 93% 79% 92% 88% 84% 79% 88% 89% 86% 88% 91% 91.6% 91.7% Source: CoStar; The Concord Group
0%20%40%60%80%100%120%
(20%)(15%)(10%)
(5%)
0%5%
10%15%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Occupancy
Annual Rent Growth
Annual Effective Rent Growth and Occupancy
Competitive Market Area Rent Change (Left Axis) Primary Market Area Rent Change (Left Axis) San Jose MSA Rent Change (Left Axis)Competitive Market Area Occupancy (Right Axis) Primary Market Area Occupancy (Right Axis) San Jose MSA Occupancy (Right Axis) 23148.00 EmpTrends v0.22: MFTrR cA the concord group
DRAFT
266
CC 10-17-2023
266 of 474
EXHIBIT II-1C

APARTMENT MARKET PERFORMANCE - CLASS A VERSUS CLASS B

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2007 THROUGH 2023 YTD
Annual 5 & 10 Yr Avg.

Geography 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 YTD '18-'22 '13 -'22Primary Market Area (Asking Rent) Class A $2,674 $2,712 $2,472 $2,582 $2,638 $2,707 $2,825 $2,928 $3,072 $3,107 $3,177 $3,283 $3,337 $3,054 $3,333 $3,454 $3,561 $3,292 $3,157 Gr/Yr 1.4% -8.8% 4.4% 2.2% 2.6% 4.4% 3.6% 4.9% 1.1% 2.3% 3.3% 1.6% -8.5% 9.1% 3.6% 3.1% 1.7% 1.4% Class B $2,001 $2,032 $1,865 $1,945 $2,037 $2,165 $2,315 $2,454 $2,626 $2,603 $2,693 $2,804 $2,865 $2,608 $2,837 $2,986 $3,092 $2,820 $2,679 Gr/Yr 1.5% -8.2% 4.3% 4.7% 6.3% 6.9% 6.0% 7.0% -0.9% 3.5% 4.1% 2.2% -9.0% 8.8% 5.3% 3.5% 2.1% 1.7% Competitive Market Area (Asking Rent)
Class A $2,954 $2,984 $2,685 $2,854 $2,914 $2,998 $3,132 $3,279 $3,419 $3,465 $3,580 $3,728 $3,792 $3,411 $3,715 $3,856 $3,942 $3,700 $3,538 Gr/Yr 1.0% -10.0% 6.3% 2.1% 2.9% 4.5% 4.7% 4.3% 1.3% 3.3% 4.1% 1.7% -10.0% 8.9% 3.8% 2.2% 1.5% 1.4% Class B $2,104 $2,115 $1,929 $2,040 $2,137 $2,296 $2,480 $2,659 $2,812 $2,794 $2,895 $3,029 $3,111 $2,742 $3,023 $3,201 $3,293 $3,021 $2,875 Gr/Yr 0.5% -8.8% 5.8% 4.8% 7.4% 8.0% 7.2% 5.8% -0.6% 3.6% 4.6% 2.7% -11.9% 10.2% 5.9% 2.9% 2.0% 1.6% Class A vs Class B Premium
PMA 34% 33% 33% 33% 30% 25% 22% 19% 17% 19% 18% 17% 16% 17% 17% 16% 15% 17% 18% CMA 40% 41% 39% 40% 36% 31% 26% 23% 22% 24% 24% 23% 22% 24% 23% 20% 20% 156% 169% Source: CoStar
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 YTD % Spread
% Spread - Class A Asking Rents vs B/C
PMACMA
23184.00 Apartment Market Trends: A vs B The Concord Group DRAFT
267
CC 10-17-2023
267 of 474
EXHIBIT II-2A

COMPARABLE INVENTORY - PERFORMANCE

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Project Averages (Size and Base List Rent)
Overall
Base Concession Studio One-Bed Two-Bed Three-Bed+
Year Unit Mix Unit Rent % of Unit Rent Unit Rent Unit Rent Unit Rent Project Name Submarket Elev. Prod. Type Units Built Reno Occ. 0 1 2 3+ Size $ $/sf $ Base Size $ $/sf Size $ $/sf Size $ $/sf Size $ $/sf Cupertino
The Biltmore Apartments Cupertino 2s Garden 179 1973 2003 95% 0% 47% 48% 5% 968 $4,160 $4.30 $0 0.0% -- -- -- 775 $3,575 $4.61 1,127 $4,634 $4.11 1,245 $5,080 $4.08Cupertino City Center Cupertino 5s Podium 99 1989 2012 92% 0% 53% 47% 0% 829 $3,389 $4.09 $261 7.7% -- -- -- 694 $3,094 $4.46 979 $3,715 $3.80 -- -- --Main Street Cupertino Lofts Cupertino 4s Podium 120 2018 -- 96% 20% 80% 0% 0% 1,043 $4,217 $4.04 $0 0.0% 839 $3,946 $4.70 1,094 $4,284 $3.92 -- -- -- -- -- --Arioso Cupertino 3s Garden 201 1999 2008 92% 0% 40% 60% 0% 1,015 $4,064 $4.00 $0 0.0% -- -- -- 717 $3,485 $4.86 1,216 $4,455 $3.66 -- -- -- Markham Apartments Cupertino 2s Garden 504 1972 2014 93% 0% 40% 51% 9% 879 $3,464 $3.94 $400 11.5% -- -- -- 738 $3,136 $4.25 1,012 $3,809 $3.76 750 $2,971 $3.96 The Hamptons Cupertino 4s Garden 342 1999 2013 99% 0% 38% 50% 12% 967 $3,775 $3.90 $0 0.0% -- -- -- 766 $3,254 $4.25 1,052 $3,966 $3.77 1,252 $4,628 $3.70Nineteen800 Cupertino 6s Podium 204 2014 -- 96% 0% 0% 91% 9% 1,334 $4,729 $3.54 $91 1.9% -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,307 $4,650 $3.56 1,614 $5,541 $3.43Cupertino Park Center Cupertino 3s Podium 120 1997 2012 94% 0% 39% 61% 0% 1,095 $3,811 $3.48 $318 8.3% -- -- -- 926 $3,548 $3.83 1,203 $3,980 $3.31 -- -- -- Total / Weighted Average 1,769 1991 95% 1% 39% 53% 7% 996 $3,879 $3.90 $160 4.1% 839 $3,946 $4.70 804 $3,437 $4.27 1,127 $4,171 $3.70 1,103 $4,129 $3.74 Excluding Lease-Up 1,769 95%Units Rem. to Stabilize (@95% Occ.) 0 Mountain View
Landsby Mountain View 5s Podium 632 2022 -- 51% 8% 62% 29% 0% 805 $4,668 $5.80 $898 19.2% 623 $3,892 $6.24 702 $4,222 $6.01 1,062 $5,786 $5.45 1,246 $6,763 $5.43 MV Apartments Mountain View 5s Podium 211 2021 -- 97% 0% 67% 33% 0% 824 $4,514 $5.48 $561 12.4% -- -- -- 714 $4,065 $5.70 1,052 $5,440 $5.17 -- -- -- The Dean Mountain View 5s Podium 583 2020 -- 91% 9% 55% 29% 7% 864 $4,681 $5.42 $390 8.3% 519 $3,201 $6.17 773 $4,383 $5.67 1,055 $5,388 $5.11 1,254 $6,083 $4.85 The Tillery Mountain View 6s Podium 226 2023 -- 59% 7% 54% 37% 2% 912 $4,659 $5.11 $986 21.2% 721 $3,965 $5.50 774 $4,140 $5.35 1,112 $5,405 $4.86 1,491 $6,870 $4.61 The Hadley Mountain View 5s Podium 471 2022 -- 40% 3% 56% 36% 6% 938 $4,771 $5.09 $1,009 21.2% 627 $3,752 $5.98 792 $4,170 $5.27 1,115 $5,517 $4.95 1,367 $6,302 $4.61 Total / Weighted Average 2,123 2021 65% 6% 58% 32% 4% 864 $4,678 $5.42 $759 16.2% 592 $3,603 $6.09 748 $4,226 $5.65 1,079 $5,537 $5.13 1,312 $6,243 $4.76 Excluding Lease-Up 794 93%Units Rem. to Stabilize (@95% Occ.) 616 Sunnyvale
Maxwell Sunnyvale 4s Podium 75 2022 -- 100% 11% 52% 37% 0% 913 $4,167 $4.56 $0 0.0% 615 $3,516 $5.72 787 $3,888 $4.94 1,174 $4,742 $4.04 -- -- --The Murphy Station Sunnyvale 5s Podium 108 2022 -- 91% 9% 49% 42% 0% 909 $4,065 $4.47 $0 0.0% 531 $3,040 $5.73 778 $3,550 $4.56 1,148 $4,900 $4.27 -- -- --1250 Lakeside Sunnyvale 6s Podium 250 2021 -- 92% 28% 44% 28% 0% 805 $3,566 $4.43 $411 11.5% 473 $2,827 $5.98 824 $3,604 $4.37 1,106 $4,242 $3.84 -- -- -- Savoy Sunnyvale 5s Wrap 480 2020 -- 87% 0% 69% 31% 0% 930 $3,818 $4.10 $318 8.3% -- -- -- 773 $3,518 $4.55 1,282 $4,489 $3.50 -- -- --The Flats at City Line Sunnyvale 4s Wrap 198 2018 -- 92% 0% 17% 71% 12% 1,147 $4,529 $3.95 $0 0.0% -- -- -- 892 $3,962 $4.44 1,155 $4,551 $3.94 1,466 $5,202 $3.55 Total / Weighted Average 1,111 2020 90% 8% 51% 39% 2% 938 $3,935 $4.20 $230 5.8% 493 $2,914 $5.92 792 $3,590 $4.53 1,191 $4,528 $3.80 1,466 $5,202 $3.55 Excluding Lease-Up 523 93%Units Rem. to Stabilize (@95% Occ.) 43 Santa Clara
Prado Santa Clara 6s Podium 251 2021 -- 93% 0% 59% 41% 0% 930 $4,423 $4.76 $0 0.0% -- -- -- 756 $3,807 $5.04 1,185 $5,323 $4.49 -- -- --Mylo Santa Clara Santa Clara 4s Podium 476 2019 -- 96% 0% 68% 32% 0% 872 $3,613 $4.14 $0 0.0% -- -- -- 733 $3,463 $4.73 1,166 $3,929 $3.37 -- -- -- Santa Clara Square Apartments Santa Clara 5s Wrap 1,840 2018 -- 99% 8% 58% 34% 0% 1,022 $4,147 $4.06 $0 0.0% 764 $3,415 $4.47 915 $3,841 $4.20 1,269 $4,848 $3.82 -- -- -- Hearth Apartments Santa Clara 4s Wrap 548 2014 -- 93% 0% 42% 58% 0% 975 $3,861 $3.96 $149 3.8% -- -- -- 731 $3,261 $4.46 1,153 $4,298 $3.73 -- -- --Monticello Apts Santa Clara 6s Podium 825 2016 -- 97% 1% 53% 46% 0% 1,037 $3,790 $3.66 $0 0.0% 917 $3,554 $3.88 854 $3,391 $3.97 1,251 $4,257 $3.40 -- -- -- Total / Weighted Average 3,940 2017 97% 4% 56% 40% 0% 995 $3,985 $4.01 $21 0.5% 769 $3,419 $4.45 846 $3,632 $4.29 1,226 $4,537 $3.70 -- -- -- Excluding Lease-Up 3,940 97%Units Rem. to Stabilize (@95% Occ.) 0 Overall Total / Weighted Average 8,943 2013 88% 5% 53% 41% 2% 957 $4,123 $4.31 $250 6.1% 655 $3,400 $5.19 807 $3,755 $4.65 1,169 $4,628 $3.96 1,218 $5,002 $4.11 Excluding Lease-Up 7,026 96%Units Rem. to Stabilize (@95% Occ.) 659 Source: The Concord Group; CoStar
23148.00 RecComps v2.19 Run BRN: Prf The Concord Group
DRAFT
268
CC 10-17-2023
268 of 474
EXHIBIT II-2B

RENTAL INVENTORY - LOCATION

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Note: Numbers in parentheses represents year built and number of units respectively.

Subject Sites
23148.00 Maps: Rental Comps Page 1 of 2 The Concord Group DRAFT
269
CC 10-17-2023
269 of 474
EXHIBIT II-2B

RENTAL INVENTORY - LOCATION

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Note: Numbers in parentheses represents year built and number of units respectively.

Subject Sites
23148.00 Maps: Rental Comps Page 2 of 2 The Concord Group DRAFT
270
CC 10-17-2023
270 of 474
EXHIBIT II-2C

COMPARABLE INVENTORY - LEASE-UP VELOCITY

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Lease-Up Total Months Percent Units Leased
Project Name Submarket Status Start End Units Leasing Leased Total Per Mo.Properties In Lease-UpThe Tillery Mountain View Lease-Up 1/1/23 -- 226 7.0 59% 133 19.1 The Hadley Mountain View Lease-Up 10/1/22 -- 471 10.0 35% 166 16.6Landsby Mountain View Lease-Up 3/16/22 -- 632 16.5 47% 295 17.8The Murphy Station Sunnyvale Lease-Up 3/1/22 -- 108 17.0 83% 90 5.3Savoy Sunnyvale Lease-Up 2/1/20 -- 480 42.0 87% 418 10.0Total / Average 1,917 92.5 57% 1,102 13.8 5 Communities in Lease-Up x 13.8 Units Per Month x 12 Months Per Year = Annual Lease-Up Run Rate of 825 Units Recently Stabilized PropertiesMV Apartments Mountain View Stabilized 6/1/21 12/1/22 211 18.0 95% 200 11.1The Dean Mountain View Stabilized 8/15/19 8/1/21 583 23.6 92% 537 23.5Maxwell Sunnyvale Stabilized 6/1/22 12/1/22 75 6.0 99% 74 11.81250 Lakeside Sunnyvale Stabilized 7/1/21 6/1/22 250 11.0 92% 229 21.6Prado Santa Clara Stabilized 2/11/21 5/1/22 251 14.6 93% 233 16.3Monticello Apts Santa Clara Stabilized 7/15/16 9/1/21 825 61.6 97% 796 12.7 Santa Clara Square Apartments Santa Clara Stabilized 7/15/16 7/1/21 1,840 59.6 99% 1,823 29.3 Mylo Santa Clara Santa Clara Stabilized 4/1/19 5/30/21 476 26.0 96% 457 17.4Total / Average 4,511 220.4 96% 4,349 18.0 13 Total Communities x 16.4 Units Per Month x 12 Months Per Year = Aggregate Annual Run Rate of 2,554 Units Source: The Concord Group

19.1 16.6

17.8 5.3

10.0 11.1

22.8 12.3

20.8 16.0

12.9 30.6

17.6 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
The Tillery
The Hadley
Landsby
The Murphy Station
Savoy
MV Apartments
The Dean
Maxwell
1250 Lakeside
Prado
Monticello Apts
Santa Clara Square Apartments
Mylo Santa Clara
Average Monthly Lease-Up Rate
0 200400600800
1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000 Available Units
AvailableLeased
23148.00 RecComps v2.19 Run: Abs the concord group
DRAFT
271
CC 10-17-2023
271 of 474
EXHIBIT II-2D

COMPARABLE INVENTORY - PRODUCT INDICATORS

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
I. Unit Mix III. Bedrooms by Unit Rent ($)
CMA Cupertino
Unit CMA Cupertino
Type Num. Share Num. Share0 404 5% 24 1%1 4,700 53% 690 39%2 3,623 41% 940 53%3 216 2% 115 7%4 0 0% 0 0%Total 8,943 100% 1,769 100%II. Unit Sizes (Average & Range) IV. Bedrooms by PSF Rent ($/SF) CMA Cupertino
Unit CMA Cupertino
Type Min Max Avg Min Max Avg0 442 1,120 655 608 1,120 4591 518 1,816 807 518 1,736 6622 836 1,703 1,169 920 1,425 6973 750 1,764 1,218 750 1,764 7444 -- -- -- -- -- --Source: The Concord Group $2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000
400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Studios One-Bedrooms Two-Bedrooms Three-Bedrooms
$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000
400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Studios One-Bedrooms Two-Bedrooms Three-Bedrooms
$1.00$2.00$3.00$4.00$5.00$6.00$7.00$8.00
400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Studios One-Bedrooms Two-Bedrooms Three-Bedrooms
$1.00$2.00$3.00$4.00$5.00$6.00$7.00$8.00
400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Studios One-Bedrooms Two-Bedrooms Three-Bedrooms
23148.00 RecComps v2.19 Run: Ind The Concord Group
DRAFT
272
CC 10-17-2023
272 of 474
EXHIBIT II-2E

COMPARABLE INVENTORY - AMENITIES

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Main Street Cupertino Lofts Nineteen800 Landsby Savoy Prado Community Overview
City Cupertino Cupertino Mountain View Sunnyvale Santa Clara Walk Score 7767703551
Built 2018 2014 2022 2020 2021
Elevation 4s6s5s5s6s
Units 120 204 632 480 251
Base Rent ($) $4,217 $4,729 $4,668 $3,818 $4,423
Base Rent ($/sf) $4.04 $3.54 $5.80 $4.10 $4.76
Community Amenities
Health/Wellness
Fitness Center Modest Fitness Center Modest Fitness + Yoga Center Multiple Fitness & Wellness Centers Indoor/Outdoor Fitness Studios Two-Story Fitness CenterPool -- -- Multiple Pools & Jacuzzis 75' Lap Pools Olympic-Sized Pool & Spa Sports Courts -- -- -- -- Access to Park & Community Center Tot Lot -- Playground -- -- --
Social Rooms
Club Room Yes Yes Yes Two Clubroom Lounges Multiple Club RoomsCatering Kitchen -- -- Yes -- -- Outdoor Lounge Terrace + BBQ BBQ + Dining BBQ, Fire Pit, Rooftop Dining Two Rooftop Deks w/ BBQ + TVs BBQ + Fireplace + Dining Theater/Game Yes Private Theater + Game Room Gaming Areas Outdoor Movie Screening Area Game Room Other Rooms
Biz Center -- Yes Business Pods/Co-Working Spaces Co-Working Space Co-Working Space Conference Room -- Yes Yes -- YesOther (1) WiFi Coffee Lounge Pet Park w/ Shower Pet Spa Pet Spa Pet Spa Other (2) Wine Den + Tasting Lounge Private Subterranean Parking Half-Acre Public Park Bike Parking EV & Tesla Stations Other (3) Parcel Concierge Package Lockers On-Site Retail Collection Savoy Green Central Park 24/7 Package Acceptance 23148.00 Amenities v1.03: Amenities Page 1 of 2 the concord group DRAFT
273
CC 10-17-2023
273 of 474
EXHIBIT II-2E

COMPARABLE INVENTORY - AMENITIES

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Main Street Cupertino Lofts Nineteen800 Landsby Savoy Prado Community Overview
City Cupertino Cupertino Mountain View Sunnyvale Santa Clara Walk Score 7767703551
Built 2018 2014 2022 2020 2021
Elevation 4s6s5s5s6s
Units 120 204 632 480 251
Base Rent ($) $4,217 $4,729 $4,668 $3,818 $4,423
Base Rent ($/sf) $4.04 $3.54 $5.80 $4.10 $4.76
Services
Concierge -- -- Yes -- Yes
Wi-Fi (public) Yes -- Yes Yes Yes
Storage
In-Unit ----------
Other $) -- -- -- -- --
Interior Spec
Kitchen
Appliance Stainless Energy Star Stainless Stainless (GE) Stainless (GE) Stainless (Whirlpool) Counters Quartz Quartz Quartz Quartz QuartzFlooring Wood-Style Hardwood-Style Hardwood-Style Wood Plank Hardwood-Style Cabinets Euro Euro Euro Euro EuroBacksplash Full Tile Full Tile Full Tile Full Tile Full Quartz Living Area
Flooring Wood-Style Hardwood-Style Hardwood-Style Wood Plank Hardwood-Style Fireplace -- -- -- -- --Washer/Dryer Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCeiling Height 9' 9' 9' 9' 9'Balcony Some Some Some Some SomeOther (1) In-Unit Storage Ample Closet Space Condominium-Level Finishes NEST Thermostats Central Heat & A/C Other (2) Oversized Kitchen Island Oversized Windows Dormakaba Smart Locks Keyless Entry Moveable Kitchen Islands 23148.00 Amenities v1.03: Amenities Page 2 of 2 the concord group DRAFT
274
CC 10-17-2023
274 of 474
EXHIBIT II-3

SHADOW MARKET ANALYSIS

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
CMA
Average Attached Average Detached
Unit Monthly Rent Unit Monthly Rent
Beds Num. % Size $ $/sf Beds Num. % Size $ $/sf
0 27 5% 412 $2,319 $5.63 0 4 1% 525 $2,411 $4.591 164 31% 682 $2,791 $4.09 1 8 2% 635 $2,903 $4.58 2 213 40% 1,018 $3,473 $3.41 2 39 12% 1,138 $3,718 $3.27 3+ 125 24% 1,492 $4,667 $3.13 3+ 280 85% 1,718 $5,501 $3.20 Total / Wtd Avg: 529 100% 995 $3,485 $3.50 Total / Wtd Avg: 331 100% 1,609 $5,191 $3.23Cupertino Average Attached Average Detached
Unit Monthly Rent Unit Monthly Rent
Beds Num. % Size $ $/sf Beds Num. % Size $ $/sf
0 1 3% 350 $2,750 $7.86 0 1 2% 550 $2,395 $4.35
1 7 20% 802 $2,979 $3.72 1 2 3% 625 $3,300 $5.28
2 25 71% 1,042 $3,754 $3.60 2 3 5% 839 $3,635 $4.333+ 2 6% 1,410 $3,948 $2.80 3+ 54 90% 2,077 $6,003 $2.89 Total / Wtd Avg: 35 100% 995 $3,581 $3.60 Total / Wtd Avg: 60 100% 1,941 $5,735 $2.95Mountain View Average Attached Average Detached
Unit Monthly Rent Unit Monthly Rent
Beds Num. % Size $ $/sf Beds Num. % Size $ $/sf
0 10 4% 413 $2,270 $5.49 0 2 2% 500 $2,700 $5.401 62 27% 675 $2,943 $4.36 1 2 2% 750 $2,800 $3.732 100 44% 1,007 $3,562 $3.54 2 16 16% 1,302 $4,095 $3.15 3+ 56 25% 1,510 $5,059 $3.35 3+ 80 80% 1,699 $5,739 $3.38Total / Wtd Avg: 228 100% 1,014 $3,704 $3.65 Total / Wtd Avg: 100 100% 1,593 $5,356 $3.36Sunnyvale Average Attached Average Detached
Unit Monthly Rent Unit Monthly Rent
Beds Num. % Size $ $/sf Beds Num. % Size $ $/sf
0 8 6% 353 $1,973 $5.59 0 1 1% 550 $1,850 $3.36
1 48 33% 659 $2,780 $4.22 1 1 1% 506 $2,250 $4.452 49 34% 997 $3,173 $3.18 2 9 10% 992 $3,288 $3.313+ 39 27% 1,528 $4,395 $2.88 3+ 77 88% 1,562 $5,121 $3.28Total / Wtd Avg: 144 100% 993 $3,306 $3.33 Total / Wtd Avg: 88 100% 1,481 $4,864 $3.28 5%
31%
40%
24%
0123+
1% 2%
12%
85%
0123+
3%
20%
71%
6%
0123+
2%3%5%
90%
0123+
4%
27%
44%
25%
0123+
2% 2%
16%
80%
0123+
6%
33%
34%
27%
0123+
1% 1% 10%
88%
0123+
23148.00 Shadow: Shadow Page 1 of 2 The Concord Group
DRAFT
275
CC 10-17-2023
275 of 474
EXHIBIT II-3

SHADOW MARKET ANALYSIS

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Santa Clara
Average Attached Average Detached
Unit Monthly Rent Unit Monthly Rent
Beds Num. % Size $ $/sf Beds Num. % Size $ $/sf
0 8 7% 476 $2,671 $5.61 0 0 0% -- --- ---
1 47 39% 695 $2,575 $3.70 1 3 4% 607 $2,926 $4.822 39 32% 1,056 $3,445 $3.26 2 11 13% 1,101 $3,288 $2.993+ 28 23% 1,412 $4,315 $3.06 3+ 69 83% 1,632 $5,257 $3.22Total / Wtd Avg: 122 -- 961 $3,259 $3.39 Total / Wtd Avg: 83 100% 1,525 $4,911 $3.22 7%
39%
32%
0 23%123+
4%
13%
83%
0123+
$1,500$2,500$3,500$4,500$5,500$6,500$7,500$8,500$9,500
$10,500$11,500$12,500$13,500$14,500
400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 Rent Price
Size
Shadow Market Listings
Cupertino Mountain View Sunnyvale Santa Clara
Mountain View
Cupertino Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
23148.00 Shadow: Shadow Page 2 of 2 The Concord Group
DRAFT
276
CC 10-17-2023
276 of 474
EXHIBIT II-4A

RENTAL DEMAND FORECAST - HOUSEHOLD GROWTH - DEMAND INDICATORS

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022 THROUGH 2027
I. Current Rentership II. Future Rentership
2021 ACS (5-Yr Estimate) 2022 TCG Estimate ACS Net New HHs (2016-2021) 2022-2027 TCG Projections 2027 Implications Annual Net New Annual
Household Tenure Household Total Percent Household Households Household Effective Percent Renter Percent Income Range % Rent % Own Income Range HHs Rent Income Range Rent Own Income Range New HHs Rent HHs Rent $0 - $25,000 66% 34% $0 - $25,000 43,566 70% $0 $25,000 (2,864) (1,006) $0 - $25,000 0 90% 19,365 70% $25,000 - $35,000 57% 43% $25,000 - $35,000 21,381 62% $25,000 $35,000 (1,468) (671) $25,000 - $35,000 0 90% 8,870 62%$35,000 - $50,000 58% 42% $35,000 - $50,000 31,750 61% $35,000 $50,000 (1,711) (1,242) $35,000 - $50,000 0 86% 13,809 61%$50,000 - $75,000 56% 44% $50,000 - $75,000 60,672 57% $50,000 $75,000 (1,332) (2,012) $50,000 - $75,000 0 81% 27,786 57%$75,000 - $100,000 53% 47% $75,000 - $100,000 55,551 54% $75,000 $100,000 (438) (1,567) $75,000 - $100,000 0 77% 27,184 54% $100,000 - $150,000 49% 51% $100,000 - $150,000 104,072 50% $100,000 $150,000 667 (2,606) $100,000 - $150,000 0 73% 50,061 50%$150,000 + 33% 67% $150,000 - $200,000 90,732 42% $150,000 + 9,475 10,507 $150,000 - $200,000 2,111 70% 45,262 45% $200,000 + 223,065 27% $200,000 + 7,968 50% 80,690 31%
Total / Wtd. Average 45% 55% 630,789 44% 2,328 1,404 10,079 54% 273,027 43% Share of Total 62.4% 37.6%
III. Current Income to Housing and Affordable Housing Budget 2021 ACS (5-Yr Estimate) 2022 TCG Estimate
Gross Rent as % of HH Income (Share of Households) Median Household Below 20%- 25%- 30%- 35%- 40%- 50% Income to Household Renter Income to Average Income Range 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 50% And Above Housing Income Range HHs Housing Monthly Rent $0 - $25,000 1% 2% 4% 6% 5% 4% 77% 55% $0 - $25,000 30,379 60% $0 - $1,300 $25,000 - $35,000 3% 2% 2% 5% 4% 8% 76% 55% $25,000 - $35,000 13,289 59% $1,300 - $1,700$35,000 - $50,000 3% 2% 5% 8% 7% 18% 57% 52% $35,000 - $50,000 19,356 56% $1,700 - $2,300$50,000 - $75,000 6% 4% 8% 12% 13% 25% 31% 43% $50,000 - $75,000 34,382 44% $2,300 - $2,700$75,000 - $100,000 7% 11% 18% 22% 15% 17% 9% 33% $75,000 - $100,000 30,213 36% $2,700 - $3,000 $100,000 + 52% 22% 13% 7% 4% 2% 0% 20% $100,000 - $150,000 51,859 27% $3,000 - $3,300 $150,000 - $200,000 37,897 25% $3,300 - $4,100$200,000 + 60,689 20% $4,100 + Total / Wtd. Average 30% 14% 11% 9% 6% 8% 21% 28% 278,063 35%IV. Household Turnover V. Housing Obsolescence 2021 ACS (5-Yr Estimate) 2022 TCG Estimate 2021 ACS (5-Yr Estimate) TCG Est.

Year Renter Percent Average Implied Household Turnover Total Percent Obsol.

Household Moved Renter HH Tenure (Yrs) Turnover Income Range Rate Year Home Built Homes of Homes Likelihood 2019 - 2021 19% 1.0 100% $0 - $25,000 60% 2010 - 2021 47,318 7% 0.00% 2015 - 2018 43% 4.5 22% $25,000 - $35,000 55% 2000 - 2009 56,109 9% 0.00%2010 - 2014 20% 9.0 11% $35,000 - $50,000 50% 1990 - 1999 59,936 9% 0.00%2000 - 2009 13% 16.5 6% $50,000 - $75,000 45% 1980 - 1989 75,495 12% 0.00%1990 - 1999 3% 26.5 4% $75,000 - $100,000 40% 1970 - 1979 138,803 21% 0.50% Before 1989 1% 41.5 2% $100,000 - $150,000 38% 1960 - 1969 122,196 19% 0.75% $150,000 - $200,000 35% 1950 - 1959 98,003 15% 1.50%
$200,000 + 30% 1940 - 1949 23,699 4% 2.50%
Before 1940 31,372 5% 5.00%
Total / Wtd. Average 100% 7.4 32% 41% 652,931 100% 0.80% Source: Esri; U.S. Census (American Community Survey); TCG ------
23148.00 DemoDemand v1.38 Clean: DemRI the concord group DRAFT
277
CC 10-17-2023
277 of 474
EXHIBIT II-4A

RENTAL DEMAND FORECAST - HOUSEHOLD GROWTH - DEMAND MODEL

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022 THROUGH 2027
Demand from Existing Household Turnover Demand from New HH Growth Effective Existing Annual Annual Demand Annual Demand Annual Demand Household Income to Average Total Households Existing Percent Renter HH Turnover from Effective Percent from New All (4) New (5) Income Range Housing Monthly Rent 2022 2027 HHs (1) Rent HHs Turnover Pool T/O (2) New HHs (3) Rent HH Growth Homes Homes $0 - $25,000 60% $0 - $1,300 43,566 27,771 35,669 70% 24,872 60% 14,923 120 0 90% 0 14,923 120 $25,000 - $35,000 59% $1,300 - $1,700 21,381 14,272 17,827 62% 11,080 55% 6,094 49 0 90% 0 6,094 49$35,000 - $50,000 56% $1,700 - $2,300 31,750 22,651 27,201 61% 16,582 50% 8,291 67 0 86% 0 8,291 67$50,000 - $75,000 44% $2,300 - $2,700 60,672 49,032 54,852 57% 31,084 45% 13,988 112 0 81% 0 13,988 112$75,000 - $100,000 36% $2,700 - $3,000 55,551 49,982 52,767 54% 28,698 40% 11,479 92 0 77% 0 11,479 92 $100,000 - $150,000 27% $3,000 - $3,300 104,072 100,463 102,268 50% 50,960 38% 19,365 155 0 73% 0 19,365 155 $150,000 - $200,000 25% $3,300 - $4,100 90,732 101,289 90,732 42% 37,897 35% 13,264 106 2,111 70% 1,473 14,737 1,580 $200,000 + 20% $4,100 + 223,065 262,903 223,065 27% 60,689 30% 18,207 146 7,968 50% 4,000 22,207 4,146 Total / Wtd. Average 630,789 628,363 604,379 43% 261,862 40% 105,611 848 10,079 54% 5,473 111,084 6,321 Income-Qualified 417,869 464,655 416,065 36% 149,545 34% 50,835 408 10,079 54% 5,473 56,309 5,881 (1) Effective existing HHs: Current household base or 5-year average if projected loss for income segment(2) Demand derived from annual turnover of existing households multiplied by an obsolescence rate of 0.80% per year(3) Effective New HHs: Future household growth net of any loss effect (e.g. in-migration, "splitting" (divorce, children moving out of house, etc.), and upward financial mobility (entering new income bracket)) (4) Includes all renter households that will look for a rental unit in a given year, includes both turnover of existing households as well as new household growth(5) Net new demand for new rental units annually, i.e. the sum of demand from existing household turnover/obsolescence and new household growth Source: Esri; U.S. Census (American Community Survey); TCG 120 49 67 112 92 155
1,580
4,146
0 500
1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500
Under $1,300 $1,300-$1,700 $1,700-$2,300 $2,300-$2,700 $2,700-$3,000 $3,000-$3,300 $3,300-$4,100 $4,100 And Above Annual Demand - New Rental Homes
Primary Market Area Income-Qualified Demand
(Dark Shading): 5,881 Annual Units
23148.00 DemoDemand v1.38 Clean: DemRM the concord group DRAFT
278
CC 10-17-2023
278 of 474
EXHIBIT II-4B

RENTAL DEMAND FORECAST - SUBMARKET CAPTURE SCENARIOS

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022 THROUGH 2027
5,881
5,881
Cupertino Sunnyvale Santa Clara
Mountain View/ Los
Altos CMA Palo Alto
Saratoga/ Los
Gatos
Campbell/ South
San Jose Central San Jose
Milpitas/ North San
Jose East San Jose PMA
Capture Metrics - Current (In-Place & Historical)
Households ('22) 21,334 60,328 47,941 50,941 180,544 41,046 39,013 144,455 62,418 60,764 102,551 630,791 Share of PMA 3.4% 9.6% 7.6% 8.1% 28.6% 6.5% 6.2% 22.9% 9.9% 9.6% 16.3% 100.0% 1 & 2-Person Households ('22) 9,328 33,779 26,908 31,683 101,527 24,188 20,611 76,837 38,411 25,758 33,524 320,899 Share of PMA 2.9% 10.5% 8.4% 9.9% 31.6% 7.5% 6.4% 23.9% 12.0% 8.0% 10.4% 100.0% Renter Households ('22) 8,587 33,099 27,782 24,144 93,612 20,351 8,214 59,422 41,705 28,336 38,275 289,915 Share of PMA 3.0% 11.4% 9.6% 8.3% 32.3% 7.0% 2.8% 20.5% 14.4% 9.8% 13.2% 100.0% $100K Plus Income HHs ('22) 17,003 43,836 32,112 38,100 131,051 26,789 31,064 95,877 33,046 43,618 56,424 417,869 Share of PMA 4.1% 10.5% 7.7% 9.1% 31.4% 6.4% 7.4% 22.9% 7.9% 10.4% 13.5% 100.0% MF Inventory (Units) (YTD) (CoStar) 000000000000
Share of PMA -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
L5Y Average Annual MF Deliveries (CoStar) 000000000000
Share of PMA -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Employment ('22) 25,127 66,384 118,733 117,424 327,668 89,797 37,523 130,982 139,710 142,089 66,455 934,224 Share of PMA 2.7% 7.1% 12.7% 12.6% 35.1% 9.6% 4.0% 14.0% 15.0% 15.2% 7.1% 100.0% Affluent Young Households ('22) 1,664 7,865 7,333 6,485 23,347 4,507 1,896 14,962 8,518 8,009 9,492 70,731 Share of PMA 2.4% 11.1% 10.4% 9.2% 33.0% 6.4% 2.7% 21.2% 12.0% 11.3% 13.4% 100.0% Capture Metrics - Future (Growth)
Household Growth (Annual, '22-'27) (85) 214 150 106 386 (156) (190) (489) 416 (44) (408) (485) Share of PMA -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
$100K Plus Income HH Growth (Annual, '22-'27) 250 1,180 743 857 3,030 509 391 2,083 1,293 1,005 1,046 9,357 Share of PMA 2.7% 12.6% 7.9% 9.2% 32.4% 5.4% 4.2% 22.3% 13.8% 10.7% 11.2% 100.0% Capture Metric Ranges
Minimum 2.4% 7.1% 7.3% 7.3% 27.4% 5.2% 2.7% 14.0% 7.9% 8.0% 7.1% 100.0% Maximum 4.1% 12.6% 12.7% 12.6% 35.1% 9.6% 7.4% 23.9% 15.0% 15.2% 18.3% 100.0% Average 3.2% 10.3% 8.8% 9.0% 31.4% 6.7% 5.1% 21.5% 11.3% 10.8% 13.2% 100.0% Concluded Demand Capture
TCG Concluded Demand Capture 4.0% 11.0% 9.0% 9.0% 33.0% 5.5% 6.0% 15.5% 12.0% 12.0% 10.5% 100.0% TCG Concluded Annual Rental Demand 235 647 529 529 1,941 323 353 912 706 706 618 5,881 Aggregate CMA Demand Capture
Annual CMA Rental Demand 1,941
Source: Esri; U.S. Census (American Community Survey); TCG

