Sunnyvale Community Center - Draft Assessment Report

SITE ASSESSMENT FOR THE

SUNNYVALE COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATIONS & ENHANCEMENT PROJECT FEBRUARY 2022 PREPARED BY:

VERDE DESIGN

FOR THE:

CITY OF SUNNYVALE

TA BLE OF CONTENTS 01 SITE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

02 OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

03 ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

04 ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

05 FOUNTAIN PUMP / MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ASSESSMENT

06 IRRIGATION ASSESSMENT

07 WATER & SOILS ASSESSMENT

08 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

09 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

10 ARBORIST REPORT

2

1

Site Assessment Summary

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

3

01 | SITE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY SUNNYVALE COMMUNITY CENTER GROUNDS ASSESSMENT In November of 2021, Verde Design was retained by the City of Sunnyvale to provide analysis and design services related to the Sunnyvale Community Center Grounds Renovation and Enhancement Project. The scope of work for this project generally includes site inventory and analysis, preparation of preliminary design, design development, community outreach, bid documents, and bidding/construction support for Public Works competitive bidding. Ancillary work includes determination of project CEQA needs, construction cost estimating, schedule monitoring, preparation of reports and recommendations, storm water compliance, and project management. The goal of the project is to renovate the Sunnyvale Community Center grounds and ensure its sustainability for the future by enhancing recreational usability, increasing attractiveness, and improving energy efficiency.

SITE INTRODUCTION The project site, located at 550 East Remington Drive in the center of Sunnyvale, is bordered by office space, a car dealership, and a residential neighborhood along Michelangelo Drive on the east side, residential neighborhoods along Manet Drive and Remington Drive on the west side and north side, respectively, and the Heritage Park and orchard on the south side. The Sunnyvale Community Center was originally constructed in 1972 with the grounds covering over 14 acres. This unique recreation

View of the floating steps used to cross the lower pond

4

Existing park signage along East Remington Drive

complex includes the Creative Arts Center, Performing Arts Center (Theater), Indoor Sports Center, Recreation Center, Senior Center, Historical Museum, and related storage and maintenance facilities. The Senior Center, completed in 2003, greatly increased the footprint and reconfigured the adjacent south parking lot. The theme of the Community Center is “Cultural,” and the grounds include a small, quartermile walking trail that loops around the lower pond. This pond is surrounded by large lawn areas and trees. The upper pond is located in the middle of the Community Center and is lined with small fountains with a larger one in the middle.

The scope of the Community Center improvements project will be shaped largely by community input, but the City has identified a list of proposed improvements. These include the following items:

• Construction of new auxiliary restrooms • Replacement of pathway and parking lot lighting systems with energy-efficient fixtures • Replacement of the ornamental pond (lower pond) with an amphitheater area of playground/play structures • Renovation of upper pond infrastructure (pump/electrical/ vault) • Construction of playground and picnic areas • Construction of flexible court or basketball court space • Construction of a dog park • Replacement of portions of landscape and ornamental grass area and the associated irrigation/pump system • Replacement of park fixtures (e.g. benches and tables) with recycled plastic equipment

01 | SITE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY • Investigation and replacement of damaged portions of the existing drainage system • Evaluation and replacement of portions of concrete pathways and flatwork for functionality and ADA compliance • Additional work required to connect interlinking areas As part of the proposed improvements, the ornamental lower pond is being considered for removal. This will require a unique approach and poses both a design challenge and opportunity. Due to water conditioning practices and droppings from migratory waterfowl, it was anticipated that the water may contain a high concentration of copper and zinc ions which could prevent directly draining the water into the City’s sanitary sewer system. Additionally, a plan of action will need to be discussed and agreed upon for removal of aquatic species (turtles and fish) residing within the lower pond. Further study of these issues is presented within this report.

SITE INVENTORY/ANALYSIS The first step to the success of this project began with a thorough investigation. During the site inventory and analysis process, we reviewed existing utility and as-built documents, acquired a supplemental site topographic survey and performed preliminary geotechnical investigations. Historical information along with current site investigation has shown how the site has changed and adapted from its original design to adapt with the changing needs of the community.

(CONT.)

and infrastructure. The Verde Design team, including key members from each of the consultant groups have visited the site with City staff to confirm our understanding of the existing conditions and to better evaluate the opportunities and constraints for developing the specific amenities identified for this project. Detailed site investigations to-date have included a detailed irrigation assessment, accessibility compliance review, electrical infrastructure and WiFi assessment, a water feature mechanical systems and pond assessment, biological resources investigation, and a tree inventory and assessment report. Thes information gathered during these investigations has been reviewed and compiled into this report.

NEXT STEPS A conceptual site plan will be developed during the forthcoming community input process, incorporating improvements desired by the public and needs identified by the assessments. Once a preferred site plan concept is created, with a layout of key design elements, additional investigations will be performed. These will include further geotechnical testing, and potholing of underground utilities to provide accurate locations and depths of key systems.

We will also perform a detailed topographic survey will to capture areas where additional grading information is needed. Additionally, the project scope will be reviewed and evaluated by our environmental consultant to prepare a CEQA determination and provide supporting documentation.

After obtainined general site information, the consultant team performed a deeper site analysis of existing systems

View of the lower pond and grassy areas on the south side of the grounds

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

5

6

2

Overall Site Analysis

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

7

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

(CONT.)

MEDICAL OFFICES

SWOT ANALYSIS

4

MEDICAL OFFICES

+5

M

I C

H

E

APARTMENTS D

R

E

M

I

N

G

T

O

N

WHAT IS A SWOT ANALYSIS? SWOT is an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. A SWOT analysis is used in a variety of professions and, for the purposes of site assessment and planning, provides a framework for organizing site assessment data for use in community outreach, site planning, and design development. The goal of a SWOT analysis is to create a data-driven, fact-based assessment of the current and future potential of a site organized around the existing site elements while taking into account external factors.

AUTO YARD

R

L A

N

G

E

+9

L O

D

4

+8

4

SUNNYVALE COMMUNITY CENTER GROUNDS SWOT ANALYSIS A SWOT analysis of the Sunnyvale Community Center Grounds, as well as supporting diagrams and photos, are in the pages that follow. In general, the site is well-maintained and well-used by the community, however, there are opportunities to modernize certain aspects of the park and bring it into alignment with its growing programmatic needs, accessibility requirements, and environmental goals. The objective of this SWOT analysis is to prepare a framework for future discussions with City residents and staff and provide a trajectory for future designs of the Sunnyvale Community Center Grounds.

R

+0 1

+8

B4

BP AP

3

ADA PARKING: 2 ACC / 2 VAN

2

4

B3 BP

LEGEND

BP

M

MEDICAL OFFICES

A

N

+10 E

T

AP

ADA PARKING: 6 ACC / 1 VAN

B1 B2

D

BP

R

B5 BP

AP

ADA PARKING: 17 ACC / 2 VAN

OFFICES AP

ADA PARKING: 4 ACC

B1

RECREATION CENTER

B2

INDOOR SPORTS CENTER

B3

THEATER

B4

CREATIVE ARTS CENTER

B5

SENIOR CENTER

1

LOWER POND

2

UPPER POND

3

ART INSTALLATION

4

HERITAGE OAK TREE

AP

ACCESSIBLE PARKING

BP

BIKE PARKING TREE CANOPY HARDSCAPE NOT IN ADA COMPLIANCE

NORTH 0

10'

20'

40'

60'

HERITAGE PARK MUSEUM & ORCHARD

NOISE FROM ADJACENT LAND USES VISUALLY OBSCURED AREA VIEWSHED IN/OUT OF SITE

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

9

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

(CONT.)

SWOT ANALYSIS BY SITE ELEMENT Site Element

Strength

• Provide aesthetic value and shade

Vegetation & Site Grading

Weakness

Opportunity

Threat

• Provide a noise barrier from adjacent roadways

• Some trees show decline in health due to age, over/ under watering, or overcrowding

• Evaluate tree health and suitability for preservation, generate management plan

• Some trees are reaching their natural end of life and should be preemptively removed

• Mature trees are a habitat for wildlife

• On-going maintenance and upkeep required

• Add/replace trees in strategic areas for more shade

• Heritage oak tree

• Tree roots can heave/lift walkways

• Use existing shade to support new programmatic elements (dog park, picnic areas, playground, etc.)

• Some trees need to be pruned to prevent danger of falling branches

• Large amount of unusable lawn space on berms

• Incorporate more habitat and sensory planting • Reduce/replace lawn with program elements, mulch, or drought tolerant planting Views In & Out

Circulation & Accessibility

Site Context

Water Features

Site Signage

Artwork

Lighting

10

• The site is protected from the street by earthen berms and mature trees

• Views in/out of the park are obscured by trees and bermed areas

• Ability to highlight or shield new site elements as needed due to bermed landscape areas

• Less visible areas may create a security risk

• Circulation is clear and reinforced by consistent site signage

• Several walkways and accessible parking areas are out of compliance due to age

• Bring all walkways and accessible parking areas into compliance with current codes

• Areas that are out of compliance pose a risk of injury and liability

• Internal paths frequently used for walking and jogging • Number of accessible parking stalls meets code

• There is a mix of different hardscape styles as improvements were made over the years

• Create unity and circulation hierarchy with the hardscape

• The site is surrounded by low/medium density commercial and residential neighborhoods

• Due to the low/medium density, the site is primarily accessed by car

• Sunnyvale has a strong park network that can accommodate site programming that may not be suitable for this site

• Remington Dr and the auto yard on Michelangelo Dr are sources of noise pollution • Remington Dr is a busy street which poses a threat to pedestrian safety, especially children

• Valued park amenity

• Maintenance intensive

• Tie in storm drainage

• Bird droppings are a maintenance issue

• Cools surrounding area in hot weather

• High water use

• Reinforce habitat

• Species relocation may be a challenge

• Attracts wildlife

• Attracts birds which leave droppings

• Signage is easy-to-read and located in appropriate areas

• There is a disparate range of sign styles as they were installed over the years

• Update and unify site signage

• Existing site signage may meet current codes and standards for accessibility and legibility

• Contributes to the identity of Sunnyvale

• Maintenance and upkeep

• Community building feature

• Community consensus difficult to achieve to replace or update new artwork installations

• Add, augment, or replace existing signage with support from the community

• Consistent fixture style throughout park

• Fixture style is dated and likely inefficient

• Replace fixtures with modern and efficient lighting

• Many light posts have integrated electrical outlets

• Many integrated electrical outlets are out of codecompliance

• Integrate electrical outlets for use within programmed areas

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

(CONT.) MEDICAL OFFICES

VISUAL ANALYSIS

D

MEDICAL OFFICES

E

+5

C

M

I C

APARTMENTS B

R

E

M

I N

G

T

O

D

N

+9

H

E

L A

• Approaching from the North Parking Lot and Upper Pond a majority of the park can be observed from a single vantage point due to the elevation of the upper plaza(F, G).

N

G

E

L O

D

R

VIEWS OUT OF THE PARK • Views towards the Community Center buildings from the Lower Pond are obscured by the change in grade.

• Views towards Remington Dr, Michelangelo Dr, and Manet Dr are obscured by mature trees and earthen berms except at the entrances on Remington Dr where there are direct sight lines of the street.

F

+8

R

VIEWS INTO THE PARK • Views from Remington Dr, Michelangelo Dr, and Manet Dr are obscured by mature trees and earthen berms except at the entrances on Remington Dr where there are direct sight lines into the park (A, B, C,D, E, H)

AUTO YARD

+0 +8

A

G

+10 MEDICAL OFFICES

H

M

A

N

E

T

D

R

OFFICES

NORTH 0

10'

20'

40'

60'

HERITAGE PARK MUSEUM & ORCHARD

LEGEND OBSTRUCTED VIEW UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

11

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

(CONT.)

VISUAL ANALYSIS IMAGE REFERENCES A

B

View from Remington Dr

D

F

View from the north parking lot entrance

G

View from Remington Dr entrance near Manet Dr

C

View of park sign from Remington Dr

E

View from Remington Dr entrance near Michelangelo Dr

12

View of park sign from the corner of Remington Dr and Michelangelo Dr

View from the Upper Pond entrance

H

View from Michelangelo Dr

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

(CONT.) MEDICAL OFFICES

TOPOGRAPHY ANALYSIS • To support the visual analysis in the previous pages, the following pages display section cuts of the existing topography in the lower pond area with a 5:1 vertical exaggeration.

AUTO YARD

A

MEDICAL OFFICES

SITE SECTIONS

+5

• The bermed landscape areas along the three bounding roads provide a physical buffer from vehicular traffic. While this increases safety from cars and reduces traffic noise within the park, it also cuts off visual access to the park (Sections A & C).

• The north-south sections cut through the lower pond show the vertical drops at the Heritage Oak tree and fountain. In addition to the bermed landscape areas, these changes in elevation create a bowl effect in the park which provides excellent views into the lower pond area, but more obscured views looking up from the lower pond (Sections B & D).

APARTMENTS

+9

D E

B

+8

4

+0 1

• Several walks into the lower pond area have a good visual quality, but are deficient in terms of meeting current accessibility standards (Section E).

E

D

+8

3

B4

2 B3

C

A

B

+10

B1

C

B2

MEDICAL OFFICES

LEGEND B5

OFFICES

NORTH 0

10'

20'

40'

60'

HERITAGE PARK MUSEUM & ORCHARD

B1

RECREATION CENTER

B2

INDOOR SPORTS CENTER

B3

THEATER

B4

CREATIVE ARTS CENTER

B5

SENIOR CENTER

1

LOWER POND

2

UPPER POND

3

ART INSTALLATION

4

HERITAGE OAK TREE

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

13

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

(CONT.) MEDICAL OFFICES AUTO YARD

MEDICAL OFFICES

+5

APARTMENTS

+9 +8 +0 +8

+10 MEDICAL OFFICES

OFFICES

HERITAGE PARK MUSEUM & ORCHARD

NORTH 0

10'

20'

40'

60'

KEY MAP

150.00

10'

130.00

15'

140.00

LANDSCAPE AREA

MICHELANGELO DR

5'

0

15'

0

2.5'

120.00

SECTION A 110.00

100.00

14

LANDSCAPE AREA REMINGTON DR EAST ENTRY

30'

60'

90'

REMINGTON DR WEST ENTRY

LANDSCAPE AREA

MANET DR

140.00

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

MEDICAL OFFICES

15'

130.00

(CONT.)

AUTO YARD

MEDICAL OFFICES

10'

+5

APARTMENTS

LANDSCAPE AREA

MICHELANGELO DR

+9

5'

REMINGTON DR EAST ENTRY

0

15'

30'

60'

REMINGTON DR WEST ENTRY

+8 +0 +8

90'

0

2.5'

120.00

LANDSCAPE AREA

+10 MEDICAL OFFICES

110.00

OFFICES

NORTH 0

10'

20'

40'

60'

HERITAGE PARK MUSEUM & ORCHARD

KEY MAP 100.00

150.00

10'

130.00

15'

140.00

WALK

LOWER POND

UPPER POND

0

15'

30'

60'

90'

0

2.5'

120.00

LANDSCAPE AREA

5'

REMINGTON DR

SECTION B 110.00

100.00

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

15

140.00

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

(CONT.)

15'

MEDICAL OFFICES

130.00

AUTO YARD

MEDICAL OFFICES

+5

APARTMENTS

10'

+9

LOWER POND

WALK

+0 +8

UPPER POND

+10

0

15'

30'

60'

90'

MEDICAL OFFICES

0

2.5'

120.00

LANDSCAPE AREA

5'

REMINGTON DR

+8

OFFICES

NORTH 0

110.00

150.00

15'

140.00

10'

130.00

LANDSCAPE AREA

0

0

2.5'

5'

MANET RD

SECTION C 16

110.00

20'

40'

60'

KEY MAP

100.00

120.00

10'

15'

30'

60'

90'

WALK

LOWER POND

HERITAGE PARK MUSEUM & ORCHARD

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

(CONT.) MEDICAL OFFICES AUTO YARD

MEDICAL OFFICES

+5

APARTMENTS

+9 +8 +0 +8

+10 MEDICAL OFFICES

OFFICES

HERITAGE PARK MUSEUM & ORCHARD

NORTH 0

10'

20'

40'

60'

KEY MAP

10'

130.00

15'

140.00

HERITAGE OAK TREE

LOWER POND

WALK

LANDCAPE AREA

0

15'

30'

60'

90'

0

2.5'

120.00

LANDSCAPE AREA

5'

REMINGTON RD

SECTION D 110.00 City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

17

100.00

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

(CONT.) MEDICAL OFFICES AUTO YARD

MEDICAL OFFICES

+5

APARTMENTS

+9 +8 +0 +8

+10 MEDICAL OFFICES

150.00

OFFICES

NORTH 0

10'

20'

40'

60'

KEY MAP

10'

130.00

15'

140.00

0

2.5'

120.00

SECTION E 110.00 18

CONCRETE WALK

5'

LOWER POND

0

15'

30'

60'

90'

PARKING LOT

HERITAGE PARK MUSEUM & ORCHARD

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS B

(CONT.) MEDICAL OFFICES

CIRCULATION

+5

M

APARTMENTS D

R

E

M

I

N

G

T

O

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION • The site is primarily accessed by car with an entrance to the north and east lots from Michelangelo Dr and an entrance to the south lot from Manet Dr. There is an internal road system connecting the parking lots.

AUTO YARD

MEDICAL OFFICES

R

I C

H

E

• There is no street parking on Remington Dr and Manet Dr and street parking on the east side of Michelangelo Dr. L A

N

G

E

+9

L O

D

R

N

+8

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION • There are numerous pedestrian paths throughout the site, but as previously noted, many of the walks are deficient in terms of current accessibility codes.

• There is a 0.3 mile walking/jogging loop around the lower pond that is frequently used by park goers.

+0 +8

BP P

B

NORTH LOT 208 STALLS 8 ACC / 3 VAN

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION • There are two bus stops within 1/4 mile off Remington Dr in either direction. One is at Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd and the other is at El Camino Real

BP

BP

M

MEDICAL OFFICES

+10 A

N

E

T

BP

D

R

BP

OFFICES

P

SOUTH LOT 125 STALLS 17 ACC / 2 VAN

EAST LOT P 1 39 STALLS 4 ACC

LEGEND BUILDING ENTRY PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION VEHICULAR CIRCULATION

NORTH 0

10'

20'

40'

60'

HERITAGE PARK MUSEUM & ORCHARD

P

PARKING LOT

BP

BIKE PARKING

B

BUS STOP

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

19

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

(CONT.)

CIRCULATION IMAGE REFERENCES

Manet Dr with no street parking

Pedestrian circulation comprised of 6-8’ wide concrete pathways with larger plaza spaces internally

Remington Dr with no street parking

Plaza space at the north end of the Senior Center with concrete and brick pavers

Michelangelo Dr with street parking on the east side of the street

Plaza at the Upper Pond showing a mixture of hardscape types (concrete with exposed aggregate, red concrete, and stamped gray concrete

Accessible parking at the Senior Center parking lot

Accessible parking at the Indoor Sports Center parking lot

20

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

(CONT.) MEDICAL OFFICES

SIGNAGE & WAYFINDING SIGNAGE ASSESSMENT

A1

MEDICAL OFFICES

As part of this assessment, Verde Design evaluated the existing signage found throughout the grounds to determine which signs, if any, may need updating in the future.

AUTO YARD

In general, signage and wayfinding is consistent with a clear hierarchy. The perimeter Site ID Monument, Site ID/Vehicular Direction, and Vehicle Directional signage (A,B, & C) have been installed recently and follow the City of Sunnyvale’s new visual standards for signage. These signs are white with gray sans-serif lettering and green accent color with the updated City of Sunnyvale logo.

+5 M

I C

H

E

APARTMENTS

L A

N

B5

D

R

E

M

I

N

G

T

O

N

R

G

E

+9 CC

+8

L O

D

The Campus Maps (D) consist of a printed site map behind plexiglass at waist height with posts that use a consistent green color found on the vehicular and site ID signage. These appear to have been installed relatively recently, however, they show some signs of discoloration and weathering.

R

H1 H2

+0

In addition to the Campus Maps, there are wayfinding site maps and directional signage attached to light posts (W). These are brown with white sans-serif lettering. and show a fair amount of peeling and discoloration, as well.