33.0% Share of PMA
Annual Primary Market Area Rental Demand
Household Growth Demand Methodology
TCG Concluded Annual Primary Market Area Rental Demand
23148.00 DemoDemand v1.38 Clean: CapR the concord group DRAFT
279
CC 10-17-2023
279 of 474
EXHIBIT II-5

MULTIFAMILY - BUILDING TRADES

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
LAST TWO YEARS THROUGH AUGUST 2023
Sale Price
Project Name Address City Buyer Date Sold Acres # of Units Total Per Unit Per Acre Cap Rate Building Trades - Cupertino
The Villages at Cupertino Apartments 20875 Valley Green Dr Cupertino Koret Foundation 6/15/2023 10.00 110 $50,100,000 $455,455 $5,010,000 --Mcclellan Terrace 7954 McClellan Rd Cupertino Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. 8/5/2022 5.02 94 $52,000,000 $553,191 $10,352,379 3.25% Total / Average: 2 Transactions 7.51 102 $51,050,000 $500,490 $6,796,246 3.25% Building Trades - Santa Clara
Cedartree Square 2420 Pacific Dr Santa Clara The MuirField Properties 6/1/2023 1.95 50 $18,456,000 $369,120 $9,464,615 --Vista Pointe Apartments 3455 Homestead Rd Santa Clara The Sobrato Organization 5/24/2023 2.70 68 $26,100,000 $383,824 $9,666,667 --Normandy Park Apartments 48 Washington St Santa Clara Spieker Companies, Inc 5/23/2023 2.56 140 $49,500,000 $353,571 $19,335,938 4.80% 887 Franklin St 887 Franklin St Santa Clara Jonathan Sheehan | David Sheehan 11/17/2022 0.27 26 $2,600,000 $100,000 $9,679,821 -- Montecito 3760-3765 Tamarack Ln Santa Clara Pacific Urban Investors, LLC 10/25/2022 1.99 114 $50,700,000 $444,737 $25,477,387 --Santana Terrace 190 N Winchester Blvd Santa Clara Zurich Insurance Group Ltd. 10/7/2022 1.86 92 $53,000,000 $576,087 $28,447,212 --Alhambra Gardens Apartments 2729 Chromite Dr Santa Clara David W. Yancey 1/21/2022 2.60 62 $29,000,000 $467,742 $11,153,846 -- Total / Average: 7 Transactions 1.61 $26,232,889 $332,663 $16,324,250 4.80% 79 Building Trades - Sunnyvale
Anton 1101 1101 N Fair Oaks Ave Sunnyvale St Anton Multifamily, Inc. 7/14/2023 2.58 97 $23,286,000 $240,062 $9,011,610 --Cherryhill Apartments 902 W Remington Dr Sunnyvale Spieker Companies, Inc. 1/19/2023 8.52 244 $106,002,000 $434,434 $12,441,549 -- Carmel Park Apartments 175 E Homestead Rd Sunnyvale Zell Associates, Inc. 8/10/2022 0.98 28 $14,732,687 $526,167 $14,973,765 3.50%Monterey Park Apartments 185 E Homestead Rd Sunnyvale Zell Associates, Inc. 8/10/2022 0.98 28 $10,267,313 $366,690 $10,476,850 3.50% Mary Manor Mobile Estate 125 N Mary Ave Sunnyvale Hometown America 3/22/2022 14.88 116 $39,000,000 $336,207 $2,621,813 --Ayala Terrace Apartments 1285-1291 Ayala Dr Sunnyvale Christina Chao 1/10/2022 1.17 32 $14,250,000 $445,313 $12,179,487 4.00% Avana Sunnyvale 355 N Wolfe Rd Sunnyvale Ivanhoé Cambridge 11/8/2021 6.83 192 $113,083,500 $588,977 $16,568,040 --678 Bellflower 678 Bellflower Ave Sunnyvale Canyon Partners Real Estate LLC 10/5/2021 4.10 93 $49,000,000 $526,882 $11,951,220 3.00% Total / Average: 8 Transactions 5.46 104 $46,202,688 $445,327 $8,457,848 3.50% Building Trades - Mountain View
Mountain View Gardens (1) 570 S Rengstorff Ave Mountain View Taylor Morrison 4/5/2023 4.10 70 $57,375,000 $819,643 $13,993,902 -- Total / Average: 1 Transactions 4.10 70 $57,375,000 $819,643 $13,993,902 -- (1) Sold as a redevelopment opportunity. Will be torn down and replaced with for-sale rowhouses. 23148.00 Land Trades: MF-Build The Concord Group
DRAFT
280
CC 10-17-2023
280 of 474
III. Below Market-Rate Opportunity Analysis
DRAFT
281
CC 10-17-2023
281 of 474
EXHIBIT III-1

MULTIFAMILY MARKET TRENDS - BELOW MARKET-RATE

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2000 THROUGH YTD (AUGUST 2023)
5-Yr
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Avg Q3 '22 L4Q Competitive Market Area
Inventory Units 6,468 6,960 6,960 6,960 6,960 6,960 6,960 7,000 7,254 7,222 7,270 8,021 8,176 8,340 9,124 9,836 10,232 10,607 9,628 10,411Gross Deliveries 0 492 0 0 0 0 0 40 254 0 48 751 155 164 784 712 396 375 486 -- 196Net Absorption 26 446 70 (125) (35) 118 (28) 94 122 85 61 165 573 173 592 106 1,054 281 441 -- 104 Vacancy Rate (1) 3.7% 4.1% 3.1% 4.9% 5.4% 3.7% 4.1% 3.3% 5.0% 3.4% 3.2% 10.2% 4.9% 4.7% 6.4% 12.1% 5.2% 5.9% 6.9% 3.9% Effective Rent /Unit $2,009 $2,174 $2,349 $2,313 $2,110 $2,250 $2,300 $2,414 $2,534 $2,631 $2,750 $2,745 $2,826 $2,948 $3,038 $2,621 $2,922 $3,106 $2,927 $3,172 % Change (YOY) 3.2% 8.2% 8.0% (1.5%) (8.8%) 6.6% 2.2% 5.0% 5.0% 3.8% 4.5% (0.2%) 3.0% 4.3% 3.1% (13.7%) 11.5% 6.3% 1.9% Primary Market Area
Inventory Units 27,576 28,753 30,429 30,748 31,061 31,061 31,342 31,891 32,673 32,916 33,819 35,185 35,410 35,687 36,606 37,564 38,149 38,958 37,393 38,621Gross Deliveries 1,377 1,177 1,676 319 313 0 281 549 782 275 903 1,366 225 277 919 958 585 809 710 -- 383Net Absorption 1,259 1,494 1,769 125 146 280 209 371 653 529 975 762 746 304 745 (51) 1,580 510 617 -- 294 Vacancy Rate (1) 4.8% 3.5% 3.0% 3.6% 4.1% 3.2% 3.4% 3.9% 4.2% 3.3% 3.0% 4.6% 3.1% 3.0% 3.4% 6.0% 3.3% 4.0% 3.9% 2.8% Effective Rent /Unit $1,558 $1,660 $1,785 $1,798 $1,647 $1,721 $1,773 $1,840 $1,936 $1,990 $2,064 $2,073 $2,143 $2,230 $2,306 $2,159 $2,330 $2,460 $2,297 $2,480 % Change (YOY) 2.4% 6.5% 7.5% 0.7% (8.4%) 4.5% 3.0% 3.8% 5.2% 2.8% 3.7% 0.4% 3.4% 4.1% 3.4% (6.4%) 7.9% 5.6% 2.8% Source: CoStar; The Concord Group
0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%
(200)
0 200400600800
1,0001,200
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Annual Competitive Market Area Gross Deliveries, Net Absorption and Vacancy Rate Gross Deliveries (Units - Left Axis) Net Absorption (Units - Left Axis) Vacancy Rate (Right Axis) $0$500$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500
(15.0%)(10.0%)
(5.0%)

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Competitive Market Area Effective Rent Per Unit and YOY Rent Change Average Effective Rent Per Unit (Right Axis) Effective Rent Change (YOY - Left Axis) 23148.00 BMR Trends: MFTrO the concord group
DRAFT
282
CC 10-17-2023
282 of 474
EXHIBIT III-2A

COMPETITIVE SET - INVENTORY - BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Year Built / BMR Avg Unit Avg AMI
Project Name Address Renovated Type Units Size % Studio % 1 Bed % 2 Bed % 3 Bed Rent % Below-Market-Rate (BMR) Housing - Existing Projects List CupertinoThe Markham 20800 Homestead Rd 1961 Garden 17 876 0% 65% 35% 0% $2,866 50% - 80% AMI Forge Homestead Apartments 20691 Forge Way 1998 Garden 15 940 0% 33% 67% 0% $3,034 50% - 80% AMIAviare 20415 Via Paviso 1998 Garden 22 904 0% 36% 64% 0% $3,017 50% - 80% AMIArioso 19608 Pruneridge Ave 1999 Garden 20 1015 --- --- --- --- --- 50% - 80% AMI The Hamptons 19500 Pruneridge Ave 1998 Garden 34 1022 --- --- --- --- --- 50% - 80% AMI Vista Village 10114 Vista Drive --- --- 24 --- --- --- --- --- --- 30% - 80% AMI Cupertino Park Center 20380 Stevens Creek Blvd 1998 Low-Rise 4 1096 0% 100% 0% 0% $2,677 50% - 80% AMIBiltmore 10159 Blaney Ave 1972 Garden 2 941 0% 0% 100% 0% $3,212 50% - 80% AMI Greenwood Court 10352 Greenwood Court 1963 Low-Rise 4 --- 0% 0% 0% 100% $3,711 30% - 80% AMI Cupertino City Center 20350 Stevens Creek Blvd 1987 Mid-Rise --- 819 --- --- --- --- --- 50% - 80% AMI SunnyvaleCherry Orchard 250 W El Camino Real 2001 Mid-Rise 30 1016 0% 27% 63% 10% $2,542 50% - 80% AMIEncinal Place 604 S Fairoaks Ave 2006 Low-Rise 2 1304 0% 0% 100% 0% $2,590 50% - 80% AMI The Flats and Flats West 300 W Washington Ave 2019 Mid-Rise 34 1070 0% 56% 41% 3% $2,166 50% - 80% AMILawrence Station Apartments 1271-1281 Lawrence Station Rd 2012 Mid-Rise 46 884 0% 63% 37% 0% $2,409 50% - 80% AMI Magnolia Lane 113-117 S Mary Ave 2002 Garden 3 --- 0% 0% 100% 0% $2,590 50% - 80% AMI The Murphy Station 1008 E El Camino Real 2022 Mid-Rise 22 909 9% 45% 45% 0% $2,407 50% - 80% AMITamarind Square 1160 Morse Ave 2004 Garden 12 1034 0% 50% 50% 0% $2,447 50% - 80% AMI Via 621 Tasman Dr 2011 Mid-Rise 43 910 0% 60% 40% 0% $2,416 50% - 80% AMI Villa Del Sol 355 E Evelyn Ave 2001 Low-Rise 11 969 0% 18% 73% 9% $2,564 50% - 80% AMI Savoy 1120 Kifer Rd 2020 Mid-Rise 40 943 3% 60% 38% 0% $2,249 50% - 80% AMI Mountain View
Elan Mountain View 1030 Castro St 2018 Mid-Rise 2 840 0% 50% 50% 0% $2,945 50% - 80% AMImResidences 2580 El Camino Real 2015 Low-Rise 2 764 --- --- --- --- --- 50% - 80% AMI100 Moffett 100 Moffett Blvd 2016 Mid-Rise 8 896 0% 75% 25% 0% $2,811 50% - 80% AMI Madera Apartments 455 W Evelyn Ave 2013 Mid-Rise 7 988 0% 57% 43% 0% $2,906 50% - 80% AMIRevela 200 Infinity Way 2019 Mid-Rise 16 879 13% 56% 31% 0% $2,822 50% - 80% AMI Novo 2270 El Camino Real 2019 Mid-Rise 10 796 20% 60% 20% 0% $2,748 50% - 80% AMI Landsby 2580-2590 California St 2022 Mid-Rise 32 806 0% 69% 31% 0% $4,266 80% - 120% AMISanta ClaraThe Benton 588 El Camino Real 2021 Mid-Rise 36 1012 0% 56% 44% 0% $4,371 80% - 120% AMI Prado 3560 Rambla Pl 2021 Mid-Rise 46 858 0% 76% 24% 0% $4,207 80% - 120% AMISantana Terrace 190 N Winchester Blvd 2020 Mid-Rise 10 806 0% 70% 30% 0% $4,256 120% AMI 30 communities 554 936 1% 47% 35% 2% $3,000
Note: This inventory excludes affordable communities catering only certain service-connected or aging-related restrictions / disabilities. Source: TCG % Unit Mix
23148.00 BMR Inventory: Perf_BMR THE CONCORD GROUP
DRAFT
283
CC 10-17-2023
283 of 474
EXHIBIT III-2A

COMPETITIVE SET - INVENTORY - AFFORDABLE HOUSING

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Year Built / Aff. Avg Unit Avg AMI
Project Name Address Renovated Type Units Size % Studio % 1 Bed % 2 Bed % 3 Bed Rent % Affordable Housing - Existing Projects List
CupertinoLe Beaulieu Apartments 10092 Bianchi Way 1984 Low-Rise 27 665 0% 78% 22% 0% $1,747 30% - 50% AMISunnyvaleEncasa Apartments 550 E Weddell Dr 2016 Garden 27 969 --- --- --- --- --- 30% - 50% AMI Ironworks 457 E Evelyn Ave 2017 Mid-Rise 14 1105 0% 29% 50% 21% $1,711 30% - 50% AMI 481 on Mathilda 481 S Mathilda Ave 2016 Mid-Rise --- 898 --- --- --- --- --- 30% - 50% AMI 6TenEAST 610 E Weddell Dr 2017 Mid-Rise 16 996 13% 38% 38% 13% $1,460 30% - 50% AMI Redwood Place 1030 Indian Wells Ave 2014 Mid-Rise --- 878 --- --- --- --- --- 30% - 50% AMI Maxwell 490 W McKinley Ave 2022 Mid-Rise --- 917 --- --- --- --- --- 30% - 50% AMI Mountain View
San Antonio Place 210 San Antonio Cir 2006 Low-Rise 120 335 98% 1% 1% 0% $1,566 30% - 50% AMI Maryce Freelen Apartments 2230 Latham St 1964 Garden 74 883 0% 32% 35% 32% $2,000 30% - 50% AMI Studio 819 819 N Rengstorff Ave 2015 Low-Rise 48 --- 50% 50% 0% 0% $1,617 30% - 50% AMI Sierra Vista One Apartments 1909 Hackett Ave 1974 Garden 34 1104 0% 9% 56% 35% $2,088 30% - 50% AMI1585 Studios Apartments 1581-1585 W El Camino Real 1946 Low-Rise 5 375 0% 100% 0% 0% $1,673 30% - 50% AMIFranklin Street Apartments 135 Franklin St 2013 Mid-Rise 51 --- 0% 8% 63% 29% $2,073 30% - 50% AMISan Veron Park 807-841 San Veron Ave 1971 Low-Rise 32 --- 0% 0% 31% 47% $2,280 30% - 50% AMI Tyrella Garden Apartments 449 Tyrella Ave 1970 Low-Rise 56 812 0% 21% 57% 21% $2,002 30% - 50% AMI Evelyn Family Apartments 779 E Evelyn Ave 2019 Mid-Rise 116 791 9% 39% 39% 13% $1,875 30% - 50% AMI MV Apartments 2700 El Camino Real 2021 Mid-Rise 11 822 0% 73% 27% 0% $1,764 30% - 50% AMIThe Dean 458 San Antonio Rd 2020 Mid-Rise 48 855 0% 69% 25% 6% $1,797 30% - 50% AMI % Unit Mix
23148.00 BMR Inventory: Perf_AFF THE CONCORD GROUP
DRAFT
284
CC 10-17-2023
284 of 474
EXHIBIT III-2A

COMPETITIVE SET - INVENTORY - AFFORDABLE HOUSING

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Year Built / Aff. Avg Unit Avg AMI
Project Name Address Renovated Type Units Size % Studio % 1 Bed % 2 Bed % 3 Bed Rent % Affordable Housing - Existing Projects List
% Unit Mix
Santa ClaraEstancia at Santa Clara Apartm1650 Hope Dr 2000 Garden 90 956 0% 47% 47% 7% $1,872 30% - 50% AMI Balmoral Luxury Apartments 3585 Agate Ct 2004 Mid-Rise 4 1096 0% 50% 50% 0% $1,840 30% - 50% AMI The Benton 588 El Camino Real 2021 Mid-Rise 36 1012 0% 56% 44% 0% $1,821 30% - 50% AMI Buckingham Place Apartments30 Buckingham Dr 1967 Low-Rise 6 1034 0% 50% 50% 0% $1,840 30% - 50% AMI Calabazas Community Apartm2904 Corvin Dr 2021 Mid-Rise 144 315 100% 0% 0% 0% $1,561 30% - 50% AMICatalina Luxury Apartments 3600-3616 Flora Vista Ave 2004 Garden 23 910 0% 65% 35% 0% $1,789 30% - 50% AMIChateau Villa Apartments 2150 Main St 1969 Low-Rise 25 850 0% 32% 68% 0% $1,900 30% - 50% AMIDeborah Apartments 2215 Deborah Dr 1962 Garden 4 --- 0% 50% 50% 0% $1,840 30% - 50% AMI Domicilio 431 El Camino Real 2006 Mid-Rise 16 1013 13% 44% 44% 0% $1,805 30% - 50% AMIEklund Gardens I 2002 Halford Ave 1997 Low-Rise 10 --- 0% 0% 100% 0% $2,007 30% - 50% AMI Eklund Gardens II 3780 Poinciana Dr 1997 Low-Rise 6 1274 0% 0% 100% 0% $2,007 30% - 50% AMIKlamath Gardens 2051 Klamath Ave 1996 Garden 17 1097 0% 0% 59% 35% $2,151 30% - 50% AMI Mansion Grove 502 Mansion Park Dr 1988 Garden 13 856 0% 0% 100% 0% $2,007 30% - 50% AMI Miramar Way Apartments 3761 Miramar Way 1960 Low-Rise 16 --- 0% 50% 50% 0% $1,840 30% - 50% AMIPrado 3560 Rambla Pl 2021 Mid-Rise 47 858 0% 74% 26% 0% $1,758 30% - 50% AMI Presidio El Camino 1450 El Camino Real 2012 Low-Rise 39 553 49% 51% 0% 0% $1,618 30% - 50% AMI Rivertown 1302-1340 Hope Dr 2003 Garden 100 930 0% 0% 70% 30% $2,101 30% - 50% AMI Riverwood Grove 2150-2158 Tasman Dr 2003 Garden 71 1106 0% 7% 42% 42% $2,164 30% - 50% AMI Riverwood Place 5090 Lick Mill Blvd 2003 Low-Rise 148 366 99% 1% 0% 0% $1,563 30% - 50% AMI Santana Terrace 190 N Winchester Blvd 2020 Mid-Rise 14 806 0% 79% 21% 0% $1,745 30% - 50% AMISt. Anton Tasman 2233 Calle del Mundo 2022 Mid-Rise 196 558 78% 22% 0% 0% $1,586 30% - 50% AMISummerset Apartments 2151 Main St 1963 Garden 43 872 0% 5% 67% 28% $2,079 30% - 50% AMIVilla Granada 3595 Granada Ave 2010 Mid-Rise 27 966 0% 56% 44% 0% $1,821 30% - 50% AMI Westwood Ambassador 2606 Newhall St 1960 Low-Rise 42 616 0% 88% 12% 0% $1,713 30% - 50% AMI 42 communities 1,816 713 34% 26% 28% 10% $1,797
Note: This inventory excludes affordable communities catering only certain service-connected or aging-related restrictions / disabilities. Source: TCG 23148.00 BMR Inventory: Perf_AFF THE CONCORD GROUP
DRAFT
285
CC 10-17-2023
285 of 474
EXHIBIT III-2B

BELOW-MARKET-RATE & AFFORDABLE HOUSING - LOCATION

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Note: Label indicates year built and number of BMR/affordable units, respectively.

Subject Sites
23148.00 BMR Inventory: Loc Page 1 of 2 THE CONCORD GROUP DRAFT
286
CC 10-17-2023
286 of 474
EXHIBIT III-2B

BELOW-MARKET-RATE & AFFORDABLE HOUSING - LOCATION

COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2023
Note: Label indicates year built and number of BMR/affordable units, respectively.

Subject Sites
23148.00 BMR Inventory: Loc Page 2 of 2 THE CONCORD GROUP DRAFT
287
CC 10-17-2023
287 of 474
EXHIBIT III-2C

AFFORDABLE APARTMENT DEMAND - AMI INCOME AND RENT LIMITS

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
2022
Santa Clara County AMI by Household Size: 2023AMI Level 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person 6-Person 7-Person 8-Person 30% $37,470 $42,840 $48,180 $53,520 $57,810 $62,100 $66,390 $70,65040% $49,960 $57,120 $64,240 $71,360 $77,080 $82,800 $88,520 $94,20050% $62,450 $71,400 $80,300 $89,200 $96,350 $103,500 $110,650 $117,75060% $74,940 $85,680 $96,360 $107,040 $115,620 $124,200 $132,780 $141,30080% $99,920 $114,240 $128,480 $142,720 $154,160 $165,600 $177,040 $188,400100% $124,900 $142,800 $160,600 $178,400 $192,700 $207,000 $221,300 $235,500120% $149,880 $171,360 $192,720 $214,080 $231,240 $248,400 $265,560 $282,600150% $187,350 $214,200 $240,900 $267,600 $289,050 $310,500 $331,950 $353,250200% $249,800 $285,600 $321,200 $356,800 $385,400 $414,000 $442,600 $471,000Santa Clara County Maximum Rent by AMI and Unit Type: 2023 AMI Level Studio 1-Bed 2-Bed 3-Bed 4-Bed 5-Bed
30% $937 $1,004 $1,204 $1,391 $1,552 $1,71340% $1,249 $1,338 $1,606 $1,855 $2,070 $2,28450% $1,561 $1,673 $2,007 $2,319 $2,587 $2,85560% $1,873 $2,008 $2,408 $2,783 $3,104 $3,42680% $2,498 $2,677 $3,211 $3,710 $4,139 $4,568100% $3,122 $3,346 $4,014 $4,638 $5,174 $5,710120% $3,746 $4,015 $4,817 $5,566 $6,209 $6,852150% $4,683 $5,019 $6,021 $6,957 $7,761 $8,565200% $6,244 $6,692 $8,028 $9,276 $10,348 $11,420 Source: US Dept of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) 23148.00 AMI Rent and Income Limits: AMI.Hud THE CONCORD GROUP DRAFT
288
CC 10-17-2023
288 of 474
EXHIBIT III-4

AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY - BUILDING TRADES

PRIMARY MARKET AREA
LAST THREE YEARS THROUGH JULY 2023
Sale Price
Project Name Address City Buyer Date Sold Acres # of Units Total Per Acre Building Trades - Cupertino
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
Total / Average: 0 Transactions $0 $0
Building Trades - Santa Clara
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
Total / Average: 0 Transactions $0 $0
Building Trades - Sunnyvale
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
Total / Average: 0 Transactions $0 $0
Building Trades - Mountain View
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
Total / Average: 0 Transactions $0 $0
Building Trades - Central San Jose
Vintage Tower 235 E Santa Clara St San Jose COR Community Development Corporation | Avanath Capital Management, L 10/21/2020 0.22 59 $17,300,000 $78,636,364 Total / Average: 1 Transaction 0.22 $17,300,000 $78,636,364 23148.00 Land Trades: Aff-Build The Concord Group
DRAFT
289
CC 10-17-2023
289 of 474
Newport Beach
369 San Miguel Dr, #265
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 717-6450
San Francisco
180 Montgomery St, #2350
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 397-5490
Austin
201 W 5th St, 11th Floor #21
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 287-4530
Atlanta
725 Ponce De Leon Ave, #315
Atlanta, GA 30306
(404) 879-5000
DRAFT
290
CC 10-17-2023
290 of 474

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
23-11897 Agenda Date:
10/17/2023 Agenda #: 8.

Subject: Blackberry Farm (BBF) Golf Course Feasibility Study, considering options to complete minimal repairs and improvements to the BBF Golf Course (Option 1) or convert BBF Golf Course to a Natural Habitat (Option 3).

Direct staff to proceed with minimal repairs to maintain the BBF Golf Course (Option 1).

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/11/2023
powered by Legistar™291
CC 10-17-2023
291 of 474

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 17, 2023
Subject
Blackberry Farm (BBF) Golf Course Feasibility Study, considering options to complete minimal repairs and improvements to the BBF Golf Course (Option 1) or convert BBF Golf Course to a Natural Habitat (Option 3).

Recommended Action
Direct staff to proceed with minimal repairs to maintain the BBF Golf Course (Option 1).

Reasons for Recommendation
The Blackberry Farm Golf Course needs repairs and updates to the 50+ year old irrigation system and course modifications to enhance functionality. Following the initial work on the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan (SCCMP) and the completion of the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan (PRSMP) the City of Cupertino reinitiated the discussion regarding the future of BBF Golf Course. City Council directed staff to investigate two options, one on minimal repairs to the BBF Golf Course (Option 1) and the second to convert the golf course to a natural habitat (Option 3). Having concluded the investigations and having collected significant public input, staff asks the City Council to provide direction to advance Option 1, minimal repairs to the facility.

Background
The Blackberry Farm Golf Course was constructed in 1962 and the City has owned the facility since 1991. The site is approximately 16 acres and contains a nine-hole golf course, a parking lot, one main building and a maintenance facility. The main building houses a pro shop and a restaurant facility that is leased by the Blue Pheasant (see Attachment A - Existing Site Conditions for site overview.) Most of the property is located within a designated floodplain and is adjacent to Stevens Creek, which contains protected and sensitive wildlife species, such as steelhead trout.

In the early 2000’s, the SCCMP was initiated. While the plan was never completed, the goal was to create an updated vision for the public lands along Stevens Creek, between McClellan Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard. In 2014, in parallel to the work on the SCCMP, the City hired National Golf Foundation Consulting (NGF) to assess various options for improvements to the golf course. In 2015 and 2016 several golf course 292
CC 10-17-2023
292 of 474
improvement options were presented to City Council for consideration. Alternatives ranged from minor repairs to the golf course, to a full reconfiguration, including construction of a new clubhouse. During those meetings, comments about converting the golf course back to natural habitat were also raised.

The efforts associated with the SCCMP and improvements to the golf course were suspended due to City Council’s decision to focus on completion of the Citywide PRSMP. Since the adoption of the PRSMP in 2020, the City reinitiated the project to investigate options for the golf course (see Attachment F – Selected Pages from Parks Master Plan). The objective of the project was to determine short-term and long-term improvements to the golf course, including amenities. The project was part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 City Work Program.

At the June 3, 2021, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously recommended to City Council to update the Feasibility Study for Option 1 (minimal repairs) and to continue with a Feasibility Study for Option 3 (convert to natural habitat). At the July 20, 2021, City Council meeting, Council unanimously agreed to have staff update the Feasibility Study for Option 1 (see Attachment B - NGF Report – Minimal Repairs to Golf Course) and to continue with a Feasibility Study for Option 3 (see Attachment C – MIG Report – Convert to Natural Habitat.).

A summary of the points made in the two reports is included as (Attachment K – Reports Summary.)
Both reports were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission at the May 18, 2022, special meeting. The Commission was given the opportunity to provide feedback on the reports, including next steps regarding public outreach. The draft survey questions related to the two alternatives were shared with the Commission (Attachment G – Public Survey Questions). Minutes from that meeting are included as Attachment H - Parks Rec Commission Minutes 05-18-22.

Following input from the Commission, a survey was published online for public input via the Engage Cupertino website from May 25 through July 15, 2022. Cascadia Consulting was hired to assist with the public outreach process and has summarized findings in the Public Survey and Outreach Summary report. See Attachment D – Public Survey and Outreach Summary.

The reports and the results of the survey were presented to a special Joint Commission on September 9, 2022. The Sustainability Commission, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, and Parks and Recreation Commission were in attendance as part of the Joint Commission Meeting. The Joint Commission received public comment, asked clarifying questions, and made comments on the findings. Minutes and communications from this meeting are included as Attachment I - Joint Commission Minutes 09-08-2022 and Attachment J - Written Communications Joint Commission 09-08-2022. 293
CC 10-17-2023
293 of 474
Discussion
The BBF Golf Course requires improvements to the irrigation system to minimize costly ongoing repairs, to increase water efficiency, and to improve recreational functionality.

Prior to expending funds to make these necessary improvements, the City considered the costs and impacts of returning the facility to natural habitat. The investigation of the two options discussed above has shown that the 10-year overall cost impacts of these options are similar. Further, the public outreach results were not conclusive, as public support for both options was roughly equivalent.

While the conversion to natural habitat might provide environmental/sustainable benefits, the City would need a compelling reason, either cost benefit or a clear directive from the community, in order to dismantle an established public facility that is strongly supported by a significant segment of the community. While balancing the desirability of the existing recreational use with the potential to restore natural habitat is a policy decision that is within Council’s discretion, the research and public outreach conducted by staff has not provided a compelling reason to remove the existing golf course.

The City has since performed a comparative analysis of the fees being charged for other similar municipal golf courses in the area and has concluded that the rates charged for BBF are the lowest among the surveyed jurisdictions. Based on this information, the City will evaluate the option of increasing these fees to enhance cost recovery, including capital costs, for the facility.

Given the high usage of the golf course and the recreational need that it meets, combined with opportunities to reduce costs through water efficiency and increased revenue through fee adjustments, staff recommends that the golf course be retained and that Council direct staff to proceed with Option 1.

With the recommended direction, staff will pursue:
a. An updated scope, schedule of work, and cost estimate relating to Option 1 (minimal repairs to the golf course);
b. Evaluate operational and fee rate changes that may improve revenue generation and cost recovery;
c. Investigate golf course and facility improvements that may increase revenue, further reduce water use, and to for opportunities to increase natural habitat areas where feasible; and
d. Explore the potential of leasing the golf course to an outside vendor to further reduce expenditures and increase City revenues.

Sustainability Impact
The recommended action to proceed with Option 1 (Minimal Repairs to the Golf Course) with the associated improvement to irrigation efficiency supports the Climate Action Plan 2.0 goal of “Reducing per capita water consumption by 15 percent compared to 294
CC 10-17-2023
294 of 474
2019 levels by 2030 and maintain through 2040” (Measure WW-1). The proposed irrigation system improvements could decrease water use by up to 21 percent of the current level, potentially avoiding use of 1,804,450 gallons per year based on 2022 usage.

Fiscal Impact
The pre-COVID annual subsidy for operation of the golf course averaged $272,000.

After accounting for projected revenues, costs over a 25-year period for each option are summarized below:

A. Repair the Golf Course
a. $1.97 million (Total Capital Cost)
b. $8.12 million (Total Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost) c. Average Annual O&M Cost = $324,705
B. Converting the Site to Natural Habitat
a. $1.88 million (Total Capital Cost)
b. $10.22 million (Total O&M Cost)
c. Average Annual O&M Cost = $408,824
(Note: Potential grant funding or fee increases may affect projected costs) Attachment E provides a summary of 2022 costs associated with each option.

If Council gives direction, a project proposal could be included in the proposed FY24-25 CIP budget. Given limited ongoing capital funding, the project would be considered and prioritized in relation to other project needs.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15301 (maintenance of existing facilities).
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Susan Michael, Capital Improvement Programs Manager Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Matt Morley, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Existing Site Conditions
B – NGF Report – Minimal Repairs to Golf Course
C – MIG Report – Convert to Natural Habitat
D - Public Survey and Outreach Summary
E – Blackberry Farm Golf Course Use Analysis Comparative Costs – 25 Year Outlook F – Selected Pages from Parks Master Plan
G – Public Survey Questions
H - Parks Recreation Commission Minutes 05-18-22
I - Joint Commission Minutes 09-08-2022
295
CC 10-17-2023
295 of 474
J - Written Communications Joint Commission 09-08-2022
K – Reports Summary
296
CC 10-17-2023
296 of 474
THE

MEADOWS

PARK VILLAS

RIDGECREST
MONTA
VISTA

LAS PALMAS

FAIRWAY VII

VOLLEYBALL
BOCCE

OPEN LAWN

COMMUNITY

GARDENS

STAFF OFFICES

DRESSING
ROOMS
POOL
POOL
NATURE
MUSEUM

BLACKSMITH
SHOP
RANCH
HOUSE
MILK
BARN
TANK
HOUSE
GARDENER’S
SHED
BEE
HIVES
TICKET
KIOSK
GROUP
PICNIC
AREA

ORCHARD

STOCKLMEIER
HOME

GOLF PRO SHOP/

BLUE PHEASANT

RESTAURANT

HORSESHOE
PIT

HORSESHOE
PIT
CAFE
PLAY
AREA

MAINTENANCE
BLDGS
GOLF

MAINTENANCE
BLDG
BARN
POLE
BARN
SIMMS
HOUSE
4-H AREA
TANK
HOUSE

ENVIRONMENTALEDUCATION CENTER

BLACKBERRY FARM

GOLF COURSE

STOCKLMEIR
RANCH

BLACKBERRY FARM
PARK
McCLELLAN
RANCH

PRESERVE
McCLELLAN
RANCH
WEST
McCLELLAN RD

STEVENS CREEK BLVD

STEVENS CREEK

STEVENS CREE
K
T
RAIL

STEVENS CREEK TRAIL
MONTA
VISTA
HIGH
SCHOOL
DEEP
CLIFF
GOLF
COURSE

PALO VISTA RD

SCENIC CIRCLE

LINDA VISTA PL CLUBHOUSE LN

SCENIC CIRCLE

SCENIC BLVD

SCENIC BLVD

MC CLELLAN RD

MC CLEL LAN RD

LINDA VISTA DR

SAN FERNANDO AVE

SAN FERNANDO AVE

JANICE AVE
BYRNE
CT

GRANADA
AVE

HERMOSA
AVE

LOMITA AVE

ALMADEN
AVE

ALCAZAR
AVE

DOLORES
AVE

CRESCENT RD

MADRID RD

CUPERTINO RD
RAE LN

VALLECITO RD

CARMEN RD

SCENIC CT

STOCKLMEIR CT

PALM AVE

DEAN CT

JANICE AVE

SCENIC BLVD

BYRNE AVE BYRNE AVE

PHAR LAP DR

BYRNE AVE

SAN FERNANDO CT
PAR

THREE DR

SANTA PAULA AVE

TRESSLER CT

MIRA VISTA AVE

SCENIC BLVD

MIRA VISTA RD

SCENIC CIRCLE
0 100’ 200’ 250’150’50’
N

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PROJECT BOUNDARYPARCELSTRAILON-STREET BIKE ROUTECREEKBUILDINGNEIGHBORHOOD SOURCE: CITY OF CUPERTINO
Attachment A
CC 10-17-2023
297 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course –
Analysis of Minimal Repairs and
Conversion of Irrigation to Well
Water
Prepared For:

City of Cupertino
Parks and Recreation
10185 N Stelling Rd
Cupertino, CA 95014
Prepared By:
501 N. Highway A1a
Jupiter, FL 33477
(561) 744-6006
May 2022
Attachment B
298
CC 10-17-2023
298 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 2 Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION & PROJECT BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 2 Current Scope of Services .................................................................................................. 3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................3 Limitations .....................................................................................................................................3 BLACKBERRY FARM GOLF COURSE.................................................................................... 5 History................................................................................................................................. 5 Golf Course Overview and Summary of Facilities ............................................................... 5 Course Overview ...........................................................................................................................5 Practice Facilities...........................................................................................................................5 Maintenance Facility......................................................................................................................6 On-course Restrooms ...................................................................................................................6 Pro Shop and Grounds..................................................................................................................6 Assessment of Current Golf Course Conditions .................................................................. 6 Current Conditions and General Deficiencies ...............................................................................6 Changes to Hole No. 9 and Practice Area ..................................................................................10 BLACKBERRY FARM GOLF COURSE “MINIMAL REPAIRS” IMPROVEMENT COSTS ......11 Cost Estimates – Minimal Repairs Scenario.......................................................................11 Pricing Methodology ....................................................................................................................11 Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................11 IRRIGATION AND WATER SOURCE CONVERSION .............................................................14 Current Irrigation System ...................................................................................................14 Current Water Use and Future Projections.........................................................................15 Water Source Conversion to Well ......................................................................................16 Daily Water Use Estimate – Average Summer Day....................................................................16 Additional Discussion on Benefits/Efficiency of New System .....................................................16 Well Reactivation Estimated Costs.....................................................................................18 Estimated Well Reactivation Costs .............................................................................................18 Irrigation Cost Comparison – Potable vs. Well............................................................................19 SUMMARY BENEFITS OF UNDERTAKING MINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR BFGC...........20 Cost Efficiencies ................................................................................................................20 Environmental Orientation..................................................................................................20 Congruence with Parks & Recreation Master Plan Goals...................................................20 Replacing Empty Ponds with Native Lowland Landscape ..................................................20 NGF Conclusion.................................................................................................................21 APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................22 Appendix A – Assessment of Golf Course Components.....................................................23 Appendix B – Minimum Safety Set-Backs Exhibit...............................................................27 Appendix C – Miscellaneous Exhibits.................................................................................28 299
CC 10-17-2023
299 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 2 Introduction & Project Background
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. (“NGF Consulting” or “NGF”) was retained by the City of Cupertino (“City”) in late 2021 to formulate new probable cost estimates for the “minimal repairs” improvement scenario for Blackberry Farm Golf Course (alternately, “Blackberry Farm GC”). The consulting engagement was managed by Ed Getherall, NGF’s Senior Director of Operations, with golf course architecture firm Richardson-Danner, ASGCA, and Russell D.

Mitchell & Associates, Inc., irrigation consultant, acting as subcontractors to NGF.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. was previously retained by the City in 2014 to present potentially viable options regarding the future of Blackberry Farm GC. That consulting engagement was done as part of the overall due diligence related to the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan.

Cost estimation for the current study applies to the following elements of “Minimal Repair”, as defined by the City:
• Replacing the irrigation system. The two scenarios of Potable vs Well Water are addressed here, requiring a discussion of the logistics of re-activating the well (connection to potable water should be made regardless, as a back-up). • Replacing the empty ponds with lowland native areas.
• Replacing tees and greens as needed (e.g., #3 tee - removing mat & replacing w/grass).

Tees and greens are replaced approximately every 6 years as needed. (NGF has recommended replacing all greens with the irrigation system replacement, and included this in the cost estimates).
• Installing netting to protect the #6 tee box from errant shots on the Hole #4. • Shortening the 9th hole to eliminate the number of errant shots to the parking lot, trail, and Hole #1. Flipping the driving net, and making it longer and with additional bays.

Adding a short game practice area (chipping/sand bunker), with protective netting. • Identifying locations where installation of steps or terracing would be beneficial.

The NGF team was also tasked with evaluating and analyzing the logistics and cost feasibility of reactivating the on-site well. The analysis includes professional opinion on what is needed structurally to restore and revitalize the existing well for use as the golf course irrigation source.

This scope includes a preliminary cost estimate to reactivate the well, as well as a comparison of annual operating costs for use of Potable water vs Well water as the irrigation source at Blackberry Farm GC.
300
CC 10-17-2023
300 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 3

CURRENT SCOPE OF SERVICES
In late 2021, the NGF was retained to review a “Minimal Repair Scope” for Blackberry Farm Golf Course. While some of these items represent those from the NGF’s 2014 report, the City asked the NGF to review only the stated items in isolation from other potentially interrelated repairs. Therefore, the current NGF reporting cannot not fully consider the contextual influence each item has on the overall needs of the golf course.

The key areas the NGF Consulting team was asked to focus on – in addition to the aforementioned issues around potential reactivation of the on-site well – included, but were not limited to:
(1) Playability as it relates to watering needs and turf conditions, conversion of the pond to native lowland, character and condition of tees and greens.
(2) Safety as it relates to hole nos. 4 and 6, hole nos. 1 and 9 and accessibility for tee complexes. (3) Water Source as it relates to potable versus well water use. (4) Trail Protection as it relates to netting on hole nos. 8 and 9 (this item was later removed from the scope due to the City already assuming responsibility for this item.

Methodology
The method for updating relevant aspects of the 2014 report involved site visits on two separate occasions in November 2021 and January 2022. Interviews with key staff charged with caring for and operating the properties were conducted. Additional data, both provided by the City and secured independently, was used to ascertain the general maintenance needs and necessary improvements.

In late 2021 and early 2022, Golf Course Architect, Jeff Danner, ASGCA, MEIGCA conducted the noted site visits. The focus of Mr. Danner’s reviews was to verify previous assumptions and account for any new or additional issues needing to be addressed. The consultants met with representatives from the City of Cupertino both in-person and via video call to obtain information to support our observations. Updated findings are referenced throughout this report.

Limitations
This report is intended to provide a basis for further study and potential action by the City, as well as potential integration to the Stevens Creek Corridor Master planning effort. The report is limited to the scope of services contracted to NGF Consulting. Accordingly, information such as probable cost estimates and conceptual planning must be viewed in their context and limitations. The City is advised that further study, detailed analysis, specific planning and cost analysis should be undertaken before final actions are determined. This report should be used to form decisions on “next steps” as improvements and/or changes are considered and shifted from planning to formal project.

The physical evaluation of the golf course is limited in that the items outlined in the Minimal Repairs scope of work do not consider the interconnectivity of various golf course components. Because the NGF is studying only items defined as “Minimal Repairs” by the City of Cupertino, exclusive of their contextual influence, the NGF cannot assume liability for issues that may arise in the future related to these recommendations.

For example, the NGF cannot thoroughly study safety without considering the spatial configuration of golf holes. The safety guidelines for setbacks to adjacent property, the separation between golf holes, and general “best practices” for golf course design have changed since Blackberry Farm GC was constructed about 60 years ago. Accordingly, NGF cannot make recommendations that conform to modern best practices for such setbacks to adjacent property or separation between golf 301
CC 10-17-2023
301 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 4 holes. Therefore, the City should make every effort to improve conditions relative to safety and minimize the occurrence of errant ball conflicts to adjacent property and areas and uses within the Owner’s property. The NGF shall not be held liable for any claim, actual damage, or injury arising from errant ball issue or condition at the Owner’s property or relative to this updated study.

As it relates to costs, Probable Construction Cost prepared by the Richardson | Danner under the auspices of NGF represents the Golf Course Architect’s best judgment as design professionals of the potential construction cost for the golf course work. However, neither the consulting team nor the City has control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or course accessories, over any contractor’s methods of determining bid prices, or over competitive bidding, market, or negotiating conditions. Accordingly, the NGF team does not warrant or represent that bids or negotiated prices will not vary from any project budget which may have been proposed, established or approved by the City or from any Statement of Probable Construction Cost or other cost estimate or evaluation prepared by the Golf Course Architect.
302
CC 10-17-2023
302 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 5 Blackberry Farm Golf Course
In this section NGF presents a summary narrative for Blackberry Farm Golf Course, comprising a brief synopsis of its history, golf course and facility overview, and our assessment of current golf course conditions.

HISTORY
The Blackberry Farm Golf Course occupies a portion of an old farm (160 acres) settled by Captain Elisha Stephens in 1848. Blackberry Farm, until 1991, was operated as a family-owned (Nelson Family) picnic facility for 37 years and over three generations. In 1991 Cupertino residents passed a 25-year bond measure to purchase the property. Today, this 33-acre recreational facility offers a creek-side park setting for family and group picnics, swimming pools, the 9-hole golf course and City offices.

The course was constructed in 1962 and was designed by Robert Muir Graves, a prominent California-based golf course architect. It was among the first designs in Graves’ career and is listed as a “Par-3 Course” in early accounts by Graves and other resources. It may be that holes were lengthened over the years in an attempt to achieve longer yardages and an increased par value.

Very little is reported to have been done to the course since the City acquired it. According to staff, only minor work has been done to repair and replace aging features and irrigation components. In recent years, work to Stevens Creek resulted in erection of barrier netting and small filtration basins along the western edges of the course. Additionally, a new maintenance facility was built by the City to replace an aging “garage” structure that had been used for maintenance operations dating to original farm and golf uses.

GOLF COURSE OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF FACILITIES
Course Overview
The 9-hole course has a back tee yardage of 1,544 yards and a par of 29. The two par-4 holes are quite short and barely meet USGA guidelines for the length of a par-4 golf hole. The course, with its two short par-4s, meets the technical definition of an “Executive length” course (e.g., one made up of at least one par-4 in addition to par-3 holes) but offers a very short total yardage (1,544 yards) from the back tees.

The course plays in a clockwise routing, with most holes oriented north/south. Hole corridors are tight with mature trees lining fairways. In terms of overall land use, the small footprint of the course - approximately 13.5 acres - equates to less than 1.3 acres per golf hole. This is extremely low as common acreage for even a par-3, 9-hole course is typically greater than 15 acres, or roughly 1.7 acres per golf hole.

Practice Facilities
Aside from a small practice putting green by the Hole No. 1, there are only “hitting cages” that may be used for instruction and warm-up. These structures are loosely configured and immediately adjacent to the green area for the Hole No. 9. The lack of quality practice areas and amenities that could attract new players and those interested in learning golf are all but absent. 303
CC 10-17-2023
303 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 6 Maintenance Facility
The maintenance building and yard are relatively new replacements for an old garage that had stored equipment. The new building is metal constructed and well-screened from view of golfers.

There are sanitary facilities, wash stations and typical appointments for a modern facility. The yard, while small, is adequate for the limited equipment and materials necessary to care for the course.

Storage bins for sand and landscape materials are undersized, which required double handling after loads of material are delivered.

On-course Restrooms
No restrooms are located on the course itself. The restrooms located in the maintenance building were configured to serve the public while playing golf. Due to the small footprint of the course and the short time it takes to play, new on-course restrooms are not considered mission critical.

Pro Shop and Grounds
The pro shop, staff office, storage, and restrooms are located on the lower level of a City-owned building near the first tee. The upper level houses the Blue Pheasant Restaurant, which has no affiliation with the golf course. Of important note is that the lower level lies within a designated floodplain. The parking lot was resurfaced and configured just prior to the issuance of the original NGF report in 2014. Today, the condition is fair and functional for its purpose. It still appears well lit and adequately serves the restaurant and golf uses. The pro shop building and parking lot are not part of the current study scope.

ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT GOLF COURSE CONDITIONS
The intent of this section is to provide a baseline of the current conditions and general deficiencies of Blackberry Farm Golf Course in order to provide context to the need for facility improvements. For a more detailed assessment of current conditions, organized by golf course component, please refer to Appendix A.

The existing golf facility (course only) has baseline deficiencies in the six areas discussed below. In evaluating the golf course, the criteria applied was to identify the minimum “baseline” remediation measures to render the facility (i) safe for public use; (ii) acceptable in terms of common “best practices” for municipal (public sector) golf facilities; (iii) compliant with ADA guidelines for public golf facilities; and (iv) partially restored in areas where ponds were abandoned and trees removed and/or lost to disease.

Current Conditions and General Deficiencies

1. Irrigation:

The entirety of the irrigation system was deemed to be in need of full replacement. This is consistent with previous findings. We note that no work, except nominal emergency repairs and replacements, have been made to the facility since NGF Consulting first consulted with the City in 2014. Our findings now are updated to reflect newer golf irrigation technologies, including better control systems and sprinkler nozzle technology. These newer technologies save water use and provide more efficient coverage and delivery of water to irrigated turf. In determining the baseline improvements for irrigation, we used similar specification assumptions to other public sector golf courses in the market.
304
CC 10-17-2023
304 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 7

2. Features (Tees and Greens):

Tees (surfaces and alignment) are past their useful life. All tees need to be leveled and aligned. As part of this work, nominal enlargement is anticipated as tees can, in many locations, be lowered slightly and therefore expanded in terms of their square footage.

Greens are all in need of re-construction as they are past their useful life. Rootzones are now approaching their 56th year of use and show decline, including an inability to drain properly and fully, and all surface areas have shrunk markedly to the point where the square footage is not conducive to the wear and tear through daily use. All greens are to be reconstructed to an adapted USGA standard of 12-inches of sand greensmix over 4-inches of washed gravel with 25-foot drain tile spacing. All outfall drainage at the newly constructed greens will be handled per best practices where water is dispersed back onto the course areas in appropriate out-of-play zones. Nominal enlargement is a part of the baseline work to restore green sizes closer to their original sizes and shapes.

3. Drainage:

Current areas of the course do not drain adequately. Some areas sheet-drain directly off turf areas and, instead, should be intercepted with appropriately located outfall points. Work performed along Stevens Creek has established catchment basins where surface drainage should ideally be collected and filtered before allowing to pass to the Stevens Creek watershed.

Note: While not part of the defined minimal repair scope, we recommend that baseline course renovation work include budget allowances for minimal drainage improvements to (i) collect water to prevent ponding; (ii) positive gravity drain lines to appropriate low points; and (iii) the aforementioned collection at existing low points where proper filtration can be achieved.

4. Safety (refer to Appendix B Exhibit, “Minimum Safety Set-Backs”):

The existing course layout includes golf hole lengths and orientations that are too close to one another. In some areas golf holes are too close to adjoining property, including both park (Cityowned) areas and neighboring private property. We note that the suggested remediation measures are not costed into the Minimal Repairs improvement plan.

Forrest Richardson, ASGCA is a noted authority on golf course safety and minimum standards applied to the layout and configuration of golf holes with regard to on-course uses and adjoining property uses. He is the author of five books on golf course architecture, including Routing the Golf Course (John Wiley & Sons, 2001) which contains a full chapter on safety issues and considerations. For Blackberry Farm GC, Mr. Richardson has provided remediation recommendations to only the most pressing areas as shown on the accompanying Appendix B exhibit. The criteria applied in this case is described below in each area where Mr. Richardson determined an absolute mitigation must be made. Other areas of concern remain apart from those listed and may be reviewed in the NGF consulting report dated December, 2014.

Area A: The tee shot at Hole No. 1 is ±186 yards. A typical required minimum safety set-back to both sides the nominal center line is calculated at .8 x the yardage, expressed in feet (186 x .8 = 148.8 feet). This dimension is shown on the exhibit. “A” references the primary area of concern, which is the tee of Hole No. 9. To the left of Hole No. 1 is private property where errant balls regularly fall. Because this area is a steep hillside and generally unused, it is assumed to be an existing condition without high priority to be mitigated.

The Minimum Improvement Exhibit proposes a new tee surface for the tee realignment and renovation work. This minor adjustment will shift a percentage of play forward to reduce set-back requirements. Hole No. 9 tee should also be relocated out of Hole No. 1 required set-back zone and align with the new location of Hole No. 9 green described in (E) and (F). 305
CC 10-17-2023
305 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 8 Area B: This area represents conflicts with the tee shot from Hole No. 1 to the tee at Hole No. 2.

The area “B” is within the anticipated shot zone of Hole No. 1.

Area C: The tee shot at Hole No. 2 involves a full “driver” shot for a predominance of players. At ±220-yards there should be no less than 160-feet to both sides of the nominal center line of play. “C” represents an area on private property where balls fall. This area, despite being a steep hillside and elevated above the golf course, does contain some degree of residential improvements that fall within the range of the minimum set-back. The set-back zone is very close to single family homes.

The Minimum Improvement Exhibit proposes relocating the Hole No. 2 tee away from the Hole No. 1 set-back zone. Shifting the tee also angles play away from the property line to improve the conditions described in (B) and (C) above.

Area D: The tee shot at Hole No. 4 involves a full “driver” shot for a predominance of players. At ±220-yards there should be no less than 160 feet to both sides of the nominal center line of play. “D” represents a conflict area to the left with the existing tees at Hole No. 5.

The Minimum Improvement Exhibit proposes relocating the Hole No. 4 tee away from the Hole No. 2 set-back zone. Shifting the tee also angles play away from Hole Nos. 5 and 6 to lessen the impact on their respective set-back zones. The tee on Hole No. 5 should also be relocated away from Hole No. 4 set-back zone and can become part of the lowland habitat restoration of the abandoned pond.

Finally, small-scale, localized cut and fill practices are required and reflected in the cost assumptions.

New poles and netting also need consideration between Hole Nos. 4, 5, and 6. Placement of nets will require further study based on ball trajectory and tee location adjustments. Implementing new or retaining existing netting and poles should occur left of Hole Nos. 7, 8, and 9.

Area E: The tee shot at Hole No. 9 is ±188 yards. A typical required minimum safety set-back to both sides the nominal center line is calculated at .8 x the yardage, expressed in feet. (188 x .8 = 150.4 feet). This dimension is shown on the exhibit. “E” references the primary area of concern which is the tee of Hole No. 1 and golfers staging before beginning their rounds.

Area F: Represents the parking and public areas north of Hole Nos. 1 and 9 that are impacted by the set-back behind Hole No. 9’s tee shot.

The Minimum Improvement Exhibit proposes shifting and reconstructing the Hole No. 9 green to relocate further South to mitigate safety set-backs to Hole No. 1 tees and the parking lot. In addition, the City can convert the old Hole No. 9 green to become a short game practice area with adjacent netting hitting bays.

Area X: Represents golf holes that are too close to neighboring park uses and trails, yet have been mitigated with screening, fences and/or netting. “J-fence” has been used successfully along the trail spans to protect trail users. Netting on higher poles has been used in other locations, but with limited success. In many areas netting has deteriorated. In other instances, it is not high enough to fully contain shots. These areas (“X”) are specifically removed from study as the City indicates that replacement screening will be handled under separate contracts and work.

The minimum remediation measures outlined above and shown on the exhibit are only representative of the absolute measures identified by Mr. Richardson that the City should undertake to make the facility safer than it is presently. We recommend that a more comprehensive trajectory and errant ball study be performed prior to the City renovating the facility, and prior to investing in new, replacement screening. Such study will yield whether additional absolute measures are appropriate.

Additional Safety Note: Installing Netting to Protect the Hole No. 6 Tee Box from Errant Shots on Hole No. 4
306
CC 10-17-2023
306 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 9 The installation of nets between Hole Nos. 4 and 6, as proposed by the City under the Minimal Repairs improvement plan, does not adequately address existing set-back conflicts between Hole Nos. 4, 5 and 6. As shown on the safety exhibit, Hole No. 5 tees are in conflict with the tee shot at Hole No. 4. This is in addition to conflicts with the Hole No. 6 tees.

Poles and netting will not mitigate the overall safety issue between these three golf holes, as the elevated tees at Hole No. 4 in relationship to the other holes (and tees) is such that ball trajectory from Hole No. 4 would require poles ≥130-feet in height at the most northern area. This height is impractical and cost-prohibitive. The $172,000 probable cost estimate amount (Line Item 4.0) represents only poles and netting to address protection of Hole No. 6 tees from Hole No. 4, and does not address the full safety issue.

The best practices recommendation is to try and avoid any use of poles and netting and, in lieu of these vertical structures, to shift tees at Hole Nos. 4 and 5, nominally shortening both holes. This approach is anticipated to cost less than the investment of pole and netting, but will require further study and cost estimating to confirm. NGF Consulting does not recommend the mitigation measure as shown in the Probable Cost Estimate. The $172,000 should be retained and applied toward the recommended best practices mitigation as described.

5. ADA Compliance (Golf Course Only):

The golf course must have accessible tees and greens that are able to be accessed by a standard golf cart. In many locations there is (i) no path near to tees or greens; (ii) too steep of a grade for access; and/or (iii) impediments between a logical parking area and the tee or green. Additionally, all practice greens and any warm-up area must be fully accessible via a path from the clubhouse area.

Our area of focus is on the golf course itself. To mitigate these conditions as noted, the approach assumed in the renovation/re-construction scope will be to create logical parking areas for a standard golf car (cart) at each tee and green with removal of any existing curbing, edge material, hedge or steps. Exceptions at tees may include steeper areas where steps or paths need to remain, but only in the event that an alternate tee is provided.

For the purposes of this report, we have generally included ADA mitigation measures within the probable cost estimate. It should be assumed that some mitigation measures are facilitated by the rebuilding of tees and greens, and that the new warm-up practice area would be constructed with ADA compliance in mind.

6. Habitat Restoration (Trees, Old Pond Areas):

Minimal work is proposed under the minimal repair approach, with only certain areas to be considered. These include removal of tree stumps and roots - primarily for safety and efficient maintenance access and practices - and restoration of the abandoned pond areas with appropriate hydroseeding/planting, slope stabilization and drainage. 307
CC 10-17-2023
307 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 10 Changes to Hole No. 9 and Practice Area
The proposal for minimal improvements included changes to the areas of the property occupying Hole No. 9 and the practice facility. The need for expanded practice facilities and efficient use of space can be realized through aligning the practice area hitting bays with proximity to the parking lot.

Shortening Hole No. 9 frees up space to provide a short game development area between the 9th green and eight (8) hitting bays. The spatial arrangement also has the potential to reduce the probability of golf balls leaving the course and entering the parking lot, thus improving one of the most bothersome safety concerns on the property.
308
CC 10-17-2023
308 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 11 Blackberry Farm Golf Course “Minimal
Repairs” Improvement Costs
Based on our analyses of the Blackberry Farm Golf Course and irrigation options, the NGF team has developed construction cost estimates for the golf course assuming the “Minimal Repairs” scope, as defined by the City in 2021. We have also analyzed the potential efficacy and feasibility of reactivating BFGC’s on-site well and converting the irrigation source from potable to well water. Summary findings follow.

COST ESTIMATES – MINIMAL REPAIRS SCENARIO
The method for evaluating the golf course and developing the improvement plan cost estimates involved multiple site visits as well as interviews with key staff charged with caring for and operating the property. Additional data, both provided by the City and secured independently, was used to ascertain the general maintenance needs and necessary improvements.

Additionally, the consultant team referenced the goals outlined in Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan, February 2020 to ascertain whether the minimal improvements to Blackberry Farm aligned well with the same goals.

Pricing Methodology
The NGF team consulted with leading golf course and utilities contractors, suppliers, and golf course owners who have recently executed projects to arrive at updated pricing for the various line items included herein. Consulting team member Richardson | Danner combined the above with their own recent experience bidding projects throughout the Bay Area and West Coast to arrive at sampling of reasonable costs appropriate for the scope of work at Blackberry Farm GC.

Rising inflation rates, combined with increased material demands, shortages of qualified labor, complicated shipping and logistics, and the overall demand for golf course construction services are all significant factors that have contributed to a significant rise in pricing in recent years. In 2022, contractors are very busy, and some are completely booked through 2023.

Cost Estimates
The NGF shows cost estimates for the “Minimal Repairs” improvement scope for Blackberry Farm Golf Course on the following pages. The total cost for the minimal repairs as defined by the City of Cupertino ranges from approximately $1.8 million dollars to $2.7 million dollars, depending on whether the City pursues reactivation of the well. 309
CC 10-17-2023
309 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 12 BLACKBERRY FARM GOLF COURSE - Probable Cost Estimate - Minimal Repair Scope Quantity Unit Cost

1.0 REPLACING THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM (Potable Option)

1.1 Mobilization LS 25,000.00 $ 25,000

1.2 Valve-in-head sprinkler with swing joint 340 EA 475.00 161,500

1.3 Non-valve-in-head 3/4" rotor sprinkler with swing joint 60 EA 125.00 7,500

1.4 2" Isolation Valve with saddle and Valve box 64 EA 350.00 22,400

1.5 1" Quick Coupling Valve 26 EA 150.00 3,900

1.6 Central Computer and Communication Interface 1 EA 25,000.00 25,000

1.7 Solar Weather Station 1 EA 10,000.00 10,000

1.8 1-1/2" Remote Control Valve with box 16 EA 350.00 5,600

1.9 1" Remote Control Valve (DRIP) with box 45 EA 500.00 22,500

1.10 Square head Gate Valve with box 15 EA 650.00 9,750

1.11 4-6" PVC Main line with fittings 5,600 LF 40.00 224,000

1.12 3" PVC Lateral (sub-main) with fittings 1,100 LF 8.00 8,800

1.13 2" PVC Lateral (sub-main) with fittings 13,500 LF 6.00 81,000

1.14 Air Vent/vacuum relief 0 EA 1,000.00 -

1.15 #12 TWO WIRE CABLE 20,000 LF 1.50 30,000

1.16 6" Backflow LS 7,500.00 7,500

1.17 Salvage sprinklers, QCV's and Controllers LS 10,000.00 10,000

1.18 Performance Bond LS 4,604.50 4,605

1.19 Contingency (5%) LS 23,252.73 23,253
$ 682,308

1.20 ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR WELL WATER OPTION

1.21 Existing Well Activation (Assumes new pump, drop pipe and controls) (Further Study Required) LS $ 35,000

1.22 Rework Existing Delivery Line(s) LS 37,000

1.23 Water Tank (30,000 gal.) & 20-ft Wood Structure LS 750,000

1.24 Utility Allowance LS 20,000

1.25 Booster Pump LS 90,000

1.26 Water Tank Engineering LS 20,000
$ 952,000

2.0 REPLACING THE EMPTY PONDS WITH LOWLAND NATIVE AREAS

2.1 Grubbing / Turf Eradication 1.05 AC 2,000.00 $ 2,100

2.2 Native Area Hydroseeding & Tackifier 1.05 AC 10,890.00 11,435 $ 13,535

3.0 REPLACING TEES AND GREENS AS NEEDED

3.1 Grubbing / Turf Eradication (Green and Tee Sites All 9 Holes Plus Practice Green) 1.32 AC 2,000.00 $ 2,640

3.2 Rough Grading (Green and Tee Sites All 9-Holes Plus Practice Green) 7,000 CY 5.25 36,750

3.3 Topsoil Management LS 5,000

3.4 Feature Shaping (Tees & Greens) LS 40,050

3.5 Tee Construction (New Const. / Finish Work) 24,775 SF 3.00 74,325

3.6 Green Construction (New Const. / Modified USGA & Finish Work) 32,700 SF 8.42 275,334

3.8 Soil Amendments & Fertilizers 1.32 AC 1,000.00 1,320

3.9 Hydro-sprigging (Tees) 0.57 AC 10,890.00 6,207

3.10 Sod Allowance 5,000 SF 0.55 2,750

3.11 Seed Greens Surfaces 32,700 SF 0.60 19,620

3.12 Grow-In LS 20,000
$ 483,996
310
CC 10-17-2023
310 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 13

4.0 INSTALLING NETTING TO PROTECT HOLE #6 TEE BOX FROM ERRANT SHOTS ON HOLE #4

4.1 New Netting Between Hole Nos. 4 and 6 LS 1.00 $ 172,000 $ 172,000

5.0 SHORTENING THE 9TH HOLE

5.1 Green and Tee Construction for this item included in 3.0 above NA NA $ -

5.2 Grubbing / Turf Eradication for Green Relocation 0.30 AC 2,000.00 600

5.3 Rough Grading for Non-Green Area 500 CY 5.25 2,625

5.4 Topsoil Management for Non-Green Area LS 1,500

5.5 Soil Amendments & Fertilizers 0.30 AC 1,000.00 300

5.6 Hydro-sprigging (Fairways & Roughs) 0.30 AC 10,890.00 3,267

5.7 Grow-In LS 1,500

5.8 Practice Hitting Bays Flipped (Steel Poles w/Netting & Artificial Matts) 8 bays 10,000.00 80,000 $ 89,792

6.0 STEPS OR TERRACING TO ADDRESS ADA (Golf Course Only)

6.1 Tee Construction related to this item included above in 3.0 NA NA $ - Grubbing / Turf Eradication for Grading 0.2 AC 2,000.00 400 Rough Grading to Create Walkable Slope to Tees 350 CY 5.25 1,838 Topsoil Management for Non-Tee Area LS 550
Soil Amendments & Fertilizers 0.20 AC 1,000.00 200
Hydro-sprigging (Roughs) 0.2 AC 10,890.00 2,178
Grow-In LS 1,000
$ 6,166

7.0 TREE MANAGEMENT

7.1 Stump Removal 17 500.00 $ 8,500
$ 8,500

8.0 PROFESSIONAL FEES

8.1 Golf Course Architectural/Civil Engineering (Allowance) LS $ 250,000

8.2 Project Management LS 75,000

8.3 Permits LS 10,000

8.4 Well Permit Fees NIC n/a
$ 335,000
GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (Potable Option) $1,791,297 CONTINGENCY (10%) $ 179,130
GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (Well Water Option) $2,743,297 CONTINGENCY (10%) $ 274,330

9.0 Alternate - Bunkers

9.1 Bunker Construction (New Const. / Drainage & Finish Work) 14,400 SF 7.4 $ 106,560 Probable cost estimate is based on conceptual planning prepared as of this date. Environmental mitigation and/or consulting is not calculated in the above estimates. Unforeseen conditions, additional utility work, prolonged work due to seasonal conditions and revenue losses during closure are not a part of the probable cost estimate. Prepared 02-03-22, 16:11 LS – Lump Sum; EA – Each; LF – Linear Feet; AC – Acreage; CY – Cubic Yard; NA – Not Appliable; SF - Square Feet 311
CC 10-17-2023
311 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 14 Irrigation and Water Source Conversion
Irrigation of the Golf Course is a critical and costly element of the ongoing operation of the golf course. In order to provide forecasts for water use and cost, NGF Consulting worked with Russell D. Mitchell & Associates (“RDMA”), who previously completed a redesign of the irrigation system for Blackberry Farm Golf Course.

CURRENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Irrigation of the Golf Course is a critical and costly element of the ongoing operation of the golf course. Blackberry Farm Golf Course has approximately 12.5 acres of irrigatable land. When constructed in 1962 the golf course was irrigated with use of a nearby shallow well and a storage tank with gravity-fed pipes. This kept cost for irrigation relatively low. In the early 2000’s, due to failure of the storage tank, the City converted the system to potable water use. In the original construction the use of a hydraulic system for control of individual sprinkles made the system relatively inefficient by today’s standards.

In 2011 the City hired Russell D Mitchell & Associates (RDMA) to provide a preliminary design for replacement of the existing irrigation system to improve efficiency and effectiveness of use irrigation. The new design was intended to irrigate the entire 12.5 acres while reducing water use by 20%-25%. That project was put on hold due to the ongoing studies associated with the overall Steven Creek Corridor Master Plan and potential renovations of the Golf Course.

Regardless, in 2014 the City decided to replace the hydraulic control system with a batteryoperated control system. The battery-operated system installed improved irrigation efficiency considerably.

Over the past several years the state of California has experienced statewide drought conditions and has required municipalities to restrict water use. San Jose Water (SJW) utilizes Rule 14.1 - Water Shortage Contingency Plan to regulate water use at the municipal level. Generally, golf courses are exempt from these restrictions until Drought Stage 4 is reached. However, the City has included Blackberry Farm Golf Course in ongoing implementation of water use limitations.

In 2014 the City started placing water use limitations for the golf course. Table 1 - Irrigation Water Use Pre-2014 and Post-2014 below indicates average water use for the years just prior to 2014 and from 2014 through 2021.

Table 1 – Irrigation Water Use Pre-2014 and Post-2014
Year Range Average Annual Water Use
2008 through 2013 15.9 million gallons
2014 through 2021 8.5 million gallons
Utilizing the combination of the improvement to the irrigation control system and drought wateruse limitations, on average, the City reduced water use to 53% of pre-2014 levels. These reductions were achieved with an irrigation system that is well past its useful life. One primary method used to reduce water use has been to reduce the total acreage of turf being watered.

During some operational periods nearly 1/3 of all irrigation heads were turned off. This tends to lead to browning of large areas of the golf course turf. Yet, more can be done to decrease water use for the golf course.
312
CC 10-17-2023
312 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 15 The irrigation system is 60 years old and has outlived its useful life. There are multiple mainline pipe breaks per year and lateral pipes break on a weekly basis. The infrastructure is outdated and deteriorating. Irrigation system replacement parts are not available and repairs require creative solutions to keep the system operational.

CURRENT WATER USE AND FUTURE PROJECTIONS
The average annual water use between 2014 and 2021 was 8.5 million gallons versus of 15.9 million gallons prior to 2014. Currently, that level of water reduction is primarily being met by reducing turf irrigated. The irrigation regime varies annually based on weather, drought restrictions, and system limitations. As the City explores water saving options updating and improving the irrigation system is critical. The City anticipates the need to reduce irrigated acreage during designated drought periods. A new irrigation system will give the City opportunity to more efficiently use allotted water to provide a better golfing experience.

Table 2 – Water Use Projections with New Irrigation System - summarizes water use projections if a new irrigation system is installed. Total water use will vary based on operational decisions made by the City. In periods when no drought conditions exist the entire 12.5 acres may be irrigated. In periods of water-use restrictions irrigated acreage may be reduced.

Currently, the City anticipates removing up to 3.0 acres from the irrigation regime in times of drought restrictions.

RDMA used the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) method to calculate future water use projects using different amounts of irrigated acreage.

Table 2 – Water Use Projections with New Irrigation System Projected
Irrigated Acres
Total
Reduction in
Irrigated Acres
Projected
Annual Water
Use (ETWU)
(gallons)
Percentage
Reduction in
Water Use Vs
Irrigating Full

12.5 Acres
Percentage
Change from
Post-2014
Average of

8.5M Gallons

12.5 0.0

8,825,050 0% 4% More

11.5 1.0

8,119,046 8% 4% Less

10.5 2.0

7,413,042 16% 13% Less

9.5 3.0

6,707,038 24% 21% Less
Note: ETWU = (Acres*Acre-In *Eto*PF)/IE. To calculate ETWU RDMA assumed an average Annual Evapotranspiration Rate (ETo) of 30 inches, a Plant Factor (PF) of

0.65%, and an Irrigation Efficiency (IE) of 75%.
313
CC 10-17-2023
313 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 16

WATER SOURCE CONVERSION TO WELL
The NGF team also analyzed the logistics and cost feasibility of reactivating the on-site well at BFGC. A well located nearby the golf course is the original source of irrigation. The analysis includes professional opinion on what is needed structurally to restore and revitalize the existing well for use as the golf course irrigation source. This scope includes a preliminary cost estimate to reactivate the well, as well as a comparison of annual operating costs for use of potable water vs well water as the irrigation source at Blackberry Farm GC.