+8

D6

D4 W9

Furthermore, there are several wooden signs (CC, H) that are of historic or nostalgic value.

These signs are well-maintained and in good condition.

C11

A2

W8 W6 D5 W5

W7 D3

M

MEDICAL OFFICES

A

N

+10 E

T

C10

W4

D

D1

R

B4

C9

D2

W2 W3 W1

LEGEND

C7 C8

OFFICES B3

NORTH 0

10'

20'

40'

60'

C6

HERITAGE PARK MUSEUM & ORCHARD

A

A - SITE ID MONUMENT (2)

B

B - SITE ID / VEHICLE DIRECTIONAL (3)

C

C - VEHICLE DIRECTIONAL (6)

D

D - CAMPUS MAP (6)

CC

COMMUNITY CENTER SIGN

H

HERITAGE OAK SIGN

W

INTERNAL WAYFINDING SIGN ON POST

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

21

02 | OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS

(CONT.)

SIGNAGE IMAGE REFERENCES CC

Community Center Sign

A2

Site ID / Monument Sign

B3

Site ID / Vehicle Directional Signage

8

B4

Site ID / Vehicle Directional Signage

B5

Site ID / Vehicle Directional Signage

C6

Vehicle Directional Signage

D4

Campus Map

D5

Campus Map

H1

Heritage Oak Signage

H2

Heritage Oak Signage

W7

Internal Wayfinding Signage- Campus Map

W3

Internal Wayfinding Signage - Directional

24

3

Accessibility Assessment

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 25

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT DISABILITY ACCESS EVALUATION – SELECT EXTERIOR ROUTES OF TRAVEL (ROT) Inspection Date: 8 December 2021 Inspection performed by: Access Compliance Services Jonathan Adler, Principal 1500 41st Ave., Suite 254-B Tel (831) 429-4191 CA Certified Accessibility Specialist (CASp) #003

PART 1: SCOPE AND CONDITIONS OF ASSESSMENT The following evaluation identifies features of selected pedestrian routes that do not conform with the following state and federal standards concerning accessibility for persons with disabilities. The findings are based on my physical site inspection that was conducted on December 8, 2021. I verified my findings by observation, measurements, and photographs.

Internal circulation pathways were reviewed and recorded during the Disability Access Evaluation

26

• 2019 CBC - CA Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 • 2010 ADA Title III - 28 CFR Part 036, Subpart D • 2010 ADA Standards - 2004 ADAAG at 36 CFR part 1191, appendices B and D A feature that is listed as not conforming to the current CA requirements (CBC) may be the result of noncompliance with a requirement that applied when the facility was originally constructed, or noncompliance with the applicable standards when a given feature was altered, or a failure to improve an inaccessible item that was a component of the path of travel that serves an area that was altered. However, such a feature may not be a violation that is subject to an enforceable requirement to correct it specifically under CA regulations, if it met the standards that applied during previous construction and the code requirements for that feature have since changed. This evaluation does not perform a forensic investigation into that possibility.

Independent of construction and alteration history, features that are listed in the following report as not conforming to the ADA standards can be considered barriers to access, for which a public entity may be obligated to make improvements or otherwise mitigate to ensure program access pursuant to 28 CFR §35.130.

Abrupt Level Change

Walk Cross-slope

ELEMENT

Abrupt change of level is 1-1/2” high

Beginning 6-ft north of Manet St. and extending northward 24-LF, the cross slope of the walk ranges from 2.7% to 4.3%

BARRIER

11B-303.1 11B-303.2 11B-303.3 11B-303.4

11B-403.3

2019- CBC

2010 ADAS

Vertical. Changes in level 303.2 of 1/4” high maximum 303.3 shall be permitted to be 303.4 vertical and without edge treatment.

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

CBC Requirement

Photo

Changes in level up to 1/4 in may be vertical and without edge treatment

02

The cross slope of 01 walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

ADA Requirement

Grind, patch or replace as needed to ensure an even surface.

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Recommendations For Full Conformance

2

(CONT.)

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

2

1

ID

Photographs that are listed in column-8 are provided in Exhibit-03.

The locations of items that are listed in the report are shown in the Exhibit-01 Site Plan using the ID numbers that are shown in column-1.

For efficiency purposes, this section employs the use of abbreviations as follows: ADAS = Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Standards AFF = Above Finish Floor CBC = California Building Code CL = Centerline ISA = International Symbol of Accessibility POT = Path of Travel PROW = Public Right of Way Title 24/CBC = California Title 24 Accessibility Standards 8.33% = 1:12 slope 5.00% = 1:20 slope 2.1% = 1:48 slope

LEGEND

Part 2: Inventory of Inaccessible Features

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 27

28

Sidewalk Cross-slope

Walk Running Slope

3

4

11B-403.3

2019- CBC

Note: This area also comprises the top landing of the curb ramp, which is required to slope no steeper than 2.1%.

The running slope ranges 11B-403.3 from 6.4% to 8.6%, thus comprising a “ramp” but without the required handrails.

11B-505.2 The “ramped area” begins 10-ft west of the bollards and extends 28-KF westward (toward the lagoon).

The cross-slope over 8-lineal feet of sidewalk ranges from 2.9% to 4.4%.

BARRIER

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

ELEMENT

ID

2010 ADAS

Photo

The running slope of walkways shall not be steeper than 1:20 (5.0%) Handrails shall be provided on both sides of ramps that rise more than 6-inches

Handrails shall be 505.2 provided on both sides of ramps, except for ramps less than 6” high that connect directly to door landing.

04

The cross slope of 03 walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

Changes in level greater than 1/2 in must be accomplished by means of an accessible ramp

Changes in level between 1/4 in and 1/2 in must be beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2.

ADA Requirement

403.3

The running slope of walkways shall not be steeper than 1:20 (5.0%)

Ramped. Changes in level greater than 1/2-inch shall be ramped, and shall comply with Section 11B-405 or 11B-406.

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

Beveled. Changes in level between 1/4-inch high minimum and 1/2-inch high maximum shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1:2.

CBC Requirement

Modify as needed to ensure an accessible ramp that includes handrails and level landing at the top and bottom of the slope.

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Recommendations For Full Conformance

3

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT (CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

Door Landing

Abrupt Level Change

6

7

Routes traveling north and southwards across the circulation area encounter cross-slopes ranging from 3.0% to 6.5%

Abrupt change of level is 5/8” high and extends across the width of the walk, approximately 8-ft from the exit door.

Door landing slopes 3.3% perpendicular to the close face of the door.

Door landing slopes 2.8% perpendicular to the close face of the door.

BARRIER

11B-403.3

11B-303.1 11B-303.2 11B-303.3 11B-303.4

11B404.2.4.4

11B404.2.4.4

2019- CBC

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

Walk Cross-slope

Door Landing

5

8

ELEMENT

ID

303.2 303.3 303.4

404.2.4.4

404.2.4.4

2010 ADAS

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

Ramped at 1:12 required if the level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

Door landings must slope no steeper than 2.1%

Door landings must slope no steeper than 2.1%

CBC Requirement

07

06

05

Photo

The cross slope of 08 walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

Ramped at 1:12 if level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

Door landings must slope no steeper than 2.1%

Door landings must slope no steeper than 2.1%

ADA Requirement

Note: Correcting the cross-slope across this wide circulation area would increase the elevation from which the already too-steep ramp (See Item-9) descends down to the lagoon. We therefore recommend abandoning that ramp

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Grind, patch or replace as needed to ensure an even surface.

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Recommendations For Full Conformance

4

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT (CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 29

30

Ramp Running Slope

Protruding Object

Abrupt Level Change

9

10

11

Abrupt change of level is 11/2” high due to tree root uplift.

Cantilevered drinking fountain protrudes 20” horizontally into the circulation area at a height of 29” AFF and has not guards to protect pedestrians with vision disabilities.

A prohibitively steep ramp descends down to the lagoon at a slope ranging from 9.9% to 13% over a 30ft distance.

BARRIER

11B-303.1 11B-303.2 11B-303.3 11B-303.4

11B-307.3

11B-405.2

2019- CBC

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

ELEMENT

ID

Ramped at 1:12 required if the level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

Freestanding objects on posts may protrude no more than 12” when their bottom edge is between 27” and 80” above the floor or ground.

Ramp runs shall have a running slope not steeper than 1:12 (8.33%)

CBC Requirement

303.2 303.3 303.4

307.3

405.2

2010 ADAS

Ramped at 1:12 if level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

Free-standing objects mounted on posts or pylons shall overhang circulation paths 12 inches maximum when located 27 inches minimum and 80 inches maximum above the finish floor or ground.

Ramp runs shall have a running slope not steeper than 1:12 (8.33%)

ADA Requirement

11

10

09

Photo

Grind, patch or replace as needed to ensure an even surface.

Install pipe rail guards on each side of the fountain.

Remove and replace with a walk that is greater in length, as is needed to ensure maximum 5% slope.

and providing a longer, but only 5% sloped serpentine walkway down to the lagoon.

Recommendations For Full Conformance

5

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT (CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

Abrupt Level Changes

13

A prohibitively steep ramp descends down to the lagoon at a slope ranging from 9.1% to 13.5% over approximately 35-LF.

Abrupt changes of level 3/4” and higher due to broken and eroded concrete.

Tree root uplift resulting in multiple abrupt changes of level greater than 1/2” high.

BARRIER

11B-405.2

11B-303.1 11B-303.2 11B-303.3 11B-303.4

11B-303.1 11B-303.2 11B-303.3 11B-303.4

2019- CBC

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

Ramp Running Slope

Abrupt Level Changes

12

14

ELEMENT

ID

Ramp runs shall have a running slope not steeper than 1:12 (8.33%)

Ramped at 1:12 required if the level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

Ramped at 1:12 if level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

CBC Requirement

405.2

303.2 303.3 303.4

303.2 303.3 303.4

2010 ADAS

Ramp runs shall have a running slope not steeper than 1:12 (8.33%)

Ramped at 1:12 if level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

Ramped at 1:12 if level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

ADA Requirement

8357-6-

13a 13b 13c 13d

12a 12b 12c

Photo

B) Replace the ramp with a walk that is greater in length, as is needed to ensure maximum 5% slope.

Perform A or B: A) Modify as needed to ensure an accessible ramp that includes handrails and level landing at the top and bottom of the slope.

Grind, patch or replace as needed to ensure an even surface.

Grind, patch or replace as needed to ensure an even surface.

Recommendations For Full Conformance

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT 6

(CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

31

32

Abrupt Level Changes

Curb Ramp

Sidewalk Cross-slope

15

16

17

11B406.5.12

• Lacks detectable warning

11B-403.3

11B406.5.3

• Top landing is not provided.

Beginning at Michaelangelo St. and extending 150-ft southward, the sidewalk has cross-slopes ranging from 3.5% to 4.3% --EXHIBIT-04--

11B406.3.1

11B-303.1 11B-303.2 11B-303.3 11B-303.4

2019- CBC

• Ramp slopes 11.4%

Abrupt changes of level 3/4” to 1” high due to broken concrete in the borders between sections of exposed aggregate.

BARRIER

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

ELEMENT

ID

N/A

406.4

406.1 405.2

303.2 303.3 303.4

2010 ADAS

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

• Curb ramps and blended transitions require detectable warnings.

• Top landing must be 48” deep and as wide as the ramp and must slope no more than 2.1%.

• Maximum slope 8.33%

Ramped at 1:12 required if the level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

CBC Requirement

16

15

Photo

The cross slope of 17a walking surfaces shall not 17b be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

Not applicable

• Top landing must be 36” deep and as wide as the ramp and must slope no more than 2.1%.

• Maximum slope 8.33%

Ramped at 1:12 if level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

ADA Requirement

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Replace with a compliance curb ramp.

Grind, patch or replace as needed to ensure an even surface.

Recommendations For Full Conformance

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT 7

(CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

Curb Ramp

19

11B-403.3

11B406.5.8

• Counter-slope of the gutter is 9.2%

The semi-circle walk has cross-slopes ranging from 5.5% to 6.5% over the full 35-ft. of length.

11B406.5.12

11B406.5.3

• Top landing slopes 5.2%

• Lacks detectable warning

11B406.3.1

406.2

N/A

406.4

406.1 405.2

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

• Counter-slope of gutters at the base of curb ramps may be no greater than 5% slope.

• Curb ramps and blended transitions require detectable warnings.

• Top landing must be 48” deep and as wide as the ramp and must slope no more than 2.1%.

• Maximum slope 8.33%

Handrails required on 505.2 both sides of ramps except for ramps less than 6” high that connect directly to door landing.

11B-505.2

403.3

2010 ADAS

The running slope of walkways shall not be steeper than 1:20 (5.0%)

CBC Requirement

11B-403.3

2019- CBC

• Ramp slopes 9.4% over the top half

Beginning 4-ft east of lamp post #20, and extending eastward 20-LF, the walk slopes 6.3% to 6.9% thus comprising a “ramp” but without the required handrails.

BARRIER

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

Sidewalk Cross-slope

Walks Running Slope

18

20

ELEMENT

ID

19a 19b

Photo

The cross slope of 20 walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

• Counter-slope of gutters at the base of curb ramps may be no greater than 5% slope.

Not applicable

• Top landing must be 36” deep and as wide as the ramp and must slope no more than 2.1%.

• Maximum slope 8.33%

Handrails shall be provided on both sides of ramps that rise more than 6-inches

The running slope of walkways shall not be steeper than 1:20 (5.0%)

ADA Requirement

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Replace with a compliant curb ramp and modify the gutter counter-slope to maximum 5%.

Reconstruct to reduce slope to max. 5.0% by extending the length into the area above, which slopes less than 5%.

Recommendations For Full Conformance

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT 8

(CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 33

34

Blended Transition

Sidewalk Cross-slope

Sidewalk Cross-slope

Sidewalk Cross-slope

Seating Area

21

22

23

24

25

Paved surface is not provided adjacent to either of the two benches in this area.

The driveway apron poses an 8.1% cross-slope, and traveling across the asphalt area to avoid it encounters a 5.3% cross-slope as well as a lack of paved surface when attempting to return to the sidewalk.

Cross-slope ranges from 3.3% to 5.3% over 85-LF.

Cross-slope ranges from 3.9% to 4.1% over 16-LF.

Detectable warning is not installed.

BARRIER

Govt. Code 11135(a)

11B-403.3

11B-403.3

11B-403.3

11B406.5.12

2019- CBC

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

ELEMENT

ID

N/A

2010 ADAS

No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, color, or disability, be unlawfully

28 CFR § 35.130(a)

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

• Curb ramps and blended transitions require detectable warnings.

CBC Requirement

21

Photo

No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be

General prohibitions against discrimination.

25

The cross slope of 24 walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

The cross slope of 23a walking surfaces shall not 23b 23c be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

The cross slope of 22 walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

Not applicable

ADA Requirement

Construct a 36” wide paved area beside one of the benches in this area to allow a wheelchair user to have shoulder-toshoulder alignment with

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Re-pave a 4-ft wide path inside of the driveway apron that has maximum 2.1% cross-slope.

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Install detectable warning material

Recommendations For Full Conformance

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT 9

(CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

Sidewalk has cross-slopes ranging from 3.0% to 4.1% over an 80-LF distance (including the ramp at the west end).

11B-403.3

11B406.5.12

11B406.5.3

• Top landing slopes 4.0%

• Lacks detectable warning

11B406.3.1

2019- CBC

• Ramp slopes 9.6% to 10.3%

BARRIER

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

Sidewalk Cross-slope

Curb Ramp

26

27

ELEMENT

ID

N/A

406.4

406.1 405.2

2010 ADAS

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

• Curb ramps and blended transitions require detectable warnings.

• Top landing must be 48” deep and as wide as the ramp and must slope no more than 2.1%.

• Maximum slope 8.33%

denied the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is funded directly by the state or receives any financial assistance from the state.

CBC Requirement

26a 26b

Photo

The cross slope of 27a walking surfaces shall not 27b be steeper than 1:48 27c (2.1%)

Not applicable

• Top landing must be 36” deep and as wide as the ramp and must slope no more than 2.1%.

• Maximum slope 8.33%

excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.

ADA Requirement

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Replace with a compliant curb ramp.

a companion, as two able-bodied persons who are seated on a bench would have.

Recommendations For Full Conformance

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT 10

(CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 35

36

Sidewalk Cross-slope

Blended Transition

Ramp

Abrupt Level Change

28

29

30

31

2010 ADAS

Ramped at 1:12 if level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

303.2 303.3 303.4

Handrails shall be 505.2 provided on both sides except for ramps less than 6” high that connect directly to door landing.

11B-505.2

403.3

N/A

The running slope of walkways shall not be steeper than 1:20 (5.0%)

• Curb ramps and blended transitions require detectable warnings.

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

CBC Requirement

11B-403.3

11B406.5.12

11B-403.3

2019- CBC

1-1/2” inch abrupt change of 11B-303.1 level across the full width of 11B-303.2 the walk.

11B-303.3 11B-303.4

The route slopes 8.0% over a 7-ft distance, thus comprising a “ramp” but without the required handrails.

Detectable warning is not installed.

Sidewalk has cross-slopes ranging from 3.8% to 5.7% over a 30-LF distance

BARRIER

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

ELEMENT

ID

Photo

Ramped at 1:12 if level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

Handrails shall be provided on both sides of ramps that rise more than 6-inches

The running slope of walkways shall not be steeper than 1:20 (5.0%)

Not applicable

31

30

29

The cross slope of 28 walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

ADA Requirement

See Item 30

Reconstruct the contiguous areas listed as 30, 31, 32 to ensure a compliant ramp with handrails and level landings.

Install detectable warning material.

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Recommendations For Full Conformance

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT 11

(CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

On the route from the south parking lot to the center of campus the cross-slopes range from 3.2% to 6.7% over a 60-ft long distance

Abrupt change of level is 1” high due to tree root uplift.

11B-403.3

11B-303.1 11B-303.2 11B-303.3 11B-303.4

303.2 303.3 303.4

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

Ramped at 1:12 if level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

Handrails shall be 505.2 provided on both sides of ramps regardless of the total rise, except for ramps less than 6” high that connect directly to door landing.

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

11B-505.2

403.3

2010 ADAS

The running slope of walkways shall not be steeper than 1:20 (5.0%)

CBC Requirement

11B-403.3

2019- CBC

On the route from the north 11B-403.3 parking lot to the center of campus, cross-slope ranges from 3.0% to 5.0% over a 21ft long distance.

The route slopes 5.1% to 7.6% over a 40-ft distance, thus comprising a “ramp” but without the required handrails.

BARRIER

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

Walk Cross-slope

35

Walk Cross-slope

33

Abrupt Level Change

Ramp

32

34

ELEMENT

ID

32

Photo

34

The cross slope of 35a walking surfaces shall not 35b be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

Ramped at 1:12 if level change exceeds 1/2” in height.

Max. 1/2” if beveled at 50% slope.

Max. 1/4” vertical

The cross slope of 33 walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

Handrails shall be provided on both sides of ramps that rise more than 6-inches

The running slope of walkways shall not be steeper than 1:20 (5.0%)

ADA Requirement

Note: Correcting the

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Grind, patch or replace as needed to ensure an even surface.

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

See Item 30

Recommendations For Full Conformance

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT 12

(CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 37

38

Walk Cross-slope

Ramp Running Slope

36

37

NOTE: The 60-LF of walk above the ramped section slopes only 4.0% to 4.5%.

The bottom 9-LF of the inclined walk slopes 5.7% to 6.7%, thus comprising a “ramp” but without the required handrails.

SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 02

Cross-slopes between 4.0% and 6.0% over an irregularly shaped circulation area affect the routes from south parking lot to all of the buildings.

BARRIER

2010 ADAS

The running slope of walkways shall not be steeper than 1:20 (5.0%) Handrails shall be 505.2 provided on both sides of ramps regardless of the total rise, except for ramps less than 6” high that connect directly to door landing.

11B-505.2

403.3

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

CBC Requirement

11B-403.3

11B-403.3

2019- CBC

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

ELEMENT

ID

Handrails shall be provided on both sides of ramps that rise more than 6-inches

The running slope of walkways shall not be steeper than 1:20 (5.0%)

The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

ADA Requirement

37a 37b

36a 36b 36c 36d 36e 36f 36g

Photo

Reconstruct to extend the slope further up the hill, as needed to result in maximum 5.0% slope

cross-slope could affect the door landing to the Aquatics Office. In our opinion that would be a minor concern since the same office can be accessed from the nearby south facing doors into the gymnasium lobby.