Current water use has averaged 26 acre-feet per year since 2014 (1 a.f. = 326,000 gal. x 26 = 8,476,000 gal./yr.). This estimated is based on actual water usage data from the water department. Roughly 8.5 million gallons are now a baseline in terms of water use at the current facility. According to the Balance Hydrologics well report (test performed November 2012) provided by the City, the existing and available well is likely to produce up to160 GPM or 67,200 gallons during a 7-hour watering window. The well will produce more if the watering window is expanded.

Daily Water Use Estimate – Average Summer Day
To utilize the existing well and provide adequate water for the 12.5 acres of turf on a hot summer day, we estimate it will require approximately 91,000 gals. per day. Therefore, to irrigate the course with well water a reservoir capable of holding the difference between the ETWU and what the well can produce during the irrigation watering window (91,000 – 67,200 = 23,800 gals.) will be required. If the watering window were extended to 8 hours from the 7 hours, the storage reservoir could be smaller. If the course continues to be irrigated by City potable water, no reservoir is required.

Conclusion: A 30,000-gallon storage reservoir is required to accommodate this turf footprint with well water. A potable connection with level controls will be required as a backup for makeup water or if the well is not operational for maintenance. We estimate 10% of the total water usage during the summer months will be potable water.

Note: Fall is a good time to have a well consultant perform a new pump test, but only to determine what maximum GPM could be obtained. With dry years experienced recently, this would be a prudent course of action for the City. We point out that the 160 GPM was not actually pumped but was calculated from a test at 50 GPM. NGF Consulting recommends the City undertake this updated testing in concert with other due diligence of well fees, groundwater use fees, verification of well reactivation requirements and costs, etc.

To properly irrigate by applying the appropriate percentage of ETo (i.e., greatly reduce or eliminate browning of the turf) at a higher efficiency over the 12.5 acres of turf, RDMA estimates the water use with a new system to be 8,825,000 gal./yr., as illustrated in Table 2. This is a 4% increase in total water usage per year but the uniformity of the distribution of water over the entire site will be greatly increased and more efficient.

Additional Discussion on Benefits/Efficiency of New System We preface this discussion by reiterating that the primary reason to replace the current irrigation system is that the system is past its useful life. The current system will only continue to deteriorate. Installation of a new system will also increase the efficiency of the system on a peracre-irrigated basis. The existing irrigation system requires frequent repairs that redirect resources from other maintenance needs and provides inadequate coverage and playing conditions, likely resulting in lost revenues. (See Appendix A discussion relative to current condition). Even the current golf course turf condition is acceptable to the City, the point at which the irrigation system becomes unusable is approaching. (Think of replacing components / 314
CC 10-17-2023
314 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 17 appliances of a home or car). If the City is committed to continuing to offer affordable golf as a recreation activity to its residents, the irrigation system will soon need to be replaced.

Numerous factors contribute to the potential efficiency of a new irrigation system in comparison to the existing system being replaced. However, without understanding precisely how much water (plus labor and material resources) is being wasted from breakages, pipe and head leaks, equipment failures, and ongoing repairs under the existing system, it becomes difficult to quantify the potential savings from a new system. At Blackberry Farm GC, we are confident that using the same amount of water that has been used historically or less will result in better conditions.

In addition to less waste from maintenance problems and costs associated with older parts, the benefits of a new irrigation system include:
• Better coverage
• More uniform distribution
• More efficient head layout with better distribution
• Increased precision and control for the operator (more targeted watering):
▪ Easier to single out and address problem areas rather than having to switch on/off an entire zone
▪ Automatic runtimes and water scheduling allows less wasted water The existing turf at Blackberry Farm GC is a relatively high consumer of water in the context of maintaining an acceptable playing surface. Our data and calculations tell us that not enough water is currently being distributed based on the ETo and Plant Factor to achieve a specific result. Our expert opinion is that with the same amount of water (~8.5 million gallons) currently being used, BFGC will achieve improved conditions with a new system due to the factors discussed above. Still, the cost does not change because the quantity of water is approximately the same when irrigating the full 12.5 acres. Decreased water usage and potential cost savings relative to post-2015 levels can be seen when irrigating less than 12 acres of turf. 315
CC 10-17-2023
315 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 18

WELL REACTIVATION ESTIMATED COSTS
To reactivate the on-site well for conversion from potable water to well water as an irrigation source, new infrastructure and additional testing will be required to confirm the costs and assumptions.

Estimated Well Reactivation Costs
The new infrastructure required to reactivate the well will include but not be limited to the following items:
• Well upgrades
• New electrical meter
• Storage tank
• Booster pump
• New piping from well to storage tank
• New piping from potable source to storage tank with controls Well Upgrades: Depending on the condition of the well but assuming the well casing is usable, we estimate the cost to install a new pump, drop pipe and controls will be $35,000.

Electric Meter: We are assuming the electrical service to the well is sufficient, but a new electrical service/meter will be required to service the booster pump located at the storage tank.

We estimate the new meter to be $20,000.

Storage Tank: Depending on which improvement plan is ultimately chosen for the golf course, the size of the tank and required footprint will vary. We have included a place holder cost due to the tank being installed on a tower. Based on a 30,000-gallon tank and 20’ wood structure, the estimated cost is $750,000.

Booster Pump: A booster pump will be required at the tank locations to provide sufficient pressure to operate the irrigation system. We estimate this booster pump will cost $90,000.

New Piping (from existing well to tank): If the existing pipe from the well is deemed unusable, a new fill line with controls will be required from the well to the tank location. Due to the location of the existing well, it will be difficult to get the fill line around all existing buildings and hardscape. The length of this fill line could be 300-600 linear ft depending on the tank location.

We estimate the cost to install this pipe will cost between $15,000 and $27,000.

Potable backup source and controls to tank: The storage tank will require a potable backup with an air gap and level controls for makeup water or if the well is down for maintenance. A new line from the backflow to the tank with controls will cost $10,000.

Preliminary Estimated Hard Costs to Reactivate BFGC Well

6.0 Irrigation

6.1 Existing Well Activation* LS $35,000

6.2 Rework Existing Delivery Line(s) LS $37,000

6.3 Water Tank (30,000 gal.) & 20-ft Wood Structure LS $750,000

6.5 Utility Allowance LS $20,000

6.6 Booster Pump LS $90,000
Total $932,000
*Assumes new pump, drop pipe and controls (further study required) 316
CC 10-17-2023
316 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 19 Irrigation Cost Comparison – Potable vs. Well
Based on water usage data provided by the city, we analyzed the cost of potable water from 2015 through 2020. The average yearly cost of potable water was $62,176. The same usage with well water would cost the City $39,489, resulting in annual savings of ±$22,700. Since the potable water meter will still be in service as a backup the monthly cost of the water meter will still be incurred. We estimate this cost to be $400 to $500 per month for a yearly cost of at least $4,800.

The well water will require electrical costs for the two pumps (well and booster) We estimate the two pumps will cost roughly $6,000 per year in electrical costs. The City should set aside an additional $2,000 per year in maintenance of these pumps. Other factors being equal, and using the low end of the estimated monthly cost for the water meter, the net annual savings on water costs for the well vs. potable (based on inputs above, valid as of late 2021) after these operational costs are factored in would be ±$9,900 per year (2022 dollars):

Annual Cost - Well Water vs. Potable Water
Annual Savings - Well Water ± $22,700
Operational Costs:

Potable Water Meter $4,800
Electrical $6,000
Maintenance $2,000
Net Annual Savings ±$9,900
We note that at the time of this report, NGF has not received updated monthly water meter charge figures for the potable water meter to remain in service. Therefore, we have assumed the $400 to $500 as stated above. We do know that the potable water at the BFGC uses the same meter as the irrigation. As a result, the potable water rate is higher than the irrigation rate, meaning the City is paying more than necessary for golf course irrigation water.

NGF has a call into the water department to obtain general costs by meter size. At the time of this report, no further information has been received. San Jose Water Company has stated that a new separate meter could cost around $30,000 for 4-inch meter installed. Adding a new smaller potable water meter to separate the irrigation from potable water may be required.

Additionally, the City may be paying sewer fees based on water usage on the current meter.

Therefore, NGF recommends having two meters. As per the 2015 State Water Ordinance, all irrigation must be separately metered from the potable water if there is more than 5,000 square feet of planting.

Conclusion – Economics of Conversion from Potable to Well Earlier, we estimated the total infrastructure costs to implement the well system will be about $930,000. Annual irrigation expense savings, based on current assumptions and inputs, were estimated to be ±$9,900. Therefore, the ‘payback’ period for this investment is about 94 years even longer when considering present value of the future savings. 317
CC 10-17-2023
317 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 20 Summary Benefits of Undertaking Minimal
Improvements for BFGC
The City of Cupertino should realize operational benefits by pursuing a minimal repair improvement plan that addresses only the irrigation, empty ponds, tees, greens, netting on hole nos. 4 and 6, hole no. 9 and driving net, and tee accessibility. Updated and expanded practice areas will also attract golfers and facilitate new player development and other programming opportunities. Additionally, the rehabilitated golf course will be more efficient to maintain. And, these benefits do not consider the potential “cost of doing nothing” that could result from the further deferral of facility improvements.

COST EFFICIENCIES
Areas where NGF Consulting sees a potential to reduce or reprioritize costs associated with the golf facilities include:
• Reduce managed turf footprint (to save on water cost and focus maintenance effort) • Replace aging irrigation infrastructure (to reduce annual costs on emergency repairs) • Create more efficient circulation through addressing accessibility needs on the golf course itself
• Replace aging tees and greens for better performance to reduce downtime during wet or inclement weather
• Address safety issues where possible given the existing layout and configuration • Update practice facilities to help attract customers and develop new golfers

ENVIRONMENTAL ORIENTATION
Improving the golf course as presented orients Blackberry Farm GC to a more naturalized landscape. The additional benefit is a more pleasing aesthetic, and one that corresponds better to the natural areas of the Stevens Creek Valley. Additionally, enhancements to upgrade the golf course will greatly reduce or eliminate regularly occurring, but unanticipated repairs that cost the city resources. Updating the infrastructure, especially drainage and irrigation related items creates a more sustainable asset with lower expense and resources required for upkeep.

CONGRUENCE WITH PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN GOALS
Minimal repairs to the golf course will go a long way with aligning the facilities to the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan environmental goals, especially as it relates to conservation and sustainability. Advances in technology throughout the golf world have provided better options for conserving our natural resources. The most important resource in this case is water. The current irrigation system is old and inefficient. But upgrading to a newer system with smart technology, on demand metrics, diagnostics and more environmentally friendly materials in general, will allow the City to have better control over their water use and the costs associated with irrigating turfgrass in California.

REPLACING EMPTY PONDS WITH NATIVE LOWLAND LANDSCAPE
As of early 2022, the former pond is serving the purpose of dry detention. The former pond has been overtaken by the establishment of a variety of grasses and weeds, and resembles more of 318
CC 10-17-2023
318 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 21 a dry basin. Further work needs to be done to specify a more appropriate mix of wildflowers and/or native plant material to realize full environmental benefit. By converting the old pond areas to biofiltration basins, less water is required and maintenance can be aimed at greens, tees and playable areas of turf. Converting this area into a native lowland landscape is considered in the updated probable cost estimates.

These images depict potential “before” and “after” comparisons from the original 2014 report, showing the conversion of the old pond area to a natural “meadow” lowland area. While this specific view shows the conceptual view of Hole No. 8, it is also indicative of the transformation in landscape that could also be facilitated through turf reduction and native area establishment under the Minimal Repairs improvement plan.

NGF CONCLUSION
The consultant team concludes that the scope of work outlined under a minimal repair scope aligns very well with the City’s Master Plan goals, specifically as it relates to:
• Conservation
• Tree management
• The creation of lowland plant communities
• A reduced turf footprint
• More efficient use of water
All of these outcomes support the functionality of Cupertino’s natural environment and in a recreational setting for people to enjoy. The way golf courses are designed, built, and managed has evolved over time to better consider habitat needs. More than ever, ecology and sustainability are built into the process of creating any golf facility.

Through the enhancement of access to tees and other golf features and addressing ADA issues throughout the facilities, Blackberry Farm Golf Course becomes much more equitable in its accessibility for the public.

The minimal repair scope is certainly one way to revitalize and improve the quality of a public asset that would become much more usable for everyone. Better conditioning, turf performance and visual appeal all contribute to polishing a long-standing community asset. 319
CC 10-17-2023
319 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 22 Appendices
Appendix A – Assessment of Golf Course Components
Appendix B – Minimum Safety Set-Backs Exhibit
Appendix C – Miscellaneous Exhibits
320
CC 10-17-2023
320 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 23 APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT OF GOLF COURSE COMPONENTS
Tees: In general, tees are in poor condition and are crowned (i.e., are not level.) Turf suffers from over-shading due to proximity of trees, and tree density (i.e., overplanting). Drainage appears non-existent with native soils likely forming the tee subgrades. Even though tees have been rebuilt occasionally, the extremely small sizes create constant wear and they simply cannot keep up with the use. As of 2022, it appears that even more usable space has been lost, particularly, at the 8th hole where the entire right half of the tee has been abandoned. This is especially problematic because Hole No. 8 is a par-3, enduring short iron shots.

Tees also do not offer yardage flexibility to the degree necessary to serve golfers of varying abilities. The yardage difference between the back tees and the forward tees is just 134-yards, an average of 15 yards per hole. Developing new tees for shorter forward yardages encourages more new players, young players and senior players, and can have the effect of promoting more play from tee yardages appropriate to individual skill level.

During the site visits, we observed that a few tees, most notably on Holes #2 and #3, have ADA access issues. Some customers struggle to navigate the steeper embankment leading up to these tees. At minimum, accessibility should be reinstated through softening the embankments or providing steps up to tees. However, steps may also be problematic depending on the needs of the individual. The location of these areas is shown in Appendix C, Exhibit 2.

Fairways and Roughs: Turf quality is average-to-poor, with shaded areas being in the worst condition. In recent years, the City has tried to address this through in-house tree removal.

However, as of 2022, seventeen (17) stumps ranging from 18 inches to 36 inches remain in place. Turf conditions beyond the root structure seem to be improved, but not still cannot be considered up to high standard. Drainage is lacking at points where natural grades do not convey water to low areas and the few drains installed on the course. Turf is a variety of Bermudagrass, ryegrass and kikuyugrass. Some small patches of fescue-type turf and hearty bentgrass (likely left over from original greens planting) can also be found. Compounding turf conditions is the antiquated irrigation system that delivers poor coverage, inefficient irrigation pressure, and is a constant source of leaks and breaks.

Greens: Greens are very small with poa annua, an acceptable greens “turf” that overtakes bentgrass, especially in the Bay Area region. Where the greens are not in excess shade, the surfaces are acceptable. There are significant patches of poor quality, which is likely the result of multiple factors: poor irrigation, shade, age and size. In terms of size, the greens are extremely small and do not heal from day-to-day when the course is busy. Greens for a course of this length (with many short shots played from tees that are hit high and cause deeper ball marks) should be as much as three times (3x) the size of the greens presently managed.

Greens are reported to be original and were likely built on native soils with only a nominal volume of sand mixed to available soils. Considering the age and other factors, the conditions are “good.” The overall quality is well below what can be attained with new, replaced rootzones and modern drainage systems. (Note: The No. 3 green was rebuilt in recent years and is, as a result, in better condition than others.)
Bunkers: Sand bunkers, of which there are nine (9) in total, are well past their expected lifecycle. Sand has been added to bunkers throughout the years, which amounts to the only significant care they have received. Adding sand causes the floors to rise up and eventually become elevated in relationship to green surfaces. This “volcano” effect is not only a poor aesthetic, but it sends a signal that the course has been neglected. In most climates sand bunkers get new sand replaced every 2-3 years with infrastructure (drainage and subgrades) renovated every 7-10 years. According to staff there has been no work to sand bunkers (except 321
CC 10-17-2023
321 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 24 sand being added with occasional edging work) since the course was originally built in the 1960s.

Ponds: Originally the course had a series of ponds and streams that formed a water feature through the course. These ponds were filled with a manual valve from the creek. The ponds were taken out of service due to failure of a diversion structure between the source and the ponds. Additionally, the upper pond does not hold water due to porous soils. The ponds never served as an irrigation reservoir for the golf course, at least not in the past several decades.

While no detailed inspection of ponds was made by NGF Consulting, visual inspection shows soil cracking and conditions that tend to support potential leaks should they be refilled with water.

As of 2021, the former pond has been overtaken by the establishment of a variety of grasses and weeds and resembles more of a dry basin. While not currently serving any significant function, the landform presents an interesting feature on the golf course. Modern pond construction for soil types in this region would generally call for artificial liners such as HDPE plastic sheeting laid over a geotextile fabric. However, NGF is not recommending reconstruction of the ponds (i.e., lining) as we feel evaporation and resulting water cost would be counterproductive. Alternatively, we recommend conversion of the pond areas to a passive naturalized landscape that can serve the area with biofiltration (see below).

Irrigation System: No in-depth evaluation was made of the irrigation system. In general, the system is original to the c. 1960s course construction and has been held together with various patches, repairs and some newer equipment. A typical irrigation system in this region will last from 18 to 25 years. The Blackberry Farm GC system has now (tried) to outlive its intended lifecycle by nearly three-fold. The system is “hydraulic” controlled, a method of control that is now so old most turf suppliers no longer have personnel who have even heard of such technology. During our visits we observed hand-watering by the grounds crew in order to overcome this less-than-desirable system. The downside of such an older system is poor coverage (too much overlap or not enough), leaks, breaks and the constant vigilance by staff that takes their time and energy away from areas and maintenance that the public can see and appreciate more.

Cart Paths: The facility has 4 carts for patrons who are not able to walk the 9-hole course.

Where paths are present (at just a few locations) they are narrow and not configured well. There is little compliance with ADA guidelines in terms of curbing or access. The cart paths, where present, are showing their age with declining functionality for their intended purpose. In addition, carts are expected to navigate the hill between Hole Nos. 3 and 4. This slope and informal path are difficult for people to navigate on foot, let alone by cart. Ground moisture and muddy conditions can make this a challenge, further adding to the wear and tear on the golf course, but more importantly presenting a potential accessibility and safety issue for golfers and patrons. 322
CC 10-17-2023
322 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 25 The absence of cart paths in general means guidelines for accessible ingress/egress from golf features, use of accessible routes, and accommodation for alternative cart usage is poor. (Guidelines for accessible golf courses can found in the separate attached report titled “Accessible Golf Courses” by the United States Access Board).

Trees/Stumps: Trees form the landscape theme for Blackberry Farm GC. As noted, trees line all golf holes except where poles and netting have existed along with other park uses. Overall, trees are too prevalent and cause too much shade for turf to thrive and be healthy for golf uses.

Where shade is most pervasive, turf does not grow, and the ground is bare. Many trees are rootbound, with roots forming into a dense, tangled mass that occupies extensive playable turf area. Some exposed roots interfere with golfers, maintenance equipment, surface drainage, and irrigation. However, NGF notes that many trees are in decline. This condition is likely a result of aging trees, regional blight(s), and, in some areas, overcrowding where tree groupings are too close in proximity.

Where trees have been cut down, several stumps remain (see image below Appendix C, Exhibit 3). As of 2022, seventeen (17) sizable stumps remain, which has somewhat improved localized turf conditions. However, with stumps and root structure still intact, limiting the benefit to turf and golfer experience. If left in their current state some trees and/or the remaining stumps from removal may cause potential safety issues for golfers including but not limited to:
• If players hit their shot without being aware that persistent roots are just under the surface, they risk significant injury.
• Roots systems, if driven over, may cause loss of control with golf course or a tripping hazard for walkers.
323
CC 10-17-2023
323 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 26 • The remaining stumps present the possibility of ricocheting golf shots that may strike golfers on the same or adjacent holes.
• The presence of these root systems presents challenges to accessibility in general. 324
CC 10-17-2023
324 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 27 APPENDIX B – MINIMUM SAFETY SET-BACKS EXHIBIT
325
CC 10-17-2023
325 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 28 APPENDIX C – MISCELLANEOUS EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 - Minimum Improvement Exhibit
326
CC 10-17-2023
326 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 29 Exhibit 2 – Tee Areas with Steep Embankments
327
CC 10-17-2023
327 of 474
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Cupertino, CA – 30 Exhibit 3 – Areas Where Tree Stumps are Present
328
CC 10-17-2023
328 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration
Feasibility Study
Prepared for: The City of Cupertino
Prepared by: MIG
2055 Junction Avenue, Suite 205
San Jose, CA 95131
February 2022
329
CC 10-17-2023
329 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 2
Introduction
This feasibility study describes a habitat restoration scenario for the Blackberry Farm Golf Course if use of the golf course is discontinued. Restoration of the Blackberry Farm Golf Course parcel would focus on converting the golf course to a natural park, including a diverse ecosystem with native oak woodland and grassland plant communities that existed in this part of Santa Clara County over a hundred years ago. Local examples of the successful restoration and maintenance of urban wildlands include the nearby McClellan Ranch Preserve and Guadalupe Oak Grove Park in San Jose.

The restoration that is proposed in this plan includes both active and passive restoration actions, and development of trails for public access. Benefits include reduced water use, reduced greenhouse emissions and air pollution, increased habitat, increased public access to nature, and new educational opportunities to enhance existing park programs. There are additional opportunities for future park amenities to further encourage park use.

PART 1 – SITE ASSESSMENT
Setting
The 14.5-acre Blackberry Farm Golf Course is surrounded by residential development to the north and east. It is part of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park, which includes the golf course, the historic Stocklmeir Orchard, Blackberry Farm Park, and McClellan Ranch Preserve. The Stevens Creek Trail and riparian corridor borders the western edge of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park. The Blackberry Farm Park is immediately south of the golf course and includes buildings, pools, and picnic areas. South of the park is the McClellan Ranch Preserve, an 18- acre natural preserve that houses a 4-H program, environmental education facilities, and the offices of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon and the Friends of the Stevens Creek Trail. The preserve is separated from the open space areas in the Santa Cruz Mountains by less than a mile of residential development, which includes the Deep Cliff Golf Course that is located immediately south of McClellan Ranch. “Golf course” in this study refers to the Blackberry Farm Golf Course, unless otherwise noted.

Stevens Creek is 22 miles long. It originates in the Santa Cruz Mountains on the western flank of Black Mountain in the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and drains an area of approximately 46 square miles. From its headwaters the creek flows into Stevens Creek Reservoir. Past the reservoir, the creek flows north through dense residential and commercial development in Cupertino, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View before emptying into San Francisco Bay at Whisman Slough. The creek watershed has been modified, and currently includes a portion of the Permanente Creek Watershed, due to the Permanente diversion channel that connects the two creeks downstream of Fremont Avenue. In addition, flows in Stevens Creek are affected by a dam at Stevens Creek Reservoir less than a mile upstream of the Blackberry Farm Golf Course.
330
CC 10-17-2023
330 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 3
Stevens Creek Trail is a 9.4-mile multi-use recreation trail that is planned to extend along Stevens Creek from the Santa Cruz Mountains to San Francisco Bay, and which is substantially built, including 1.3 miles in Cupertino.

The project area is mainly flat with elevations ranging from approximately 297 feet to 347 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) (Google Inc. 2021).

The City of Cupertino, in partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, completed an award-winning restoration project along Stevens Creek through McClellan Ranch and Blackberry Farm in 2008. The project included improvements to Stevens Creek for steelhead trout, and restoration of adjacent riparian and upland habitats. Restoration of the golf course would complement these past efforts.

Existing Habitat Conditions
Methods
The methods used to evaluate the existing biological resources present at the site include a database and literature review, field survey, an assessment of plant communities and wildlife habitats and corridors, an assessment of sensitive habitats and aquatic features, and a habitat evaluation for the presence of special-status species.

Data Review
Available background information pertaining to the biological resources on and near the site was reviewed prior to conducting field surveys. Information was compiled and subsequently compared against site conditions during the site visit. The following sources were consulted:
 California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) record search for 9-quadrangles including: Lick Observatory, Isabel Valley, Eylar Mountain, Mount Day, Calaveras Reservoir, San José East, Santa Teresa Hills, Morgan Hill, and Mount Sizer (CNDDB 2021).
 California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Program Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California record 9-quadrangle search, including: Lick Observatory, Isabel Valley, Eylar Mountain, Mount Day, Calaveras Reservoir, San José East, Santa Teresa Hills, Morgan Hill, and Mount Sizer (CNPS 2021). Quadrangle-level results are not maintained for CRPR 3 and 4 species, so we also conducted a search of the CNPS Inventory records for these species occurring in Santa Clara County (CNPS 2021).
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) CNDDB for natural communities of special concern that occur within near or in the site (CNDDB 2021).  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool (USFWS 2021).
 Other relevant scientific literature, technical databases, resource agency reports, and Federal Register notices and other information published by the USFWS and National 331
CC 10-17-2023
331 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 4
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to assess the current distribution of special-status plants and animals in the vicinity of the site.

Field Survey
A site visit was conducted by MIG senior biologist Tay Peterson and MIG senior biologist David Gallagher on December 2, 2021. During the site visit, MIG biologists assessed the existing biotic habitats and plant and animal communities at the golf course and in adjoining areas, assessed the potential for special-status species and their habitats to occur in the golf course area, and identified potential jurisdictional habitats (e.g., waters of the U.S./state), and other sensitive biological resources that could trigger the need for permits from state and federal agencies.

Limitations
This feasibility study is based on one site visit to the golf course and surrounding areas, research, and the author’s knowledge of the area. It did not include any protocol surveys or multiple season surveys, but these are not necessary for this site, based on the conditions observed and our familiarity with the habitats. The feasibility study provides a concept, which would need to be developed further with a formal restoration plan. Cost estimates are at a rough order of magnitude and will require refinement once a site design and a detailed restoration plan are developed.

General Site Description
Existing Land Uses, Vegetation Communities, and Habitats The golf course is developed with tees and fairways and trees planted to separate the fairways; it currently lacks natural vegetation communities. Most of the golf course is turf grass that is regularly watered and mowed. There are numerous mature trees present within the site, including planted coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), which do not naturally occur in the Santa Clara Valley. The site is regularly cleared of understory vegetation to maintain the golf course, which precludes the establishment of native vegetation and wildlife habitat in this area.

The golf course currently provides low-quality habitat for wildlife species because it is primarily maintained as turf suitable for golfing and does not provide forage or nesting habitat for most species. The wildlife most often associated with developed areas are those that tolerate human disturbance, such as raccoons, opossums, geese, and several common urban birds.

However, the Stevens Creek riparian corridor is species-rich, so a wider variety of wildlife, not generally associated with urban areas, may forage in, or move through the golf course, and would certainly occupy restored habitat in this location.

Stevens Creek is an unusual creek on the San Francisco Peninsula because it has been protected along most of its length, and therefore forms a continuous riparian buffer from its headwaters until it enters tidal marsh in San Francisco Bay. It has been protected as a riparian corridor for at least a century, and its value as a wildlife corridor has only increased over time due to the urban development that surrounds the corridor. Continuous riparian buffers provide important wildlife migration corridors, which are critical “movement highways” for 332
CC 10-17-2023
332 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 5
terrestrial species such as mammals and reptiles as well as for water dependent species such as amphibians and waterfowl. Wildlife corridors counter habitat fragmentation and therefore, are essential to wildlife survival and diversity.

The creek supports a mixed riparian woodland, with mature trees as an overstory and a diversity of shrubs as an understory. Mixed riparian woodland habitats in California generally support animal communities that contribute disproportionately to landscape-level species diversity. The presence of seasonal water and abundant invertebrate fauna provide foraging opportunities for many species, and the diverse habitat structure provides cover and breeding opportunities. The mixed riparian woodland habitat adjacent to the golf course provides cover and foraging habitat for a wide variety of terrestrial vertebrates (e.g., amphibians, reptiles, and mammals), as well as several guilds of birds, including insectivores (e.g., warblers, flycatchers), seedeaters (e.g., finches), and raptors. Cavity-nesting birds (e.g., swallows and woodpeckers) may nest in the large trees in this habitat type.

Soils
The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils map of the golf course identified one soil unit, 171-Elder fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded (NRCS 2021).

The Elder series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium from mixed rock sources and occur in flood plains and is often subject to overflow during severe storms.

Flood Hazard
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Rate Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Santa Clara County, California, and unincorporated areas (Map Number 06085C0208H, May 18, 2009), much of the Blackberry Farm Golf Course is within a Special Flood Hazard Area subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood, also known as the 100-year flood. See the attached floodway graphic, Blackberry Farm Golf Course: Regulatory Floodway. The 1% annual flood (also known as the 100-year flood, or the base flood), is the flood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.

Special-Status Plants
The CNPS (2021) and CNDDB (2021) identify 74 special-status plant species as potentially occurring in the nine 7.5-minute quadrangles containing and/or surrounding the golf course.

All 74 of those potentially occurring special-status plant species were determined to be absent from the golf course for at least one of the following reasons: (1) a lack of specific habitat (e.g., freshwater marsh) and/or edaphic requirements (e.g., serpentine soils) for the species in question, (2) the geographic range of the species does not overlap the site, (3) the species is known to be extirpated from the site vicinity, and/or (4) the habitats within the site are too impacted to reasonably expect any special-status species to occur there.

Special-Status Animals
Based on a review of the USFWS and CNDDB databases, the biologists’ knowledge of sensitive species, and an assessment of the types of habitats within the site, it was determined that three wildlife species could potentially occur within or adjacent to the site. This determination was made due to the presence of essential habitat requirements for the 333
CC 10-17-2023
333 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 6
species, the presence of known occurrences within five miles of the site, and/or the site’s location within the species’ known range of distribution. The legal status and likelihood of occurrence of special-status animal species in the project area are discussed in greater detail below.

Special-status animal species that are not expected to occur in the golf course because of the lack of suitable habitat, or the site is outside the known range of the species, and/or the site is isolated from the nearest known extant populations by development or otherwise unsuitable habitat include Central California Coast Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), California giant salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), Santa Cruz black salamander (Aneides flavipunctatus niger), San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), long-eared owl (Asio otus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii).

Because the site is adjacent to Stevens Creek, three special-status species have the potential to be present in the developed portions of the site: California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. In addition, the project site provides potential habitat for nesting birds and bats that are protected by California Fish and Game code. These resources are discussed in detail below.

California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii). Federal status: Threatened; State status:

Species of Special Concern. The California red-legged frog was federally listed as threatened in June 1996 (USFWS 1996) based largely on a significant range reduction and continued threats to surviving populations. Critical habitat was most recently designated in March 2010 (USFWS 2010). Designated critical habitat is not present in the project area. The historical distribution of the California red-legged frog extended from the city of Redding in the Central Valley and Point Reyes National Seashore along the coast, south to Baja California, Mexico.

The species’ current distribution includes isolated locations in the Sierra Nevada and the San Francisco Bay area, and along the central coast (USFWS 2002).

The California red-legged frog inhabits freshwater pools, streams, and ponds throughout the Central California Coast Range and isolated portions of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada (Fellers 2005). Its preferred breeding habitat consists of deep perennial pools with emergent vegetation for attaching egg clusters (Fellers 2005), as well as shallow benches to act as nurseries for juveniles (Jennings and Hayes 1994). However, red-legged frogs will also breed in small, shallow pools as well as intermittent streams. Non-breeding frogs may be found adjacent to streams and ponds and may travel up to two miles from their breeding locations across a variety of upland habitats to other suitable non-breeding habitats (Bulger et al. 2003; Fellers and Kleeman 2007). However, the distance moved is highly site-dependent and is influenced by the local landscape (Fellers and Kleeman 2007). California red-legged frogs generally disperse during the wet season from mid-October to mid-April.

The Stevens Creek corridor contains suitable aquatic breeding habitat (i.e., long-lived pools or slow-moving streams with emergent vegetation or other egg mass attachment sites) for the 334
CC 10-17-2023
334 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 7
California red-legged frog. Additionally, the riparian corridor along Stevens Creek provides suitable foraging and dispersal habitat. Because of the proximity of the Stevens Creek corridor, red-legged frogs have the potential to disperse through the site. The nearest known breeding populations of red-legged frogs are in Permanente Creek in Rancho San Antonio County and Open Space Preserve, approximately one mile west of the site; and in the upper reaches of Stevens Creek, near Stevens Creek Reservoir, approximately three miles upstream of the site. However, there are no documented occurrences of red-legged frog in the urbanized reaches, including the entire downstream section of Stevens Creek (CNDDB 2021).

Even though the site contains suitable dispersal habitat for California red-legged frog, it is highly unlikely that red-legged frogs would currently occur in the golf course, due to active management of the golf course. It is also extremely unlikely that an individual from Permanente Creek and the remote upstream portions of Stevens Creek would disperse downstream as far as the site. If the site were restored in the future, it is feasible that redlegged frogs could find upland refuge there.

Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata). Federal status: None; State status: Species of Special Concern. The western pond turtle occurs in ponds, streams, and other wetland habitats in the Pacific slope drainages of California (Bury and Germano 2008). Ponds or slackwater pools with suitable basking sites (such as logs) are an important habitat component for this species, and western pond turtles do not occur commonly along high-gradient streams.

Females lay eggs in upland habitats, in clay or silty soils in unshaded areas. Juveniles occur in shallow aquatic habitats with emergent vegetation and ample invertebrate prey. Nesting habitat is typically found within 600 feet of aquatic habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994), but if no suitable nesting habitat can be found close by, adults may travel overland considerable distances to nest.

The Stevens Creek corridor contains suitable aquatic habitat for western pond turtle. Also, if present in Stevens Creek, western pond turtle could potentially move into the adjacent upland areas within the developed, grassy areas of the golf course. The nearest known documented occurrences of western pond turtle are from Saratoga Creek near its confluence with Calabazas Creek at Guadalupe Slough; the salt ponds, marshes, and channels along the Bay Trail to the west, both approximately nine miles downstream of the site; and Stevens Creek County Park, approximately three miles upstream of the site. There are no documented occurrences of western pond turtle in the urbanized reaches of Stevens Creek (CNDDB 2021).

Even though the open grassy areas of the site contain suitable upland habitat for western pond turtle, it is highly unlikely that pond turtles would currently disperse into the site from the Stevens Creek corridor due to the high levels of disturbance. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that an individual from the downstream areas near the San Francisco Bay and the remote upstream portions of Stevens Creek would disperse into the golf course. If the area was restored to oak savanna habitat, it is feasible that western pond turtles could nest there.

San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens). Federal status: None; State status: Species of Special Concern. The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat occurs in a variety of woodland and scrub habitats throughout San Mateo County and the adjacent 335
CC 10-17-2023
335 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 8
Central Coast Range, south to the Pajaro River in Monterey County (Hall 1981, Zeiner et al. 1990). San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats prefer riparian and oak woodland forests with dense understory cover, or thick chaparral habitat, and build large, complex houses of sticks and other woody debris, which may be maintained by a series of occupants for several generations (Carraway and Verts 1991; Lee and Tietje 2005). Also, they will often build these stick houses in the canopy of trees. Woodrats also use human-made structures, and can nest in electrical boxes, sheds, pipes, abandoned vehicles, wooden pallets, and portable storage containers. The breeding season for dusky-footed woodrat begins in February and sometimes continues through September, with females bearing a single brood of one to four young per year (Carraway and Verts 1991).