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Recommendations For Full Conformance

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT 13

(CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

Curb Ramp

Sidewalk Cross-slope

39

40

Viewed as a parallel curb ramp the bottom landing is sloped 10.1% (max. 2.1% required).

Note: Viewed as a perpendicular curb ramp it lacks the required top landing (4-ft deep at 2.1% required).

• Ramp slopes 10.1% • Lacks detectable warning

11B406.5.12

11B406.3.1

11B-403.3

11B406.5.6

• 3/4” high lip at the base of the ramp.

Cross-slope ranges from 3.6% to 4.6%.

11B406.5.12

11B406.5.6

• 1/2” high lip at the base of the ramp.

• Lacks detectable warning

11B406.3.1

2019- CBC

• Ramp slopes 10.9% over the upper half of the incline.

BARRIER

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

Curb Ramp (presumably obsolete)

Curb Ramp

38

41

ELEMENT

ID

N/A

406.2

406.1 405.2

2010 ADAS

Curb ramps and blended transitions require detectable warnings.

Maximum slope 8.33%

N/A

406.1 405.2

• Surface slopes that 406.2 meet at grade breaks shall be flush.

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

• Curb ramps require detectable warnings.

• Surface slopes that meet at grade breaks shall be flush.

• Maximum slope 8.33%

CBC Requirement

39

38a 38b

Photo

Not applicable

Maximum slope 8.33%

41a 41b

• Surface slopes that meet at grade breaks shall be flush.

The cross slope of 40 walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

Not applicable

• Surface slopes that meet at grade breaks shall be flush.

• Maximum slope 8.33%

ADA Requirement

Remove both curb ramps at Items 41 and 43, and install one compliant passenger loading zone in this area where a large amount passengers are dropped-off and pickedup.

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Grind down ramp and/or modify gutter to remove the lip, and install detectable warning material.

Remove and replace to ensure a compliant curb ramp.

Recommendations For Full Conformance

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT 14

(CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 39

40

Sidewalk Cross-slope

Curb Ramp (presumably obsolete)

Sidewalk Cross-slope

Curb Ramp

42

43

44

45

11B406.5.12 11B406.5.6

• 3/4” high lip at the base of the ramp.

11B-403.3

11B406.5.12

11B406.3.1

11B-403.3

2019- CBC

• Lacks detectable warning

If the ramp is viewed as a parallel curb ramp the bottom landing is sloped 10.2% (max. 2.1% required).

Cross-slope is approximately 3.5% over the length of this section.

Note: If the ramp is viewed as a perpendicular curb ramp it lacks the required top landing (4-ft deep at 2.1% required).

• Ramp slopes 10.2% • Lacks detectable warning

Cross-slope ranges from 3.6% to 5.4%.

BARRIER

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

ELEMENT

ID

• Curb ramps and blended transitions require detectable warnings.

• Surface slopes that meet at grade breaks shall be flush.

The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

Curb ramps and blended transitions require detectable warnings.

Maximum slope 8.33%

The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

CBC Requirement

406.2

N/A

403.3.

N/A

406.1 405.2

403.3.

2010 ADAS

• Surface slopes that meet at grade breaks shall be flush.

Not applicable

The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

Not applicable

Maximum slope 8.33%

The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

ADA Requirement

45

44

43

42

Photo

Grind down ramp and/or modify gutter to remove the lip, and install detectable warning.

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

See Item 41

Reconstruct to ensure maximum 2.1% crossslope.

Recommendations For Full Conformance

15

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT (CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

• Cross slope of the ramp is 5.3% to 6.3% over the lower 18-LF.

• Running slope of the ramp is 7.5% (+/-) over approximately 40-lineal feet without providing required handrails.

Paved surface is not provided adjacent to either of the two benches in this area.

BARRIER

11B-403.3

Govt. Code 11135(a)

2019- CBC

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

Ramp Gymnastics East Entry

Seating Area

46

47

ELEMENT

ID

The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

46

Photo

The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.

General prohibitions against discrimination.

ADA Requirement

The running slope of 47a walking surfaces shall not 47b be steeper than 1:20.

28 CFR § 35.130(a)

2010 ADAS

The running slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20.

No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is funded directly by the state or receives any financial assistance from the state.

General prohibitions against discrimination.

CBC Requirement

Reconstruct the lower 18-LF of ramp to correct the cross-slope and install handrails along the full length of the ramp.

Construct a 36” wide paved area beside one of the benches in this area to allow a wheelchair user to have shoulder-toshoulder alignment with a companion, as two able-bodied persons who are seated on a bench would have.

Recommendations For Full Conformance

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT 16

(CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

41

42

Ramp Gymnastics West Entry

48

2019- CBC

NOTE: Although the east and west doors to Gymnastics are at different elevations, there is an interior ramp that connects them.

6.5% cross-slope is 11B-403.3 encountered when maneuvering across the small “connector pad” in order to travel to the west entry doors, which is the entrance that is identified by signage as Gymnastics.

BARRIER

Sunnyvale Community Center– Access Survey of Selected Routes

ELEMENT

ID

2010 ADAS

The cross slope of 403.3. walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2.1%)

CBC Requirement

Photo

The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not 8482/8 be steeper than 1:48 3 (2.1%)

ADA Requirement

Option B: Sign the east pair of doors as an entry to gymnastics and conspicuously sign it as the accessible one.

Option A: Modify as needed to provide an accessible connection between the ramp and the large landing of the west entry doors.

Perform Option A or B:

Recommendations For Full Conformance

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT 17

(CONT.)

PART 2: INVENTORY OF INACCESSIBLE FEATURES (CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 1- SITE IMAGE REFERENCE PLAN

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 43

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 2 - MAIN BUILDING ENTRY IMAGE REFERENCE PLAN

EXHIBIT 03 - ITEM 17 IMAGE REFERENCE PLAN

16

ITEM 17

Cross slopes ranging from 3.5% to 4.3% over approximately 150 lineal feet 17 Begins here

17 End here

17a

17b 19

44

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 45

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

46

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 47

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

48

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 49

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

50

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

51

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

52

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 53

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

54

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 55

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

56

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 57

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

58

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 59

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

60

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

61

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

62

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 63

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

64

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 65

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

66

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 67

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

68

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 69

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

70

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

71

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

72

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 73

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

74

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 75

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

76

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 77

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

78

(CONT.)

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 79

03 | ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT 4- REFERENCE IMAGES (CONT.)

80

(CONT.)

82

4

ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 83

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT 1. Project Intent

This project is to renovate the Sunnyvale Community Center grounds as part of the Community

Center Grounds Renovations and Enhancement Project. Verde Design has retained the services of Salas O’Brien to provide electrical engineering services to design and provide engineering documents for the renovation project. Project design scope is inclusive of the following: 1. Providing power to new restroom building and outdoor amphitheater area.

2. Providing power to convenience outlets throughout the project site.

3. Providing power to new lighting system for basketball courts.

4. Replacement of pole mounted / site lighting system.

5. Providing wireless access throughout the site.

We conducted a site visit with the guidance of the Center’s personnel on December 9, 2021. A

walk through the Center’s grounds; visual observation of the electrical main switchboards and the telecom space was conducted.

2. Electrical and Lighting System – Existing Condition 2.1 Site Electrical

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is the electrical service provider to the site. There are two incoming PG&E electrical services serving the overall site. The first service (Service 1) is the original service from original build in 1972, and the second service (Service 2), a new service, was installed in 2001.

Electrical Service 1

Service 1 (Meter #1009515966) is in the Theater Building and its Main Switchboard ‘MSB’ is the original equipment installed in 1972 (50 years old). Main Switchboard ‘MSB’ is antiquated.

Although Service 1 is in working condition, adding additional circuits to it is problematic as

components are difficult to obtain. Adding 120/208 volt loads would require the addition of a

step-down transformer. The MSB is rated at 1600 amps, 277/480 volts, 3-phase, 4-wires, and it serves most of the buildings on site, site lighting, and pond’s fountain. See Picture 1.

Electrical Service 2

Service 2 (Meter #1009885116) is in the Senior Center Building and its Distribution Switchboard

‘DPS’ was installed in 2001 (20 years old). The DSP is rated at 2000 amps, 120/ 208 volts, 3-phase, 4-wires and it serves mainly the Senior Center building, and a few pathway and parking lot lights that are adjacent to the Senior Center building. See Picture 2.

Peak / Demand Load Data – 01/2019 – 12/2021

We submitted and obtained the PG&E electrical demand data to determine the current peak

load for both electrical services. PG&E demand data received was from January 2019 – December 2021. Below is the load summary for both Service 1 and Service 2:

84

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT •

(CONT.)

Service 1 – Meter #1009515966 Location: Theater Building

Rating: 277/480V, 3-Phase, 4-Wires Capacity: 1600 Amps / 1328 kVA

Peak Load: 278 kW / 348 kVA (occurred in June 2019) % Loading: 26.2% •

Service 2 – Meter #1009885116

Location: Senior Center Building

Rating: 120/208V, 3-Phase, 4-Wires Capacity: 2000 Amps / 720 KVA

Peak Load: 186 kW / 233 kVA (occurred in June 2019) % Loading: 32.4%

Picture 1 (L): Main Switchboard, 1972 in Theater Building;

Picture 2 (R): Distribution Switchboard, 2001 in Senior Center Building 2.2

Site Lighting

The site lighting at the Center consists of pathway and parking lot lights. See Picture 3 and

Picture 4. Pathway lighting system consist of 12 ft tall concrete pole with 175W pole mounted

HID light fixture. The pathway lights are present throughout the site including around the pond.

We observed that the concrete poles are in reasonably good condition. However, the pole-top HID fixtures are outdated, older HID technology is used. Compared with the latest LED

technology, HID requires consume more power as it is less efficient. We also noted that the

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 85

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

current light fixture is not meeting the dark-sky requirements; sharp lighting cut-off that casts light only where it is needed. We also noticed that some of the pathway lighting poles have

integrated non-GFI receptacles which poses an electrocution hazard, and some have missing

covers. Outdoor receptacles are required by the Code to be GFI-protected and have while-in-use waterproof covers. Refer to Recommendations section 3.2.

Parking lot lighting system consist of 40 ft tall concrete pole, rated at 400W, and are present in

South, North and East parking lots. Concrete poles appear to be in good condition. However, the

pole-top HID fixtures are outdated and inefficient. Compared with the latest LED technology, HID requires more power and does not have the sharp lighting cut-off that casts light only where it is needed. Refer to Exhibit 1 – Existing Electrical Site Plan.

Picture 3 (L): Typical 12 FT Pathway Lighting; Picture 4 (R): Typical 40 FT Parking Lot Lighting

86

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Picture 5: Post Mounted Receptacle

3. Electrical and Lighting System – Recommendations 3.1 Site Electrical

From the load summary above, we found that both electrical services do have the capacity to

take on additional loads. However, due to the age of the equipment, (circa 1970), the necessity

of adding a step-down transformer for 208/120 volt loads, and the lack of availability of parts for maintenance or expansion of Service 1, we recommend for this project to utilize Service 2 to provide its power needs.

See below for an electrical load calculation for Service 2 with the anticipated electrical load

added:

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 87

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

For this project, we recommend providing one new circuit breaker to Distribution Switchboard ‘DSP’ to feed a new sub-panel. Sub-panel will provide power distribution to the restroom building and other new loads. Refer to Exhibit 2 – Proposed Electrical Site Plan.

3.2 Site Lighting

For both pathway and parking lot lighting, we propose replacing the existing outdated pole-top HID fixtures with energy efficient LED, Dark-Sky compliant fixtures and reusing the existing

concrete pole. See attached for sample proposed light fixture cutsheet. Since the lighting load will be reduced (from HID to LED), we propose reusing the existing lighting circuits to provide power to the lighting system. Reusing existing circuiting and infrastructure will greatly reduce the project cost.

For pathway lighting, in addition to replacing the fixtures, we propose replacing all the existing light pole integrated receptacles with GFI receptacles. This includes replacing their covers with

metallic, weatherproof, while-in-use cover to meet the current NEC code requirements. This will

be a one-to-one replacement to the one that is currently present. No additional receptacles will be added for the current light poles that do not already have outlets.

Aside from this one-to-one light fixture replacement, as part of this project, we will also

recommend adding additional pathway and parking lot lighting, to provide sufficient and

uniform lighting throughout the project area. Refer to Exhibit 2 – Proposed Electrical Site Plan which shows the additional proposed lighting system.

4. Wireless Access Connectivity (WiFi) 4.1. WiFi Description

The scope of work is to provide WiFi connectivity to specific areas of the site. The Center’s

telecom system consists of multi-mode fiber and copper backbone infrastructure. The main

incoming backbone lands on the Main Distribution Frame (MDF), which is in the Senior Center

Building. From there, fiber and copper backbone are distributed to the rest of the buildings. The backbone lands on each Building’s Distribution Frame (BDF).

4.2. Overall Assessment Observations

On December 9, 2021, while on site, Salas O’Brien met with the Center’s IT personnel and walked certain areas of the site and discussed the plan and potential WiFi locations. We also discussed following the equipment specifications that have been implemented from the Civic Center

project. Those specifications called for the use of Cisco Systems’ Meraki MR66 WAPs. These

WAPs are cloud-managed 802.11ax devices with concurrent 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz radios. Currently the Community Center has no exterior WiFi access. We were informed that the Center’s IT

department is currently working on a project to upgrade the existing MDF and BDF with new

equipment. They also stated that IT would provide backbone equipment inside the MDF and BDF to support these new WAP devices.

88

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

4.3. Recommendations

This recommendation consists of adding new Wireless Access Points (WAPs) to specific areas of the site. Primarily, the WAP devices would be added to pathway areas between the buildings to provide coverage throughout the site. Refer to Exhibit 3. Locations and quantities of WAP

devices will be adjusted once heat map of the area is developed. WAP devices will mount to existing buildings at the appropriate location, approximately between 10-12 feet high to

minimize vandalism and to maximize coverage. Any locations mounted at lower than 10 feet will

be provided with security cage protective cover for added protection. At some areas, for a better WiFi coverage, our design will call for pole mounted WAP devices in specific areas around the

building. CAT6A cables will be routed to each the building’s BDF room from each WAP device.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 89

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

90

(CONT.)

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design

91

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

92

(CONT.)

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

PARKING LOT LIGHT

Site & Area EcoForm

LED Solution

Redefining value with outstanding performance An affordable solution with optimal versatility

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 93

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

An affordable site lighting package with one LED luminaire The Philips Gardco EcoForm redefines value through outstanding performance and breadth of offering. EcoForm combines nine different lumen packages, four distribution patterns, and six integral control options to create an innovative, efficient, performance and value driven product suitable for a full range of site and area applications.

EcoForm combines economy with performance in an outdoor area luminaire. When project budgets call for an affordable solution that will meet specifications without sacrificing performance, EcoForm is an excellent option. EcoForm features a single, low profile housing design and delivers a variety of lumen packages, making it the perfect choice for replacing existing HID installations.

Philips Gardco

94

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.) EcoForm Site & Area At a glance

Cost saving benefits • Innovative design approach with single size housing allows for value pricing without sacrificing quality.

• Retrofit arm option permits seamless replacement of existing luminaires, eliminating the need for additional pole drilling.

• Utilizes Philips latest LED technology, producing more light from fewer LEDs, keeping cost to a minimum.

• Integral control configurations including motion response, available for even greater energy savings.

• Low EPA may allow use of less expensive poles.

Performance features • Nine different lumen packages available, with output ranging from 4,000 up to 20,000 lumens.

• Performance comparable to 400W HID luminaires, while utilizing 53% less energy1 in many applications.

• Optimized distribution patterns allow for maximum pole spacing.

• Suitable for mounting heights ranging from 10-35' in area lighting applications.

• Four distribution patterns to accommodate all site lighting requirements, including shielding options.

• Neutral white, cool white, and warm white available.

Site lighting versatility • Clean lines and geometric form complement both traditional and modern architecture.

• Low profile design suitable for both site and area and pedestrian applications.

• Standard Arm, Retrofit Arm, Mast Arm, and Wall Mount options available.

• A great choice for both retrofit and new City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 95 construction projects.

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

PATHWAY LIGHT

Urban UrbanScape MPTC Post top luminaire MSC Pendant luminaire

Modern styling meets advanced lighting technology 96

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

UrbanScape

(CONT.)

Benefits · Optimal thermal design with placement of the electronic components in the fitter to reduce degradation of light output over the lifespan.

LED luminaires

· Complete LED luminaire rated IP66 is protected from the elements and ensure optimal photometric performance.

The Philips Lumec UrbanScape LED pendant and post top luminaires are ideal for enhancing the architectural identity of environments with a modern-day appeal. Perfectly scaled in both proportion and performance for the demands of various pedestrian and roadway applications, MetroScape provides a consistent style for your entire lighting project. Substantially more energyefficient than HID luminaires thanks to industry leading LED technology, MetroScape is the right choice for cities and utilities seeking cost-effective, relamping-free outdoor lighting.

· Flat lens of the luminaire reduces light pollution with 0% uplight. · Multiple lumen packages. · Dedicated LED optics (types 2,3,4 and 5 available). · Color temperatures 4000K and 3000K are available. · Dimming driver is standard. · Maximizes energy savings with multiple driver options and programmed dimming options. · Includes Service Tag, Philips innovative way to provide assistance throughout the life of the product. For more details visit: philips.com/servicetag

Post top

MPTC

Dimensions 17 3⁄4" (451 mm)

34 7⁄8" (886 mm)

Lumen range: 2,875-13,528

31 1⁄2" (880 mm)

Wattage range: 37-157 Efficacy range: 69-104 EPA: 1.7 sq ft Weight: 32.2 lbs (14.6 kg)

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 97

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

WIRELESS ACCESS POINT (WAP) DEVICE MR86 Datasheet High Performance 802.11ax Wireless The Cisco Meraki MR86 is a cloud-managed 4x4:4 802.11ax access point that raises the bar for wireless performance and efficiency. Designed for nextgeneration deployments in offices, schools, hospitals, shops, and hotels, the MR86 offers high throughput, enterprise-grade security, and simple management.

The MR86 provides a maximum of 3.5 Gbps* aggregate frame rate with concurrent 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz radios. A dedicated third radio provides real-time WIDS/ WIPS with automated RF optimization, and a fourth integrated radio delivers Bluetooth scanning and beaconing.

With the combination of cloud management, high performance hardware, multiple radios, and advanced software features, the MR86 makes an outstanding platform for the most demanding of uses—including high-density deployments and bandwidth or performance-intensive applications like voice and high-definition video.

1 98

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

MR86 and Meraki Cloud Management Management of the MR86 is performed through the Meraki cloud, with an intuitive browser-based interface that enables rapid deployment without timeconsuming training or costly certifications. Because the MR86 is self-configuring and managed over the web, it can be deployed at a remote location in a matter of minutes, even without on-site IT staff.

24x7 monitoring via the Meraki cloud delivers real-time alerts if a network encounters problems. Remote diagnostic tools enable immediate troubleshooting over the web so that distributed networks can be managed with a minimum of hassle.

The MR86’s firmware is automatically kept up to date via the cloud. New features, bug fixes, and enhancements are delivered seamlessly over the web. This means no manual software updates to download or missing security patches to worry about.

Product Highlights •

4x4:4 MU-MIMO 802.11ax

•

Integrated enterprise security and guest access

•

3.5* Gbps dual-radio aggregate frame rate

•

Application-aware traffic shaping

2

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 99

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

The mount cradle has the following physical features:

C - Security screw hole D - LED indicator

3

100

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

4

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 101

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Application-aware traffic shaping The MR86 includes an integrated layer 7 packet inspection, classification, and control engine, enabling the configuration of QoS policies based on traffic type, helping to prioritize mission-critical applications while setting limits on recreational traffic like peer-to-peer and video streaming. Policies can be implemented per network, per SSID, per user group, or per individual user for maximum flexibility and control.

Voice and video optimizations Industry standard QoS features are built-in and easy to configure. Wireless MultiMedia (WMM) access categories, 802.1p, and DSCP standards support all ensure important applications get prioritized correctly, not only on the MR86, but on other devices in the network. Unscheduled Automatic Power Save Delivery (U-APSD) and new Target Wait Time features in 802.11ax clients ensure minimal battery drain on wireless VoIP phones.

Self-configuring, self-maintaining, always up-to-date When plugged in, the MR86 automatically connects to the Meraki cloud, downloads its configuration, and joins the appropriate network. If new firmware is required, this is retrieved by the AP and updated automatically. This ensures the network is kept up-to-date with bug fixes, security updates, and new features.

Advanced analytics Drilling down into the details of network usage provides highly granular traffic analytics. Visibility into the physical world can be enhanced with journey tracking through location analytics. Visitor numbers, dwell time, repeat visit rates, and track trends can all be easily monitored in the dashboard and deeper analysis is enabled with raw data available via simple APIs.

Specifications Category

Radios

Antenna

802.11ax, 802.11ac Wave 2 and 802.11n Capabilities

Specifications

•

2.4 GHz 802.11b/g/n/ax client access radio

•

5 GHz 802.11a/n/ac/ax client access radio

•

2.4 GHz & 5 GHz dual-band WIDS/WIPS, spectrum analysis, & location analytics radio

•

2.4 GHz Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) radio with Beacon and BLE scanning support

•

Concurrent operation of all four radios

•

Supported frequency bands (country-specific restrictions apply)

•

Supported frequency bands (country-specific restrictions apply): ◦

2.412-2.484 GHz

◦

5.150-5.250 GHz (UNII-1)

◦

5.250-5.350 GHZ (UNII-2)

◦

5.470-5.600, 5.660-5.725 GHz (UNII-2e)

◦

5.725 -5.825 GHz (UNII-3)

•

List of compatible antennas: MA-ANT-20/21/23/25/27 and AIR-ANT2513P4M-N=

•

DL-OFDMA**, UL-OFDMA**, TWT support**, BSS Coloring**

•

4 x 4 multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) with four spatial streams

•

SU-MIMO, UL MU-MIMO** and DL MU-MIMO support

•

Maximal ratio combining (MRC) & beamforming

•

20 and 40 MHz channels (802.11n); 20, 40, and 80 MHz channels (802.11ac Wave 2); 20, 40 and 80 MHz channels (802.11ax)

•

Up to 1024-QAM on both 2.4 GHz & 5 GHz bands

•

Packet aggregation

4 102

04 | ELECTRICAL & WIFI ASSESSMENT •

24x7 real-time WIDS/WIPS and spectrum analytics via dedicated third radio

•

Integrated Bluetooth Low Energy Beacon

•

Integrated scanning radio

•

Enhanced transmit power and receive sensitivity

(CONT.)

•

Optimized for voice and video

•

Self-configuring, plug-and-play deployment

•

Sleek design blends into office environments

•

Full-time Wi-Fi location tracking via dedicated 3rd radio

Features DualÐradio aggregate frame rate of up to 3.5 Gbps* 5 GHz 4x4:4 radio and 2.4 GHz 4x4:4 radio offer a combined dual–radio aggregate frame rate of 3.5 Gbps*, with up to 2,402 Mbps in the 5 GHz band and 1,148 Mbps in the 2.4 GHz band. Technologies like transmit beamforming and enhanced receive sensitivity allow the MR86 to support a higher client density than typical enterprise-class access points, resulting in better performance for more clients, from each AP.

* Refers to maximum over-the-air data frame rate capability of the radio chipset, and may exceed data rates allowed by IEEE 802.11ax operation.

Multi User Multiple Input Multiple Output (MU-MIMO) With support for features of 802.11ax, the MR86 offers MU-MIMO and OFDMA for more efficient transmission to multiple clients. Especially suited to environments with numerous mobile devices, MU-MIMO enables multiple clients to receive data simultaneously. This increases the total network performance and improves the end user experience.

Dedicated third radio delivers 24x7 wireless security and RF analytics The MR86’s dedicated dual-band scanning and security radio continually asses the environment, characterizing RF interference and containing wireless threats like rogue access points. There’s no need to choose between wireless security, advanced RF analysis, and serving client data - a dedicated third radio means that all functions occur in real-time, without any impact to client traffic or AP throughput.

Bluetooth Low Energy Beacon and scanning radio An integrated fourth Bluetooth radio provides seamless deployment of BLE Beacon functionality and effortless visibility of Bluetooth devices. The MR86 enables the next generation of location-aware applications while future proofing deployments, ensuring it’s ready for any new customer engagement strategies.

Automatic cloud-based RF optimization The MR86’s sophisticated and automated RF optimization means that there is no need for the dedicated hardware and RF expertise typically required to tune a wireless network. The RF data collected by the dedicated third radio is continuously fed back to the Meraki cloud. This data is then used to automatically tune the channel selection, transmit power, and client connection settings for optimal performance under even the most challenging RF conditions.

Integrated enterprise security and guest access The MR86 features integrated, easy-to-use security technologies to provide secure connectivity for employees and guests alike. Advanced security features such as AES hardware-based encryption and Enterprise authentication with 802.1X and Active Directory integration provide wired-like security while still being easy to configure. One-click guest isolation provides secure, Internet-only access for visitors. PCI compliance reports check network settings against PCI requirements to simplify secure retail deployments.

Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) & Mobile Device Management (MDM) integration Meraki Systems Manager natively integrates with the MR86 to offer automatic, context-aware security. Systems Manager’s self-service enrollment helps to rapidly deploy MDM without installing additional equipment, and then dynamically tie firewall and traffic shaping policies to client posture.

3 City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 103

106

5

FOUNTAIN PUMP & MECHANICAL ASSESSMENT

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 107

05 | FOUNTAIN PUMP & MECHANICAL ASSESSMENT

NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY: SUNNYVALE COMMUNITY CENTER FOUNTAIN City of Sunnyvale California January 2022 Submitted By: Aquatic Design Group, Inc. 2226 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760.438.8400 www.aquaticdesigngroup.com

108

05 | FOUNTAIN PUMP & MECH. ASSESSMENT A.

(CONT.)

SCOPE Aquatic Design Group visited the Sunnyvale Community Center Fountain located in Sunnyvale, California to perform a Needs Assessment Study of the fountain and fountain equipment. The Sunnyvale Community Center Fountain consists of an outdoor fountain, and an equipment enclosure that is partially below grade with a roofed enclosure. During my site visit I met with City staff.

This study is intended to support a project to eliminate the lower lagoon portion of the fountain and modernize the remaining upper fountain. The following report is a summary of the existing conditions, code violations, deficiencies, and proposed improvements for rehabilitation of the Sunnyvale Community Center fountain and equipment. The scope of this report includes the fountain, mechanical equipment, but excludes the structural integrity of the existing fountain and mechanical equipment structures. Destructive testing was not conducted as part of this study. It also excludes handicap accessibility in path of travel to the fountain.

This report identifies any violations of codes that were found. Some of these violations may currently be operating on a grandfathered exemption. It is important to note that though some grandfatherable exemptions by the County Environmental Health Services department may allow the fountain to legally operate in non-compliance of current state and county standards, the liability of any health and safety risks to the public may remain. We therefore recommend that these issues should be reviewed on an individual basis to determine the disposition and remedies for each violation.

Certain violations of the State of California Administrative Code may be due to deterioration and material failures in which the code requires that these violations be rectified immediately, or the facility is to be shut down. Other violations may be due to modifications to the code over the years. Providing that the violation is not deemed an immediate health or safety risk, the Environmental Health Department may allow the violation to exist as a grandfatherable condition. These grandfathered conditions are normally allowed to exist until such time as when the facility is having work done in which the scope of the work will allow for the violation to be remedied. If such work were going to take place, then the Environmental Health Department would demand that the violations be brought into compliance. California code requires that the county environmental health department review any renovation plans or documents for approval. It is possible that the county health department may require certain, or even all, grandfathered conditions be brought into compliance as part of a renovation project.

In addition to the code violations being of concern to the city engineering department, they may also be of concern to the City’s Risk Manager as well. If a facility is in violation of the current State Code, the liability exposure alone may warrant the remedy of the violation. Given the subjective nature of the interpretation of the code, violations that may be deemed grandfathered at one point may not be allowed at another time or by a different inspector.

Not included in the scope of this report, but an important area to be reviewed, is the requirement for the facilities to meet the American Disabilities Act (ADA). This includes access to the facilities, restrooms, and the fountain.

Aquatic Design Group, Inc.

Sunnyvale Community Center Fountain

Page 2 of 11

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 109

05 | FOUNTAIN PUMP & MECH. ASSESSMENT B.

(CONT.)

CODES The construction plans for the Sunnyvale Community Center Fountain are dated 1971. For the purpose of this report the facilities’ compliance with current codes will be examined. The current codes that apply are: • • • • • • • • •

2019 Uniform Building code 2019 California Building Code 2019 California Electric Code – Article 680 2019 Uniform Fire Code – Article 80 2019 California Fire Code – Article 80 2019 Uniform Mechanical Code 2019 California Mechanical Code Title 24 of the California Administrative Code Title 22 of the California Health and Safety Code

Article 680 of the CEC is the electric code that pertains to fountains. Article 80 of the UFC & CFC is the article that pertains to hazardous material storage and use. Title 22 of the CA Health and Safety Code provides health and safety regulations for fountains.

Lower Lagoon Fountain

Aquatic Design Group, Inc. 110

Sunnyvale Community Center Fountain

Page 3 of 11

05 | FOUNTAIN PUMP & MECH. ASSESSMENT C.

(CONT.)

FACILITY DATA The Sunnyvale Community Center fountain was built in 1971. The fountain is divided into two main areas, a rectilinear upper fountain which overflows into a lower organically shaped lagoon fountain. The water depth in both fountain areas is shown as 1’-3” on the as-built plans. The water is co-mingled for both fountain areas as a single body of water. The upper fountain water feature is divided into four sections: the left side jets, the middle ring, the center nozzles, and the outer ring. The lower lagoon fountain is divided into two sections with a single jet in one area and a cluster of jets in the other. The fountain water is unfiltered and untreated. The staff reports that they use a copper based algicide to keep large outbreaks of algae from forming. As a result, the fountain water is opaque with a green/blue hue. The fountain water is returned to the circulation pump via a 3-inch pvc pipe from the upper fountain and an 8-inch transite pipe from the lower lagoon.

The plans indicated the fountain has an asphalt floor over a 4-inch base rock substrate. The circulation pump, fountain valving, and electrical boxes are located in a mechanical enclosure that is partially below grade and above grade with a roof to protect the equipment. The fountain piping within the mechanical enclosure is cast iron which extends to 3-feet beyond the enclosure before it transitions into pvc piping as shown on the as-built plans. Staff reports that the existing mechanical enclosure leaks from both the roof and below grade side walls. The as-built conditions in the mechanical enclosure do not match the as-built plans so we do not have 100% confidence on the underground piping locations matching the plans as well. Similarly, the as-built plans show the mechanical storage space as an open pit without a roof. The mechanical storage space has a floor that drains to a corner sump and sump pit to pump out nuisance water. The electrical equipment in the mechanical storage space is corroding and needs to be replaced. Staff also reports that the circulation pump impeller has worn and needs to be replaced. The fountain circulation pump is a Paco brand pump model 6015 rated at 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) with 140 feet of total dynamic head resistance.

Existing Operating Instructions

Aquatic Design Group, Inc.

Sunnyvale Community Center Fountain

Page 4 of 11

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 111

05 | FOUNTAIN PUMP & MECH. ASSESSMENT D.

(CONT.)

OPERATIONAL ISSUES Aquatic Design Group met with city staff to determine the current means of operation of the facility and to target issues and desired changes to the Sunnyvale fountain.

In general, the fountain was found to be in typical shape for a facility of its age and nature.

City staff reported that they add water approximately every other day and suspect a potential water leak(s). The staff is most concerned with identifying options to provide better services in the most efficient and economical way. City staff identified the following issues for the operation of the facility: • • • • • •

Water Usage Labor required and labor expense Chemical usage and expense Utility usage and expense Sustainable features that are effective for constant operation Ways to increase the safety of the operation

Water leaks may occur in the fountain structures or in the underground piping. A leak detection company could be commissioned to see if they can confirm the leak and its source. The fountain piping can also be assessed when the fountain is drained to see if there are any leaks. The fountains have not been assessed for water leaks. The staff expressed concerns for the condition of the mechanical equipment and enclosure. Because the equipment is in a below grade space it is considered a confined space. As a confined space level one staff members are not allowed to enter it. Also, as a confined space it formally requires two staff members to enter the space to conduct maintenance and operations. The mechanical space has flooded numerous times which has had deleterious effects on the mechanical and electrical equipment. The circulation pump motor and pump internal components have been replaced several times over the life of the fountain. The circulation pump is showing signs of corrosion and appears to be at the end of its effective life.

Furthermore, if the lower lagoon is eliminated, we will need to evaluate the new overall water volume and the new flow rate requirement to operate the remaining upper fountain features. It is expected that we will need a new circulation pump and motor to meet the new flow demands.

The existing cast iron pipes could also be replaced with pvc corrosion resistant piping for the new fountain configuration. The fountain mechanical space is housing the electrical equipment to support the fountains. This electrical equipment includes electrical panels, electrical switch gear, motor starters, electrical transformer, and electrical junction boxes. The electrical loads my change with the elimination of the lower lagoon area. Some of the electrical equipment is corroded and due for replacement.

The current fountains operate with unfiltered and untreated water. It should be determined if this is the continued level of water quality desired. Another option is to provide water filtration and a non-residual level of oxidation to control algae and plant growth to eliminate the opaque green/blue water. A third level could be achieved with a chemical monitoring and feed system to supplement the filtration and oxidation option noted.

Aquatic Design Group, Inc. 112

Sunnyvale Community Center Fountain

Page 5 of 11

05 | FOUNTAIN PUMP & MECH. ASSESSMENT E.

(CONT.)

SUGGESTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS Aquatic Design Group is offering the following options for the renovation and modernization of the fountain. These assumptions assume the lower lagoon fountain is to be removed as previously directed.

ITEM 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.1

DESCRIPTION RENOVATE FOUNTAIN AND ALTER UPPER FOUNTAIN FEATURES TO MEET EXISTING PIPING RENOVATE FOUNTAIN AND MAINTAIN CURRENT UPPER FOUNTAIN FEATURES ALTER UPPER FOUNTAIN TO NEW FORM AND FUNCTION PERFORMANCE REPAIR AND REUSE EXISTING MECHANICAL SPACE NEW MECHANICAL SPACE NEW MECHANICAL IMPROVED WATER QUALITY EQUIPMENT AND SPACE

Renovate the fountain and alter upper fountain features to work with existing piping: The lower fountain can be removed, and the area repurposed. The upper fountain can have minor alterations to eliminate the water overflows. The cascading levels of the upper fountain can be maintained or eliminated. The upper fountain heads, sprays and features can be replaced with newer lower flow features that can operate with the existing 3-inch piping and its 225 gallons per minute (gpm) flow capacity.

The mechanical room piping, pump and valves will be replaced as part of this option.

Electrical equipment in the fountain mechanical enclosure can also be updated as required at the same time. Lastly the mechanical space can be repaired to prevent water leaks into the space.

Aquatic Design Group, Inc.

Sunnyvale Community Center Fountain

Page 6 of 11

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 113

05 | FOUNTAIN PUMP & MECH. ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Exiting Mechanical Enclosure 1.2

Renovate the existing fountain keeping the existing fountain features: The lower fountain can be removed, and the area repurposed. The upper fountain can have minor alterations to eliminate the water overflows. The cascading levels of the upper fountain can be maintained or eliminated. The existing underground piping to the upper fountain is 3-inch diameter which can support up to 225 (gpm) water flow. The upper fountain features require approximately 350 to 450 gpm. A portion of the fountain wall and floor will have to be removed and replaced to provide new piping line will have to be installed into the upper fountain along with a new suction drain fitting to accommodate this flow. The mechanical room piping, pump and valves will be replaced as part of this option. Electrical equipment in the fountain mechanical enclosure can also be updated as required at the same time. Lastly the mechanical space can be repaired to prevent water leaks into the space.

114

Aquatic Design Group, Inc.

Sunnyvale Community Center

Page 7 of 11

05 | FOUNTAIN PUMP & MECH. ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Existing Mechanical Area Access 1.3

Renovate the existing fountain including alterations to provide new form, function, and performance of the upper fountain: The lower fountain can be removed, and the area repurposed. The upper fountain can have minor alterations to eliminate the water overflows. The cascading levels of the upper fountain can be maintained or eliminated. We can review the upper fountain to achieve a new fountain that can feature automated sprays with lighting and other features. The pumps and piping in the mechanical room will be altered to support the modernized feature. The electrical system will also be modernized to support this as well. It will have to be determined if this option will allow the reuse of the existing mechanical space or require new.

Aquatic Design Group, Inc.

Sunnyvale Community Center Fountain

Page 8 of 11

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 115

05 | FOUNTAIN PUMP & MECH. ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Fountain Piping in Mechanical Space

1.4

Repair and reuse the existing fountain mechanical space: The mechanical space provides a secure location for the equipment. Repairs can be made to the existing structure to prevent water intrusion. This will not resolve the confined space condition and does not resolve the access into the area that is not OSHA compliant for staff access.

116

Aquatic Design Group, Inc.

Sunnyvale Community Center Fountain

Page 9 of 11

05 | FOUNTAIN PUMP & MECH. ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Mechanical Room Structure 1.5

Construct a new mechanical space: A new mechanical space could be constructed in the same or alternate location.

This new structure may be similar to a trash enclosure with concrete block walls, and a roof to match the site on grade. This will eliminate the confined space issue.

It will provide a better space for staff to maintain and operate the fountains. It also creates the opportunity to relocate this if desired with the new fountain configuration.

Aquatic Design Group, Inc.

Sunnyvale Community Center

Page 10 of 11

Fountain City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 117

05 | FOUNTAIN PUMP & MECH. ASSESSMENT 1.6

(CONT.)

Construct a new mechanical space with upgraded mechanical equipment to provide a higher level of water quality: If we determine that we want better water quality for the upper fountain, then additional equipment such as filters, supplemental oxidation equipment such as ozone treatment or ultraviolet disinfection will be required. The existing space cannot support this. A new mechanical space will have to be constructed to house all this equipment. The fountain piping and utilities will have to be relocated to this building as well. This option will also allow for automation of the fountain equipment.

Modern fountain equipment has the capability to report any alarm conditions to a smartphone, smart-tablet, or computer station to alert staff. Staff can also access the status of the equipment to confirm its operating conditions. This can not only provide better water quality and operating conditions, but it can reduce staff labor require for the fountain. The following is an example of a new mechanical space.

This may require a 300 square foot space with a full contingency of equipment and systems.

Example of Modern Mechanical Space and Equipment

Aquatic Design Group, Inc. 118

Sunnyvale Community Center Fountain

Page 11 of 11

6 120

IRRIGATION ASSESSMENT

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 121

06 | IRRIGATION ASSESSMENT IRRIGATION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY The purpose of this assessment was to review the existing irrigation at the site, specifically the rotor irrigation around the pond. The goal of this assessment was to document the existing irrigation system along with mapping the locations of all large turf rotors to analyze the existing sprinkler spacing and the impacts of any future work. With this information and the existing as-builts provided by the city, we were able to assess the existing system efficiency, life expectancy, provide possible upgrade recommendations or if a complete replacement is required. The goal of this analysis was to provide the city with a clear assessment of the major deficiencies of the system and to identify any deficiencies that should be addressed in future renovations.

The irrigation system at Sunnyvale Community Center is serviced by potable water from the city. There is no dedicated irrigation meter for the site. The irrigation system is connected downstream of the potable meter with a 4” backflow protecting the city water system. The static water pressure upstream of the backflow was recorded at 88 psi.

SITE IRRIGATION DESCRIPTION BY MAJOR IRRIGATION COMPONENTS: IRRIGATION MAINLINE The first phase of the park irrigation was installed in 1974.