The Stevens Creek corridor contains suitable habitat for dusky-footed woodrat and woodrats may occasionally forage in the golf course, but the site does not currently contain suitable habitat to support woodrat houses. Woodrats would be expected to colonize riparian woodland, habitat islands, or oak trees on a restored site.

Bat Colonies. Bats are protected under Sections 4150-4155 of the California Fish and Game Code. Bats tend to forage and roost near freshwater sources. Stevens Creek provides a seasonal source of freshwater, and cavities within trees and structures may provide suitable day and maternity roost habitat for many species of bats. The trees on the golf course may provide habitat for bats that roost in foliage but are not likely to provide habitat for cavity roosting bats. It is unlikely that the golf course supports a bat maternity colony, although bats may forage over the golf course from roosts in the adjacent Stevens Creek corridor.

Roost sites for bats are critical resources for mating, hibernation, rearing young, conserving energy, and protection from adverse weather and predators. Bat selection of roost sites is influenced by distribution and abundance of food resources, risks of predation, as well as the physical attributes of the roost itself. Roost selection is paramount to the success of a species and the removal of roost habitat could adversely impact species survivorship (Kunz 1982).

Maternity roosts are particularly important and vulnerable to impacts.

The removal of non-native trees may temporarily impact roosting bats but will not be significant due to the presence of higher quality roosting habitat in the nearby Stevens Creek corridor. The planting of native oak trees, including restoring native grassland habitat and expansion of the riparian habitat along Stevens Creek will increase the amount of available high-quality foraging habitat. Additionally, native oaks, once mature will provide higher quality roosting habitat for bats.

Nesting Birds. Birds may nest within the trees, shrubs, dense stands of vegetation, and manmade structures in and around the site. All bird species are protected under California Fish and Game code and the California Migratory Bird Protection Act; and most are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Sensitive and Regulated Plant Communities and Habitats
Natural communities have been considered part of the Natural Heritage Conservation triad, along with plants and animals of conservation significance since the state inception of the 336
CC 10-17-2023
336 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 9
Natural Heritage Program in 1979. CDFW determines the level of rarity and imperilment of vegetation types; and tracks sensitive communities in its Rarefind database (CNDDB 2021).

In addition to tracking sensitive natural communities, CDFW also ranks vegetation alliances, defined by repeating patterns of plants across a landscape that reflect climate, soil, water, disturbance, and other environmental factors (Sawyer et al. 1995). CDFW provides the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program’s (VegCAMP) currently accepted list of vegetation alliances and associations and denotes which alliances are classified as sensitive (CDFW 2021).

Natural Communities of Special Concern. There are no CDFW classified sensitive natural communities within the golf course.

Sensitive Vegetation Alliances. There are no CDFW classified sensitive plant communities within the golf course.

CDFW Stream/Riparian Habitat. California Fish and Game Code includes regulations governing the use of, or impacts to, many of the state’s fish, wildlife, and sensitive habitats, including the bed and banks of rivers, lakes, and streams. Stevens Creek and its associated riparian habitat up to the top of bank is subject to CDFW jurisdiction under Section 1600 et seq. of State Fish and Game Code. However, Stevens Creek and its associated riparian habitat is entirely outside of the site.

Waters of the U.S./State. Stevens Creek meets the definition of waters of the U.S/state, which is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). However, Stevens Creek is entirely outside of the golf course (see the Concept Plan). Also, the USFWS’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the site identified Stevens Creek as a seasonally flooded forested/shrub wetland. The NWI also shows three additional jurisdictional features, including two freshwater ponds and a freshwater emergent wetland (NWI 2021). These features correspond to water features that are part of the landscaping but are not currently maintained because they no longer hold water. During the site visit, no water or wetland vegetation were observed in all three features. Additionally, the three features were not hydrologically connected to the Stevens Creek corridor.

NWI maps are based on interpretation of aerial photography, limited verification of mapped units, and/or classification of wetland types using the classification system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979). These data are available for general reference purposes and do not necessarily correspond to the presence or absence of jurisdictional waters. If restoration of the golf course impacts the former ponds (e.g., grading), a formal wetland delineation would be required to determine if these features meet the definition of Waters of the U.S.

Critical Habitat/Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). There is no designated critical habitat or essential fish habitat within the site, but Stevens Creek is designated critical habitat for Central California Coast Steelhead (NMFS 2005). Additionally, Stevens Creek has been identified as a priority for steelhead population restoration by the Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort (FAHCE), which includes federal, state, and local stakeholders. The FAHCE 337
CC 10-17-2023
337 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 10
is in the process of developing a Fish Habitat Conservation Plan for three local watersheds, including Stevens Creek.

Central California Coast Steelhead are known to occur in Stevens Creek (Leidy et al. 2005, Leidy 2007; CNDDB 2021); However, the status of steelhead populations in coastal San Francisco Bay streams, including Stevens Creek, remains highly uncertain, and it has been determined that sections of upper Stevens Creek, including the project site, are periodically inaccessible due to passage barriers (Domenichelli & Associates 2017; Williams et al. 2016).

Permits
There are no regulated habitats within the boundaries of the Blackberry Farm Golf Course.

The riparian zone of Stevens Creek does not extend into the golf course and the depressions within the golf course that may have been ponds in the past do not currently exhibit the parameters to meet the definition of waters of the U.S./state. No activities envisioned in this feasibility study would extend into the jurisdiction of the resource agencies and trigger Clean Water Act, Porter Cologne Water Protection Act, or California Fish and Game Code permit requirements.

Historic Habitat Conditions
Research on the historical ecology (pre-European settlement) of the region revealed that oak savanna was likely the dominant vegetation community at the site (SFEI 2015). Oak savannah woodland has a low density of oaks with a mostly open canopy. The understory was likely an annual grassland with scattered shrubs and perennial grasses. Based on the proximity of the site to Stevens Creek and soil type (the soil texture at the site is fine sandy loam), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) was likely the dominant tree in the savannah woodland. Coast live oaks occur on a wide range of soils derived from diverse parent materials and having a variety of textures from sandy loam to clay. Coast live oak generally occur on mesic (wet) sites, including slopes, savannas, alluvial terraces, canyon bottoms, and along streambanks (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995).

Of the other native oak species known to historically occur in Santa Clara Valley, black oak (Quercus kelloggii) may have been interspersed with coast live oak, especially farther away from Stevens Creek, since black oaks are most common on dry, well-drained soils with sandy loam to gravelly clay loam textures. Black oak generally occurs from level valley floors to alluvial slopes, rocky ridges, and steep slopes, with steep slopes the most typical. Valley oak (Quercus lobata) and blue oak (Quercus douglasii) were likely absent from the site based on the soil type at the site. Valley oaks generally occur in deep, rich soils with silty to sandy clay loam textures typical of floodplains and valley floors. They also depend on water-table access.

Furthermore, in the SF Bay Area, soil textures identified as fine-loamy and loamy were positively correlated with valley oak presence, while fine, fine-silty, and sandy soil textures were significantly negatively correlated with valley oaks (Grossinger et. al 2008; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Blue oak generally occurs on dry soils characterized by a claypan or a clayrich subsoil layer, which is lacking at the site (Borchert et al. 1993). 338
CC 10-17-2023
338 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 11
Climate Change
Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period, including major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other effects, which occur over several decades or longer. Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap energy from the sun in the Earth’s atmosphere and cause it to warm. Trend projections indicate that atmospheric concentrations of GHG emissions will continue to increase throughout this century. The specific effects of these increases will vary by location, but in general average temperatures are projected to increase, resulting in changes in precipitation, sea level rise, and increased risks of extreme weather events, flooding, droughts, and wildfires. The following changes are projected to occur in the coming decades over the Santa Clara Valley:
 Even with substantial global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Santa Clara Valley will likely see a significant temperature increase by mid-century, based on modeling through Cal-Adapt (2021).
 Precipitation in the Santa Clara Valley will continue to exhibit high year-to-year variability with very wet and very dry years. The Bay Area’s largest winter storms will likely become more intense, and potentially more damaging, in the coming decades (Cal-Adapt 2021).
 Future increases in temperature, regardless of whether total precipitation goes up or down, will likely cause longer and deeper California droughts, posing major problems for water supplies, natural ecosystems, and agriculture (Cal-Adapt 2021).

Climate change will likely influence the types of plant communities that will do well at the golf course, as some plant species may thrive in the changing conditions while others may decline. In particular, the increased temperatures and changes in rainfall pattern are likely to affect growing conditions on the golf course. Native species adapted to the projected increased temperature ranges as well as to longer dry periods punctuated by shorter periods of heavy precipitation and possible flooding would generally do well at the site under projected climate change scenarios. The habitat restoration scenario outlined below— of allowing the riparian corridor to naturally expand, and to foster the development of oak savanna on the golf course—is compatible with predicted climate change effects. 339
CC 10-17-2023
339 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 12
PART 2 – RESTORATION OPPORTUNITY
Creating an Urban Wildland
Open natural spaces are increasingly important for both humans and native wildlife as an escape from urbanization and isolation. The concept of an urban wildland is to integrate natural landscapes in the urban environment as a different type of recreational open space than well-manicured parks. Both children and adults need natural areas to explore and have close contact with nature, and that are accessible in the city. Urban wildland spaces also provide essential habitat patches and corridors to ensure the survival of native species in the human-dominated landscape. Reconceptualizing urban parks and recreation areas to include natural habitats, or urban wildlands, therefore has multiple health and environmental benefits.

Urban wildlands are a new and important habitat type within the urban landscape (Lundholm and Richardson 2010).

Cities are challenging locations for native restoration projects since urban habitats tend to be fragmented and frequently disturbed, and resources are limited. The soils have typically been greatly disturbed and no longer provide an optimum growing environment. Restoring native habitats in an urban landscape requires incorporating land management principles and activities aimed at returning a damaged or degraded ecosystem back to ecosystem health and sustainability. Many restoration projects look to ecological conditions present before the time of European settlement as the landscape that should be restored because these are the landscapes that are adapted to the prevailing environmental conditions.

Urban wildlands often need to balance the goals of ecological restoration and access for outdoor recreation. Given that the Stevens Creek Corridor Park will remain a regional recreational resource, restoration planning and goals will need to include pathways that encourage active exploration of nature, while also maintaining ecologically intact habitats.

A successful urban wildland will give users a stronger connection with nature, which can be further enhanced with trails, benches, and an outdoor classroom to help foster outdoor education and stewardship. Future development of interpretive features and a nature play area could further promote a healthy lifestyle and foster multi-cultural connections, as these elements may attract a subset of the public focused on those activities. While connections to nature may not have been their initial goal, they may be drawn in to enjoy the site’s natural areas.

Ecological Benefits
The Blackberry Farm Golf Course land was formerly an oak savannah adjacent to the riparian corridor of Stevens Creek (SFEI 2015). An oak savannah is essentially a grassland dotted with oak trees. Oak woodlands and savannahs have the greatest species richness of any vegetation community in California and are especially rich and diverse when adjacent to riparian corridors (Sawyer and Keiler-Wolf 1995). A suite of locally native species, particularly birds, are strongly associated with oaks, including white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis), oak titmice (Baeolophus inornatus), and acorn woodpeckers (Melanerpes formicivorus). Annual grasslands 340
CC 10-17-2023
340 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 13
are species rich with native forbs that increase floral resource abundance and diversity for native insect floral visitors, some of which are important pollinators, as well as naturalized honeybees (Apis mellifera).

Photo 1. An oak woodland savannah with recreation trails at Guadalupe Oak Grove Park in San Jose.

Grasslands are particularly important since populations of important pollinators have been declining throughout much of North America over the past couple of decades. Beekeepers in the U.S. have been suffering from unusually high rates of colony loss of the naturalized honeybee. The abundance of several bumblebee species in the western U.S. has declined dramatically, with at least one species now believed to be extinct. And both the eastern and western populations of the monarch butterfly have declined precipitously, with the eastern population reaching a new record low in recent years.

Re-establishing a natural ecosystem at the Blackberry Farm Golf Course would maximize longterm sustainability at the site by using native plants that are adapted to the specific climate conditions of the region and the cycles of heat and drought that are common in the Santa Clara Valley. Once established, native oaks and native shrubs will need no irrigation and the mixture of trees and shrubs will provide robust root systems that will prevent erosion and substantially increase runoff infiltration and uptake of excess nutrients and other pollutants carried by urban stormwater runoff, which will also improve aquatic habitat for steelhead in Stevens Creek. These habitat types are also resilient to periodic flooding, which could occur in the flood zone areas mapped in the area.
341
CC 10-17-2023
341 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 14
Natural ecosystems in urban environments can also significantly reduce greenhouse emissions by helping to store carbon, as well as reducing urban air pollution. This will help California to reach its targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, adding to our state’s leadership model around the world in slowing and reversing the rate of climate change. Climate change models for the region predict a continued warming trend, less annual rainfall, and an increase in the frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events. A natural ecosystem will mediate heat island effects generated by heat absorption in and reflection by surrounding urban areas that are dominated by asphalt, concrete, and buildings; and will compensate for swings in local weather exacerbated by climate change.

Restoration Approach
Because the Blackberry Farm Golf Course is relatively small, highly disturbed, and surrounded by an urban landscape, there are significant restrictions on what native ecological conditions can be restored. For example, a full conversion of the existing grassland to a native grassland is not a realistic goal because many non-native grasses are naturalized, and it is unlikely that such grasses could be eradicated in a sustainable way from the site except at enormous cost and effort. Instead, the restoration should focus on recovering or reintroducing the key flora of oak woodland savanna and annual grassland communities. Furthermore, natural ecosystems are spatially and temporally dynamic with shifting boundaries and species composition. This natural state of flux, driven by natural ecosystem processes, is critical to the long-term health of natural ecosystems. Because of the urban setting of the Blackberry Farm Golf Course, some natural ecosystem processes will need to be suppressed or eliminated, which will require alternative methods to maintain sustainable native habitats. For example, oak woodland will naturally displace annual grassland through the process of ecological succession, so to maintain grassland habitat, management actions that are suitable in an urban environment, such as mowing or managed grazing, will be needed. While fire has historically served this purpose it is no longer suitable to use in this location.

Restoration of natural habitats is a complex, long-term process that requires the development of a restoration plan with planning, implementation, and monitoring components. The restoration plan will provide a robust framework that identifies short- and long-term restoration goals, effective and appropriate designs to meet restoration goals, regular evaluation of restoration efforts to determine whether goals are being met, and contingency and adaptive management measures if goals are not being met. Based on our assessment of the site conditions at the Blackberry Farm Golf Course, the following should be considered if the site is restored to a native ecosystem.

Overview
The recommended approach is shown on the attached graphic, Blackberry Farm Golf Course:

Urban Wildland Restoration Approach, and includes the following elements:
342
CC 10-17-2023
342 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 15
 Delineate a riparian regeneration zone to allow the Stevens Creek riparian corridor to naturally invade portions of the existing golf course. Manage the vegetation to foster native species growth.
 Establish wildflower meadows in an already existing open area of the golf course.  Establish habitat islands similar to those in McClellan Ranch, including flowering shrubs and native oaks that support wildlife species, including pollinators.  Areas not selected for restoration will be transitioned to low maintenance zones, managed as annual grasslands.
 Allow the existing coastal redwood trees to remain.
 Incorporate sustainable management practices.
 Incorporate fire resiliency management practices using defensible space principles.  Plan for a minimum three-to-five-year establishment period.  Establish accessible walking trails that connect with the Stevens Creek Trail and develop other visitor amenities, such as seating, an outdoor education area, and Ranger space.
 Allow for future recreation development along the trails, such as additional seating and gathering areas, interpretive elements, an exercise par course, and nature play area.

These are discussed in further detail below:

Riparian Regeneration Zone. The riparian corridor along Stevens Creek will naturally expand into the existing landscaped areas. The extent of this expansion is unknown but will be influenced by the existing hydrology and soil composition at the site. Therefore, a 50-foot riparian regeneration zone (buffer) is proposed to allow the riparian corridor to naturally expand into the existing landscaped area. Invasive shrub and tree species will be removed in this area until native species become established. The budget includes an option of planting 100 5-gallon shrubs in this area if desired.

Photo 2. Existing riparian
corridor along Stevens
Creek. The proposed
restoration approach
includes a riparian
regeneration zone, which
would allow the Stevens
Creek riparian corridor to
naturally invade portions of
the existing golf course.
343
CC 10-17-2023
343 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 16
Establish Wildflower Meadows. A wildflower meadow is an open area where herbaceous flowering annuals and perennial bunchgrasses are dominant. Woody species are absent or present in low numbers. A wildflower meadow is a complex and diverse interactive plant community that provides important habitat for pollinators and other wildlife. Once a wildflower meadow becomes a well-established plant community, it is less susceptible to weed invasions and requires very little regular maintenance. However, long-term management is important to maintain a meadow over time since most meadows are only a transitional stage and will be replaced by shrubs and trees. Establishment of a wildflower meadow would involve selecting an existing area free of woody vegetation, removal of the non-native turf grasses by natural methods (e.g., grazing using goats), tilling of the site, and then hydroseeding or seed drilling a diverse, locally sourced native wildflower and grass mix.

Photo 3. The proposed restoration approach includes the creation of a wildflower meadow, which could be nestled between the existing rows of redwood trees.

Creation of Habitat Islands. Habitat islands are defined areas where focused restoration efforts would take place. They can include upland refugia habitats for native amphibian and reptile species when Stevens Creek experiences high flows from winter storms, and habitats focused on pollinator conservation, which includes high density planting of a diverse array of flowering native shrubs and herbaceous annuals. They are a manageable size for restoration 344
CC 10-17-2023
344 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 17
efforts, both in terms of cost and chances of successful establishment within the 3-to-5-year time period. It is recommended that the composition of the islands follow three styles: islands with oaks and grasses, islands with flowering shrubs and no oaks, and islands with a combination of oaks and flowering shrubs.

Creation of a habitat island would involve the removal of non-native grasses, herbs, and woody species by natural methods (e.g., hand removal and soil solarization), followed by seeding and planting of native species. These areas are typically fenced temporarily to allow establishment of the planted vegetation and weeds are suppressed using mulch. Generally, downed vegetation, including trimmings and thatch (organic matter) are left in place to provide cover for wildlife.

Photo 4. A native habitat restoration site at McClellan Ranch Preserve, south of Blackberry Farm is an example of a habitat island with diverse flowering plants. The Stevens Creek riparian corridor is in the background.

The creation of habitat islands can occur over time to allow focused use of resources, provide an educational element so that visitors can see how the restoration process proceeds over time (e.g., use interpretive signage to highlight habitat islands created in the first year, second year, etc.), and to determine what species grow best in the conditions present at the golf course (e.g., if a species dies in the first year then it can be removed from the planting palette and replaced with a more suitable species).
345
CC 10-17-2023
345 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 18
Low Maintenance Zones, and Potential Bioswale Planting areas. The areas outside of restored habitat islands and wildflower meadows will be transitioned to low maintenance zones. The turf grass in these zones will be allowed to grow naturally (i.e., no irrigation or fertilizer) and will be grazed by goats or mowed once or twice a year. These areas can be restored to native habitats in the future if desired or as determined in an approved detailed restoration plan.

Existing Coastal Redwood Trees. Since coastal redwood trees are not adapted to the hot and fog-free summers found in the Santa Clara Valley, some of the existing redwoods will likely die-off without the supplemental water provided from irrigation of the turf grass. It is impossible to know how many and when they may die-off since some may be tapped into the water table associated with Stevens Creek and could persist for many more years. Therefore, it is recommended that the existing redwood trees remain in place and be monitored yearly for signs of overall health. Trees then can be removed on an individual basis over time and the wood recycled for restoration purposes (e.g., downed trees can be converted to mulch for use in the habitat islands) or for building park benches and/or other structures.

Photo 5. The proposed restoration includes keeping the existing redwood trees, which can be incorporated into a trail network, nature play areas, and gathering spaces. 346
CC 10-17-2023
346 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 19
Sustainable Management Practices. Cost-saving and sustainable management practices can be incorporated into the restoration plan, including native plant landscaping practices (e.g., leaving plant litter in place, minimal pruning and shearing, no fertilizers, etc.), mulching, and goat/sheep grazing to control invasive species. Irrigation systems placed on the surface will be used during the establishment period, and then will be removed, reducing the long-term need for irrigation. The existing topography of the site can be incorporated into the restoration plan, so that mass grading is not proposed. For example, the dry ponds can be planted with native vegetation and used as bioswales to naturally capture and filter urban runoff, including run-off from a trail network and the existing parking areas. A wildflower meadow could be installed on the current fairways and habitat islands could be installed on the fairways, tees and greens.

Photo 6. The proposed restoration approach includes using the existing depression from the dry pond as a bioswale to collect run-off from a trail system as well as existing parking areas. The fencing will be removed.

Fire Resiliency. Standard defensible space management practices should be incorporated into the restoration design and the regular maintenance plan. These practices will assure that grasses are trimmed annually, that space with low growing vegetation is kept between the habitat islands, and that trimming of lower branches that can transfer fire into the canopy is 347
CC 10-17-2023
347 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 20
completed on a regular basis. Grasses will be trimmed annually, but branch trimming is typically every 3-5 years, depending on conditions.

Establishment Period. Natural habitats often require three to five years to become established. Temporary irrigation systems are provided during the establishment period and are removed once the vegetation is established. To ensure success of native restoration, longterm management practices, including annual funding, need to be addressed in the restoration plan.

Trails and Visitor Amenities. This new urban wildland will provide the community with passive recreation experiences, educational opportunities, and connections to nature close to home.

Accessible walking trails are proposed to connect with the Stevens Creek Trail and existing buildings. The decomposed granite paths will loop through the site, with occasional benches, encouraging low-impact exploration of the area.

Outdoor education opportunities in the area could be enhanced by better on-site space for Park Rangers and development of an outdoor education area. This could consist of decomposed granite paving and log benches, possibly salvaged from the Redwoods on site.

The outdoor education area is best placed towards the North end of the site, which has an existing parking lot off an arterial road and a restroom in the golf/restaurant building that could be open to the public from an exterior door. The current golf pro shop is proposed as office space for the Park Rangers, with some minimal interior improvements, such as flooring and paint. An existing storage shed just south of the building can serve as storage and an informal meetup space for the Rangers.

There is a desire for additional parking at the South end of the existing golf course. An additional row of parking and drive aisle is proposed, with several additional accessible parking spaces located near the new trail. The vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access from the south entrance along San Fernando Avenue is currently being studied separately, by others (see Blackberry Farm Entrance Road Improvements Feasibility Study by Underwood & Rosenblum, Inc., August 2020).

Future Recreation Development Opportunities. The restoration plan should allow for future recreation to be developed along the trails. Some possibilities include:
 Exercise Par Course
 Nature Play Area
 Bus Turnaround at the North End
 Additional Seating and Gathering Areas
 Art and Interpretive Elements
 Larger Renovation of the Golf Pro Shop/Restaurant Building to support educational activities and operation of the natural area.
348
CC 10-17-2023
348 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 21
Estimated Costs
See the attached Rough Order of Magnitude Costs for the estimated costs to implement the above restoration approach. Specific assumptions used to develop cost line items are noted in the cost table. General cost assumptions include the following:
 Cost estimates are at a rough order of magnitude and will require refinement once a site design and detailed restoration plan are developed.  A topographic survey and additional site studies are required to assess required ADA upgrades at the existing building and parking area.
 Site preparation does not require mass grading.
 The sand traps and existing trees will be left as is.  Existing fencing and netting along the west and south edges of the golf course will be removed, including the footings.
 Four of the extra-large timber fence poles adjacent to the south parking lot (at Blackberry Farm Park) are assumed to be removed for parking lot work while the rest will remain for bird habitat. If desired, the remaining poles could be partially cut at different heights for variation.
 Goats will be used to remove/prepare the existing fairway grasses for restoration, and to help with removal of invasive species on the slope on the east side of the golf course.
 Annual maintenance will be limited to weeding and selective mowing around plantings in the habitat islands/riparian zone, and mowing/grazing grasses in the wildflower meadow, low maintenance areas, and bioswales in the first 3 to 5 years. After that the annual maintenance is expected to decrease as plants become established. Every 5 years a more intensive defensible space trimming plan will be implemented to address low hanging branches and shrub spacing.
 There will be eight habitat islands. The habitat islands will be planted with oak trees and perennial plants and will be seeded with native grasses and forbs. Temporary fencing will be installed to protect most of the plants from deer browse until they are established, then the fence will be removed.
 Where hydroseeding is noted, it will occur annually over three years with a native wildflower meadow mix.
 Irrigation to the habitat islands will be via temporary surface pipes and is expected to be removed once the plants are established in 3 to 5 years.  The existing irrigation system at the backflow valve is suitable for re-use. All pipes will be abandoned in place, but the risers will be capped.
 A detailed restoration and management plan will be prepared prior to preparing construction drawings and will be subject to City review. It is not currently included in the budget.
 There will be ten years of monitoring and adaptive management to assure the plan is well-implemented. Since there are not permits, the monitoring period is flexible, but five years is the minimum.
 A more intensive restoration approach involving tree removal, soil restoration, and additional plantings is not desired.
 No permits from state or federal resource agencies are required. 349
CC 10-17-2023
349 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 22
References
Barnhart, R.A. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) - Steelhead. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. 82(11.60). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.

Borchert, M.I., N.D. Cunha, P.C. Krosse, and M.L. Lawrence. 1993. Blue oak plant communities of southern San Luis Obispo and northern Santa Barbara Counties, California. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PSW-GTR-139. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

Bulger, J.B., N.J. Scott, Jr., and R.B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red-legged frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and grasslands.

Biological Conservation 110: 85-95.

Bury, R.B. and D.J. Germano. 2008. Actinemys marmorata (Baird and Girard 1852) - western pond turtle, Pacific pond turtle in G.J. Rhodin, C.H. Pritchard, P.P. van Dijk, R.A. Saumure, K.A.

Buhlmann, and J.B. Iverson, editors. Conservation biology of freshwater turtles and tortoises:

A compilation project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group.

Chelonian Research Monographs.

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V.

Lagomarsino. 1996. Status Review of West Coast Steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27.

Cal-Adapt. 2021. Local Climate Change Snapshot for 22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014, United States. Cal-Adapt was developed by the Geospatial Innovation Facility at the University of California, Berkeley with funding and advisory oversight by the California Energy Commission and the California Strategic Growth Council. Accessed December 27 at: https://cal-adapt.org/
Carraway L.N. and B.J. Verts. 1991. Neotoma fuscipes. Mammalian Species No. 386, The American Society of Mammalogists. 10 pp.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. VegCAMP Natural Communities Lists. Accessed December 2021 from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/vegcamp/naturalcommunities. [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2021. Results of electronic records search.

Rarefind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed December 2021 from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2021. Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California. Version 8-02. Accessed December 2021 from http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/advanced.html.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 350
CC 10-17-2023
350 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 23
Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. (Version 04DEC98).

Domenichelli and Associates. 2017. Stevens Creek Steelhead Passage Improvement Project Feasibility Report. Prepared for Friends of Stevens Creek Trail. November 2017.

Fellers, G.M. 2005. Rana draytonii California red-legged frog. In M. Lannoo, ed. Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press. CA:

Berkeley. Pp 552-554.

Fellers, G.M. and P.M. Kleeman. 2007. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) movement and habitat use: implications for conservation. Journal of Herpetology 41(2): 276-286. [FEMA] Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009 (May 18). National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Santa Clara County, California, and Unincorporated Areas. Map Number 06085C0208H.

Fukushima, L. and E.W. Lesh. 1998. Adult and juvenile anadromous salmonid migration timing in California streams. California Fish and Game 84:133-145.

Google Inc. 2021. Google Earth Pro (Version 7.1.5.1557) [Software]. Available from earth.google.com.

Grossinger, R. M., E. E Beller, M. N Salomon, A. A Whipple, R. A Askevold, C. J Striplen, E.

Brewster, and R. A Leidy. 2008. South Santa Clara Valley Historical Ecology Study, including Soap Lake, the Upper Pajaro River, and Llagas, Uvas-Carnadero, and Pacheco Creeks.

Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District and The Nature Conservancy. A Report of SFEI’s Historical Ecology Program, SFEI Publication #558, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. 2nd edition. Volume II. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division.

Kunz, T.H. 1982. Chapter 1 Roosting Ecology of Bats. In, T.H. Kunz, editor. Ecology of Bats.

Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York, New York
Lee, D.E. and W.D. Tietje. 2005. Dusky-footed woodrat demography and prescribed fire in a California oak woodland. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(3):1211-1220.

Leidy, R.A. 2007. Ecology, Assemblage Structure, Distribution, and Status of Fishes in Streams Tributary to the San Francisco Estuary, California (Report). San Francisco Estuary Institute.

Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. 351
CC 10-17-2023
351 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Urban Wildland Restoration Feasibility Study
MIG | February 2022 24
Lundholm J.T. and Richardson P.J. 2010. Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial environments. Journal of Applied Ecology 47:966–975. [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Endangered and Threatened species:

Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Steelhead and Salmon in California. Final rule. Federal Register 70:52488-52626. [NWI] National Wetlands Inventory. 2021. Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Accessed December 2021 from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2021. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed December 2021 from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. [SFEI] San Francisco Estuary Institute. 2015. "Santa Clara Valley Historical Ecology GIS Data version 2" Accessed [date retrieved]. http://www.sfei.org/content/santa-clara-valley-historicalecology-gis-data.

Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

Shapovalov, L., and A.C. Taft. 1954. The life histories of the steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) with special reference to Waddell Creek, California, and recommendations regarding their management. DFG Bulletin No. 98.

Szewczak, J.M. 2013. The Ecology and Conservation of California Bats. San Francisco State University. SFSU Field Campus. August 5–9 2013.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the California Red-legged Frog. Federal Register 61:25813-26833.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery plan for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red-legged Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register 75:12815-12959.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation.

Accessed December 2021 from https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/t69.

Williams, T.H., B.C. Spence, D.A. Boughton, R.C. Johnson, L.G. Crozier, N.J. Mantua, M.R.

O'Farrell, and S.T. Lindley. 2016. Viability assessment for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Southwest. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-564.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, editors. 1990. California’s Wildlife. Volume III: Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
352
CC 10-17-2023
352 of 474
THE

MEADOWS

PARK VILLAS

RIDGECREST
MONTA
VISTA

SCENIC CIRCLE

SCE N I C CIRCLE

SAN FERNAND O AVE

NANDO AVE

ALCAZAR
AVE

DOLORES
AVE

CUPERTINO RD

SCENIC CT

STOCKLMEIR CT

DEAN CT

SCENICBLVD

BYRNE AVE

BYRNE AVE

SAN FERNANDOCT
RCLE

STEVENS CREEK BLVD

ORCHARD

STOCKLMEIR
RANCH

BLACKBERRY FARM
PARK
Existing shed available for
ranger storage
Existing building: convert pro
shop to ranger office.

Restroom available for
public use.

Future bus
turnout/dropoff
Outdoor education area with
log seating
Future nature play area
Accessible trails with
benches
Existing golf maintenance
building available for parks
maintenance
See separate entry proposal
for roadway and path
improvements by others
(E) PARKING

STEVENS CREEK

STEVENS CREEK TRAIL
(E) PARKING
Expand parking area
Existing fairway trees
to remain
Low maintenance zone (at
areas outside habitat islands
and wildflower meadows)
Future exercise par course
along trail
0 100’ 200’
N

STUDY AREA

PARK BOUNDARY

PROPOSED BUILT FEATURE
(EXISTING)

BUILDING / STRUCTURE

EXISTING RIPARIAN CORRIDOR WILDFLOWER MEADOW

HABITAT ISLAND

DRY POND
- POTENTIAL BIOSWALE PLANTING

CREEK RIPARIAN REVEGETATION ZONE
(E) STEVENS CREEK TRAIL
(E) PATHS

PROPOSED PATHS

MAP LEGEND
(E) BRIDGE

URBAN WILDLAND RESTORATION APPROACH

BLACKBERRY FARM GOLF COURSE
FEBRUARY 2022
353
CC 10-17-2023
353 of 474
THE

MEADOWS

PARK VILLAS

RIDGECREST
MONTA
VISTA

SCENI C CIRCLE

SCE N I C CIRCLE

SAN FERNAND O AVE

NAND O AVE

ALCAZAR
AVE

DOLORES
AVE

CUPERTINO RD

SCENIC CT

STOCKLMEIR CT

DEAN CT

SCENICBLVD

BYRNE AVE

BYRNE AVE

SAN FERNANDOCT
RCLE

STEVENS CREEK BLVD

ORCHARD

STOCKLMEIR
RANCH

BLACKBERRY FARM
PARK
CHARD

OCKLMEIR
RANCH
B
ORCH
STO
R
BLACK
S
0 100’ 200’
N

STUDY AREA

PARK BOUNDARY
(EXISTING)

BUILDING / STRUCTURE

AE - REGULATORY FLOODWAY
CREEK
(E) STEVENS CREEK TRAIL
(E) PATHS

MAP LEGEND
(E) BRIDGE

BLACKBERRY FARM GOLF COURSE

REGULATORY FLOODWAY
FEBRUARY 2022
354
CC 10-17-2023
354 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course Restoration - Feasibility Study Cupertino, CA
OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS Rough Order of MagnitudeMarch 2022 by MIG, Inc.DESCRIPTION QUAN. UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL TOTAL COMMENTSDEMOLITION & CLEARING $114,340 Remove Existing Golf Facilities - tee markers, cups at greens, small windmill pump structure 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Sand traps to remain
Cap/shut down existing irrigation valve/heads and risers 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 Assuming existing 100 valve-in-head sprinklers to be capped if existing rotors are not re-useable
Partial fencing removal at South parking area 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 Remove 4 Large wood poles and footings at south parking area, lower section of chainlink fence and upper section of netting Fencing removal along Stevens Creek 1 LS $18,000 $18,000 Includes fencing/footings along bike trail & driving range/cage
Initial Goat grazing/clearing 11 AC $1,000 $11,340
Invasive tree removal (with root grinding on some species) 1 ALLOW $20,000 $20,000 Includes one-time removal of invasive Privet (existing).

Fairway trees to remain as is.

Assumes no other utility work
IRRIGATION $101,223
Riparian Revegetation Zone - Install temporary drip irrigation system with above-ground lines (no mowing or goats) 50,723 SF $0.50 $25,362 Includes battery operated controllers, valves, on-grade piping, fittings, on-grade poly tubing and emitters at Riparian Revegetation Zone Habitat Islands - Install temporary drip irrigation system with above-ground lines (no mowing or goats) 41,715 SF $0.50 $20,858 Includes battery operated controllers, valves, on-grade piping, fittings, on-grade poly tubing and emitters at each Habitat Island area Wildflower Meadows - Install temporary rotor irrigation system with buried lines (due to mowing and goats) 44,388 SF $0.75 $33,291 Includes battery operated controllers, valves, piping, fittings, rotors, nozzles and swing joints at each Wildflower Meadow area Field verify and install water points of connection to existing irrigation system main line piping. 12 EA $500 $6,000
Short-term Maintenance of Irrigation by installation contractor (assume 6 months) 136,826 SF $0.06 $8,210 Square footage represents Irrigated Areas only Ongoing tree maintenance: Yearly removal of dangerous limbs or trees ALLOW $7,500 $7,500 Per Lisa's comment: What might ongoing tree maintenance look like? Tay: line item with explanation
id d SEEDING & LANDSCAPE $225,325
Estimate / 1
355
CC 10-17-2023
355 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course Restoration - Feasibility Study Cupertino, CA
OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS Rough Order of MagnitudeMarch 2022 by MIG, Inc.DESCRIPTION QUAN. UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL TOTAL COMMENTS Note: Overall area of work not including hillside trees to remain and existing parking area 494,132 SF
Riparian Revegetation Zone - sparse planting, mainly letting the riparian corridor enlarge on its own. 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Approx. 50' wide
Riparian Revegetation Zone - mulch 50,723 SF $0.50 $25,362 Habitat Islands - planting 41,715 SF $1 $41,715 Planting mixture of 2 (5) gallon trees, 30 (5) gallon shrubs, (27) mix of 1 gallon oaks and perennials on each island for estimating purposes (assuming islands of the same size).