There was a 4” gate valve provided from the domestic water meter to service the irrigation. It was very common in

Existing Rainmaster DX2 controller

the 1970s and 80s to service the irrigation off the domestic service without a separate meter. The plans show all 4” and 6” pipe as A.C. (asbestos cement) pipe that makes a loop around the park. All piping 3” and smaller should be PVC which includes most of the interior arears around the buildings. There have been some modifications or adjustments to this routing around the new Senior Center which we assume were made with PVC. We estimate there is roughly 3,000 linear ft of the A.C. main line around the park. An A.C. main line if installed properly can last for 40-50 years but is very toxic to work with and requires special equipment and safety procedures when making repairs. Based on the installation date of the system, the main line is getting close to its useful life expectancy. As more time passes, the number of repairs/ breaks will increase.

The irrigation system is also missing a flow sensor and master valve at the source which is required for all irrigation systems that are updated or modified after 2015. This site due to the amount of main line and number of controllers makes it extremely difficult to monitor all flows.

GPS mapping of irrigation equipment in the field

122

IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS There are six existing Rain Master DX2 controllers around the site that service the park’s irrigation valves. Based on conversations with the city maintenance staff, there is a future project that will be upgrading these controllers to the new model DX3. With the new model, the city staff will be able to access these controllers via the cloud to adjust remotely.

These controllers can utilize a flow sensor and master valve but since there are 6 controllers scattered around the site, it

06 | IRRIGATION ASSESSMENT is impossible to wire them together to share the flow. Further investigation into how these devices will work with the new controllers will be required.

MAIN LINE GATE VALVES There are approximately 4 existing gate valves shown on the 1974 as-builts. Only one gate valve was located and mapped in the field. We did not attempt to operate the valve, but these valves should be located and tested to verify if they still operate.

IRRIGATION IN LARGE TURF AREAS AROUND THE POND We utilized GPS to map all the rotors and valve locations in these turf areas to review the sprinkler spacing and to produce a digital as built that can be used for future renovation projects. Based on the as-built plans, the valves and sprinklers around most of the park were updated around 1993. The sprinklers in the large turf areas, have spacing on a 50’ grid in most areas. The spacing is adequate in most areas, but due to some existing tree locations the spacing of the sprinklers are a bit stretched and could be more uniform. Most of the valves in this area were operational from the controller and the performance of the sprinklers was adequate. A few valves were buried, and their locations could not be mapped. These missing valves are identified on the digital as-built plans at the end of this assessment.

The sprinklers were originally specified as Thompsons, but they have been replaced over the years with newer pop-up rotary sprinklers. One break in a lateral line or at the swing joint was observed during the inspection. This location is also identified on the as-built plan.

Rotor spray heads in turf area adjacent to the lower pond

(CONT.)

IRRIGATION AROUND THE BUILDINGS The irrigation around the buildings is primarily small rotors or spray sprinklers. The valves are operational from the controllers and the coverage is adequate.

MAINTENANCE ISSUES: MAIN LINE As stated in the main line section, the existing A.C. main line is at the end of its useful life and more repairs will be required.

Monitor the number of repairs and plan to replace in sections if a large improvement is planned.

REMOTE CONTROL VALVES We recommend locating and exposing all existing valves so they can be monitored and repaired if necessary.

SPRINKLERS Operate and visually inspect all the rotors and spray sprinklers during the spring start up and once more during the middle of the irrigation season. Adjust the radius to reduce overspray onto walks and paths. Replace as necessary if the sprinklers are not popping up, leaking, or not rotating properly. Use the City standard equipment when replacing.

UPGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend planning and budgeting for a new main line, control wires, and valves for the turf areas at a minimum.

The rest of the main line will need to be replaced in time, but these areas are of less importance than the turf areas. If a future project is in the works, it would be best to include this work within the scope of the project. Most likely replacement of rotors would be required depending on the extent of future work. The smaller planting areas around the buildings are performing sufficiently and replacement should only occur if a landscape improvement is planned in these areas.

The mainline that services the smaller planting areas are most likely PVC, based on the as-builts, but they are 47 years old and will start having some issues in the near future.

Per the 2015 State Water Ordinance, all commercial projects require a flow sensor and master valve at the source. This site does not have these devices due to the age of the system. Also, it is very difficult to share this information across 6 controllers. Any new work at the site may trigger this requirement.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 123

A-2

2

IRRIGATION AS-BUILT PLAN A-2

2

I-9

A-2

2

A-

12

A-2

2

I-9

I-9

A-

E-1 1

4" POND FILL

12

FIELD QUESTION LEGEND

A18

A-5

SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION

6" WM 4" POND FILL

VALVE STATION #

6" BACKFLOW -IRR-85 PSI

VALVE DID NOT OPERATE

4" BACKFLOW -DW

19 I-9

A-

18

A-5

18

A-

VALVE COULD NOT BE LOCATED

E-1 1

A-

I-5

6" BACKFLOW -IRR-85 PSI

18

A-

DESCRIPTION

CONFIRM ASSUMPTION

VALVE DID NOT OPERATE VALVE COULD NOT BE LOCATED. CONFIRM STATION VALVE COULD NOT BE LOCAT NUMBER ONCE LOCATED BROKEN HEAD OR LINE

4" BACKFLOW -DW

A-

QUESTION LEGEND

CONTROLLER LOCATION SYMBOL

GATE VALVE NOT LOCATED IN FIELD (SHOWN ON OLD PLANS)VALVE STATION #

6" WM

19

BROKEN HEAD OR LINE FIELD

CONTROLLER LOCATION

POND FILL?

GATE VALVE NOT LOCATED IN FIELD (SHOWN ON OLD PLANS

I-5

CONFIRM ASSUMPTION 3"GV-WM POND FILL

VALVE COULD NOT BE LOCATED. CONFIRM STATION NUMBER ONCE LOCATED

A-15

POND FILL?

I-2

IRRIGATION AS-BUILT SYMBOL LEGEND SYMBOL

3"GV-WM POND FILL

DESCRIPTION WATER METER

M

BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY

A-15

GATE VALVE SHUT-OFF VALVE QUICK COUPLING VALVE

IRRIGATION AS-BUILT SYMBOL LEGEND

I-2

REMOTE CONTROL VALVE SYMBOL FULL CIRCLE ROTOR

DESCRIPTION

PART CIRCLE ROTOR

WATER METER

POP-UP SPRINKLER

BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY

IRRIGATION CONTROLLER

GATE VALVE

WIRE SPLICE BOX

SHUT-OFF VALVE

DF

DRINKING FOUNTAIN

QUICK COUPLING VALVE

FH

FIRE HYDRANT

REMOTE CONTROL VALVE

STORM DRAIN

FULL CIRCLE ROTOR

M

#

PART CIRCLE ROTOR APPROXIMATE ROUTING OF POP-UP SPRINKLER EXISTING IRRIGATION MAIN LINE # APPROXIMATE ROUTING OF IRRIGATION CONTROLLER EXISTING A.C. IRRIGATION MAIN WIRE SPLICE BOX LINE DF APPROXIMATE ROUTING OF DRINKING FOUNTAIN

4" BACKFLOW -DW

EXISTING IRRIGATIONFH LATERAL LINE

WM

FIRE HYDRANT STORM DRAIN

APPROXIMATE ROUTING OF EXISTING IRRIGATION MAIN LIN

APPROXIMATE ROUTING OF EXISTING A.C. IRRIGATION MA LINE APPROXIMATE ROUTING OF EXISTING IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE

4" BACKFLOW -DW

NORTH

WM

0

124

IRRIGATION AS-BUILT PLAN Sunnyvale Community Center

25

50

100

150'

Irrigation Consultant: Russell D. Mitchell Associates, Inc. 2760 Camino Diablo Walnut Creek, CA 94597

NORTH 0

25

50

100

7 126

WATER & SOILS ASSESSMENT

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 127

07 | WATER & SOILS ASSESSMENT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Verde Design employed the efforts of Cornerstone Earth Group to perform initial site investigations related to the proposed improvements at the Sunnyvale Community Center grounds. This work entailed investigation of the soil and water conditions within the lower pond area. Included below are the findings of the initial analysis.

Attached are the summary tables, sample location map, and the two laboratory analytical reports. We collected soil samples from two locations (EB-1 and EB-2) and from depths of approximately ½ to 1 foot and 2 ½ to 3 feet at each location. One water sample was collected from the pond water (SW-1).

SOIL SAMPLING AND SCREENING The soil sample result summary in Tables 1 and 2 include various Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) established by the Water Board. The Tier 1 ESLs are the most conservative screening levels and are used for evaluating soil for unrestricted use. The Tier 1 ESLs typically are used by offsite soil receiving facilities for evaluating source material.

The commercial and construction worker direct exposure ESLs evaluate human health risk for commercial land use and construction worker exposure, respectively. Excess soil generated during grading that does not meet the Tier 1 ESLs typically requires landfill disposal. Off-Site facilities usually won’t take soil that exceeds the Tier 1 ESL but is below the commercial or construction worker ESLs. Arsenic concentrations in soil are compared to regional background concentrations since arsenic typically is present in Bay Area soil at concentrations that exceed the

The Geotechnical Engineering team checking the depths of the lower pond

screening levels. The concentrations detected in the soil samples were within the typical regional background arsenic concentrations.

The concentrations of DDT exceeded the Tier 1 ESL in both of the EB-1 samples and the approximately ½ to 1 foot sample collected from EB-2. All DDT concentrations were below the commercial and construction worker direct exposure ESLs. The remaining concentrations detected in soil were below their respective Tier 1 ESLs. The samples were additionally analyzed for soluble chromium, and all concentrations were below the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration value for determining a hazardous waste.

The sediment/soil that may require off-Site disposal may be accepted at a reuse facility, but others may not accept it based on the DDT concentrations that exceed the Tier 1 ESL. Soil/sediment that is not accepted for reuse can be disposed of at a non-hazardous Class 2 permitted landfill. This soil does appear suitable for on-Site reuse if fill material is needed (and pending geotechnical approval for reuse).

WATER SAMPLING AND SCREENING The water sample was analyzed for metals, pH, and VOCs. All of these results were below their respective Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). There will be a discharge permit issued by the local wastewater utility operator that will be required for disposal of the pond water, assuming this water requires disposal as part of this project. Results from the water sample (SW-1) should be transferred to the permitting agency along during application for the discharge permit.

Hand-augured coring of the lower pond liner to review subsurface conditions

128

07 | WATER & SOILS ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Table 1. Analytical Results of Selected Soil Samples (Concentrations in (mg/kg) unless stated otherwise) Sample Location

Sample ID

Date

Depth (feet)

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium Cadmium Chromium

ChromiumSTLC (mg/L)

Cobalt

Copper

Lead

Molybdenum

Nickel

Vanadium

Zinc

EB-1

EB-1 (0.5-1) 12/28/2021

½-1

0.321 J

5.0

146

0.506 J

0.155 J

61

<0.20

21.6

40.1

5.85

0.452 J

61.9

68.4

53.9

EB-1

EB-1 (2.5-3) 12/28/2021

2½-3

0.345 J

3.8

131

0.575 J

<0.12

72

<0.20

15.9

38.4

3.79

0.109 J

68.4

71.4

57.5

EB-2

EB-2 (0.5-1) 12/28/2021

½-1

0.466 J

6.37

170

0.513 J

0.177 J

57

0.855

17.4

66.7

15.9

0.33 J

58

63.7

56.8

EB-2

EB-2 (2.5-3) 12/28/2021

2½-3

0.398 J

3.53

103

0.409 J

<0.11

61

<0.20

15.6

38.6

3.97

0.136 J

60.5

65.9

67

32

6.9

86

18

340

320

5,800

11,000

5,800

350,000

160

1,800

86

470

110,000

ESL1 - Tier 1

Table Results 160 of Selected 390 1. Analytical 5 1.9 ---Soil Samples 23 180 220,000 230 1,100 NE --- otherwise) 350 47,000 (Concentrations in (mg/kg) unless stated

11

1

ESL - Direct Exposure (Commercial)

160

ESL1 - Direct Exposure (Construction)

50

11

3

3,000

27

51

NE

2

------------STLC Sample Depth Sample ID Date Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Location (feet) 1 Environmental Screening Level (ESL), RWQCB, San Francisco Bay Region - January 2019.

2 EB-1 3 EB-1 <

Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration - California Code of Regulations, Title 22.

EB-1 (0.5-1) 12/28/2021 ½-1 0.321 J 5.0 146 0.506 J 0.155 J 61 Duverge, 2011. Establishing Backround Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region.

EB-1detected (2.5-3) at 12/28/2021 2½-3 reporting 0.345 J limit shown 3.8 131 0.575 J <0.12 72 Not or above laboratory

NE EB-2 --EB-2 BOLD

Not EB-2Established (0.5-1) 12/28/2021 ½-1 0.466 J 6.37 170 Not analyzed and/or other Environmental Screening Criteria not shown.

EB-2 (2.5-3) 12/28/2021 2½-3 0.398 J 3.53 103 Concentration exceeds selected Environmental Screening Criteria 11 390 ESL1 - Tier 1

ESL1 - Direct Exposure (Commercial) END@ ESL1 - Direct Exposure (Construction)

160

STLC2

---

11

3

28

14,000

5 ChromiumSTLC (mg/L)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Cobalt

Copper

Lead

Molybdenum

Nickel

Vanadium

Zinc

<0.20

21.6

40.1

5.85

0.452 J

61.9

68.4

53.9

<0.20

15.9

38.4

3.79

0.109 J

68.4

71.4

57.5 56.8

0.513 J

0.177 J

57

0.855

17.4

66.7

15.9

0.33 J

58

63.7

0.409 J

<0.11

61

<0.20

15.6

38.6

3.97

0.136 J

60.5

65.9

5

1.9

160

---

23

180

32

6.9

86

18

340

230

1,100

NE

---

350

47,000

320

5,800

11,000

5,800

350,000

220,000

50

---

3,000

27

51

NE

---

28

14,000

160

1,800

86

470

110,000

---

---

---

---

5

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Acetone

Naphthalene

Benzoic acid

PCBs

---

2

Table 2. Analytical Results of Selected Soil Samples (Concentrations in (mg/kg) unless stated otherwise) Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration - California Code of Regulations, Title 22.

3

Duverge, 2011. Establishing Backround Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region.

1

67

Environmental Screening Level (ESL), RWQCB, San Francisco Bay Region - January 2019.

Depth Sample < Not detected at ID or aboveDate laboratory reporting limit shown Sample 4,4´-DDD Location (feet)

4,4´-DDT

DDT Total

EB-1 Not analyzed EB-1 (0.5-1) ½-1Screening 0.00368 J not 0.0666 --and/or 12/28/2021 other Environmental Criteria shown.

0.00158 J

BOLD exceeds selected Environmental Screening EB-1 Concentration EB-1 (2.5-3) 12/28/2021 2½-3 0.00874Criteria0.0489

0.00215 J

NE

4,4´-DDE

Not Established

EB-2

TPHo

TPHg

0.07186

4.3

26.1

<0.040

0.0244

0.00423 J

<0.0496

ND

0.05979

6.24

27.6

<0.039

<0.0073

0.00378 J

0.0597 J

ND ND

EB-2 (0.5-1) 12/28/2021

½-1

0.0342

0.235 J

0.00399 J

0.27319

12.2

55.9

<0.098

0.00876 J

<0.0016

<0.0492

EB-2 (2.5-3) 12/28/2021

2½-3

<0.00062

0.00192

0.000205 J

0.002125

<2.2

<11

<0.098

0.0361

<0.0016

<0.0455

ND

2.7

0.33

0.0011

NE

260

1,600

100

0.92

0.042

NE

0.23

12

8.3

35

NE

1,200

180,000

2,000

670,000

17

NE

0.94

81

57

57

NE

1,100

54,000

1,800

270,000

400

END@

EB-2

TPHd

ESL1 - Tier 1 ESL1 - Direct Exposure (Commercial)

Sunnyvale Community Center 1 848-4-2 ESL - Direct Exposure (Construction) 1

Environmental Screening Level (ESL), RWQCB, San Francisco Bay Region - January 2019.

2

Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration - California Code of Regulations, Title 22.

<

Not detected at or above laboratory reporting limit shown

ND

Not detected at or above reporting limit

NE

Not Established

NC

Not Calculated

---

Not analyzed and/or other Environmental Screening Criteria not shown.

BOLD

NE 5.5 Data Tables Page 1

Concentration exceeds selected Environmental Screening Criteria

Red Font Red font indicates the laboratory reporting limit shown exceeds one or more of the selected screening levels.

Sunnyvale Community Center 848-4-2 END@

Data Tables Page 1

Table 3. Analytical Results of Selected Water Samples (Concentrations in µg/L)

1

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Lead

Molybdenum

Mercury

Nickel

Silver

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

n-Butylbenzene

NE

Cadmium

MCL - Drinking Water

Beryllium

12/28/2021 8.67

Barium

1

Arsenic

SW-1

Date

<5.0

<4.0

21.6

<1.0

<2.0

3.2

2

49.8

<1.4

<2.0

<0.10

2.4

<4.0

<2.0

6.8

<2.0

2.3

6

10

1,000

4

5

50

NE

1,300

15

NE

2

100

100

2

NE

NE

NE

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL),State Water Resources Control Board - September 2021.

NE

Not Established

---

Not analyzed and/or other Environmental Screening Criteria not shown.

BOLD

Data Tables Page 2

Antimony

Sample ID

pH

Sunnyvale Community Center 848-4-2

Concentration exceeds selected Environmental Screening Criteria

END@

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 129

(CONT.)

Michelangelo Drive

Site Plan

Mane

t Driv

e

EB-2

EB-1 / SW-1

N

Legend

Base by Google Earth, dated 09/27/2021

130

Approximate Sample Location

0

80

160

APPROXIMATE SCALE (FEET)

Drawn By

Figure 1

January 2022 Date

n Drive

Figure Number

eming to

Approximate Site Boundary

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA

East R

Project Number

848-4-2

RRN

07 | WATER & SOILS ASSESSMENT

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 131

8 132

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 133

08 |PRELIM. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Verde Design employed the efforts of Cornerstone Earth Group to perform initial corings to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations related to the proposed Date: January 2022grounds. improvements at the Sunnyvale Community21, Center Project No.: 10818 This work entailed investigation of the soil and water conditions within the lower pond area. Additional boring Prepared For: further Mr. Patrick Healy, RLA will be performed following development of the VERDE DESIGN, INC. preferred site plan. Below are the Preliminary Geotechnical 2455 The Alameda Recommendations.

Santa Clara, California 95050

Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Community Center Grounds Renovations and Enhancement 550 East Remington Drive The Geotechnical Engineering team reviewing coring locations at the lower pond Sunnyvale, California

Dear Mr. Healy: As requested,Date: this letter presents our preliminary recommendations based on the findings of January 21, 2022 our hand auger excavations performed within the existing lower pond for the above referenced Project No.: 10818 project. Our services were performed in accordance with our agreement dated July 28, 2021.

We were requested augers Prepared For: to Mr.perform Patrickhand Healy, RLA within the existing lower pond to provide preliminary recommendations prior to execution of INC. our design-level geotechnical investigation in order to VERDE DESIGN, 2455 The Alameda aid the design team in evaluation of the subsurface conditions at the existing pond.

Santa Clara, California 95050 Project Description Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Community Center Grounds and Enhancement The project site is approximately 14.5 acres and isRenovations currently occupied by the Sunnyvale 550 East Remington Drive Community Center and Park which includes a lower pond and an upper pond surrounded by Sunnyvale, California paved walkways, natural turf fields, several large trees, and community center buildings. We understand the proposed renovations will include construction of new auxiliary restrooms, replacement of existing pathway and parking lot lighting systems, demolition of the lower pond and construction Dear Mr. Healy: of an amphitheater or playground/play structures, renovation of the upper pond infrastructure, construction of playground and picnic areas, flexible sport or basketball court spaces a dog park, replacement existing park fixtures (e.g. benches andon tables) and As requested, this letter presentsofour preliminary recommendations based the findings of damaged portions of the existing drainage systems, replacement of pathways and flatwork for our hand auger excavations performed within the existing lower pond for the above referenced ADA compliance, and additional work required to connect interlinking areas. project. Our services were performed in accordance with our agreement dated July 28, 2021.

We were requested to perform hand augers within the existing lower pond to provide preliminary The site is bounded

by Michelangelo to the northeast, a parking investigation lot the southeast, a to recommendations prior to execution ofDrive our design-level geotechnical in order church and parking to the southwest, Manel Driveconditions to the west, andexisting East Remington Drive to aid the design team lot in evaluation of the subsurface at the pond. the north.