Habitat Islands - mulch 41,715 SF $0.50 $20,858 Habitat Islands - temporary fencing 2,000 LF $10 $20,000 Assume metal stakes and plastic deer nettingNative Wildflower Meadow - hydroseeding 44,388 SF $1 $44,388 Low Maintenance Zone (annual grasslands) including Bioswale areas - no planting, see maintenance section 329,604 SF Remainder areas (excluding special areas noted above and decomposed granite surfacing)
Short-term Maintenance of Riparian Reveg. Zone, Habitat Islands & Wildflower Meadows by installation contractor (assumes 6 months) 1 LS $18,000 $18,000 Weeding around new plants, check irrigation is working Soil Samples & Testing for Habitat Islands 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Soil Amendment for Habitat Islands 1 ALLOW $40,000 $40,000 VISITOR AMENITIES $814,325
Trails - Pedestrian Stabilized Decomposed Granite Trail 26,892 SF $16 $430,272 Assume agg. Base, 6' wide with wood edging to maintain accessibility
Ranger office space - Allowance for Minimal Upgrades at Pro Shop 1 ALLOW $35,000 $35,000 New flooring, interior paint, approx. 1050 sfOutdoor Education AreaPedestrian Stabilized Decomposed Granite with wood edging 900 SF $20 $18,000 Assumes ~30x30' areaLog Benches 1 ALLOW $35,000 $35,000 May be possible to salvage from onsite redwoodsSite Furnishings Drinking Fountain - NICBenches along Trail with DG pullout 8 EA $3,000 $24,000 Estimate / 2
356
CC 10-17-2023
356 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course Restoration - Feasibility Study Cupertino, CA
OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS Rough Order of MagnitudeMarch 2022 by MIG, Inc.DESCRIPTION QUAN. UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL TOTAL COMMENTS Bike Racks near North parking lot 1 ALLOW $8,000 $8,000Trash and Recycling Receptacles 6 EA $2,000 $12,000South Parking Area - Additional parking row and drive aisle 1 ALLOW $150,000 $150,000 Including wheel stops, parking signage, striping and some concrete at ADA spaces and exits to path system
Misc. Signage - Simple laminated "Restoration zone" signs, etc. 1 ALLOW $15,000 $15,000 More extensive Interp/Educational Signage - NIC, future Estimate / 3
357
CC 10-17-2023
357 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course Restoration - Feasibility Study Cupertino, CA
OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS Rough Order of MagnitudeMarch 2022 by MIG, Inc.DESCRIPTION QUAN. UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL TOTAL COMMENTS Design Fees (Design & Permitting, public outreach, CDs, Bid/Award 4-6 SITE VISITS, RFIs, etc) $87,050 $87,050
SUB TOTAL $1,255,213
Design Contingency (20% of construction subtotal) $251,045 This number is included to allow for clarifications, refinements, and revisions that take place during the design phase.

Mobilization (5%) $62,762
General Conditions + O&P (10%) $125,522
Construction Contingency (15%) $188,284
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTAL* $1,882,825
MAINTENANCE & MONITORING $242,500
Year 1-3Hand weeding & Selective Mowing of Riparian Revegetation Zone & Habitat Islands (monthly) 3 YEAR $9,600 $28,800
Mowing/Grazing for Wildflower Meadows, once annually 3 YEAR $1,200 $3,600Mowing/Grazing for Low Maintenance Area and Bioswales 3 YEAR $7,000 $21,000Irrigation Maintenance for Riparian Area, Habitat Islands & Wildflower Meadows 3 YEAR $8,000 $24,000
Monitoring 3 YEAR $18,000 $54,000Years 4-10Min. Hand weeding & Selective Mowing of Riparian Revegetation Zone & Habitat Islands 7 YEAR $2,000 $14,000
Mowing/Grazing for Wildflower Meadows, once annually 7 YEAR $2,000 $14,000Mowing/Grazing for Low Maintenance Area and Bioswales 7 YEAR $1,000 $7,000Irrigation Maintenance - years 4 and 5, if needed (final years) 2 YEAR $4,200 $8,400 Increased maintenance due to age of equipment- may require more equipment replacement than years 1-3
Irrigation decommissioning/removal of backflow preventer (cap water supply), on-grade piping, drip tubing and emitters, valves, and controllers. 1 EA $5,000 $5,000 Remove backflow, remove/cap meter, remove remote control valves and controllers, remove on-grade drip systems.

Monitoring 7 YEAR $6,000 $42,000
Estimate / 4
358
CC 10-17-2023
358 of 474
Blackberry Farm Golf Course Restoration - Feasibility Study Cupertino, CA
OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS Rough Order of MagnitudeMarch 2022 by MIG, Inc.DESCRIPTION QUAN. UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL TOTAL COMMENTS Pruning for Defensible Space (Every 5 years, Twice during 10 year period) 2 EA $6,600 $13,200Irrigation decommissioning in Riparian Revegtation Zone & Habitat Islands 1 EA $7,500 $7,500 * Cost Notes/Assumptions:

Costs based on Feb. 2022 Feasibility Study by MIG and accompanying site graphic, Urban Wildland Restoration Approach.Does not include review of existing irrig. system, topographic or utility surveys or additional studies. Design Contingency" stated above? We will want to know this estimate. Tay: Design fees note removed from here and fees are included on line 64 Does not include additional work to existing ADA parking, access, restrooms, etc. (topo and existing conditions survey needed).Assumes an allowance of $7500/year for tree removal. Reduced irrigation may result in more trees lost in the first ten years, so costs may not be spread evenly.See final page of the Feasibility Study for a comprehensive list of cost assumptions.

Estimate / 5
359
CC 10-17-2023
359 of 474
1 Cupertino Blackberry Farm Golf Course Feasibility Study Public Survey & Outreach Summary | August 2022
Project Objective
In 2021, the City of Cupertino conducted a needs assessment to identify improvements for the Blackberry Farm Golf Course. City Council further directed staff to study 1) conducting necessary repairs and minor improvements to the golf course and 2) discontinuing the use of the site as a golf course and restoring the site to natural habitat and trails.

The City sought public input on these options by asking community members to share their feedback on the preferred future use of the Blackberry Farm Golf Course site.

Outreach Overview
Starting in May 2022, the City engaged with the community on this topic through a variety of outreach platforms and channels. The City solicited feedback from the community through the online survey, and additional events and engagement channels were used to provide information about the project and direct community members to the survey. The engagement process for this project included the following components:
• Ongoing: Engage Cupertino website
• May: Citywide distribution of informational postcards about the project • May 18: Parks and Recreation Commission meeting
• May 25: Online community survey launch
• June 6: Virtual community meeting
• June 11: Open house event #1
• July 7: Pop-up event at summer concert series at Memorial Park • July 11: Open house event #2
• July 15: Online community survey closed
The online community meeting on June 6 received 77 registrants and 66 attendees (in addition to City and consultant staff). The Q&A box at the community meeting received 53 questions and comments, and 15 questions and comments were provided verbally by workshop participants during the meeting. City of Cupertino staff also received 37 emails from community members about the project and option preferences and suggestions. Staff encouraged community members to share their opinions through the online survey.

Survey Overview
The City of Cupertino released an online community survey designed to gauge public opinions and priorities regarding the City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation’s Blackberry Farm Golf Course Feasibility Study. The City is considering the following two options regarding the site:

A. Golf Course Necessary Repairs and Minor Improvements – Replace the irrigation system, tee boxes, and greens. The ninth hole would be shortened to increase safety and eliminate errant shots to the parking lot, trail, and first tee box. This includes the possible expansion of the short game practice area. The empty ponds would be replaced with lowland native plantings. The Golf Course is estimated to be closed for 9–12 months if this option is chosen. On course ADA issues would be addressed. The preliminary 25-year cost estimate is $10.2 million for Option A.

B. Conversion to Natural Habitat – Establish accessible walking trails, free to the public, that connect with the Stevens Creek Trail and develop other visitor amenities, such as seating, an outdoor education area, and a ranger’s office. Allow the Stevens Creek riparian corridor vegetation to naturally occupy portions of the existing golf course. Plant and manage vegetation to foster the growth of drought-tolerant and native species. Establish a wildflower meadow and preserve the existing Coastal Redwoods.

Incorporate fire resilient management practices. This includes a study, with a preliminary conceptual design, to facilitate the feasibility discussion of the conversion to natural habitat option. This is not meant to be a finalized design for the site. The preliminary 25-year cost estimate $12.1 million for Option B.

The results from the survey help the City understand the community’s preferred future use of the Blackberry Farm Golf Course site. The survey included a total of 14 questions and received a total of 4,023 responses. 360
CC 10-17-2023
360 of 474
2 Survey Methodology
Survey responses were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively by the consultant team.

Quantitative survey analysis was conducted through the online platform used to host the survey (Engagement HQ through Granicus). The website summarizes the results from close-ended questions and allows for filtering. Responses to most questions include two summary figures—one figure based on all respondents and one figure depicting only responses from Cupertino residents (those who checked “I live in Cupertino” on Q1).

Qualitative survey analysis was conducted through the software Dedoose, which allows assignment of “codes” to open-ended survey responses to organize and analyze qualitative data. The consultant team coded all open-ended responses for Q5, Q12, and Q13. See “Appendix” for the codebook used.

Survey response data were also reviewed to ensure validity. Any user ID (i.e., IP address) that appeared more than four times was manually reviewed. Most responses were assumed to be legitimate entries and kept (e.g., different email addresses entered, varied responses), but four responses were assumed to be duplicates from a single user and removed (all responses had the same email address and similar responses to open-ended questions; one of the five responses from that user ID was kept). The four removed responses preferred Option A; it should be noted that the removed responses comprised less than 0.1% of total responses and therefore did not impact overall survey findings. Eleven additional responses were removed that were “test” responses submitted by project team members.

Overarching Survey Takeaways
Respondents were asked about their opinions and priorities for the future use of Blackberry Farm Golf Course. Key themes from the online survey results are summarized below.

Topic Key Takeaways
Resident and nonresident responses
The survey received a total of 4,023 responses. Of those responses, 2,535 were from Cupertino residents (63% of the total responses) and 1,488 were from non-residents (37% of total responses).

Overall option
preference
When analyzing responses from all survey respondents, over half (n = 2,081, 52%) prefer Option A (Golf Course Necessary Repairs and Minor Improvements). However, when analyzing responses from only Cupertino residents, more than half (n = 1,433, 57%) prefer Option B (Conversion to Natural Habitat).

Option preference
reasons
The top reasons cited by survey respondents for preferring Option A include that Blackberry Farm Golf Course is a good course to play for kids, elders, and novices, Blackberry Farm is more affordable than other golf courses, and that there are sufficient other nature options nearby.

The top reasons cited by respondents for preferring Option B include concerns about drought, water use, and climate change and that natural habitat areas benefit a greater number of people and are more accessible.

Distance from site
The majority (71%) of survey respondents who live more than 5 miles from the site selected Option A, while most (52%) of respondents who live 5 or less miles from the site selected Option B. When filtering responses by those who live closest to the site (“less than ½ mile” and “less than 1 mile”), the majority (57%) of respondents prefer Option B.

Age
The most represented age group among survey respondents is people more than 60 years old (36%), followed by people 50 to 60 years old (23%). Generally, older respondents prefer Option A and younger respondents prefer Option B. The majority (66%) of respondents who selected Option A are 50 or older, while 52% of respondents who selected Option B are 50 or older.

Future use frequency
When asked how often survey respondents would use Blackberry Farm Golf Course in the future if the repairs and improvements were made, 48% indicated that they would use the golf course frequently or occasionally, and 52% indicated that they would use the course rarely or never. Among respondents that selected Option A, 87% indicated that they would use the golf course frequently or occasionally; among respondents that selected Option B, 4% indicated that they would use the golf course frequently or occasionally.
361
CC 10-17-2023
361 of 474
3 Survey Results
This section provides the results of each survey question, presented for all respondents and for Cupertino residents (when applicable). Note that percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number, so values may not total to 100%.

Contents
Q1. Which of the following describes you… (check all that apply)................................................................................................................................................ 3 Q2. How far do you live from Blackberry Farm Golf Course?........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Q3. What is your age?........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Q4. Which of the following describes you… (choose one)................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Q5. Do you prefer to play at one golf course over the other? If so, why? ................................................................................................................................... 5 Q6. On average, my household plays golf at Blackberry Farm Golf Course…............................................................................................................................ 7 Q7. On average, my household uses the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail…..................................................................................................................................... 7 Q8. Currently, my household uses the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail for… (select all that apply).................................................................................... 8 Q9. If Blackberry Farm Golf Course is repaired and improved as outlined in the NGF Study how often would you use the Golf Course in the future?.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Q10. If Blackberry Farm Golf Course is converted to natural habitat as outlined in the MIG Study how often would you use the site in the future?...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Q11. Considering the costs of both options, which recreational opportunities would you like to see prioritized at the Blackberry Farm Golf Course site? (Choose one).................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Q12. Why do you prefer one option over the other?.......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Q13. Do you have any other thoughts about the future of the site you would like to share? ........................................................................................... 15 Q14. Provide your email address to receive periodic updates. ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Q1. Which of the following describes you… (check all that apply) Total responses: 4,023
As shown in Figure 1, over half of survey respondents live in Cupertino (63%) or visit shops, restaurants, and service businesses in Cupertino (59%). Less than 14% of respondents work in Cupertino, and about 5% of respondents go to school in Cupertino. Respondents were able to select as many options as applicable, which is why the percentages do not add to 100% (e.g., a respondent could select “I live in Cupertino” and “I work in Cupertino”).

Topic Key Takeaways
When asked how often respondents would use the natural habitat area in the future if Blackberry Farm Golf Course were converted, 57% indicated that they would use the nature area frequently or occasionally, and 43% indicated that they would use the area rarely or never. Among respondents that selected Option B, 96% indicated that they would use the site frequently or occasionally; among respondents that selected Option A, 21% indicated that they would use the site frequently or occasionally.

Preferred golf course
Among respondents that play golf at both Blackberry Farm and Deep Cliff, 40% of respondents prefer to play at Blackberry Farm, 35% have no preference between the two, 11% prefer Deep Cliff, and the remaining 14% did not explicitly indicate which course they prefer. Respondents like Blackberry Farm because the course is short and quick, better for seniors, novices, and kids, well-located, and affordable. 362
CC 10-17-2023
362 of 474
4 Figure 1. Relationship to Cupertino.

Q2. How far do you live from Blackberry Farm Golf Course? Total responses: 4,023
As shown in Figure 2, about half of all respondents live 1–5 miles from Blackberry Farm Golf Course (53%); the remaining respondents live more than 5 miles (17%), less than 1 mile (16%), and less than ½ mile (14%) from the golf course.

A similar trend was indicated among Cupertino residents, except a smaller proportion of residents indicated living more than 5 miles from the golf course. Specifically, among respondents who identify as Cupertino residents, 53% live 1–5 miles from Blackberry Farm Golf Course, 24% live less than 1 mile, 21% live less than ½ mile, and only 2% live more than 5 miles from the course.

Figure 2. Distance from Blackberry Farm Golf Course.

All Respondents (n = 4,023) Cupertino Residents (n = 2,535) Q3. What is your age?
Total responses: 4,023
The majority (59%) of survey respondents are older than 50: 36% are over 60 years old, and 23% are 50 to 60 years old. Respondents 40 to 50 years old make up 17% of responses, and respondents 30 to 40 years old make up 12% of responses. The remaining 12% is comprised of respondents 18 to 30 years old (7%), respondents under 18 years old (2%), and respondents who prefer not to answer (3%). Trends among Cupertino residents are consistent.
363
CC 10-17-2023
363 of 474
5 Figure 3. Age of respondents.

All Respondents (n = 4,023) Cupertino Residents (n = 2,535) Q4. Which of the following describes you… (choose one)
Total responses: 4,023
Over half of respondents (55%) do not play golf at Blackberry Farm Golf Course nor at Deep Cliff Golf Course. About a quarter of respondents (28%) play golf at both courses. Fewer respondents (15%) play golf at Blackberry Farm but not Deep Cliff, and 2% play golf at Deep Cliff but not Blackberry Farm.

Similar trends were indicated by Cupertino residents, but with a higher proportion of people who do not play golf at either course; 64% do not play golf at either course, 21% play golf at both courses, 12% play at Blackberry Farm but not Deep Cliff, and 2% play at Deep Cliff but not Blackberry Farm.

Figure 4. Local golf course(s) used by respondents.

All Respondents (n = 4,023) Cupertino Residents (n = 2,535) Q5. Do you prefer to play at one golf course over the other? If so, why? Total responses: 1,597
Among respondents that play golf at both Blackberry Farm and Deep Cliff, 40% of respondents prefer to play at Blackberry Farm, 35% have no preference between the two, 11% prefer Deep Cliff, and the remaining 14% did not explicitly indicate which course they prefer. Among respondents who golf at Blackberry Farm but not Deep Cliff, the following themes emerged:
364
CC 10-17-2023
364 of 474
6 - Respondents appreciate that Blackberry Farm is a quick, short course (31% of respondents). - Blackberry Farm is a better course to play for seniors, novices, kids, and families (26% of respondents). - Respondents like the location of Blackberry Farm (17% of respondents). - Blackberry Farm Golf Course is affordable, especially compared to other courses in the area (15% of respondents). - Respondents appreciate the atmosphere and environment of Blackberry Farm (12%) and the fact that it is less crowded (5%) than other courses.

Many respondents indicated that they like golfing at both courses for different reasons (based on day of the week, who they are golfing with, or mood). Respondents who prefer Deep Cliff appreciate that the course is longer, more challenging, and well-maintained.

Figure 5. Commonly used words from responses to Q5 (note that for the purpose of this graphic, some words were removed, such as golf, course, Cupertino, Blackberry, natural, habitat, Deep, and Cliff).

Select quotes that reflect these themes are provided below. Note that some quotes were edited for grammar and clarity. • “Blackberry is a walkable course. It allows for a beautiful walk, a great sport experience, comradery between friends and strangers alike, a place for beginners to learn without the pressure of an 18 hole course where more experienced golfers would be less understanding.”
• “I prefer to play at Blackberry because it's more affordable, more interesting, less crowded, and is quicker to finish a round than Deep Cliff.”
• “Blackberry is good for beginners and children who are learning as there is less pressure on the course. Deep Cliff is a busier and more expensive course.”
• “Blackberry is a beautiful course and manageable size for seniors. It is also more affordable than any other golf course in the vicinity.” • “My daughter and I prefer Blackberry Farm. The course is in better shape than Deep Cliff. Play is faster than Deep Cliff. It is easier to get on than Deep Cliff. Overall, the golf experience at Blackberry Farm is much better in our view.” • “I love Deep Cliff. Tight narrow challenging. But often too busy. Need Blackberry as a plan B.” • “Prefer to play at Deep Cliff because it is a more challenging course and more scenic.” • “I prefer Deep Cliff because it is 18 holes and is much better taken care of.” • “As a more skilled golfer, Deep Cliff has 18 more challenging holes and is a nicer natural setting. Deep Cliff has better separation between holes that provides more isolation and more pleasant environment.” • “I enjoy both golf courses and golf at both. Blackberry Golf Course would benefit from a renovation. I would golf there more often if it was maintained better.”
365
CC 10-17-2023
365 of 474
7 • “The venues are very different. I play Blackberry Farm because it is easy to walk (i.e., it is flat and short). I play Deep Cliff because I want a more complete, full-length golf experience.”
• “As an ex-golfer it's clear that the two courses are serving different audiences. Those who are at all serious about their game will play Deep Cliff, those who (for whatever reason) don't care will play the cheaper/easier/casual Blackberry and still have a great day.” • “Both courses are very unique to Cupertino and should be kept.” • “They are both very different courses. I love Blackberry as a quick 9-hole round during the week to get out of the house, and Deep Cliff provides 18 holes on the weekends.”
Q6. On average, my household plays golf at Blackberry Farm Golf Course… Total responses: 4,023
Most survey respondents rarely play golf at Blackberry Farm Golf course. Half of respondents’ households (51%) never play golf at Blackberry Farm Golf Course. The remaining half of households play at Blackberry Farm 1–5 times per year (18%), 6–12 times per year (13%), 13–24 times per year (9%), and more than 24 times per year (10%).

Among Cupertino residents, a greater number reported that their households never play golf at Blackberry Farm (59%). The remaining households play at Blackberry Farm 1–5 times per year (15%), 6–12 times per year (10%), 13–24 times per year (7%), and more than 24 times per year (9%).

Figure 6. Frequency of use of Blackberry Farm Golf Course.

All Respondents (n = 4,023) Cupertino Residents (n = 2,535) Q7. On average, my household uses the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail… Total responses: 4,023
About a quarter of respondents’ households never use the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail (28%); 24% use the trail less than 1 time per month, 21% use the trail 1 to 3 times per month, 14% use the trail 4 to 11 times per month, and the remaining 13% use the trail more than 12 times per month.

Among Cupertino residents, households use the trail more frequently. Fewer households never use the trail (19%); 22% use the trail less than 1 time per month, 23% use the trail 1 to 3 times per month, 17% use the trail 4 to 11 times per month, and 18% use the trail more than 12 times per month.
366
CC 10-17-2023
366 of 474
8 Figure 7. Frequency of use of Stevens Creek Corridor Trail.

All Respondents (n = 4,023) Cupertino Residents (n = 2,535) Q8. Currently, my household uses the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail for… (select all that apply) Total responses: 3,599
Most respondents use the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail for walking for leisure or exercise (selected by 73% of respondents), followed by biking for leisure (19%), dog walking (18%), commuting (4%), and other (3%). About 20% of respondents indicated that their household does not use the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail. Respondents were able to select as many options as applicable, which is why the percentages do not add to 100% (e.g., a respondent could select “Dog walking” and “Commuting”).

Among Cupertino residents, a higher proportion of respondents use the trail; 80% of respondents use the trail for walking for leisure or exercise, 20% use it for dog walking, 19% use it for biking for leisure, 4% use it for commuting, and 3% indicated “other.” About 14% of respondents indicated that their household does not use the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail.

Figure 8. Types of use of Stevens Creek Corridor Trail.

All Respondents (n = 3,599) Cupertino Residents (n = 2,365) Q9. If Blackberry Farm Golf Course is repaired and improved as outlined in the NGF Study how often would you use the Golf Course in the future?
Total responses: 4,023
About 34% of respondents indicated that they would use the course frequently in the future if it is repaired and improved; 15% would use the course occasionally, and 9% would use the course rarely. Just under half of respondents (44%) indicated that they would never use Blackberry Farm Golf Course in the future.
367
CC 10-17-2023
367 of 474
9 Cupertino residents generally indicated that they would use the golf course less often. Among Cupertino residents, 26% said they would use the course frequently, 13% they would use the course occasionally, and 10% said they would use the course rarely. About half (51%) of respondents indicated that they would never use Blackberry Farm Golf Course in the future.

Figure 9. Anticipated future use of Blackberry Farm Golf Course if repaired and improved as outlined in the NGF Study.

All Respondents (n = 4,023) Cupertino Residents (n = 2,535) Q10. If Blackberry Farm Golf Course is converted to natural habitat as outlined in the MIG Study how often would you use the site in the future?
Total responses: 4,023
About 35% of respondents indicated that they would use the natural habitat frequently in the future if it is converted from Blackberry Farm Golf Course; 22% would use the natural area occasionally, and 20% would use the natural area rarely. Just under a quarter of respondents (23%) indicated that they would never use the natural habitat area in the future.

Cupertino residents indicated they would use the natural habitat more frequently. Among Cupertino residents, 44% said they would use the natural area frequently, 24% they would use the natural area occasionally, and 17% said they would use the natural area rarely. About 15% of respondents indicated that they would never use the natural habitat area in the future.

Figure 10. Anticipated future use of the Blackberry Farm site if converted to natural habitat as outlined in the MIG Study.

All Respondents (n = 4,023) Cupertino Residents (n = 2,535) 368
CC 10-17-2023
368 of 474
10 Q11. Considering the costs of both options, which recreational opportunities would you like to see prioritized at the Blackberry Farm Golf Course site? (Choose one) Total responses: 4,023
Just over half (51.7%) of all survey respondents prefer Option A, necessary repairs and minor improvements to Blackberry Farm Golf Course. However, when viewing responses by only Cupertino residents, over half of respondents (56.5%) prefer Option B, conversion of the golf course to natural habitat.

Figure 11. Preference for future use of the site.

All Respondents (n = 4,023) Cupertino Residents (n = 2,535) Generally, Option A (golf course) is preferred by those living further from the golf course and Option B (natural habitat) is preferred by those living closer to the golf course. Most respondents (71%) who live more than 5 miles from the site selected Option A, while 52% of respondents who live 5 or less miles from the course selected Option B. When filtering responses by those who live closest to the course (“less than ½ mile” and “less than 1 mile”), the majority (57%) of respondents prefer Option B.

Figure 12. Preference for future use of the site by distance from site.

Lives more than 5 miles from site (n = 697) Lives 5 or fewer miles from site (n = 3,326) Generally, Option A (golf course) is preferred by older respondents and Option B (natural habitat) is preferred by younger respondents.

When filtering responses by those who selected Option A (golf course), 66% of respondents are 50 or older in age. The remaining respondents are 40 to 50 years old (15%), 30 to 40 years old (10%), 18 to 30 years old (5%), under 18 years old (2%), or responded “prefer not to answer” (3%). Comparing these age demographics to those who selected Option B (natural habitat), 52% of respondents are 50 or older in age. The remaining respondents are 40 to 50 years old (19%), 30 to 40 years old (14%), 18 to 30 years old (9%), under 18 years old (2%), or responded “prefer not to answer” (3%).
369
CC 10-17-2023
369 of 474
11 Figure 13. Age of respondents by option selection.

Selected Option A (n = 2,081) Selected Option B (n = 1,942) Q12. Why do you prefer one option over the other?
Total responses: 3,134 (1,627 selected Option A (golf course) and 1,507 selected Option B (natural habitat)) Top reasons given by respondents for choosing Option A (Necessary Repairs and Minor Improvements to Blackberry Farm Golf Course) include the following. Percentages refer to the proportion of respondents within the specified option (i.e., 29% of respondents who selected Option A and responded to Q12 indicated the given theme). - There are sufficient other natural areas and walking trails nearby (29% of respondents). - Blackberry Farm Golf Course is a good course to play for seniors, kids, novices, and people who want to play on a shorter course (29% of respondents).
- Respondent plays golf (25% of respondents) (note: likely more than 25% of respondents who selected Option A play golf, but 25% of respondents to this question specifically indicated that playing golf was a reason for preferring Option A). - Blackberry Farm Golf Course is affordable and/or more cost-effective than Option B (11% of respondents). - Blackberry Farm Golf Course provides healthy outdoor exercise (8% of respondents).

Additional themes (each representing less than 5% of responses) include that the golf course brings in revenue, benefits community members’ mental health and quality of life, benefits many people in the community, acts as a fire break, and provides habitat for wildlife.

Figure 14. Frequency of commonly identified rationale for preferring Option A. 370
CC 10-17-2023
370 of 474
12 Figure 15. Commonly used words from respondents who selected Option A (note that for the purpose of this graphic, some words were removed, such as golf, course, Cupertino, Blackberry, natural, and habitat).

Select quotes that reflect these themes are provided below. Note that some quotes were edited for grammar and clarity. • “Golf was a life saver during the covid pandemic closures. It is a relative flat course easy for seniors to walk and enjoy a recreational activity well into their 90's (the new 70's). It is a source of beauty to walk and enjoy the wildlife – hawks, coyotes, deer and my favorite, the squirrels!”
• “When our kids were teenagers, playing golf every week was the only set-aside time for us to communicate as a family. Currently, we play as a couple, or with our adult children or our friends. It’s a time we catch up with each other.” • “There is a shortage of golf courses for our community and a wide variety of existing open space areas. Having a short executive course is a terrific value for the community. This option also provides exercise and development for our youth and school golf teams to practice their golf skills.”
• “I wouldn't use the natural habitat, since there are many nearby existing options that are bigger and nicer that I already use.” • “It's convenient and keeps me out getting exercise and socializing with friends.” • “Restoration back to natural habitat will see only those that live bordering the space or within a few hundred yards walking distance use it. The golf course is a destination that people come to and then perhaps shop and visit stores and restaurants in the vicinity afterward.”
• “There are very few inexpensive golf courses in the SF Bay Area. Golf can be an expensive sport to learn and we need smaller community courses like this one to remove some of the barriers to entry. I learned to golf at Blackberry Farm. My kids learned to golf at Blackberry Farm. It gets kids OUT OF DOORS, away from monitors, interacting with wildlife and other people. I can't tell you enough how important I think this small golf course is to our community at large.” • “I play golf and enjoy the exercise the game provides with the habitat it creates.” • “We are a growing community in need of recovering from the isolation of Covid and need to get back to exercising. We are aging but still like to play golf.”
• “When I play, I frequently witness seniors and youth of all ages on the course. The green fees are reasonable, and the shortness of the course makes it accessible to beginners as well as seniors. It would be a shame to lose this golfing option.” • “Blackberry Farms is my favorite local golf course. There are already plenty of places for me to walk the dog.” • “I play golf and cannot afford anywhere else.”
• “I golfed with my dad at Blackberry Farm and it holds a lot of great memories for me. In addition, my dad enjoyed the senior golfing and social opportunities that Blackberry provided.”
• “The golf course creates a good open space and fire break. It is far better maintained than the natural preserve which is poorly maintained. The grounds and creek need to be cleaned up.” 371
CC 10-17-2023
371 of 474
13 Top reasons given by respondents for choosing Option B (Conversion to Natural Habitat) include the following. Percentages refer to the proportion of respondents within the specified option (i.e., 49% of respondents who selected Option B and responded to Q12 indicated the given theme).
- Respondent is concerned about drought and water use of the golf course (49% of respondents). - Conversion to natural habitat benefits a greater number of people than golf (44% of respondents). - Conversion to natural habitat is better for the environment (respondents noted concern about climate change, fertilizers, pesticides, and other pollutants) (18% of respondents). - Natural areas provide wildlife habitat (13% of respondents). - There are sufficient other options for golf nearby (10% of respondents). - A natural area is more affordable and/or cost-effective than a golf course (10% of respondents). - Natural areas provide mental health benefits and nature connection (9% of respondents). - Respondent does not play golf (9% of respondents) (note: likely more than 9% of respondents who selected Option B do not play golf, but 9% of respondents to this question specifically indicated that not playing golf was a reason for preferring Option B). - A natural area provides opportunities for outdoor exercise (6% of respondents).

Additional themes (representing less than 5% of responses) include that natural areas are good for seniors, kids, and dogs.

Figure 16. Frequency of commonly identified rationale for preferring Option B. 372
CC 10-17-2023
372 of 474
14 Figure 17. Commonly used words from respondents who selected Option B (note that for the purpose of this graphic, some words were removed, such as golf, course, Cupertino, Blackberry, natural, and habitat).

Select quotes that reflect these themes are provided below. Note that some quotes were edited for grammar and clarity. • “Climate change will continue to exacerbate drought conditions. Natural Habitat is far more equitable. Many more people will have the ability to access the natural habitat than the golf course (golf equipment costs money, walking does not; skill, talent & time are needed to golf; walking can be done by most everyone; walking in nature is a family-friendly activity, golf not so much).” • “With more people living in Cupertino it is good to have a place like blackberry farm area/trails for people to do walk, exercise, walking dogs, enjoy the outdoor nature reserve areas. The golf course does not benefit the majority of the population. It is only for a selected few.”
• “If water use was not a concern, retaining the course would be my preference. However, given the severe ongoing drought conditions in California, the days are past when we can continue wasting vast quantities of water on thirsty non-native vegetation for a purpose enjoyed by only a few. Converting to natural habitat is the environmentally-conscious choice, which also provides benefit to more members of the community.”
• “Native plants and pollinators can find refuge at this natural habitat as climate change continues to destroy habitats and disrupt ecological systems.”
• “During a period of severe drought and a biodiversity crisis, both of which threaten to intensify in coming years, we should invest our public funds in solutions that mitigate both rather than exacerbating them.” • “I think expansion of the Stevens Creek Trail is a lot more beneficial for the entire community. A free, public space is a lot more inclusive.”
• “The majority of residents in Cupertino and Saratoga do not play golf. Renovating the old golf course will cost close to $2 million but will only serve a very small portion of the community. Restoring valuable wetlands not only benefits the residents, but all of the plants and species that could thrive in a wetland ecosystem.”
• “We need more open green space for the people of California to destress, exercise and relax.” • “Rich diverse natural habitat close to an urban area is better than a monoculture of turf.” • “We already have Deep Cliff Golf Course, I think more people, including more diverse ages, would use the natural habitat choice for more diverse activities.”
• “Multiple reasons: (1) Extreme water shortage. (2) We need to cater to a wider audience and not just the rich. (3) Alternative golf course available less than half a mile away. (4) We are paying to live in California's loving weather – let’s find more ways to be outside.”
• “Given the challenges of climate change, drought, and biodiversity loss, we need to be looking for every opportunity to restore habitat for native species.”
• “Option B supports and encourages neighborhood walks, outdoor exercise and enjoyment of a natural environment.” 373
CC 10-17-2023
373 of 474
15 Q13. Do you have any other thoughts about the future of the site you would like to share? Total responses: 1,498
Additional thoughts about the future of the site (that weren’t already reflected in responses to Q12) include the following themes. A “theme” is classified as an idea that was mentioned more than two (2) times. - Provide educational opportunities such as signage along trails, ranger-led classes and workshops, and guided nature walks to educate visitors on the site’s ecology, history, conservation, restoration, and sustainability. - Plant native, drought-tolerant trees and plants along the trail. - Extend the existing pool.
- Build additional public bathrooms.
- Develop water ponds to create habitat for birds.
- Design the site as a central community space that is welcoming to all residents. - Include shade in the design of the site to accommodate long and hot summers. - Include benches, picnic areas, and water fill stations in the design. - Build a playground to accommodate children.
- Utilize the space as an outdoor theater, meeting space, outdoor festival/music venue, farmers market, and amphitheater for outdoor programs.
- Build a café/snack shack/club house.
- Build trails that accommodate bikers (asphalt) and hikers (soft-surfaces tails). - Consider developing a bike or skate park.
- Involve Indigenous communities throughout the entire site development process. - Accommodate dogs in the design, either by creating dog friendly/off-leash trails or a designated off-leash dog park. - Provide a driving range/mini golf course and natural areas. - Include sports fields for sports such as disc golf and courts for pickleball, bocci ball, volleyball, tennis courts. - Connect trails to surrounding nature areas (i.e., Stevens Creek Corridor, Fremont Older Open Space). - Include a community garden/food forest in the site design. - Remodel/modernize golf course to be a low-to-no-water golf course (use reclaimed/grey water). - Concern that the presence of natural predators that accompany the natural habitat will post a safety risk to visitors and nearby residents.
- Concern that converting site into a natural area will attract people who are houseless and pose a security risk to surrounding neighbors.
- Concern that converting the site into a natural area will increase car and foot traffic. - Mix of concern and support related to developing housing at the site. - Mix of concern and support related to remodeling or replacing the Blue Pheasant restaurant.