Project Description

134

The project site is approximately 14.5 acres and is currently occupied by the Sunnyvale Community Center and Park which includes a lower pond and an upper pond surrounded by paved walkways, natural turf fields, several large trees, and community center buildings. We understand the proposed renovations will include construction of new auxiliary restrooms,

08 |PRELIM. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS Preliminary Field Exploration Our preliminary field exploration consisted of two cores through the existing asphalt concrete (AC) pond liner and hand auger borings drilled on December 28, 2021 performed with wet diamond coring equipment and hand auger equipment. The borings were drilled within the footprint of the existing lower pond to depths ranging from 3½ to 4½ feet below the top of the pond liner. The borings were backfilled with cement grout in accordance with local requirements, and the liner was patched with quickset concrete.

Surface and Subsurface Conditions Based on our explorations (C-1 and C-2) performed within the existing lower pond, the liner consists of asphalt concrete (AC), as anticipated based on as built plans, and varies in thickness from about 1 to 2½ inches in thickness. The depth of the water within the lower pond at the locations of our explorations was about 1 foot. The AC liner was underlain by about 2 feet of undocumented fill consisting of wet, sandy lean clay underlain by clayey sand with gravel and poorly graded sand with clay and gravel. While we indicate the upper samples as ‘wet’, please note there was some pond water that seeped into our explorations during excavation.

However, groundwater was not encountered in our explorations with terminal depths of about 3½ to 4¼ feet below the top of the AC pond liner.

Preliminary Conclusions From a geotechnical viewpoint, the project is feasible provided the concerns listed below are addressed in the project design. These concerns should be further evaluated in the design level geotechnical report/when the remaining field explorations are performed.    

Wet / Unstable Subgrade Presence of Localized Shallow Groundwater* Presence of Undocumented Fill Presence of Granular Soil

*As discussed, our explorations did not encounter groundwater; however, water from the existing pond may be present within the underlying soil and impact planned demolition and/or grading.

Anticipated Earthwork Based on the discussion above, the following preliminary recommendations are provided to address the concerns listed above. The conditions discussed below should be anticipated and planned for by the contractor.

“Wet” conditions from the high in-situ moisture content of the subsurface soil may cause the soil to become unstable during demolition and/or grading and will likely require additional effort to mitigate (e.g. scarification/drying out, weather permitting, chemical treatment, removal and replacement with drier materials). These conditions should be anticipated and planned for by the contractor.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 135

08 |PRELIM. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Although groundwater was not encountered in our explorations, water leaking through the liner from the pond resulted in in-situ moisture contents well above the estimated optimums. In addition, this “localized” water may be encountered during demolition and/or grading of the existing pond structure. This concern will be further evaluated after performing our forthcoming additional borings for the rest of the site.

As discussed, our explorations encountered undocumented fill up to 1 foot below the top of the AC liner. All fill within the pond area should be removed and replaced with engineered fill. Based on our explorations, the existing fill may be placed as general engineered fill; however, environmentally impacted soil may need to be off-hauled. As an alternative to removing all fill and/or if surface improvements are not planned, a partial over-excavation of the existing fill may be performed.

As discussed, clayey sand and poorly graded sand were encountered beneath the lean clay within our explorations. Excavations within granular soil may be subject to calving / sloughing especially when saturated and/or below groundwater. Therefore, supporting (e.g. shoring and forming) of the excavation walls may be needed.

Closure We hope this provides the information you need at this time. Recommendations presented in this letter have been prepared for the sole use of Verde Design, Inc. and the City of Sunnyvale specifically for the property at 550 East Remington Drive in Sunnyvale, California. Our professional services were performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices at this time and location. No warranties are either expressed or implied.

If you have any questions or need any additional information from us, please call and we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Sincerely, Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Stephen C. Ohlsen, P.E. Project Engineer

Nicholas S. Devlin, P.E. Principal Engineer SCO:NSD 136

08 |PRELIM. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS Plasticity Index (ASTM D4318) Testing Summary 60

Plasticity Index (%)

50 CH 40 CL

ne

” li

“A

30

OH or MH

20

10 CL-ML 0 0

10

OL or ML 20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Symbol

Liquid Limit (%)

Boring No.

C-2

Natural Depth Water Liquid Plastic Plasticity Passing (ft) Content Limit Limit Index No. 200 (%) (%) (%) (%)

1.5

13

23

14

9

—

Group Name (USCS - ASTM D2487)

Sandy Lean Clay (CL)

Plasticity Index Testing Summary

Community Center Grounds Improvements Sunnyvale, CA

Project Number

848-4-1 Figure Number

Figure B1 Date

January 2022

Drawn By

FLL

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 137

eming ton Drive

Michelangelo Drive

Site Plan

Mane

t Driv

e

C-2

C-1

N

Legend

Base by Google Earth, dated 09/27/2021

138

Approximate location of core (C)

0

80

160

APPROXIMATE SCALE (FEET)

Drawn By

January 2022 Date

Approximate Site Boundary

Figure Number

East R

Project Number

848-4-1

Figure 1: Site Plan Boring Logs Laboratory Testing Copies: Addressee (email)

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA

Attachment:

Figure 1

RRN

08 |PRELIM. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

08 |PRELIM. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D-2487-10) MATERIAL TYPES

GRAVELS >50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO 4. SIEVE

SANDS

CLEAN GRAVELS <5% FINES

GRAVELS WITH FINES >12% FINES

CLEAN SANDS <5% FINES

>50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES ON NO 4. SIEVE

SILTS AND CLAYS

FINE-GRAINED SOILS >50% PASSES NO. 200 SIEVE

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS >50% RETAINED ON NO. 200 SIEVE

GROUP SYMBOL

CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES

SANDS AND FINES >12% FINES

SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND

Cu>4 AND 1<Cc<3

GW

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL

Cu>4 AND 1>Cc>3

GP

POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL

FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL

GM

SILTY GRAVEL

FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH

GC

CLAYEY GRAVEL

Cu>6 AND 1<Cc<3

SW

WELL-GRADED SAND

Cu>6 AND 1>Cc>3

SP

POORLY-GRADED SAND

FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL

SM

SILTY SAND

FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH

SC

CLAYEY SAND

PI>7 AND PLOTS>"A" LINE

CL

LEAN CLAY

PI>4 AND PLOTS<"A" LINE

ML

SILT

LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75

OL

ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT

PI PLOTS >"A" LINE

CH

FAT CLAY

PI PLOTS <"A" LINE

MH

ELASTIC SILT

LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75

OH

ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT

PT

PEAT

INORGANIC

LIQUID LIMIT<50 ORGANIC SILTS AND CLAYS INORGANIC LIQUID LIMIT>50 ORGANIC

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR

SAMPLER TYPES

OTHER MATERIAL SYMBOLS Poorly-Graded Sand with Clay

Sand

Clayey Sand

Silt

Sandy Silt

Well Graded Gravelly Sand

Artificial/Undocumented Fill

Gravelly Silt

SPT

Shelby Tube

Modified California (2.5" I.D.)

No Recovery

Rock Core

Grab Sample

ADDITIONAL TESTS CA

-

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (CORROSIVITY)

PI

CD

-

CONSOLIDATED DRAINED TRIAXIAL

SW

CN

-

CONSOLIDATION

TC

-

CYCLIC TRIAXIAL

CU

-

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL

TV

-

TORVANE SHEAR

DS

-

DIRECT SHEAR

UC

-

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION

Well-Graded Gravel with Clay

PP

-

POCKET PENETROMETER (TSF)

(1.5)

-

(3.0)

-

(WITH SHEAR STRENGTH IN KSF)

-

(WITH SHEAR STRENGTH IN KSF)

Well-Graded Gravel with Silt

RV

-

R-VALUE

SA

-

SIEVE ANALYSIS: % PASSING #200 SIEVE

-

UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL

-

WATER LEVEL

Poorly-Graded Gravelly Sand

Asphalt

Topsoil

Boulders and Cobble

PLASTICITY CHART 80

-

PLASTICITY INDEX SWELL TEST

UU

PENETRATION RESISTANCE (RECORDED AS BLOWS / FOOT)

PLASTICITY INDEX (%)

70

SILT & CLAY

SAND & GRAVEL

60 CH

RELATIVE DENSITY

50 40 30 CL

" "A

20

E LIN

OH & MH

BLOWS/FOOT*

CONSISTENCY VERY SOFT

0-2

0 - 0.25

LOOSE

4 - 10

SOFT

2-4

0.25 - 0.5

MEDIUM DENSE

10 - 30

MEDIUM STIFF

4-8

0.5-1.0

DENSE

30 - 50

STIFF

8 - 15

1.0 - 2.0

OVER 50

VERY STIFF HARD

10

20

15 - 30

2.0 - 4.0

OVER 30

OVER 4.0

* NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH O.D. (1-3/8 INCH I.D.) SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER THE LAST 12 INCHES OF AN 18-INCH DRIVE (ASTM-1586 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST).

CL-ML

0 0

STRENGTH** (KSF)

0-4

VERY DENSE

10

BLOWS/FOOT*

VERY LOOSE

30

40

50

60

70

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

80

90

100

110

120

* * UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH IN KIPS/SQ. FT. AS DETERMINED BY LABORATORY TESTING OR APPROXIMATED BY THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, POCKET PENETROMETER, TORVANE, OR VISUAL OBSERVATION.

LEGEND TO SOIL DESCRIPTIONS

Figure Number A-1

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 139

08 |PRELIM. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS BORING NUMBER C-1 PAGE 1 OF 1

PROJECT NAME Sunnyvale Community Center PROJECT NUMBER 848-4-1 PROJECT LOCATION Sunnyvale, CA DATE COMPLETED 12/28/21

DATE STARTED 12/28/21

LATITUDE

DRILLING METHOD Coring Machine and Hand Auger

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

LONGITUDE

2.5

2½ inches asphalt concrete Sandy Lean Clay (CL) wet, dark brown to brown, fine to coarse sand, low plasticity

Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) moist, brown, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse subangular to subrounded gravel

Bottom of Boring at 3.4 feet.

5.0

7.5

10.0

GB-1

19

GB-2

19

GB-3

10

PERCENT PASSING No. 200 SIEVE

PLASTICITY INDEX, %

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT

DRY UNIT WEIGHT PCF

DESCRIPTION

SAMPLES TYPE AND NUMBER

This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

N-Value (uncorrected) blows per foot

AT END OF DRILLING Not Encountered

SYMBOL

AT TIME OF DRILLING Not Encountered

NOTES

DEPTH (ft)

LOGGED BY MT, FLL

ELEVATION (ft) CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 1/7/22 09:41 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\848-4-1 SUNNYVALE COM CTR CORES.GPJ

BORING DEPTH 3.4 ft.

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Cuesta Geo

0.0

140

GROUND ELEVATION

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, ksf HAND PENETROMETER TORVANE UNCONFINED COMPRESSION UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

08 |PRELIM. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS BORING NUMBER C-2 PAGE 1 OF 1

PROJECT NAME Sunnyvale Community Center PROJECT NUMBER 848-4-1 PROJECT LOCATION Sunnyvale, CA DATE COMPLETED 12/28/21

DATE STARTED 12/28/21

BORING DEPTH 4.2 ft.

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Cuesta Geo

LATITUDE

DRILLING METHOD Coring Machine and Hand Auger

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

LONGITUDE

2.5

1 inch asphalt concrete Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Fill] wet, brown, fine to coarse sand, low plasticity Sandy Lean Clay with Sand (CL) moist, dark brown to brown, fine to coarse sand, low plasticity Liquid Limit = 23, Plastic Limit = 14 Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) moist, brown, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse subangular to subrounded gravel Poorly Graded Sand with Clay and Gravel (SP-SC) moist, brown, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse subangular to subrounded gravel

GB-1

18

GB-2

13

PERCENT PASSING No. 200 SIEVE

PLASTICITY INDEX, %

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT

DRY UNIT WEIGHT PCF

DESCRIPTION

SAMPLES TYPE AND NUMBER

This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

N-Value (uncorrected) blows per foot

SYMBOL

AT END OF DRILLING Not Encountered

DEPTH (ft)

AT TIME OF DRILLING Not Encountered

NOTES ELEVATION (ft)

LOGGED BY MT, FLL

0.0

CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 1/7/22 09:41 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\848-4-1 SUNNYVALE COM CTR CORES.GPJ

GROUND ELEVATION

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, ksf HAND PENETROMETER TORVANE UNCONFINED COMPRESSION UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

9

GB

GB-4

9

12

Bottom of Boring at 4.2 feet.

5.0

7.5

10.0

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 141

9 142

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 143

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Verde Design worked with David J Powers and Associates, and HT Harvey and Associates to review the existing biological resources within the project site. The following was compiled by the team following a site visit and review of pertinent records.

Ducks gathering in the Lower Pond

View of the Lower Pond

144

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Sunnyvale Community Center Grounds Renovations and Enhancement Biological Resources Report

Project #4605-01

Prepared for: Connor Tutino David J. Powers & Associates 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612

Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates

January 20, 2022

983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  Ph: 408.458.3200  F: 408.458.3210 City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 145

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Table of Contents Section 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Section 2. Methods ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Background Review ................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Site Visit .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Section 3. Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................ 5 3.1 General Project Area Description ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Biotic Habitat ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Developed/Landscaped ................................................................................................................................. 5 Section 4. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats .......................................................................................... 9 4.1 Special-Status Plant Species ................................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Special-Status Animal Species ............................................................................................................................. 10 4.3 Sensitive and Regulated Habitats ........................................................................................................................ 12 Section 5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................ 14 5.1 Impacts on Special-Status Species ...................................................................................................................... 15 5.1.1 Impacts on Developed/Landscaped Habitat and Associated Common Plant and Wildlife Species (Less than Significant) ............................................................................................................................................ 15 5.1.2 Impacts on Aquatic Wildlife Species and their Habitat (Less than Significant) .................................. 15 5.1.3 Impacts on Water Quality (Less than Significant) ................................................................................... 16 5.1.4 Impacts on the White-Tailed Kite, Vaux’s Swift, Tricolored Blackbird, and Monarch Butterfly (Less than Significant) ............................................................................................................................................ 17 5.1.5 Impacts on the Southwestern Pond Turtle (Less than Significant with Mitigation) .......................... 18 5.2 Impacts on Sensitive Communities .................................................................................................................... 19 5.3 Impacts on Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................ 19 5.4 Impacts on Wildlife Movement .......................................................................................................................... 19 or Native Wildlife Nursery Sites ................................................................................................................................ 19 5.4.1 Impacts on Wildlife Movement (Less than Significant) .......................................................................... 19 5.4.2 Impacts on Nesting Birds (Less than Significant) .................................................................................... 20 5.5 Impacts due to Conflicts with Local Policies .................................................................................................... 20 5.5.1 Impacts due to the Removal of Protected Trees ..................................................................................... 20 5.6 Impact due to Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan......................................................... 21 5.7 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................................................................. 21 Section 6.

Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations for Nesting Birds ............................................. 23

Section 7.

References ................................................................................................................................................... 24

Figures Figure 1. Project Site and Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................... 3

List of Preparers Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., Senior Wildlife Ecologist/Principal Robin Carle, M.S., Senior Wildlife Ecologist/Project Manager 146

Sunnyvale Community Center

i

H. T. Harvey & Associates

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Section 1. Introduction This report describes the biological resources present within and adjacent to the proposed Sunnyvale Community Center Grounds Renovation and Enhancement project site, as well as the potential impacts of the proposed project and measures necessary to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This report was prepared to facilitate CEQA review of the project.

1.1 Project Description The approximately 14.0-acre project site is located at 550 East Remington Drive in Sunnyvale, California, and is bounded by East Remington Drive to the northwest, Michelangelo Drive to the northeast, parking areas to the southeast and south, and Manet Drive to the west (Figure 1). The site currently supports a Creative Arts Center, Performing Arts Center, Indoor Sports Center, Recreation Center, Senior Center, and Historical Museum. The 98,765 square-foot “lower pond” is located in the northwestern portion of the site and is surrounded by large lawn areas, scattered mature trees, and a walking trail. The 9,700 square-foot “upper pond” is located in between the site’s existing buildings, is lined with small fountains, and spills water down into the lower pond. These ponds are treated with copper sulfate for algae control.

The project aims to renovate the Sunnyvale Community Center grounds and ensure its sustainability for the future by enhancing recreational usability, increasing attractiveness, and reducing the use of utilities. Potential improvements include the following, but this list may be refined as a result of the public input process and available funds: •

Construction of new auxiliary restrooms

•

Replacement of pathway and parking lot lighting systems with energy-efficient fixtures

•

Replacement of the lower pond with an amphitheater area or playground/play structures.

•

Renovation of upper pond infrastructure (pump/electrical/vault)

•

Construction of playground and picnic areas

•

Construction of flexible sport court or basketball court space

•

Construction of a dog park

•

Replacement of portions of landscaped and ornamental grass areas and the associated irrigation/pump system

•

Replacement of park fixtures (e.g. benches and tables) with recycled plastic equipment

•

Investigation and replacement of damaged portions of drainage systems

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 147

Sunnyvale Community Center

H. T. Harvey & Associates

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

•

Evaluation and replacement of portions of concrete pathways and flatwork for functionality and ADA compliance

•

Additional work required to connect interlinking areas

Renovations or updates to the existing buildings are not included as part of the project.

The water in the upper and lower ponds may contain a high concentration of copper and zinc ions which could prevent directly draining the water into the City’s sanitary sewer system. As a result, any detected minerals will be reduced or removed before drainage. Prior to the discharge of the water when the ponds are drained, the project will obtain any necessary permits (e.g., from the State Water Board).

The upper pond contains public art pieces created by an artist for this specific location. If major renovations occur at the upper pond, these art pieces will need to be relocated.

Existing asbestos-cement irrigation pipes are located across the project site which may add complexity for new irrigation and water tie-ins. Sections of the pipes may need to be investigated and replaced due to old age.

148

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

e Rt e 82 l al at l ea St E e R el Re o E in 2 ino am 8 m C Rte Ca e at

St

Dr

Project Location

n

to

o

el

ng

la

he

ic

M

E

g in m e R

Dr

ne

Ma

N:\Projects4600\4605-01\Reports\BRR\BRR.aprx agibson

r

tD Project Site 200

100

0

200

Feet

Figure 1. Project Site and Vicinity Map Sunnyvale Community Center Grounds Renovation and Enhancement Biological Resources Report (4605-01) January 2022

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 149

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Section 2. Methods 2.1 Background Review Prior to conducting field work, H. T. Harvey & Associates ecologists reviewed the project plans and description provided by David J. Powers & Associates in January 2022; aerial photos (Google Inc. 2022) and topographic maps; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2022); Calflora (2022); the Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County (Bousman 2007); the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022); bird records from the project vicinity reported to the eBird database (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2022), which has been established by the Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology to archive records of birds seen worldwide; and other relevant scientific literature and technical databases in order to assess the current distribution of special-status plants and animals in the site vicinity.

The background review included a search for plant species currently ranked by the CNPS as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2, or 3 occurring in the Cupertino, California 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey 7.5minute quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles (Palo Alto, Mountain View, Milpitas, San Jose West, Los Gatos, Castle Rock Ridge, Big Basin, and Mindego Hill). We also considered the CNPS plant list for Santa Clara County, as the CNPS does not maintain quadrangle-level records for CRPR 4 species. In addition, the CNDDB (2022) was queried for natural communities of special concern that occur within the project region.

2.2 Site Visit Following our background review, H. T. Harvey & Associates senior wildlife ecologist Robin Carle, M.S., conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of the project site on January 15, 2022. The purpose of this survey was to identify existing biological conditions and the site’s potential to support special-status species of plants and animals; other legally protected animals, such as migratory birds; and sensitive/regulated habitats such as jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, potential waters of the state, and riparian habitats. The survey included an assessment of habitats for specialstatus species and other protected animals both on the site and in adjacent areas (e.g., in developed and landscaped areas on adjacent properties) that could be impacted either directly or indirectly by proposed activities, as well as an assessment of adjacent habitats that could potentially support source populations of sensitive species that could then disperse onto the project site.

Because the site is completely developed, no suitable habitat for special-status plants is present. As a result, special-status plants are not expected to occur on the site, and a focused botanical survey was not warranted.