Additional ideas related to the future of the site include the following:
- Provide additional public parking.
- Develop a Japanese tea garden/rose garden.
- Consider a low-maintenance design approach to a natural area. - Raise green fees to generate more revenue.
- Concern that converting the golf course into a natural site would destroy a historical site and course.

Select quotes that reflect these themes are provided below. Note that some quotes were edited for grammar and clarity. • “I would like to see this group consult with native Ohlone tribes to include some signage and understanding of native plants & animals.

I also would like to see this group consult with the Native California Plant Society Santa Clara Chapter, and Audubon. Let’s make this a grassroots participation and a model we can do in other parts of Cupertino.” • “Please work with Audubon Society at McClellan Ranch for ideas.” • “Upgrade the ponds to catch and retain water to allow for water all throughout the year.” • “Convert the course to a nature trail but also build a small retail strip mall that has pedestrian paths in front – so maintain the parking lot but not allow car traffic so then there can be shops that generate rental income for the city but also more retail and food options for those in park - e.g., cafes, boutiques, coffee shops, etc. – a quaint downtown feel.” • “I’m worried that having a nature preserve would cause The Blue Pheasant to go out of business.” • “ADA corrections and expansion could be part of the A plan and the Golf Course could serve another purpose – an outdoor area for disabled citizens.”
374
CC 10-17-2023
374 of 474
16 • “Changing its habitat will increase my allergies if your suggestions are followed. That will make it impossible to go in certain areas during my allergy seasons. We already have a lovely park in that area.” • “The city should partner with the restaurant. So many opportunities there. Please look to the city of Sunnyvale as an example. The city could partner with the Blue Pheasant the same way Sunken Gardens is partnered with Gold Rush Eatery. Both restaurants are on site.

Don't lose this opportunity!”
• “Some have suggested combing a bit of both options. I like that idea. Also, it would be better to consider converting to using reclaimed water and grazes that require fewer chemicals to maintain. If available now or in the future, using electric lawn mowers would be less polluting to the air (yes, I do understand that the manufacture of batteries can pollute the environment in the country that produces them, and recycling used batteries is not yet available).” • “The golf course is already a great place to see local wildlife. The birds on course are spectacular. By planting native plants in the features, you can increase that.”
• “Stevens Creek Boulevard is a major thoroughfare through Cupertino and the Blackberry Farm Golf Course stretch can be a high-speed raceway, especially at night when many cars regularly exceed 60 mph. If Blackberry Farm Golf Course is eliminated and a wildlife preserve/hiking trail is put in its place, many more vulnerable wild animals will cross Stevens Creek Bl. and the death toll of deer, opossums, raccoons, skunks and, tragically, maybe even unsuspecting drivers, will inevitably increase. This would be an extreme safety hazard and I have not heard anybody even start to address it.” • “A butterfly garden would be a wonderful addition.”
• “I think the binary approach – either keep the course or return it to natural conditions – is short-sighted and to be honest not very creative. For a city that prides itself on being a hub of new ways of thinking and contributor to Silicon Valley, I might say even a bit lazy. A new approach to the current state of Blackberry Farms Golf Course would be to transition those areas of the golf course not typically part of play (between tees and greens) could be planted with native plants. This would save water (and money!) and provide less park-like and a more natural setting. You could find an area to incorporate the wildflower meadow. But most importantly, the City should consider opening up the golf course to walkers/hikers on Sundays and Mondays (or some similar days of the week). Course maintenance could continue, and certain areas of the course could be off limits (stick to cart paths and fairways, for example). Walkers would have to pick up after themselves and their pets, the same as our City and County parks. Multi-use settings provide the most benefit for the most residents. I would hope the City could look at what is possible instead of finding reasons to try something new. Good luck on your project!”
• “Walkers, joggers, bikers would not have to be scared of getting hit with a golf ball, if the place was converted into a natural habitat.” Q14. Provide your email address to receive periodic updates.

Total responses: 2,213
375
CC 10-17-2023
375 of 474
17 Appendix
The following codes were used in Dedoose to analyze open-ended survey responses.

Q5: Do you prefer to play at one golf course over the other? If so, why? 1 Prefers BBF
2 Prefers Deep Cliff
3 No preference/like both/depends
4 Affordability
5 Atmosphere/environment
6 Better maintained
7 Location
8 Less crowded
9 Better for seniors/novices/kids
10 Shorter course
11 Longer/harder course
12 Safer course
Q12: Why do you prefer one option over the other?
1 Plays golf
2 Does not play golf
3 Affordability/costs
4 Wildlife habitat
5 Outdoor exercise
6 Mental health/quality of life
7 Mental health/nature connection
8 Revenue
9 Fire break/risk
10 Good for seniors/novices/kids/shorter course
11 Other nature options nearby
12 Other golf options nearby
13 Water use/drought
14 Climate/environment/pollutants
15 Benefits whole community/greater # of people/more accessible 16 Good for dogs
Q13: Do you have any other thoughts about the future of the site you would like to share? 1 Any responses that are unique from the reasons given in Q12 were tagged as “other” and reviewed for content (e.g., “recommend Tribal engagement” and “add classes about composting”)
376
CC 10-17-2023
376 of 474
Attachment D
Item # Item Repair Golf Course Natural Habitat
1 Capital Cost $1,970,000 $1,882,825
2 Total O&M Expenditure (0-25 yr) $17,496,250 $10,720,594 O&M Expenditure
Breakdown
2A Irrigation Water Cost*** $1,575,000 $100,800
2B Sewer Discharge Cost $525,000 $297,200
2C City Labor Costs $7,569,500 $9,591,844
2D Contracted O&M Services $7,610,000 $562,000
2E O&M Miscellaneous $216,750 $168,750
3 Estimated Revenue (0-25 yrs) $9,378,624 $500,000
4 O&M Expenditure minus Revenue (0-25 yrs) $8,117,626 $10,220,594 5 Total Cost minus Revenue (0-25 yrs) $10,087,626 $12,103,419 6 Irrigation Water Use (0-25 yrs) Gallons* 168 to 212 million Gallons 14 million Gallons 7 Grant Funding Potential** N/A $600,000
Average Annual O&M Cost over 25 Years = $324,705 $408,824 * based on current average use in drought conditions (8.5 M gal) and represents minimal use. **assume $300k for construction and $300k on-going
***assumes use of current annual volume of water. Could be 15% reduction.

Blackberry Farm Golf Course Use Analysis
Comparative Costs - 25 Year Outlook
377
CC 10-17-2023
377 of 474
18 VISION & GOALS | cupertino parks and recreation system master plan Nature Experience
Community members
want more opportunities to
connect to nature.

Expanding access to nature is a top priority
for the community. Throughout all outreach
activities, participants consistently favored
incorporating nature and increasing access
to natural open space over other potential
enhancements. Community priorities include
improving or restoring creeks, meadows, and
wildlife habitat in existing parks, as well as
planting more trees and native plants in public
spaces. Stakeholders, Council members and
residents noted the importance of environmental
education and nature programs in connecting
people to nature. Gardening and nature play
were seen as additional opportunities to connect
to nature. As the City renovates its parks,
residents would like to see a decreased emphasis
on large lawn areas and more focus on retaining
a site’s natural character. City parks could
better highlight existing natural amenities and
tree cover, adding to the City’s overall “natural
capital.”
85% of Citywide Survey
respondents noted that improving
access to natural open space is
needed
FIGURE 7: NATURE RECEIVES THE MOST AND STRONGEST SUPPORT OF THE

PRIORIT Y GOALS FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM
(VISION AND GOALS QUESTIONNAIRE)
378
CC 10-17-2023
378 of 474
23 cupertino parks and recreation system master plan | CHAPTER TWO Recreation Variety
Residents and visitors
desire a wide range of
recreation options.

Cupertino is a diverse community with a keen
interest in diverse recreation. Outreach fi ndings
indicate that residents expect a greater variety
of recreation options, including unique, highquality attractions for residents and visitors. The wide range of recreation interests includes a need
for diff erent types of facilities and programs that
support visual and performing arts, nature and
environmental education, sports and fi tness, and
more. Community members want to see diff erent
types of facilities that go beyond standard
recreation off erings, such as non-traditional,
multi-purpose facilities.

Community members recommended adding
varied facilities such as a parcourse, outdoor
exercise equipment, and moveable seating to
City parks, as well as traditional elements such
as basketball courts.
74% of Questionnaire
respondents believe that having
a greater variety of facilities and
programs is important
FIGURE 10: DIVERSE INTERESTS IN EIGHT T YPES OF PROGRAMMING

ENHANCEMENTS (CITYWIDE SURVEY)
Performing, visual,
cultural arts
Classes for lifelong
learning
Before and after school
programs
Nature and
environmental programs
Aquatic programs
Adult sports/fi tness
Youth sports/fi tness
Special events (i.e. Earth
Day, 4th of July, festivals,
etc.)
379
CC 10-17-2023
379 of 474

BLACKBERRY FARM GOLF COURSE

FUTURE USE OPTIONS
The City wants to hear your thoughts about the future use of Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Please take a short survey!

This survey will take about 10 minutes to complete. For ages 12 and under, parents are encouraged to help their children complete the survey. This survey is also available online in Simplified Chinese and Hindi.

Introduction
As a Fiscal Year 2021-2022 City Work Program item, the Cupertino City Council included a needs assessment study of Blackberry Farm Golf Course. Blackberry Farm Golf Course is located adjacent to Blackberry Farm Park and the Stevens Creek Trail. Currently, the City is looking into two options for the site, 1) Conduct necessary repairs and minor improvements to the golf course, or 2) Discontinue use of the site as a golf course and restore to natural habitat and trails.

Call to Action: Let the City know which of the two options you prefer to see implemented at the Blackberry Farm Golf Course site.

Survey Introduction: Whether you are a Cupertino resident, golfer, walker, or neighbor, the City wants to hear from you. The City is deciding between two options for the use of the Blackberry Farm Golf Course site:

Option A:

Golf Course Necessary Repairs and Minor Improvements – Replace the irrigation system, tee boxes, greens, and sand traps. The ninth hole would be shortened to increase safety and eliminate errant shots to the parking lot, trail, and first tee box. This includes the possible expansion of the short game practice area. The empty ponds would be replaced with lowland native plantings. The Golf Course is estimated to be closed for 9-12 months if this option is chosen. On course ADA issues would be addressed. National Golf Foundation Consulting completed this Study.

Option B:

Conversion to Natural Habitat - Establish accessible walking trails, free to the public, that connect with the Stevens Creek Trail and develop other visitor amenities, such as seating, an outdoor education area, and ranger’s office. Allow the Stevens Creek riparian corridor vegetation to naturally occupy portions of the existing golf course. Plant and manage vegetation to foster growth of drought tolerant and native species. Establish a wildflower meadow. Existing Coastal Redwoods would remain. Incorporate fire resiliency management practices. MIG, Inc completed this study. It includes a preliminary conceptual design for the purposes of facilitating this feasibility discussion and is not meant to be a finalized design. 380
CC 10-17-2023
380 of 474
25-Year Comparative Cost Estimate for Option A and Option B:

Below is a summary table of the projected cost estimates for each option over a 25-year period.

Additionally noted is the projected water use for each option. Capital Costs include the initial cost of the repair or improvement. These costs are in 2022 dollars and not adjusted for inflation. Costs include projected revenues as identified in the table below.

You can review the reports for each option or sign up for email notifications regarding this topic at:
engagecupertino.org/bbfgolfcourse
381
CC 10-17-2023
381 of 474

1. Which of the following describes you…(check all that apply) □ I live in Cupertino
□ I work in Cupertino
□ I go to school in Cupertino
□ I visit shops, restaurants, and service businesses in Cupertino. □ Other (please describe)

2. How far do you live from Blackberry Farm Golf Course? □ Less than ½ mile
□ Less than 1 mile
□ Between 1-5 miles
□ More than 5 miles

3. What is your age?
□ Under 18 years old
□ 18 – 30 years old
□ 30 – 40 years old
□ 40-50 years old
□ 50-60 years old
□ Over 60 years old
□ Prefer not to answer

4. Which of the following describes you…(Choose one)
□ I play golf at both Blackberry Farm Golf Course and Deep Cliff Golf Course. □ I play golf at Blackberry Farm Golf Course but not at Deep Cliff Golf Course. □ I play golf at Deep Cliff Golf Course but not at Blackberry Farm Golf Course. □ I do not play golf at Blackberry Farm Golf Course or at Deep Cliff Golf Course. ❖ Do you prefer to play at one golf course over the other? If so, why? (Fill in Blank)
________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 382
CC 10-17-2023
382 of 474

5. On average, my household plays golf at Blackberry Farm Golf Course… □ Never
□ 1-5 times per year
□ 6-12 times per year
□ 13-24 times per year
□ More than 24 times per year

6. On average, my household uses the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail… □ Never
□ Less than 1 time per month
□ 1-3 times per month
□ 4-11 times per month
□ More than 12 times per month

7. Currently, my household uses the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail for…(Select all that apply)
□ Walking for leisure or exercise
□ Dog walking
□ Commuting
□ Biking for leisure
□ Other (fill in blank)
□ My household does not use the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail

8. If Blackberry Farm Golf Course is repaired and improved as outlined in the NGF Study how often would you use the Golf Course in the future? □ Frequently
□ Occasionally
□ Rarely
□ Never
383
CC 10-17-2023
383 of 474

9. If Blackberry Farm Golf Course is converted to natural habitat as outlined in the MIG Study how often would you use the site in the future? □ Frequently
□ Occasionally
□ Rarely
□ Never

10. Considering the costs of both options, which recreational opportunities would you like to see prioritized at the Blackberry Farm Golf Course site? (Choose one) □ Necessary repairs and minor improvements to the existing 9-hole golf course □ Conversion of the golf course to natural habitat with an extension of the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail

11. Why do you prefer one option over the other?
o (Fill in the Blank)
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

12. Do you have any other thoughts about the future of the site you would like to share? (Fill in Blank)
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

OPTIONAL
o Provide your name and email address to receive periodic updates. ______________________________________________________________________________ 384
CC 10-17-2023
384 of 474

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Teleconference Special Meeting
Wednesday, May 18, 2022
7:00 PM

MINUTES
Chair Xu called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. via remote teleconference.

ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Carol Stanek, Xiangchen (Minna) Xu, Gopal Kumarappan, Sashikala Begur (7:06 p.m.)
Commissioners absent: Seema Swamy
Staff present: Molly James, Jenny Koverman, Jessica Javier, Kevin Khuu, Branton Curt, Lisa Cameli, Susan Michael, Matt Morley,
Andre Duurvoort, Rachelle Sander
Guest speakers: Jeff Danner, Chris Mitchell, Taylor Peterson, Alicia Fennell, Andrea Martin

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Lisa Warren, Cupertino resident, thanked the Parks and Recreation Department for allowing zoom fitness classes to continue and suggested that the department keeps them. Lisa requested consideration of a discussion surrounding the name of LawrenceMitty Park.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None

NEW BUSINESS

1. Subject: Update on Fiscal Year 2021-22 City Work Program Item Blackberry Farm Golf Course Needs Assessment
Recommended Action: Receive the report from National Golf Foundation Consulting (NGF) for the option to complete minor repairs and improvements to the golf course and the report from Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) for converting the golf course to natural habitat. Provide input and feedback on next steps regarding public outreach.

Written Communications for this item included an email to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

ATTACHMENT H 385
Molly James, Recreation Manager, introduced Lisa Cameli, Project Manager, to present on the item. Lisa provided a project background, reviewed the two feasibility studies conducted for the future use of Blackberry Farm Golf Course, and next steps including public outreach.

Susan Moore, Cupertino resident, suggested including something on the survey about water usage estimates for both options. Added when talking about Stevens Creek Trail, suggested to put “/McClellan” since they are all part of the Corridor.

Connie Cunningham, Cupertino resident, supported the restoration approach for natural habitat. Connie also supported the addition of water information to the survey.

Jessica Javier, Administrative Assistant, read out loud a written communication from George Maxe, First Tee - Silicon Valley, in support of preserving the Golf Course.

Commissioners provided feedback on the draft survey and agreed upon the following.

The Commission supports not including registration for eligibility, however, would like for staff to seek out tracking and security measures and follow up over email with the Commissioners. Also supports collecting age for demographic.

Vice Chair Begur requested to add a question regarding where someone plays – do you play at Deep Cliff Golf Course, Blackberry Farm Golf Course, or both, which do you prefer, and how often. Commissioner Stanek and Kumarappan supported the addition.

The Commission recommended adding the detailed cost estimate chart to reflect the water usage difference along with the link to the full report.

Commissioner Stanek raised concerns regarding the language of “minor repairs” throughout the survey. Commissioner Kumarappan suggested changing the language to “necessary repairs.” The Commission supported the change.

Commissioner Stanek recommended adding in “accessible natural habitat” to the question where participants are asked which recreational opportunities would you like to see prioritized. Chair Xu added that the survey should include that natural habitat is open to all for free.

Commissioner Stanek requested an additional two questions:
- If the necessary improvements are made to Blackberry Farm Golf Course, how often would you use it?
386
CC 10-17-2023
386 of 474
- If it is moved to a natural habitat, how often will you use it or visit? Chair Xu and Vice Chair Begur supported the two questions.

Commissioner Stanek raised concerns about accessibility to the survey and whether a paper version can be made available.

Commissioners supported hosting an open house where the public is invited to tour the Blackberry Farm Golf Course.

Commission Kumarappan requested that staff share the survey once it is finalized and before it goes live.

STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS

2. Subject: Monthly Update Reports.

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

Molly James, Recreation Manager, provided the Director’s update on the following:
- Council will consider extending the resolution authorizing continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies for the period May 19, 2022 through June 18, 2022 pursuant to the Brown Act at tomorrow night’s meeting.

The next Parks and Recreation Commission meetings will be virtual until further notice.
- The Poet Laureate Recruitment is live and accepting applications online or at the Quinlan Community Center. Recruitment is scheduled to close on June 1 at 5 p.m.
- Community Meeting planned for Monday, June 6 to discuss Blackberry Farm Golf Course.
- Special Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation, Planning, and Bike/Ped planned for Monday, June 13 to discuss the Lawrence-Mitty Park.

Commissioner Stanek reported on the Library Expansion, Cherry Blossom Festival, Creekside Labyrinth, City Work Program, and the Sunnyvale Fair Oak Park opening.

Commissioner Kumarappan had attended the May Mayor’s meeting and reported on the following:
- Technology, Information and Communication Commission
o Currently pilots going on for adaptive signal and intelligent cameras for traffic regulation and safety needs, and pollution deduction. 387
CC 10-17-2023
387 of 474
o New proposals for 2023 – license plate recognition, cyber security outreach, and chatbot.

Chair Xu shared information with Commissioners from Vice Mayor Chao about hybrid meetings.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Xu adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m. to the June 2, 2022, meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Jessica Javier, Administrative Assistant
Parks and Recreation Department
Minutes approved at the June 2, 2022 regular meeting
388
CC 10-17-2023
388 of 474

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION

BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION

SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
Teleconference Joint Special Meeting
Thursday, September 8, 2022
6:30 PM

MINUTES
Chair Xu called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. via remote teleconference.

ROLL CALL
Parks and Recreation Xiangchen (Minna) Xu, Sashikala Begur, Gopal Commissioners: Kumarappan, Carol Stanek, Seema Swamy
Bicycle Pedestrian Ilango Ganga, Jack Carter, Erik Lindskog, Grace John, Commissioners: Gerhard Eschelbeck
Sustainability Anna Weber, Meera Ramanathan, Sonali Padgaonkar, Commissioners: Steve Poon
Commissioners absent: Vignesh Swaminathan (Sustainability) Staff present: Rachelle Sander, Jessica Javier, Jenny Koverman, Lisa Cameli, Susan Michael, Matt Morley, Chad Mosley,
Kimberly Lunt, Gilee Corral, Andre Duurvoort
Guest speakers: Alicia Fennell, Jeff Danner, Forrest Richardson, Taylor Peterson

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Rhoda Fry expressed concerns regarding the Blackberry Farm slide removal.

Peggy Griffin expressed concerns regarding the Blackberry Farm slide removal. Also requested consideration of restroom renovations for all parks due to accessibility issues.

Lisa Warren expressed concerns regarding the Blackberry Farm slide removal.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None

NEW BUSINESS

1. Subject: Consider an update on Fiscal Year 2021-22 City Work Program item regarding the Blackberry Farm Golf Course Needs Assessment ATTACHMENT I 389
CC 10-17-2023
389 of 474
Recommended Action: Receive the public survey and Outreach Summary Report for the Blackberry Farm Golf Course Feasibility Study and provide input and feedback on next steps regarding alternatives for future use of the golf course.

Written Communications for this item included emails to the Parks and Recreation, Bicycle Pedestrian, and Sustainability Commissions.

Matt Morley, Director of Public Works, introduced Alicia Fennell, Cascadia Consultant, to introduce the item. Alicia introduced the item and provided an overview of the staff and consultants working on the project. Alicia introduced Lisa Cameli, Project Manager, who presented an overview of the project background and the two alternatives. Alicia then presented on the community engagement process and survey results.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions.

Chair Xu opened the public comment period and the following people spoke.

Connie Cunningham, Cupertino resident, supported restoration to natural habitat and emphasized there should be no removal of existing trees.

Muni Madhdhipatla, Cupertino resident and Cupertino Planning Commission Vice Chair, supported keeping the golf course.

Annie Yang, Cupertino resident, supported restoration to natural habitat. If the City decided to keep the golf course, recommended adding wildlife habitat as an improvement such as complex native vegetation structures at the edges of the golf course, restoration of the ponds, trees, and avoiding additional netting.

Richard Lowenthal supported keeping the golf course, watering only the greens to help reduce the water use, and potentially closing the golf course one day a week to allow for public use of picnicking.

Peggy Griffin supported keeping the golf course, picnicking on Sundays, replacing the trees that have been removed, restoring the ponds with natural vegetation and water, adding habitat islands, and raising the fees at the golf course.

Lisa Warren supported keeping the golf course.

Carol Ovelman commented that the City should consider using reclaimed water. 390
CC 10-17-2023
390 of 474
Keith Kreft, supported keeping the golf course, increasing the number of rounds, and increasing fees at the golf course.

Nick Bailey supported keeping the golf course and investing in a feasibility study to look at using recycled water.

Rose Grymes, Cupertino resident, supported restoration to natural habitat, providing an environment for aquatic life, birds, and insects, and water sustainability.

Andi, Cupertino resident, supported restoration to natural habitat.

Peggy Plato supported keeping the golf course and raised concerns regarding golf course revenue considering fees have not been increased.

Daniel Wong supported keeping the golf course and recommended looking into native grasses to make it more drought friendly.

Wing Law, Cupertino resident, supported keeping the golf course.

John Ennals, Cupertino resident, supported keeping the golf course, changing the irrigation, and changing the greens to ones that use less water.

Maria Gatto, Cupertino resident, supported keeping the golf course and looking into using recycled water or adding in turf.

Elaine, Cupertino resident, supported keeping the golf course, opening it one day a week for people to walk and picnic, and using recycled water.

Rhoda Fry, Cupertino resident, supported keeping the golf course, adding in natural habitat to the golf course, and raising fees.

Bob, Cupertino resident, supported restoration to natural habitat.

Emmy Moore-Minister, supported keeping the golf course.

Don Halsey, supported keeping the golf course and presented on slides that are included in the written communications.

Keith Wandry raised concerns about the chemicals used on the golf course. 391
CC 10-17-2023
391 of 474
Alan Takahashi, Cupertino resident, supported keeping the golf course and using reclaimed water.

Vice Chair Weber left the meeting at 8:45 p.m.

Chair Xu closed the public comment period and called for a five-minute break at 9:06 p.m. Chair Xu resumed the meeting at 9:12 p.m. and commissioners made comments.

Commissioner Stanek commented that if Council decides to keep the golf course, then she strongly recommended reclaimed or recycled water, not watering between the tees and the greens, and opening the golf course two to three days a week to the public to utilize the space in an alternative way. If Council decides to convert the golf course to natural habitat, then she recommended working with Sunken Gardens and Deep Cliff to offer Cupertino seniors discounted rates to play golf and consider using part of the site as a healing garden.

Vice Chair Begur commented that there needs to be data surrounding utilization of recycled water, alternative options for grass, and allowing the grass to go brown.

Recommended looking at statistics for the next 10 years verses the next 25 years.

Regarding restoration of natural habitat, raised concerns about the fire study and preventing housing in the future. Recommended there be more information provided to the Commission(s) before a decision can be made.

Commissioner Kumarappan raised concerns regarding the data presented and utilization of recycled water. Strongly recommended that the data be updated and presented back to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Commented that there could be merging of the two options to allow for a potential third option that keeps both the golf course and adds in natural habitat.

Commissioner Poon supported keeping the golf course. Recommended finding ways to reduce water usage and bring recycled water in regardless of how long it will take.

Chair Ganga commented that increasing revenue needs to be looked at so that any improvements will pay for itself and more. Raised concerns regarding capital costs for the natural habitat. Supported using the existing golf course in a more efficient way and protecting the current investment. Recommended more data be presented and there be a recommendation from the joint commissions to the Council.

Commissioner Swamy supported comments made by Commissioner Kumarappan and Vice Chair Begur and strongly recommended there be more information provided 392
CC 10-17-2023
392 of 474
before taking it to Council. Commented that there needs to be an understanding of artificial turf and the potential implications to the environment, and whether the City keeps control of the land if it remains a golf course or restoration to natural habitat.

Raised concerns regarding re-zoning of the land.

Commissioner Padgaonkar supported comments made by Commissioner Kumarappan and agreed that more information be provided. Recommended contacting other cities to research and understand how they implement water sustainability.

Vice Chair Carter commented that there is a need to look at whether this is going to enhance Cupertino in terms of its recreational value verses the cost. Recommended there be a decision amongst the options, once a decision is made to either keep the golf course or have open space, then looking at the financial implications. Raised concerns regarding traffic on the road to Blackberry Farm if the parking lot is expanded.

Commissioner Eschelbeck supported Vice Chair Carter’s comment regarding deciding first between the options and then working towards a plan. Raised concerns regarding conversion to natural habitat and expressed that it is a one-way option and that should be considered.

Chair Xu shared information on the history of the item. Recommended revisiting the option to expand the club house, decreasing areas where water is needed, and changing another place to natural habitat.

Director Morley thanked the commissions and staff will work on consolidating the information and determining next steps.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Xu adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted by,
Jessica Javier, Administrative Assistant
Parks and Recreation Department
Minutes approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their 10.06.22 meeting Minutes approved by the Sustainability Commission at their 10.20.22 meeting Minutes approved by the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission at their 11.16.22 meeting 393
CC 10-17-2023
393 of 474
Parks and Recreation, Bicycle
Pedestrian, and Sustainability
Commissions
Special Joint Meeting
September 8, 2022
Written Communications
Item 1
Consider an update on Fiscal
Year 2021-22 City Work Program
item regarding the Blackberry
Farm Golf Course Needs
Assessment
ATTACHMENT J ATTACHMENT I 394
CC 10-17-2023
394 of 474
From: Edson Whitehurst
To: City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission; City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission; City of Cupertino Sustainability Commission
Subject: Sept 8 meeting and BBFGC
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 1:35:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I wanted to offer comments on the future of Blackberry Farm Golf Course. I have been playing at BBFGC for over 25 years. I am also a member and past president of the Blue Pheasant Hackers, a golf league which has been playing at BBFGC since 1976. We even still have one founding member playing. Over the 47 years of its existence, the Hackers have had many members, at its height, over

90. It has been a great source of comradery and interaction.

Over the 25+ years I’ve been playing at BBFGC, it has become a second home. I cannot imagine how my life would be different without it. All the friends and relationships over the years. I have met people form all ages and walks of life and all over the world. There is no other place (or golf course) like it.

It seems to me that if the decision was being made over an empty, unused piece of land, the arguments for both sides, and the considerations overall, would be completely different. But we are talking about destroying something to replace it with something else. And I intentionally used the word ‘destroy’, because once it’s gone, there will never be another. It will never be rebuilt, newly built, or anything. It will be gone forever. Natural Habitats can be built, created, recreated, almost anywhere. And very likely will in the future whatever the decision on this particular plot of land.

There WILL BE more (and that is a good thing).

But there will NEVER be another place like Blackberry Farm Golf Course. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

Where many people over the years learned to play golf. Friends and families from all over the bay area (and the world for that matter) have met and gathered. Children as young as 6 learning to play with their parents, to retirees in their 80’s and 90’s. I’ve met parents who learned to play at BBFGC when they were kids, bringing their children for the first time. I’m almost in tears thinking of all the friends and people I have met who have moved on from this world. All the people, moments, memories, and the possibility of future friends and moments and memories that will never happen.

It really breaks my heart.

Just my two cents I hope you take into consideration on this very difficult, and momentous decision.

Edson Whitehurst
395
CC 10-17-2023
395 of 474
From: Charles Crane
To: City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission; City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission; City of Cupertino Sustainability Commission
Cc: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:56:37 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

September 9, 2022
Dear Cupertino Commissioners and City Council,
I urge the city to keep the golf course Option A. Please do not replace it with natural plantings Option B. I am a retired fire chief and I am writing you to caution the city against considering Option B because it would create a health and safety hazard to nearby homes. Replacing the irrigated golf course with natural habitat creates a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) issue which increases the hazards of wildfire. Recent days further show that we are entering a period of extreme weather which will further aggravate the situation. Additionally, the city has drastically underestimated the cost of maintaining this land once the watering stops. Keeping the underbrush short enough to prevent a wildfire risk is not feasible. The golf course greens provide natural fire breaks.

One only needs to look at the fires that approached Silverado Golf course in Napa just a short time ago. In this case the fires came from outside of the golf course, but the golf course served as a natural fire break, saving many other homes. If not for any other reason, the City of Cupertino should retain the Blackberry Farm Golf Course to protect its citizens from fire.

Sincerely,
Charles Crane
BC Retired
--
Charles Crane
Director of Emergency Services
O: 844-623-3946 ext. 710
M: 415-377-8888
E: 1-800-262-7387
1570 Wistaria Lane, Los Altos, CA
94024
396
CC 10-17-2023
396 of 474
From: Don Halsey
To: City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission
Cc: Jim Lee; Mehul Dholakia
Subject: Slides to be presented at 9/8 P&R meeting
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:18:21 PM
Attachments: Slides for Parks and Rec on 9-8-22 r00.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I have registered to make comments during tonight's meeting. I would like to share this document / visual material so the slides can be presented during item 1 E (Analysis of Comparative Costs ...). I will have 2 co-presenters, Jim Lee and Mehul Dholakia, both Cupertino residents. I might have another person from our group "Friends of Blackberry Farm golf" attend the meeting virtually. If so I think we will have 8 minutes to present.

Thank You
Don Halsey
650 996 3021
397
CC 10-17-2023
397 of 474
Public Comments
to
Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission
about
Blackberry Farm Golf vs. Natural Habitat
9/8/22
Friends of Blackberry Farm Golf
Contacts: Don Halsey 650 996 3021 or [email protected] Next Door group: https://nextdoor.com/city/cupertino--ca/ 398
CC 10-17-2023
398 of 474
(E) Blackberry Farm Course
Use Analysis and Comparative Costs – 25
Year Outlook
2 ways golf course revenue can be increased
399
CC 10-17-2023
399 of 474
Quick overview of Costs and Revenue
400
CC 10-17-2023
400 of 474
https://engagecupertino.org/bbfgolfcourse
But golf course makes a LOT more revenue.

Golf course costs the city more!
Altogether, golf course is $2
million more favorable
401
CC 10-17-2023
401 of 474
Other nearby 9 hole courses charge at least 20% more than Blackberry Farm Pruneridge
Deep Cliff
28% more
22%
44%
402
CC 10-17-2023
402 of 474
Table from Blackberry
Farm Feasibility Study
• https://engagecupertino.org/bbfgolfcourse
• Sunken Gardens: 28% premium
• Pruneridge: 22% premium
• Deep Cliff: 44% premium
• If estimated revenue was increased 25% it
would grow by $2,344 656 to $11,723,280.
• City could give the $2.3 M extra to
Cupertino teachers
• Or give a number of free season passes to
Monta Vista HS golf team
• Or some other good purpose.
403
CC 10-17-2023
403 of 474
Second way: Education
• $500 K revenue under the Natural Habitat option
• $20 K / year x 25 years
• A variety of ranger programs in classroom or on
the trail
• how different plants and animals interact in an
ecosystem …
• how ancient people lived off the land …
• how geologic processes have shaped the
landscape …
• ranger walks and interpretive programs …
• animals and plants on the trail, the creeks, etc.
404
CC 10-17-2023
404 of 474
Examples of courses and venues
(Parks and Recreation brochure, Fall 2022)
• Q: Is the $500K of courses duplicative to courses already being offered? Perhaps.
• Q: Is the plowing up the fairways and greens required in order to give courses? No.
• Q: Will course subscribers repeat, or will the revenue tail off?
• A: Offer the new courses whether or not there is golf. • Add $500K to Alternative A side of the table also.
405
CC 10-17-2023
405 of 474
Blackberry Farm is
Cupertino’s best location for
kids to get exposed to golf
406
CC 10-17-2023
406 of 474
Blackberry Farm golf – a family-oriented activity in Cupertino • Youth On Course foundation
407
CC 10-17-2023
407 of 474
• Blackberry farm is #13 out of 357 YOC courses in
Northern California
• It is the ONLY course that does not have day or time
restriction.
• Since 2018, YOC has subsidized more than 7,600
rounds of golf at Blackberry Farm for community
youth.
• Those 7,600 rounds equate to tens of thousands of
hours of physical activity, lifeskill development, and
recreation that would go away if the course was
closed.
• Nearly 2,500 of those rounds were in 2021.
• There are few other options available for kids and
their families to play golf in and around the local
area. Add statistics for BBF by itself
408
CC 10-17-2023
408 of 474
Availability of short / 9-hole courses
409
CC 10-17-2023
409 of 474
From: EAC Chair
To: City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission; City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission; City of Cupertino Sustainability Commission
Cc: Shani Kleinhaus; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment – Item 1: BBF Golf Course
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:34:46 PM
Attachments: Cupertino Joint Commissions – BBF Golf Course.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Chairs and Commissioners of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, and Sustainability Commission,
Please see attached for our comments.

Regards,
Annie Yang
Annie Yang
Environmental Action Committee Chair
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
22221 McClellan Rd
Cupertino, CA 95014
[email protected]
410
CC 10-17-2023
410 of 474
September 8, 2022
RE: Item 1 – Consider an update on Fiscal Year 2021-22 City Work Program item regarding the Blackberry Farm Golf Course Needs Assessment
Dear Chairs and Commissioners of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, and Sustainability Commission,
The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) is one of the largest National Audubon Society chapters in California. We are proud to be based at McClellan Ranch in Cupertino, right next to Blackberry Farm. Our mission is to promote the enjoyment, understanding, and protection of birds and other wildlife, and we have long advocated for increasing and protecting habitat that increases biodiversity. We are writing in support of Option B, conversion of the Blackberry Farm (BBF) Golf Course to natural habitat.

Conversion of the golf course to natural habitat not only saves a valuable resource, water, but will also add habitat value to the Stevens Creek corridor, an important wildlife corridor.