150

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Section 3. Environmental Setting 3.1 General Project Area Description A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the site was agricultural as part of an orchard in 1948 (Google Inc. 2022). The Sunnyvale Community Center was constructed on the site in 1972, and the upper pond and lower pond were created in the 1990s (Google Inc. 2022). The project site is currently surrounded by dense residential development to the northwest, east, and west; commercial development to the northeast; and a historic orchard to the south. Las Palmas Park, which includes play areas and extensive turf, is located 0.6 mile to the northwest; and the Sunken Gardens Golf Course is located 0.6 mile to the east. No other parks or open habitats are located within a 1.0-mile radius of the project site.

The upper and lower ponds are artificial, concrete-lined ponds that are not hydrologically connected to natural waterbodies in the site vicinity. The Sunnyvale East Channel is an engineered channel that flows south to north approximately 690 feet to the east of the on-site ponds. However, the channel is separated from the upper and lower ponds by residential development, a roadway, and a parking area, and is not hydrologically connected to the ponds either above or belowground. No other natural waterbodies are present within 1.0 mile of the site; Stevens Creek flows south to north 1.8 miles west of the site and is separated from the site by dense residential development.

Elevations on the project site range from approximately 127 to 138 feet above sea level. The Natural Resource Conservation Service has mapped two soil units on the project site: Urban land-Flaskan complex, 0–2% slopes, and Urban land-Botella complex, 0–2% slopes (Natural Resource Conservation Service 2022).

3.2 Biotic Habitat The project site and surrounding areas are heavily urbanized, consisting of dense residential and commercial development. The reconnaissance-level survey identified one habitat/land use type on the project site: developed/landscaped. This habitat/land use type is described in detail below.

3.2.1 Developed/Landscaped The project site consists of an existing community center facility with public buildings, associated pedestrian walkways and landscape vegetation, and a large park area with turf, scattered mature trees, and two artificial ponds (Photos 1 and 2). Trees within these areas include nonnative magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia sp.), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), pine (Pinus sp.), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), jacaranda (Jacaranda sp.), London plane (Platanus x acerifolia), and deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara). One large native coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is present along the northern edge of the lower pond. Landscaped plants and shrubs, which are primarily present around the ponds and buildings, include nonnative rose (Rosa sp.), lavender City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 151

Sunnyvale Community Center

H. T. Harvey & Associates

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

(Lavandula sp.), African lily (Agapanthus africanus), Mexican sage (Salvia leucantha), heavenly bamboo (Nandina domestica), and pyracantha (Pyracantha).

Photo 1. Landscape vegetation and pedestrian pathways surround the community center buildings on the project site.

Photo 2. Scattered mature trees are present in the turf lawn areas of the park north of the community center buildings.

Due to the near-absence of native vegetation, the sparseness of vegetation, and high levels of human disturbance, upland portions of the project site provide only low-quality habitat for most wildlife species. The wildlife most often associated with these areas are those that are tolerant of periodic human disturbances, such as the nonnative eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), house mouse (Mus musculus), and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), as well as the native raccoon (Procyon lotor) and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Native western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) commonly occur in developed areas, and may bask on pavement or rocky landscaped areas in order to raise their body temperatures. Common native bird species that inhabit developed areas of Sunnyvale use the landscaped vegetation and park habitat on the nest for nesting and foraging. These include year-round residents such as the American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans). Migrants and wintering birds that forage within this habitat include the white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), golden-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), and ruby-crowned kinglet (Corthylio calendula). A small population of introduced mitred parakeets (Psittacara mitratus) also occurs in the site vicinity, and these birds occasionally forage in trees on the project site year-round.

The aquatic habitat on the project site is characterized by poor water quality due to the presence of copper and zinc in the water; these chemicals prevent the growth of vegetation, and can be toxic to wildlife (Eisler 1993 and 1998). As a result, it is unlikely that aquatic species such as amphibians, reptiles, fish, and invertebrates are able to persist in these ponds, at least in numbers due to the poor water quality. Nevertheless, invertebrate that are tolerant of the poor water quality conditions may be present in the ponds, and fish may also be present if they have been introduced in the ponds by humans (and if copper and zinc levels are not too high). An introduced red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta) was observed in the pond in 2017 (iNaturalist 2022); however no 152

Sunnyvale Community Center

H. T. Harvey & Associates

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

turtles were observed in the pond during the January 2022 site visit, and no additional records of turtles in the pond are known. Similarly, no records of amphibian species at the Community Center were found online (iNaturalist 2022), and no amphibians were observed during the January 2022 site visit. The upper and lower ponds are surrounded by an approximately 8-inch high vertical drop, which would likely prevent turtles and amphibians from being able to exit the ponds once they are inside (Photos 3 and 4). However, it is possible that turtles, amphibians, and fish can occasionally be introduced into these ponds by humans. Any individuals of these species would be expected to subsist in the ponds for the length of time that they are able to tolerate the poor water quality. Healthy communities of fish and invertebrates are not expected to thrive in the ponds; rather, only small numbers of individuals of certain highly tolerant (likely nonnative) species are expected to be present.

Photo 3. The upper pond on the project site is surrounded by an approximately 8-inch vertical drop. The water in the pond is treated with copper and zinc, which creates the blue-green color. No vegetation is present in the pond.

Photo 4. The lower pond on the project site is surrounded by an approximately 8-inch vertical drop. The water in the pond is treated with copper and zinc, which creates the blue-green color. No vegetation is present in the pond.

Common waterbirds that occur regularly in the lower pond include the Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and American coot (Fulica americana). Although these birds may forage on invertebrates in the ponds, their presence is likely more associated with the surrounding irrigated turf (which these birds graze), and they are likely also fed by park users. Canada geese and mallards will nest in upland areas at the park, but no suitable nesting habitat for American coots is present on the site due to the lack of aquatic vegetation.

Dabbling ducks that forage on vegetation and invertebrates near the water’s surface such as the gadwall (Mareca strepera) and northern shoveler (Spatula clypeata) are occasionally observed in the lower pond, and piscivorous birds that dive and forage on invertebrates and fish such as the common merganser (Mergus merganser), doublecrested cormorant (Nannopterum auritum), western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis), and common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) have also occasionally been observed there. Neither dabbling ducks nor piscivorus waterbirds are observed at the pond regularly or for extended periods, with the exception of the common merganser (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2022), further indicating that only very limited foraging resources in the form of invertebrates or fish are present in the lower pond. The common merganser is known to be an omnivorous City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 153

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

forager that will take food from humans (Pearce et al. 2020), which is likely the reason it is able to persist for longer periods in the lower pond compared to other species of piscivorus waterbirds. Similarly, wading birds such as the black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) and snowy egret (Egretta thula) are occasionally observed at the pond, but these species are not observed at the pond regularly or for extended periods. The Canada goose, mallard, and American coot may also make occasional use of the upper pond; however, the lower pond is used more extensively by bird species due to its much larger size and because it is surrounded by turf.

Birds that forage aerially for insects such as the black phoebe, northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), and tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) will forage aerially for invertebrates in small numbers over the park. Black phoebes will nest on buildings on the project site, and swallows may nest in trees or on structures on the site and in the immediate vicinity. No large colonies of swallows (e.g., cliff swallows [Petrochelidon pyrrhonota]) are known to occur on the site, or were observed on buildings on the site during the January 2022 site visit.

154

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Section 4. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats CEQA requires assessment of the effects of a project on species that are protected by state, federal, or local governments as “threatened, rare, or endangered”; such species are typically described as “special-status species”. For the purpose of the environmental review of the project, special-status species have been defined as described below.

For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” plants are considered plant species that are: •

Listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species.

•

Listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) as threatened, endangered, rare, or a candidate species.

•

Listed by the CNPS as CRPR 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4.

For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” animals are considered animal species that are: •

Listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species.

•

Listed under CESA as threatened, endangered, or a candidate threatened or endangered species.

•

Designated by the CDFW as a California species of special concern.

•

Listed in the California Fish and Game Code as fully protected species (fully protected birds are provided in Section 3511, mammals in Section 4700, reptiles and amphibians in Section 5050, and fish in Section 5515).

Information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that potentially occur on the project site was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists as described in Section 2.1 above.

4.1 Special-Status Plant Species The CNPS (2022) and CNDDB (2022) identify a number of special-status plant species as potentially occurring in at least one of the nine U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles containing or surrounding the project site for species in CRPR 1 and 2, or in Santa Clara County for CRPR 3 and 4 species. However, the site is dominated by heavily disturbed anthropogenic habitat (i.e., developed/landscaped areas), which precludes the presence of special-status plant species that occur in more natural habitats in the region. All of the special-status plant species identified as potentially occurring in the region were determined to be absent from the project site City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 155

Sunnyvale Community Center

H. T. Harvey & Associates

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

for at least one of the following reasons: (1) absence of suitable habitat types; (2) lack of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements, such as serpentine soils; (3) the elevation range of the species is outside of the range on the project site; and/or (4) the species is considered extirpated from the project region. Therefore, specialstatus plants do not occur in the project area.

4.2 Special-Status Animal Species A number of special-status animal species are known to occur (or to have occurred historically) in the project region, including the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and special-status fish species (CNDDB 2022). However, the dense urban surroundings and absence of specific habitat features favored by these, and all other special-status animal species known to occur in the region, make the site unsuitable, as follows:

156

•

Populations of the California tiger salamander, a state and federally threatened species, have been extirpated from the Santa Clara Valley floor due to habitat loss, and the species is now considered absent from the majority of the Valley floor, including the project site (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1999, 2012; Santa Clara Valley Water District 2011). No recent records of California tiger salamanders are located in the project vicinity (CNDDB 2022). Therefore, California tiger salamanders are determined to be absent from the project site.

•

The California red-legged frog, federally listed as threatened and a California species of concern, is known to occur along Permanente Creek and within the Gate of Heaven Cemetery approximately 3.2 miles southwest of the project site (CNDDB 2022). However, the species has been extirpated from the urbanized Santa Clara Valley floor due to intensive human development, the alteration of hydrology of its aquatic habitats, and the introduction of nonnative predators such as nonnative fishes and bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997 and Santa Clara Valley Water District 2011). Further, the project site is isolated from occurrences of the species to the southwest by several miles of high-intensity urban development including State Route 85, Interstate 280, and dense residential and commercial areas (Google Inc. 2022). Thus, California red-legged frogs are determined to be absent from the site.

•

No burrows of California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) are present on the site to provide suitable nesting or roosting habitat for the burrowing owl, a California species of special concern. The closest occurrence of this species is a 1983 record located adjacent to Peterson Middle School in Sunnyvale approximately 1 mile southeast of the project site (CNDDB 2022). However, burrowing owls no longer occur at this location, which was formerly agricultural but has been intensively developed since 1983, and there are no additional occurrences of burrowing owls in the site vicinity (CNDDB 2022, Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2022). The lack of suitable burrows on the project site as well as the site’s developed surroundings precludes the presence of suitable habitat for burrowing owls on or near the site, and thus

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

no suitable nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat for burrowing owls is present on or adjacent to the project site.

•

The San Francisco common yellowthroat, a California species of special concern, is a subspecies of common yellowthroat that nests in fresh and saltwater marshes near the edge of the Bay. The Alameda song sparrow, also a California species of special concern, is a subspecies of song sparrow that is endemic to the Central and South San Francisco Bay. No suitable nesting or foraging habitat for these species is present on the project site, which does not support marsh habitats, wetland vegetation, or riparian habitat, and is not located within or adjacent to tidal areas. Thus, these species are determined to be absent from the project site.

•

Several historical records of the Townsend’s big-eared bat, a California species of special concern, are located in the site vicinity (CNDDB 2022). However, the buildings and trees on the site do not provide suitable cavernous roosting habitat for Townsend’s big-eared bats, and no recent records of this species are present on the urbanized Santa Clara Valley floor in the site vicinity. This, this species is determined to be absent from the site, even as an occasional forager.

•

The upper pond and lower pond on the project site do not provide suitable aquatic habitat to support special-status fish species, and these ponds are not hydrologically connected to suitable habitat for these species in the site vicinity. Thus, special-status fish species are determined to be absent from the site.

A number of special-status species can occasionally occur on the project site as nonbreeding foragers. These include the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). These species are not expected to nest, roost, or breed in or immediately adjacent to the project site due to a lack of suitable nesting, roosting, or breeding habitat, and will be affected very little, if at all, by the proposed project: •

The white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), a state fully protected species, is known to nest along the periphery of the urbanized Valley floor in eastern Cupertino (e.g., at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, along Stevens Creek, and at Fremont Older Open Space Preserve). However, the project site is separated from these areas by several miles of high-intensity urbanization, and no large, open grassland areas are present within or near the project site to provide foraging opportunities for this species. Although potentially suitable nesting habitat for white-tailed kites is present on the project site in the form of mature trees (e.g., pines and redwoods), the species is not expected to nest on the site due to the lack of foraging opportunities (e.g., grasslands that support small mammal prey) in the vicinity. Further, no old, existing raptor nests were detected on the site during the reconnaissance survey, indicating that raptors have not nested on the site in recent years. Individual white-tailed kites may fly over the site occasionally, but are not expected to make regular use of the site for perching or foraging.

•

The Vaux’s swift may occasionally forage aerially over the site, and the tricolored blackbird can occasionally occur on or adjacent to the project site as a nonbreeding forager, but these species do not nest on or adjacent to the site. These species are not expected to nest, roost, or breed on or immediately adjacent to City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 157

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

the project site due to a lack of suitable nesting, roosting, or breeding habitat, and will be affected very little, if at all, by the proposed project.

•

The monarch butterfly may occur on the project site as a nonbreeder, especially during spring and fall migration. However, no milkweeds (Asclepias spp.), which provide this species’ larval hostplant, were detected on the site during reconnaissance surveys, so monarchs are not expected to breed on the site.

Similarly, this species is not known to form wintering roost aggregations anywhere in Santa Clara County, so this species would occur only as an occasional nonbreeding visitor, in low numbers.

The southwestern pond turtle (Emys pallida), a California species of special concern, is not known to occur at the Sunnyvale Community Center. The closest known occurrences of this species are located in a stormwater retention basin along San Tomas Aquino Creek 4.2 miles to the northwest, at Moffett Federal Airfield approximately 4.5 miles to the north, and at Vasona Reservoir 8.2 miles to the southeast (CNDDB 2022). The artificial ponds on the project site are not hydrologically connected to streams or waterbodies in the region, and individual pond turtles are not expected to travel to the project site from suitable habitats or known populations in the region as these areas are separated from the site by several miles of dense urban development.

Nevertheless, suitable aquatic habitat for southwestern pond turtles is present in the upper and lower ponds on the site, although this habitat is of extremely low quality due to poor water quality and high levels of human disturbance. Because individual southwestern pond turtles are occasionally released by humans into artificial waterbodies in the region, the possibility that small numbers of released southwestern pond turtles may be present on the site cannot be ruled out. Pond turtles are long-lived animals, and if individuals are released onto a site they can potentially persist for many years.

Southwestern pond turtles are not expected to nest on the project site. Although lawn areas surround the upper pond, these areas would be unsuitable for nesting by pond turtles due to frequent mowing, irrigation, maintenance, and heavy use by pedestrians, as well as because the thick thatch of turf lawns would prove very difficult for a pond turtle to dig through. In addition, due to the large vertical drop that surrounds the ponds, pond turtles are not expected to be able to exit the ponds to nest once they are released there.

In conclusion, the only special-status animal species potentially using the project site are the southwestern pond turtle, which may occur in the upper pond in small numbers if individuals have been released there, and the white-tailed kite, tricolored blackbird, and monarch butterfly, which may occur only as occasional nonbreeding foragers.

4.3 Sensitive and Regulated Habitats Sensitive and regulated habitats are rare, ecologically valuable, and/or protected by federal, state, regional, and/or local laws. Generally, such habitats require permits from regulatory agencies if they are to be disturbed, altered, or lost. The CDFW ranks certain rare or threatened plant communities, such as wetlands, tracked in the CNDDB. The most commonly regulated habitats are wetland and aquatic habitats including rivers, streams, ponds, and seasonal wetlands, which fall under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers via Section 158

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

404 of the Clean Water Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Board via Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or the CDFW via Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.

No potentially jurisdictional features (e.g., wetlands or drainages that would be subject to jurisdiction of any resource agencies) were identified on or immediately adjacent to the project site during the reconnaissance-level survey. The artificial ponds on the project site are known to be supported entirely by pumped and circulated water, and the presence of impermeable, concrete-lined bottoms would preclude hydrology supported by any groundwater component. These features would not be regulated as waters of the U.S. or state because section 404 of the Clean Water Act excludes from the definition of waters of the U.S. “artificial lakes and ponds excavated in dry land.” Thus, these ponds are not jurisdictional.

Similarly, no sensitive communities of concern that are tracked by the CNDDB, or any features regulated under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, were identified on the site. Thus, sensitive and regulated habitats are determined to be absent from the project site, and the project will have no impact on these sensitive resources.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 159

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Section 5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines provide direction for evaluating impacts of projects on biological resources and determining which impacts will be significant. The Act defines a “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project.” Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, a project’s effects on biological resources are deemed significant where the project would: •

“substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species”

•

“cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels”

•

“threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community”

•

“reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal”

In addition to the Section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance, Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts to consider when analyzing the significance of project effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G may or may not be significant, depending on the level of the impact. For biological resources, these impacts include whether the project would: A. “have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” B. “have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” C. “have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means)” D. “interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites” E. “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance” F. “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan” Following is a brief assessment of potential project impacts on biological resources. The impact assessment below is structured based on the six significance criteria (A–F) listed above.

160

Sunnyvale Community Center Biological Resources Report

14

H. T. Harvey & Associates January 20, 2022

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

5.1 Impacts on Special-Status Species: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 5.1.1 Impacts on Developed/Landscaped Habitat and Associated Common Plant and Wildlife Species (Less than Significant) Proposed project activities would result in permanent impacts on developed/landscaped on the project site.

These impacts would reduce the extent of vegetation within the impact area and would result in a reduction in abundance of some of the common plant and wildlife species that occur on the site. However, the area of developed/landscaped habitat to be impacted occurs in a location in Sunnyvale that has been subject to disturbance and fragmentation in the past and is embedded within a highly developed urban area, such that these areas do not provide regionally rare or especially high-value habitat for native vegetation or wildlife, or special-status species (including the southwestern pond turtle, discussed in Section 5.1.5 below). In addition, developed/landscape habitat, including the park habitat present on the project site, is abundant and widespread regionally and is not a sensitive habitat, and the habitat on the project site is not especially valuable (from the perspective of providing important plant or wildlife habitat). Further, because the number of individuals of any common plant or animal species within this habitat, and the proportion of these species’ regional populations that could be disturbed, is very small, the project’s impacts would not substantially reduce regional populations of these species. Thus, these impacts do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and would not be considered significant under CEQA. 5.1.2 Impacts on Aquatic Wildlife Species and their Habitat (Less than Significant) This section discusses impacts on all aquatic wildlife species that may occur in the upper and lower ponds on the project site with the exception of the southwestern pond turtle, which is discussed separately in Section 5.1.5 below.

Project activities could affect aquatic wildlife (e.g., fish, red-eared sliders, amphibians, invertebrates, and vertebrate and invertebrate larvae) due to the removal of the lower pond and proposed improvements to the upper pond on the project site. However, as discussed above, it is unlikely that aquatic species such as amphibians, reptiles, fish, and invertebrates are able to persist in these ponds due to the poor water quality.