Especially in our current extreme drought conditions, choosing an option that uses 90% less water seems wise. Besides the water savings, the increase in wildlife habitat will add to the ability of the City to support biodiversity. In a time when we are seeing massive bird loss and insect declines, every bit of land planted with native plants that supports a healthy ecosystem helps. This is especially important along riparian corridors, such as Stevens Creek, where good quality habitat is often threatened and fragmented in the South Bay. Connecting BBF to the rest of the Stevens Creek Corridor will provide a valuable connection of habitat.

We join the majority of the public survey respondents from Cupertino (57%) in favoring Option B. The amazing number of participants who want to see the site converted to natural habitat shows that bolstering natural ecosystems while providing more equitable enjoyment of the space is a popular choice in a time when we need to actively mitigate human impact on the climate and the environment. BBF and McClellan Ranch Preserve are popular birding areas for both beginner and experienced birders, with Anna’s Hummingbirds, Acorn Woodpeckers, Chestnut-backed Chickadees, Red-breasted Sapsuckers, White-breasted Nuthatches, Brown Creepers, California Towhees, Red-shouldered and Red-tailed hawks, and many others easily spotted there. Improving the value of this stretch of riparian and grassland habitat will help these birds and other wildlife, such as the threatened steelhead trout. SCVAS already offers educational opportunities there, and we will be happy to partner with the City and Park Rangers to provide more ways for the public to appreciate and learn about our natural spaces. 411
CC 10-17-2023
411 of 474
The golf course as it stands today provides some habitat value; however, if the City chooses Option A, we strongly recommend adding wildlife habitat as an improvement to the golf course.

Native vegetation should be added to the edges of the golf course. The ponds should be restored, and trees added. Complex vegetation structure should be used wherever possible.

Additional netting should be avoided. Although we prefer Option B, we urge the City to make maximizing habitat value as a goal in either option. The City of Mountain View recently passed a Citywide Biodiversity Strategy through which it will integrate biodiversity outcomes into all private development and City projects and policies. We encourage Cupertino to do the same.

As stated on the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan, “expanding access to nature is a top priority for the community,” and “residents would like to see a decreased emphasis on large lawn areas and more focus on retaining a site’s natural character” (p. 18).

We hope that you take this opportunity to choose to rewild an important connection for wildlife and return a small part of land back to nature. The benefits will outlast all of us who are here today.

Regards,
Annie Yang
Cupertino Resident
Environmental Action Committee Chair
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
22221 McClellan Rd
Cupertino, CA 95014
[email protected]
412
CC 10-17-2023
412 of 474
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission; City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission; City of Cupertino Sustainability Commission
Cc: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: September 8 2022 Agenda Item #1 Keep Golf Course Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:48:54 PM
Attachments: 091113 (1).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Commissions,
The following outlines the reasons to retain the golf course and includes some questions about this agenda item. I am not a golfer and have no intent on becoming a golfer but the golf course fills a unique niche within our City’s recreational offerings where people of all ages can exercise, enjoy the great outdoors, and play. Recent data shows that 41,000 people per year have used the golf course and I’m guessing it would be more if tee times were less spread out because the times between tee times has been expanded during covid. I doubt we can say the same for the teen center or the pools at Blackberry Farm. Consider also that people from outside of Cupertino who use the golf course also shop Cupertino while they’re in the area and increase our City’s tax revenue! Question 1: Can you explain where the projected $20K in revenue would come from with the new venue? It does not seem very different from McClellan Ranch where there already is some programming. If there were more programming, it seems that it could happen at McClellan Ranch.

By adding programming to McClellan Ranch and retaining the golf course would add revenue and maintain a diversity of recreational options. Please explain what projected programming would be and how it would differ from other programming.

Question 2: In the reconfigured golf course, one of the holes is changed to reduce golf balls in the golf course parking lot. I heard it mentioned on an open-house that the reconfiguration would be for balls within the orange orchard. Can you explain? Also, what would be done to resolve other issues with errant golf balls from the golf course such as those along the entrance driveway to the pool/picnic area?
Question 3: Over the years, a number of trees have died and been removed on the golf course.

Many of them were Monterey Pines, whose life expectancy is only about 50 years. Why were the trees not replaced?
Question 4: Does the golf course have a dedicated water meter and pg&e meter? How do we know what the actual utility costs are?
Survey: It seems to me that the survey was leading the respondent in a direction to select “natural habitat.” However, the actual proposal looks more like a city park with a parcourse, education area, and a 40-car parking lot that would eat into the existing golf course at the swimming pool area. If I were asked if baseball fields, soccer fields, library field and more were to be converted to natural 413
CC 10-17-2023
413 of 474
habitat and walking trails would I use them? I’d say sure. But it doesn’t mean that I think we should get rid of them. I remember a former councilmember saying that surveys were designed to create a desired outcome.
2006 Golf Course Plan: Please ask the Parks and Recreation staff to refer to the 2006 plan pertaining to the golf course. The 2000 vision is mentioned but not the plan. Much of that plan was built out, but not all of it.

A) The 2006 plan replaced the aging irrigation system. My recollection is that the cost was estimated to be $250K. I searched through the City’s public documents, but could not find the cost.

B) The 2006 plan summary intended to refurbish onsite water: “Damaged water storage tank that held well water to irrigate the golf course would be demolished. An existing 35,000 gallon underground cistern would be reconditioned to provide irrigation for the golf course.” Around 2012 there was an extensive study to investigate using onsite water vs potable San Jose water at the golf course.

C) The plan was emphatic about retaining the ponds, affectionately referred to by many as lakes.

These ponds had become a naturalized wildlife habitat that was teeming with wildlife that included a substantive red-wing blackbird population and a regular green heron among others. The plan mentioned the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s keen interest in retaining these ponds.

The 2006 plan summary stated, “No change in side-stream diversion to golf course ponds.” Several Parks and Rec Directors assured me these ponds would be restored (along with replanting the 30 or so trees that failed in the new parking lot adjacent to the pools).

Environment: The golf course has been host to quite a bit of wildlife including several coyotes, hawks, woodpeckers and more. As mentioned previously, the ponds were a unique naturalized wildlife habitat. And there are many trees on the golf course and there could be more. Many areas of the golf course are not being watered now and they could be replaced with natural habitat. And there could be more trees – especially to replace the ones that died. Golf courses and natural habitat are not mutually exclusive – we can have both. Another benefit to the adjacent neighborhood is that the wide open areas are less attractive to mountain lions, so having a golf course would be better than natural habitat. In the past, a mountain lion entered the animal enclosure at McClellan Ranch and ate a goat. Another mountain lion hung out in a tree for several days adjacent to McClellan Ranch as well.

Fire Safety: The golf course provides a firebreak for the homes up on Byrne Avenue and beyond. The City’s most important job is to protect the safety of its inhabitants and there needs to be a significant amount of irrigated area to protect them. Attached please find one of many articles written on this topic. And we have a record of fire issues within the “Stevens Creek Corridor.” In 2022 and possibly 2021, people had been setting a fire in McCllelan Ranch in the middle of the night about once a month. You can still see the scorch marks where it happened. One of my neighbors walked by one morning and saw that it was still smoldering and called the authorities. We were lucky. Over at the Stocklmeir property, there had been some sort of calamity that caused the windows to be boarded up. Later, a resident lodged multiple complaints to the City and the Fire Department about the dried brush around the building adjacent to the townhouses. Thankfully, the City cleaned up the area but it is hard to understand how it stayed a safety hazard until a resident complained about it. I am worried that natural plantings could get out of hand as it did at the Stocklmeir house. 414
CC 10-17-2023
414 of 474
Money: It seems that the fees charged for the golf course are very low. An increase of just $1 or $2 could make a big difference. When the City runs programs that look like businesses, they are run through Enterprise Funds which provides a Profit and Los Statement for that business. In the past, pool/picnic and golf shared the same enterprise fund. At some point, pool/picnics were removed and we have no idea as to what that facility is costing us. As to golf course, in my opinion, there have been charges for the enterprise fund that do not belong there and make it look like the golf course is performing worse than it actually is. For example, studies to modify or remove the golf course have been charged to the enterprise fund. Consequently, for people who don’t know the details, golf performance look worse than it is. It seems that the golf course has been left in limbo for quite some time – as previously mentioned, we already should have had the new watering system in place, the ponds should have been left intact to support wildlife, and trees should have been replaced. We need to get more transparency for the businesses that are run by the City.

History: In 1844 Elisha Stevens led the first wagon train to cross the Sierra Nevada and from 1848 until 1862 he lived in a small home in Cupertino near Blackberry Farm’s playground stands today. At the time, the creek was called Cupertino creek and it has since been renamed to Stevens Creek.

Although there is a California Historical Landmark for his final home in Bakersfield, there is none for his first home. In the later 1800s people would arrive by stagecoach and enjoy picnicking at the creek. Later, people arrived by train. The land now occupied by the golf course had been an orchard failed. Recognizing a business opportunity, two brothers purchased the property in the 1950s, built 2 homes along the driveway, and created a picnic business followed by swimming pools, the golf course, and the restaurant/nightclub. It was at this time that access to the picnic area from Stevens Creek blvd ceased. The family had considered purchasing some of the Stocklmeir property in order to provide an entrance to the picnic grounds from Stevens Creek blvd because neighbors had been impacted.

In 1990, Cupertino citizens voted to tax themselves the utility tax to purchase the property for open space, save the oak trees, and prevent housing development. Keep in mind that in 1990, the majority of the homes around that property were in unincorporated County. The pool/picnic business would continue to be run by the city for 25 years in order to pay for the property (it ceased operating well before that). Although pool/picnics and golf had been profitable for the family, the pool/picnic business lost money and golf made money for the City. Sometime after the area was renovated, only golf was tracked through an enterprise fund. When you go to the golf course, you will see a sign that says Don Brown on it. I haven’t seen the name anywhere else. Don Brown was Cupertino’s City manager at the time of the City’s purchase of the pool/picnic area, the golf course, and the Blue Pheasant. As you can see, I am into some of the history and was glad to learn that former City architect Terry Greene had interviewed the Nelson family about the history of Blackberry Farm. I hope that his notes are still around. Part of the “Stevens Creek Corridor” project was to have some historical signage and I hope that comes to fruition someday.

Long story short – let’s keep the golf course – it is good for the community.

Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
415
CC 10-17-2023
415 of 474
Golf course turf, in
addition to the
requirement of a fuel
modifi cation zone on
slopes, helped save
dozens of homes in the
path of the Yorba Linda
fi re in 2008.

The many benefi ts of turf have been well
documented in scientifi c literature. Add
to that list the fact that golf courses and
large turf areas serve a valuable role as
fi rebreaks.

Wildfi res occur frequently throughout the
Southwest, causing extensive devastation and
property damage. It is reported that more than
1,445 structures each year are destroyed by wildfi res in California. At the same time, it is important to note that many structures are saved as a result of the fi rebreaks created by large turf areas
and landscaping techniques that minimize the
spread of fi res to homes and structures (CAL
FIRE, 2005).

Complicating matters is the fact that drought
conditions in the Southwest over the past eight
years have put pressure on turf managers to
reduce water use, either by voluntary or mandatory means. The prevailing opinion by water regulators and politicians is that turf irrigation
is wasteful. On the contrary, there are many
examples indicating that healthy, well-watered
golf courses and large turf areas have played an
important role in stopping wildfi res and
protecting property.

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2009 13
Golf Courses on the Fire Line
Golf courses and large turf areas serve a valuable role as fi rebreaks.

BY PATRICK GROSS
416
CC 10-17-2023
416 of 474

DEVASTATION CAUSED BY FIRE
Fire-fi ghting experts refer to three essential
components of wildfi res, known as “the fi re
triangle” — fuel, heat, and oxygen. Eliminating
one of these components helps slow or stop the
fi re. Firebreaks remove fuel. Water helps reduce
heat. Flame retardants block oxygen from
reaching the fuel (Riggs, 2002).

The height, type, and spacing of plants impact
the intensity and spread of a fi re. In many wildfi res, a “ladder effect” is created when fi re sweeps through low-growing brush and climbs
into the canopy of nearby trees, where fl ames
and embers can be spread greater distances
(Nader, 2007). In particular, live embers from a
fi re have been known to travel up to one mile,
landing on brush and structures and accelerating
the spread of the fi re.

Each wildfi re will spread and behave differently depending on wind, terrain, humidity, weather conditions, and the amount of fuel. The
only factor that can be controlled by human
activity is the amount of fuel available to sustain
a fi re. Structures surrounded by dense, dry brush
and closely spaced trees are at high risk of fi re
damage. At lower risk are properties with a
defense zone of at least 100 feet that includes
well-watered turf and landscape plants.

BENEFITS OF TURF

AND GOLF COURSES

IN FIRE-PRONE AREAS
Although fi re experts warn that there is no such
thing as a plant that will not burn, previous
experience in California indicates that wellwatered and properly maintained landscapes did not burn as readily as dry plantings (Youngner,
1970). Plants that are low growing, open structured, and less resinous, such as turf, present a lower fi re risk (Nader, 2007). Additional benefi ts
14 GREEN SECTION RECORD
Golf courses provide
large open areas with
low fuel volume that
create a defensible
space in fi re-prone
areas. In addition, water
hazards on golf courses
can be used as a source
of water to fi ght fi res.
417
CC 10-17-2023
417 of 474
of large turf areas and golf courses in fi re-prone
areas are noted below:
• Healthy turf is less likely to burn due to the
high water content within the plant tissue,
which ranges from 75% to 85% by weight
(Beard, 1974).
• The low, prostrate growth habit of maintained
turf limits the amount of fuel available to sustain
a fi re (Beard and Green, 1994).
• Golf courses provide large open areas with a
low fuel volume that create a defensible space in
fi re-prone areas. This establishes an effective
fi rebreak, placing more distance between fi re
and nearby structures. Golf courses are especially
helpful in stopping the spread of fi re when situated on the side of the prevailing wind (Riggs, 2002).
• Trees growing on golf courses are less likely to
ignite because the turf beneath limits the available fuel source, thus stopping the “ladder effect.” • Wind-blown embers start many house fi res.

Golf courses and large turf areas create distance
between combustible vegetation and homes,
creating more area for embers to potentially fade
(Anderson, 2009).
• Water hazards on golf courses are sometimes
used as a source of water to fi ght fi res.
• For fi refi ghters, the open space provided by
golf courses has been used as a staging area for
equipment and personnel as well as the fi re
command center (Liske, 2009).
• Golf courses provide an escape route and safe
zone for fi refi ghters should the direction and
intensity of the fi re change and the fi refi ghters
need to evacuate the area (Liske, 2009).

GOLF COURSES ON THE FIRE LINE
Wildfi res have been a common occurrence
throughout California for decades, and recent
experience indicates that golf courses have
served a valuable role by creating fi rebreaks to
stop the spread of fi res as noted in the following
examples.

Simi/Vale Verde fi re, October 2003:

In October 2003, a wildfi re consumed 750,000
acres north of Los Angeles, destroying 3,500
homes and causing 22 deaths. Tierra Rejada Golf
Club in Moorpark, California, was in the path
of the fi re. According to general manager Tom
Szwedzinksi, the fi rebreak created by the golf
course prevented the fl ames from crossing Hwy.
22 into a densely populated Moorpark neighborhood (Bailey, 2003).

Ramona fi re, October 2003: During the
same time of the fi res north of Los Angeles,
fl ames swept through the chaparral-covered hillsides of Ramona, in north San Diego County.

The San Diego Country Estates development on
the outskirts of Ramona borders the San Vicente
Inn & Golf Club, which helped stop and redirect
the fi re away from homes in a portion of the
development. Only 27 of the 3,000 homes in the
subdivision were lost to the fi re. According to
Captain Dave Hypes of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the green grass didn’t allow the fi re to spread and the golf
NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2009 15
The intense heat
generated by wildfi res
destroys homes and
damages property,
including this irrigation
controller on the
border of Black Gold
Golf Course in
Yorba Linda, California.
418
CC 10-17-2023
418 of 474
course created a very nice fi rebreak (Bailey,
2003).

Yorba Linda fi re, October 2008: With the
help of strong Santa Ana winds, a brush fi re that
started in Corona, California, rapidly moved
west toward the neighboring city of Yorba
Linda. Several homes in the path of the fi re were
destroyed as it burned through the chaparralcovered hillsides and up to the edge of Black Gold Golf Course. The golf course stopped
fl ames from reaching the housing development
on the southern edge of the property. According
to Bret Anderson with the Orange County Fire
Authority, there were several factors that helped
stop the fi res and spare the surrounding homes:
• The golf course put more distance between
the combustible vegetation and the homes. This
provided more area for wind-driven embers to
fade.
• The green grass on the golf course was less
combustible than the brush on the hillside.

Although turf along the edge of the course was
scorched, it did not sustain the fi re.
• A fuel modifi cation zone around the homes
was required during development. These areas
were established with fi re-resistant plants and
also prevented fi res from reaching the homes
(Anderson, 2009).

Griffi th Park fi re, May 2007: A discarded
cigarette started a brush fi re in the Aberdeen
Canyon area of Griffi th Park in Los Angeles.

The terrain and heavy winds created very erratic
fi re conditions that ultimately burned 800 acres
and damaged one home. As the fi re changed
direction and moved southward, it stopped at the
edge of the Roosevelt Golf Course and Tregnan
Golf Academy. According to senior arson
investigator David Liske, the golf courses were
great fi rebreaks that saved dozens of expensive
homes south of the golf course (Liske, 2009).

Roosevelt Golf Course also served as a landing
area for helicopters that were used for aerial
observation and to direct fi refi ghters on the
ground.

SUMMARY
Aside from being an aesthetic element of the
landscape, turf is a practical environmental tool
as a fi re barrier in addition to the other benefi ts
of providing erosion control, producing a cooling effect, and trapping pollution particulates.

As noted in the previous examples, golf courses
served a valuable function as fi rebreaks due to
the low fuel content of the green, prostrategrowing turf. The green belt created by golf courses was especially important as a buffer
for homes and buildings adjacent to extensive
woodland and dryland chaparral. In fi refi ghting
terms, expansive turf areas and golf courses
create a defensible area that not only stops the
spread of a fi re but also can be used as a staging
area and safety zone for fi re department
personnel.

In times of drought, turfgrass irrigation is
often deemed to be wasteful. This often results
in political pressure to eliminate golf course
irrigation and remove turf from landscapes.

Ironically, areas affected by drought tend to be a
greater fi re risk, and expansive turf areas, such as
golf courses, serve a practical role in reducing
fi re danger. When it comes to reducing fi re
hazard, it is important to recognize that the
benefi ts of turfgrass far outweigh the water
requirement.

REFERENCES
Anderson, Bret. 2009. Orange County Fire Authority.

Personal communication.

Bailey, Mike. Firebreak: Courses Survive California Wildfi res as Flames Devour Land Around Them. Golf Week’s Super News. November 21, 2003. 5(21):12-13.

Beard, James B. Turfgrass: Science and Culture. 1973.

Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. p. 261.

Beard, James B.; R. L. Green. The Role of Turfgrasses in Environmental Protection and Their Benefi ts to Humans.

Journal of Environmental Quality. May-June 1994.
23(3):452-460.

Bloyd, Stephanie. Southern California Courses Spared
Wildfi res’ Worst. Golf Course Management. December
1993. 61(12):42-43.

CAL FIRE (California Dept. of Forestry and Fire
Protection). 2005. Make Your House Fire Safe. CAL
FIRE Website, http://www.fi re.ca.gov/about_content/
downloads/Defens_space_fl yer4_11fi nal.pdf.

Liske, David. 2009. Los Angeles Fire Department.

Personal communication.

Nader, Glen; G. Nakamura; M. DeLasaux; S. Quarles;
Y. Valachovic. Home Landscaping for Fire. 2007.

Oakland, California. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. ANR publication
8228.

Riggs, Nancy. Arizona Golf Courses Survive Fires.

Turf:West. October 2002. 12(10):B9-B11, B20.

Youngner, V. B. 1970. Landscaping to Protect Homes
from Wildfi res. California Turfgrass Culture. 20(4):28-32.

PAT GROSS is the director of the Southwest Region of
the USGA Green Section. As a lifelong resident of
California, he has seen the devastation caused by
wildfi res.
16 GREEN SECTION RECORD 419
CC 10-17-2023
419 of 474
From: Anne Ezzat
To: City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission; City of Cupertino Sustainability Commission Cc: City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission; Darcy Paul; Kitty Moore Subject: Golf Course
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 6:19:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear commissioners,
I am writing to urge you to keep the golf course at Blackberry Farm, though I believe golf is a snooze-fest. It is a perfectly sized golf course for a community. And a public golf course. If we can have a swimming pool, tennis courts, baseball fields, and cricket fields, why not a golf course?
Furthermore, the city has not done a really good job of maintaining preserves. Look at the overgrown brush along the Stevens Creek Trail. And the dead trees. Why do we need more of the same? And the additional 40 parking spaces? It seems as if there is a rush to pave over parks, and eliminate parking spaces at residential buildings. Utterly nonsensical.

Please do not turn the golf course into another unkempt nature preserve.

Thank you and best regards,
Brooke Ezzat
420
CC 10-17-2023
420 of 474
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission
Subject: Sep 8, Joint Commission Agenda Item 1
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 8:28:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am sending this copy of my spoken remarks for the written record of this meeting. Thanks, Connie Cunningham
Good Evening, Chairs and Commissioners of the Park and Recreation Commission, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Sustainability Commission,
My name is Connie Cunningham, Member of Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and a longtime resident of Cupertino.

Thank you for this excellent report. Cupertino’s Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch are environmental jewels in the increasingly urban environment of our County. I prefer Option B, Restore Natural Habitat. I share that opinion with 57% of Cupertino residents who answered the survey.

The restoration to nature will use less water, it will open the area to more people to enjoy, and become a home to increased biodiversity based on using California native plants and trees.

I urge the City to apply for grants from the State and other resources to make the restoration financially feasible. Fixing the irrigation system is critical to minimize the use of potable water during drought conditions that are getting worse. Putting California native trees, shrubs and grasses in the islands of the golf course will enhance biodiversity.

A return to nature is the best for our environment. As the South Bay becomes increasingly crowded with development, it is critical that Blackberry Farm and the Stevens Creek riparian area be retained as environmental jewels in our City and for the region.

I have heard the comment that golf is good for older people. However, many elderly people can no longer golf. They may be able to walk, or to sit in a wheelchair and watch nature around them. Teaching their grandchildren about nature will be a marvelous inheritance.

Our City has supported the environment in many ways. The Bird-safe Design and Dark Skies Ordinance is a valuable way to preserve wildlife health and human health. Another support is in the accomplishments of the Climate Action Plan. By adding this jewel of a property to its open space system, the City will strengthen the sustainability of the City.

Wildlife, from fish to birds, to squirrels and rabbits, to bees and butterflies, will thrive, delight, and strengthen coming generations of residents. Residents, current and future, will thank the City for doing this today.

Thank you for this time to speak.

Connie Cunningham
421
CC 10-17-2023
421 of 474
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission; City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission Cc: City Clerk
Subject: FW: 2022-09-08 BBF Item #1 Peggy"s Slide for Public comments Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 8:31:06 PM
Attachments: Peggys Comments-Dead Zone.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Commissioners,
This photo is an example of how our city is NOT able to plant and maintain natural habitat. It’s a dead zone! The creek trail from McClellan Ranch has been closed for a long time. Additional trails are closed because of invasive plants.

Keep the golf course!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 7:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: 'City Clerk' <[email protected]>
Subject: 2022-09-08 BBF Item #1 Peggy's Slide for Public comments Dear City Clerk,
Please display this PDF when I speak on Item #1 during this meeting.

Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
422
CC 10-17-2023
422 of 474
423
CC 10-17-2023
423 of 474

ATTACHMENT K
Summary of the Reports:

Minimal Repairs Report (NGF) and Return to Habitat Report (MIG) A. National Golf Foundation Consulting (NGF) Report Summary The study completed by NGF includes the following primary features for repair or improvement.

1. Replacement of the irrigation system.

2. Replace historical ponds with lowland native vegetation.

3. Replace tees and greens as needed.

4. Installation of protective netting between tee #6 and hole #4.

5. Shorten hole #9 to limit errant shots into the existing parking lot.

6. Identifying locations where installation of steps or terracing would be beneficial.

7. Assess conversion of the water source from municipal potable water to well water.

1. Replacement of the irrigation system
The viability of the golf course is directly tied to the irrigation system. The current irrigation system is 60 years old. It has antiquated mainline pipes and has outlived its intended lifecycle by over 30 years. Mainline pipe failures occur no less than one time per year and lateral pipe breaks or leaks occur frequently. This is cause for substantial waste of water as well as financial resources. Additionally, many replacement parts for the system are no longer available.

In 2011 the City hired Russell D. Mitchell & Associates (RDMA) to re-design the irrigation system. The new irrigation system was not constructed due to the recognition that a wider Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan was needed to steer the direction of the entire corridor prior to improvements to the golf course. RDMA is a subconsultant to NGF for this current NGF report.

Irrigation practices since 2014 have included restrictions on total water use due to drought conditions. Prior to 2014 no restrictions were imposed on the site. Table 1 – Irrigation 424
CC 10-17-2023
424 of 474
Water Use Pre-2014 and Post-2014 below demonstrates the difference in water use before and after 2014.

Table 1 – Irrigation Water Use Pre-2014 and Post-2014
Year Range Average Annual Water Use Monthly average
2008 through 2013 15.9 million gallons 1,325,000 gallons (6 yrs) 2014 through 2021 8.5 million gallons 708,333 gallons (8 yrs) 2022 8,592,629 gallons 716,052 gallons (1 yr)
Jan – Aug, 2023 5,711,942 gallons 713,993 gallons (2/3 yr) The volume of potable water used after 2014 has been 54% of that used prior to 2014. The current average use of 8.5 million gallons included measures taken to improve the irrigation control system as well as extensively cutting back the total acreage irrigated. At times, up to 1/3 of the irrigation heads have been shut off for extensive periods to limit water use. This reflects irrigation of about 8 acres of the 12.5-acre site. Areas designated for limited or no irrigation tend to brown and have typically included the fairways and the rough. Critical areas to keep healthy and green include the tees and greens.

Replacement of the irrigation system will not only allow the golf course to continue operation many years into the future but will also improve water-use efficiency and effectiveness. The improved irrigation design allows for irrigation of up to 12.5 acres of the site. In times of water-use restrictions the new system can readily be adjusted to meet use limitations. This may include less water on a wide area of the golf course or irrigation of less acreage of the site.

Projections for water use with a new irrigation system as reflected in the 2011 RDMA design are outlined below in Table 2 – Water Use Projections with New Irrigation System. Table 2 indicates that water savings over the current annual average of 8.5 million gallons can be achieved by limiting the total acreage irrigated to less than 12.0 acres assuming a standard irrigation regime for golf course turf. As drought conditions continue and water use restrictions are in place for the golf course as little as 9.5 acres of turf can be watered and would reflect a 21% decrease in water use relative to the post2014 average.

Table 2 – Water Use Projections with New Irrigation System Projected
Irrigated Acres
Total Reduction
in Irrigated Acres
Projected Annual
Water Use
(ETWU) (gallons)
% Reduction in
Water Use vs.

Irrigating Full

12.5 Acres
% Change from
Post-2014
Average of 8.5M
Gallons

12.5 0.0 8,825,050 0% 4% More

11.5 1.0 8,119,046 8% 4% Less

10.5 2.0 7,413,042 16% 13% Less

9.5 3.0 6,707,038 24% 21% Less
425
CC 10-17-2023
425 of 474
Note: ETWU = (Acres*Acre-In *Eto*PF)/IE. To calculate ETWU RDMA assumed an average Annual Evapotranspiration Rate (ETo) of 30 inches, a Plant Factor (PF) of 0.65%, and an Irrigation Efficiency (IE) of 75%.

2. Replace historical ponds with lowland native vegetation.

As of early 2022, the former pond has been overtaken by the establishment of a variety of grasses and weeds and resembles more of a dry basin. Further work needs to be done to specify a more appropriate mix of wildflowers and/or native plant material to realize full environmental benefit. By converting the old pond areas to biofiltration basins, less water is required, and maintenance can be aimed at greens, tees and playable areas of turf. Converting this area into a native lowland landscape is considered in the updated probable cost estimates.

3. Replacement of Tees and Greens as needed.

The NGF Report accounts for replacement of all tees and greens. It is noted that the tees and greens could be replaced on an as needed basis to save initial capital costs. New tees and greens will improve the playability of the course. Regardless, typically it is recommended to replace tees and greens every 6 years. The NGF report notes that “…No work, except nominal emergency repairs and replacements, [has been done] to the facility since NGF Consulting first consulted with the City in 2014.”

4. Installation of protective netting between tee #6 and hole #4 NGF recommends adding netting between holes #4 and #6 as a minimal baseline safety measure. This will help eliminate concerns associated with errant shots from hole #4 onto the tee box at hole #6. NGF also notes that this measure will not eliminate other safety concerns for the golf course. Several other safety concerns are discussed within the NGF Report but are not included in the cost estimates provided.

5. Shorten hole #9 to limit errant shots into the existing parking lot.

NGF recommends shortening hole #9 from approximately 560 ft. to 450 ft. to improve site safety due to errant balls going into the existing parking lot. The space gained by shortening hole #9 could be converted to additional practice hitting bays and a small practice green.

6. Identifying locations where installation of steps or terracing would be beneficial.

NGF observed that a few tees, most notably on Holes #2 and #3, have ADA access issues.

Some customers struggle to navigate the steeper embankment leading up to these tees.

At minimum, accessibility should be reinstated through softening the embankments or providing steps up to tees. The location of these recommended areas is shown in NGF report’s Appendix C, Exhibit 2.

7. Assess conversion of the water source from municipal potable water to well water.

Over the past 10 years the City has explored the option to revitalize the existing well located near the site. This well was used as the primary source of irrigation for the golf course from 1962 until 2003. Failure of a storage tank, which held water pumped from 426
CC 10-17-2023
426 of 474
the well, caused the City to convert from well use to municipal potable water. Currently, potable water is the sole source of irrigation for the site.

A study to test the existing well water production capacity completed in January 2012 by Balance Hyrdologics indicated that the well could pump up to 200 gallons per minute (gpm) but that pumping at such a high rate could have a detrimental effect on flows in Stevens Creek. Regulatory agencies would likely require additional testing and continuous monitoring of Stevens Creek flows to ensure the creek would not be impacted by well operations for irrigating the golf course. This testing and monitoring of Steven Creek could be a substantial cost for the City depending on the regulatory requirements.

NGF’s assessment to convert the well back to use for irrigation at BBF golf course indicate an additional capital cost of approximately $932,000 (2022 estimate) with annual maintenance costs of at least $9,900 over the cost of continuing to utilize potable water.

Between initial capital costs, ongoing maintenance costs, Valley Water groundwater use fees, and any required ongoing testing and monitoring of the system to irrigate the golf course the revitalization of the well is not likely a financially or environmentally sound alternative.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the golf course averaged approximately 28,000 rounds of golf annually. During the pandemic the average number of rounds increased to 41,000.

The City anticipates post-pandemic averages to be closer to pre-pandemic levels. Ongoing maintenance of the existing tees, greens, and fairways of the golf course is a primary expenditure for the City at this site. On average, the City annually subsidizes the golf course with $272,000 (pre-COVID) of funding.

Summary: Minor Repair and Improvement Costs
NGF estimates the capital costs for completing minor repairs and improvements to BBF Golf Course to be $1.97 million. The City estimates that, over a 25-year period, the total cost of operation and maintenance (O&M) with these improvements will be $8.12 million after accounting for projected revenues. Total cost to the City over a 25-year period is projected to be $10.09 million.

Note: All cost estimates noted here were derived in 2022.

B. MIG Report Summary
MIG’s scope includes an assessment of existing site and habitat conditions. The conceptual plan included in the report is a means towards demonstrating the type of improvements that can be made to the property. Actual design for the site would be generated only if this option is chosen.
427
CC 10-17-2023
427 of 474
At BBF Golf Course the historic ecology was likely oak savanna. This includes a low density of oak trees with mostly open canopy. The understory was likely annual grass with scattered shrubs and perennial grasses. MIG’s analysis accounts for adaptation to projected climate change conditions. A return to oak savanna is compatible with anticipated ecological changes due to climate change. MIG proposes a restoration approach that includes the delineation of a riparian regeneration zone, the establishment of wildflower meadows, and designated habitat islands. Habitat islands would include flowering shrubs and native oaks. Existing coastal redwood trees would remain onsite.

Amenities for the public would include nature trails, outdoor seating, and environmental education opportunities along with other potential recreational opportunities. Park rangers would be present onsite through conversion of the pro shop to office space. The existing restrooms adjacent to the pro shop will also be available. Additionally, there would be an expansion of the parking lot located south of the golf course.

The conversion to natural habitat would include sustainable management practices. There is an estimated three-to-five-year establishment period for plantings. During this period habitat islands would be irrigated via drip irrigation and areas outside of the islands would either be trail facilities or be allowed to naturally migrate to an ecological “steady state” with use of native vegetation. This vegetation will be maintained periodically to establish standard defensible space management practices to limit exposure to fire hazards.

Use of potable water for irrigation would be limited to the habitat islands and be operational for a period of up to eight years to ensure establishment of vegetation. After an eight-year period the irrigation can be removed from the area. MIG anticipates that the native and drought-tolerant vegetation will survive within its natural environment without irrigation. Due to the type of vegetation species and the limited area planned for irrigation the City anticipates a substantial reduction in potable water use relative to continued operation of the golf course.

BBF Golf Course is predominately located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) 100-yr Flood Zone. Habitat native to the property would typically include multiple special-status plants but currently these plants cannot be found at the site. Additionally, MIG determined that up to three wildlife species may currently occur at the site.

Summary: Natural Habitat Costs
MIG estimates a capital cost of $1.88 million to convert the golf course to natural habitat.

The City estimates that, over a 25-year period, the total cost of operation and maintenance for this option will be $10.22 million after accounting for projected revenues. Total cost, over a 25-year period, to convert the golf course to natural habitat is projected to be $12.10 million. The City has high confidence that grant funding could be secured for this option.

Costs presented here do to not account for potential grant funding. 428
CC 10-17-2023
428 of 474
Note: The City projects potential grant funding of $300,000 for initial improvements and $300,000 in operational grant funding. All cost estimates noted here were derived in 2022.

C. Comparison of Total Project Costs – 25 Year Outlook
Based on the planned improvements and recommendations for the site within the NGF and MIG reports, the City has established a cost estimate for each option. The estimates reflect a 25-year operational period. The cost estimates are provided in 2022 dollars and do not account for inflation. Costs included initial capital costs to construct the improvements, projected revenues, and ongoing operations and maintenance of the respective facilities. Attachment E – Blackberry Farm Golf Course Use Analysis Comparative Costs – 25 Year Outlook provides a summary of costs associated with each option.

In summary, after accounting for projected revenues, costs for the options:

Table 3: 2022 Cost Summary
(a) complete minor repairs and
improvements to the golf course
$1.97 million in capital costs;
$8.12 million in ongoing O&M costs
(b) convert facility to a natural habitat $1.88 million in capital costs; $10.22 million in ongoing O&M costs
Additionally, as a comparison, Attachment E provides an estimate of the total projected water use over 25 years for each option. This is a relevant metric in terms of costs as well as the use of natural resources. It is anticipated that in Santa Clara County the cost of potable water will continue to increase at a rate higher than the overall Consumer Price Index for the area. This may lead to disproportionate costs associated with water use in the future. It is projected that the option to convert the site to natural habitat will use less than 10% of the water needed to irrigate the golf course over a 25-year period.