Nevertheless, invertebrates that are tolerant of the poor water quality conditions may be present in the ponds, and fish or turtles may also be present if they have been introduced in the ponds by humans. Any fish (adults, juveniles, and eggs) and invertebrate larvae that are present in these ponds are not expected to survive when the water is drained. If amphibians and reptiles such as turtles and amphibians are present when the ponds are drained, individuals would be trapped in the ponds due to the steep-walled sides and would be unable to disperse overland away from the ponds to other habitats in the vicinity. Thus, these animals are unlikely to survive dewatering of the ponds.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 161

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

In addition to the mortality of certain wildlife species present in the ponds, the project will result in the removal of 98,765 square feet (2.27 acres) of artificial pond habitat for aquatic wildlife species due to the removal of the lower pond. As discussed for upland habitat above, this aquatic habitat is not considered sensitive, nor does it provide especially valuable (from the perspective of providing important habitat) habitat resources for wildlife species in the region. Further, because the number of individuals of any common species that may be present within this habitat, and the proportion of these species’ regional populations that could be disturbed, is very small, the project’s impacts would not substantially reduce regional populations of these species. Thus, these impacts do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and would not be considered significant under CEQA. The removal of the lower pond will also result in a loss of aquatic habitat for common species of waterbirds that nest and forage on the site. Species that often forage for invertebrates over water, such as swallows, may also experience a reduction in foraging opportunities due to the removal of the lower pond, although swallows will continue to forage over landscape vegetation such as turf and trees on the site following construction.

Certain waterbird species, such as the Canada goose and mallard, will continue to use the site following removal of the lower pond, albeit in lower numbers. However, waterbirds that only use the aquatic habitat on the site, such as the northern shoveler, gadwall, and pied-billed grebe, will no longer occur on the site following construction, as the upper pond does not provide sufficiently extensive habitat to attract these species. This aquatic habitat does not provide especially valuable (from the perspective of providing important habitat) habitat resources for these bird species in the region, as compared to higher-quality habitat such as bayside wetlands and managed ponds. As a result, the number of individuals of any common species that may use this habitat, and the proportion of these species’ regional populations that could be disturbed, are very small, and the removal of the lower pond would not substantially reduce regional populations of any of these bird species.

Thus, these impacts do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and would not be considered significant under CEQA. 5.1.3 Impacts on Water Quality (Less than Significant) No direct impacts are proposed within the bed and banks of any natural waterbodies as part of the project, and no indirect impacts on water quality within any natural waterbodies in the site vicinity, such as the Sunnyvale East Channel, are anticipated as a result of the project.

Construction projects in California causing land disturbances that are equal to 1 acre or greater must comply with state requirements to control the discharge of storm water pollutants under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit; Water Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended and administratively extended). Prior to the start of construction/demolition, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board describing the project. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be developed and maintained during the project and it must include the use of best management practices to protect water quality until the site is stabilized. Standard permit conditions under the Construction General Permit require that the applicant utilize various measures including: on-site sediment control best management 162

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

practices, damp street sweeping, temporary cover of disturbed land surfaces to control erosion during construction, and utilization of stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks, among other factors.

The water in the upper and lower ponds may contain a high concentration of copper and zinc ions which could prevent directly draining the water into the City’s sanitary sewer system. As a result, any detected minerals will be reduced or removed before drainage. Prior to the discharge of the water when the ponds are drained, the project will obtain any necessary permits (e.g., from the State Water Board).

In many Bay Area counties, including Santa Clara County, projects must also comply with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (Water Board Order No. R2-2015-0049). This permit requires that all projects implement best management practices and incorporate Low Impact Development practices into the design to prevent stormwater runoff pollution, promote infiltration, and hold/slow down the volume of water coming from a site after construction has been completed. In order to meet these permit and policy requirements, projects must incorporate the use of green roofs, impervious surfaces, tree planters, grassy swales, bioretention and/or detention basins, among other factors.

With compliance with permit conditions, potential project impacts on water quality would be less than significant under CEQA. 5.1.4 Impacts on the White-Tailed Kite, Vaux’s Swift, Tricolored Blackbird, and Monarch Butterfly (Less than Significant) The white-tailed kite, Vaux’s swift, tricolored blackbird, and monarch butterfly may occur on or adjacent to the project site as nonbreeding migrants, transients, or foragers, but they are not known or expected to breed or occur in large numbers within or near the project impact area.

The white-tailed kite (a California fully protected species) may occur on the site occasionally, but sufficient open foraging habitat to support a nesting pair of this species is not present on or near the project site, and the species is not expected to nest on the site or occur there regularly. The Vaux’s swift (a species of special concern) may fly over the site in small numbers on occasion during the migration seasons, but this species is not known to nest in Sunnyvale and is not expected to make regular use of the project site. The tricolored blackbird (a state threatened species) is not expected to occur on or close to the project site as a breeder due to the absence of suitable habitat, but individuals may occur occasionally as foragers during the nonbreeding season. The monarch butterfly (a federal candidate) may forage in the site vicinity, especially during spring and fall migration, but is not expected to breed or overwinter on the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat.

Activities under the proposed project would have some potential to impact foraging habitats and/or disturb individuals of these species. Construction activities might result in a temporary direct impact through the alteration of foraging patterns (e.g., avoidance of work sites because of increased noise and activity levels during maintenance activities) but would not result in the loss of individuals, as individuals of these species would fly City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 163

Sunnyvale Community Center

17

H. T. Harvey & Associates

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

away from any construction areas or equipment before they could be injured or killed. Further, the project site does not provide important foraging habitat used regularly or by large numbers of individuals of either of these species. As a result, impacts of the project will have little impact on these species’ foraging habitat and no substantive impact on regional populations of these species. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

5.1.5 Impacts on the Southwestern Pond Turtle (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The lower pond provides at least marginal aquatic habitat for southwestern pond turtles, and small numbers of pond turtles could potentially be present within the lower pond if they have been introduced there by humans.

However, southwestern pond turtles are not expected to nest on the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat.

If any turtles are present in the lower pond when construction occurs, they may be injured or killed due to crushing by construction personnel or equipment, as a result of exposure to predators when their cover is removed, or due to exposure following the removal of their habitat. Any such individuals are not currently a part of a viable breeding population, due to the absence of suitable nesting habitat and the inability of turtles to exit the ponds. However, this species is relatively scarce in the region, and due to the sensitivity of this species, injury or mortality of individual western pond turtles would be considered significant under CEQA. In our professional opinion, the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 below would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level under CEQA. Mitigation Measure BIO-1. A qualified biologist approved by the City of Sunnyvale will be present during dewatering activities to capture and relocate any southwestern pond turtles that are found during dewatering of the lower pond. Depending on the duration of dewatering, the biologist will visit the site at appropriate intervals based on the rate of change of the water level to ensure that any southwestern pond turtles that may be present are captured and relocated before there is a high risk of predation. A dip net or seine may be used to clear remaining water of turtles, if necessary.

Prior to the start of dewatering, the biologist will coordinate with the CDFW regarding appropriate relocation methods for any pond turtles detected during the dewatering process to minimize the spread of shell-wasting disease. Because the closest populations of southwestern pond turtles are located more than 4 miles from the project site, it may be necessary to transfer the individual to a wildlife care facility temporarily so that it can be tested for shell-wasting disease prior to its release into a natural population.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2. It is possible that animals such as fish, turtles, and amphibians may be present in the upper and lower ponds when they are drained. No nonnative animal species that may be present in the ponds will be released into the wild, into either natural or artificial waterbodies, when the on-site ponds are dewatered, to avoid having non-native animals prey on, compete with, or introduce pathogens that could affect native animals, including the southwestern pond turtle.

164

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

5.2 Impacts on Sensitive Communities: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS (No Impact) No riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities are present on or immediately adjacent to the project site. Thus, the project would result in no direct or indirect impacts on riparian habitats or other sensitive communities.

5.3 Impacts on Wetlands: Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (No Impact) No wetlands or other waters of the U.S./state occur on, or immediately adjacent to, the project site. Thus, the project would result in no direct or indirect impacts on jurisdictional wetlands.

5.4 Impacts on Wildlife Movement or Native Wildlife Nursery Sites: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Less than Significant) 5.4.1 Impacts on Wildlife Movement (Less than Significant) For many species, the landscape is a mosaic of suitable and unsuitable habitat types. Environmental corridors are segments of land that provide a link between these different habitats while also providing cover.

Development that fragments natural habitats (i.e., breaks them into smaller, disjunct pieces) can have a twofold impact on wildlife: first, as habitat patches become smaller they are unable to support as many individuals (patch size), and second, the area between habitat patches may be unsuitable for wildlife species to traverse (connectivity).

As described above, no natural habitats are present on the project site, and the site is surrounded by existing development. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in fragmentation of natural habitats. Further, species that are capable of moving through such a heavily developed site are all regionally abundant, common species that are expected to continue to use the site after construction is complete.

Removal of the lower pond on the project site would remove aquatic habitat for migratory waterfowl such as the Canada goose and common merganser. Smaller numbers of other species such as the northern shoveler, gadwall, and pied-billed grebe will also no longer be able to use the site for resting and foraging following the removal of the pond. However, the lower pond on the project site provides only very low-quality habitat for this species due to the low quality of the water and limited aquatic species present to provide foraging opportunities. As a result, the removal of this pond is not expected to adversely affect the movement of these City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 165

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

species; rather, they are more likely to select higher-quality habitat in the region as an alternative location for resting and foraging, which is expected to benefit these individuals.

Therefore, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and this impact is determined to be less than significant.

5.4.2 Impacts on Nesting Birds (Less than Significant) Although no special-status birds are expected to nest on or near the site, a variety of common, urban-adapted species could nest on the site. Construction disturbance during the bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31, for most species) could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings, either directly through the destruction or disturbance of active nests or indirectly by causing the abandonment of nests. Due to the absence of native or sensitive habitats from the project site, the habitat on the site supports only regionally common, urban-adapted breeding birds, and the numbers that occur on the site (i.e., one to several pairs of each species) represent only a very small proportion of these species’ regional populations. This type of impact would not be considered significant under CEQA, in our opinion, because of the local and regional abundances of the species that could potentially nest on the site and the very low magnitude of the potential impact of development on these species (i.e., the project is expected to impact only a few pairs of these species, which is not a substantial impact on their regional populations). Therefore, in our opinion, project impacts on nesting and foraging birds that occur on the site would not rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect.

Nevertheless, several species of common native birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code may nest in trees and shrubs on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. It is also possible that protected native birds could nest on the solar panel structures on the site. The removal of vegetation or demolition of structures supporting active nests may cause the direct loss of eggs or young, while construction-related activities located near an active nest may cause adults to abandon their eggs or young.

Recommended measures to ensure project compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code are provided in Section 6 below.

5.5 Impacts due to Conflicts with Local Policies: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (Less than Significant) 5.5.1 Impacts due to the Removal of Protected Trees Implementation of the proposed project would likely result in the removal of many of the existing trees on the project site. Because this type of tree removal conflicts with the City of San Sunnyvale Municipal Code, it would be considered a significant impact under CEQA (Criterion I). While the City of Sunnyvale is not required to submit permit applications for tree removal for its own projects, it does comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code. In accordance with the provisions of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code, standard permit 166

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

conditions would be implemented by the project. These conditions may require replacement trees to be planted for the removal of a protected tree of significant size, defined as follows: •

any single trunk tree 38 inches or greater in circumference, or

•

any multi-trunk tree which has at least one trunk 38 inches or greater in circumference OR where the measurements of the multi-trunks added together equal at least 113 inches.

If it is not possible to plant replacement trees on the site, the City would pay for additional trees to be planted on City property.

Project compliance with the City of Sunnyvale Municipal Code will reduce any potential impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting trees to less-than-significant levels under CEQA.

5.6 Impact due to Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (No Impact) The project site is not located within an area covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any such plans.

5.7 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts arise due to the linking of impacts from past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region. Future development activities in the City of Sunnyvale will result in impacts on the same habitat types and species that will be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project, in combination with other projects in the area and other activities that impact the species that are affected by this project, could contribute to cumulative effects on special-status species. Other projects in the area include office/retail/commercial development, mixed use, and residential projects that could adversely affect these species.

Any project that occurs in the future in similar habitats in this area of Santa Clara County will result in impacts on biological resources, and many of those projects would impact the same types of biological resources that will be impacted by construction activities for the proposed project. The cumulative impact on biological resources resulting from project implementation in combination with other projects in the region would be dependent on the relative magnitude of adverse effects of these projects on biological resources compared to the relative benefit to these resources of impact avoidance and minimization efforts prescribed by applicants, planning documents, CEQA mitigation measures, and permit requirements for each project; compensatory mitigation and proactive conservation measures associated with each project; and the benefits to biological resources accruing from implementation of each project. In the absence of such avoidance, minimization, City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 167

Sunnyvale Community Center

21

H. T. Harvey & Associates

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

compensatory mitigation, and conservation measures, cumulatively significant impacts on biological resources would occur.

However, it is expected that most current and future projects in the region will mitigate these impacts through CEQA, the Fish and Game Code 1602, and/or the Clean Water Act Section 404/401 permitting process, as well as through the FESA Section 7 consultation process and, possibly, CESA consultation. As a result, these other projects are expected to implement mitigation for substantial impacts on biological resources as is being required of the proposed project.

Regardless of the magnitude and significance of cumulative impacts that result from other projects, the Sunnyvale Community Center Grounds Renovation and Enhancement project is not expected to have a substantial effect on biological resources, and would implement the mitigation measure described above to reduce impacts under CEQA to less than significant levels. Thus, provided that this project successfully incorporates the mitigation measure described in this biological resources report, the project will not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative effects on biological resources.

168

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Section 6. Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations for Nesting Birds Several species of common native birds protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code may nest in trees and shrubs on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. It is also possible that protected native birds could nest on the buildings on the site. The removal of vegetation or demolition of a building supporting active nests may cause the direct loss of eggs or young, while construction-related activities located near an active nest may cause adults to abandon their eggs or young. This type of impact would not be significant under CEQA, in our opinion, because of the local and regional abundances of the species that could potentially nest on the site and the very low magnitude of the potential impact of development on these species (i.e., the project is expected to impact only a few pairs of these species, which is not a substantial impact on their regional populations). However, the following measures should be implemented to ensure that project activities do not violate the California Fish and Game Code: Measure 1. Avoidance of the Nesting Season. To the extent feasible, commencement of demolition and construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If demolition and construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all potential demolition/construction impacts on nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from February 1 through August 31.

Measure 2. Pre-Activity/Pre-Disturbance Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule demolition and construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then pre-activity surveys for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project implementation. We recommend that these surveys be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of demolition or construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, and buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests.

Measure 3. Non-Disturbance Buffers. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation.

Measure 4. Inhibition of Nesting. If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, all potential nesting substrates (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are scheduled to be removed by the project may be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to February 1). This will preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation, and minimize the potential delay of the project due to the presence of active nests in these substrates.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 169

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Section 7. References Bousman, W. G., editor. 2007. Breeding bird atlas of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California.

Calflora. 2022. Calflora Database: Information on California Plants for Conservation, Education, and Appreciation. Accessed January 2022 from http://www.calflora.org/.

[CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2022. Rarefind 5.0. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed January 2022 from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.

[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Accessed January 2022 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2022. eBird. http://www.ebird.org/. Accessed through January 2022.

Eisler, R., 1998. Copper hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review (No. 33). US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.

Eisler, R., 1993. Zinc hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review (No. 26). US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Google Inc. 2022. Google Earth (Version 7.3.2.5776) [Software]. Available from earth.google.com.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997. Santa Clara Valley Water District California Red-legged Frog Distribution and Status – 1997. June.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999. Santa Clara Valley Water District California Tiger Salamander Distribution and Status – 1999. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2012. Santa Clara Valley Water District California Tiger Salamander Surveys and Site Assessments at Selected Santa Clara County Locations. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. August 2012. iNaturalist. 2022. Available from https://www.inaturalist.org. Accessed January 2022.

[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed January 2022.

170

09 | BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

Pearce, J., M. L. Mallory, and K. Metz (2020). Common Merganser (Mergus merganser), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (S. M. Billerman, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.commer.01.

Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2011. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Multi-Year Stream Maintenance Program Update 2012-2022.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 171

10 172

ARBORIST REPORT

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 173

Tree Assessment Report, Sunnyvale Community Center 10 | ARBORIST REPORT Verde Design. January 2022

Page 3

Tree Assessment Report Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA PREPARED FOR:

Verde Design 2455 The Alameda Santa Clara, CA 95050

Prepared by:

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting 325 Ray Street Pleasanton, CA 94566 January 2022

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

174

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

(CONT.)

Tree Assessment Report Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA Table of Contents Page Introduction and Overview

1

Assessment Methods

1

Description of Trees

2

Tree Risk Assessment

7

Suitability for Preservation

8

Estimate of Value

10

Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines

10

List of Tables Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees

2

Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation

5

Attachments Tree Inventory Map Tree Assessment Form Tree Risk Assessment Form and Management Recommendations Estimated Value of Trees

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 175

Tree Assessment Report, Sunnyvale Community Center Verde Design. January 2022

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Page 1

(CONT.)

Tree Assessment Report Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA

Introduction and Overview

Verde Design is planning to develop the subject property in Sunnyvale, CA. The site was a recreation campus with art buildings, an historical museum, and a senior center with associated parking lots, landscaping, and walking paths. The center’s buildings were spread out around a pond and fountain area. The limits of the work area were delineated on the Tree Survey RFP Exhibit provided by the client. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (HBC), Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company, was asked to prepare a Tree Assessment Report for the project for submission to the City of Sunnyvale as required by the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance 19.94.

At the time of writing, no development plans were available for review.

This report provides the following information: 1. An evaluation of the health and structural condition of the trees within the proposed project area based on a visual inspection from the ground.

2. An assessment of the trees’ suitability for preservation based on their health, structure, and potential longevity.

3. The estimated value of each tree.

4. For each tree, an evaluation of failure risk rating using the techniques and methodology described in the International Society of Arboriculture’s Tree Risk Assessment Best Management Practices.

5. Management recommendations based on tree condition and risk.

6. Preliminary guidelines for tree preservation throughout the planned demolition and construction phases of the project.

Assessment Methods

Trees were assessed on January 6 and January 7, 2022. The survey included all trees 4” in diameter and larger, located within the proposed project area. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps: 1. Identifying the tree as to species; 2. Tagging each tree with an identifying number and recording location on a map; 3. Measuring the trunk diameter at 54” above grade; 4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5: 5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.

4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected.

3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.

2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated.

1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.

5. Rating tree suitability for preservation as high, moderate or low. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.

6. Assessing the risk associated with the tree:

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

176

Tree Assessment Report, Sunnyvale Community Center Verde Design. January 2022

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Page 2

(CONT.)

a. Identify the part of the tree most likely to fail and hit a target within the next year. b. Identify the target(s) that would be impacted by that failure (e.g. street, sidewalk, landscaping). c. Rate the potential risk using the method described in A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. d. Identify arboricultural treatments to reduce the likelihood of failure and improve tree health, structure, stability and longevity.

Description of Trees

Two hundred and twenty-three (223) trees were evaluated, representing 34 species (Table 1). Overall, tree conditions ranged from poor (17 trees) to good (123 trees) with 17 in fair condition. One tree (Chinese tallow #207) was dead. Most of the trees were ornamental, non-native species typically planted in urban landscapes in the Northern California area.

Species native to the area included coast live oak, valley oak, and coast redwood. Most of the trees were well maintained and had been pruned for clearance and safety. Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment Form and approximate locations are shown on the Tree Assessment Plan (see Exhibits).

Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees Sunnyvale Community Center, Sunnyvale CA Common Name

Japanese maple Red maple African fern-pine American hornbeam Blue atlas cedar Deodar cedar Lemon Bronze dracaena White ironbark Raywood ash Jacaranda Crape myrtle Tulip tree Southern magnolia Saucer magnolia Crabapple Mayten Canary Island pine

Scientific Name

Total

Condition

Dead (0)

Poor (1-2)

Fair (3)

Good (4-5)

Acer palmatum Acer rubrum Afrocarpus falcatus

-

-

8 3

5 1 -

13 1 3

Carpinus carolinana Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' Cedrus deodara Citrus limon

-

-

2 1 1 1

6 2 -

8 1 3 1

-

-

3

2 -

2 3

-

1 1 1 1 -

5 9 5 2 3

2 24 2 10 2 5 4

6 2 24 11 16 3 7 1 7

Cordyline australis 'Atropurpurea' Eucalyptus leucoxylon Fraxinus angustifolia 'Raywood' Jacaranda mimosifolia Lagerstroemia indica Liriodendron tulipifera Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia x soulangiana Malus sylvestris Maytenus boaria Pinus canariensis

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 177

Tree Assessment Report, Sunnyvale Community Center Verde Design. January 2022

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Italian stone pine Japanese black pine Chinese pistache London plane Purpleleaf plum Callery pear Coast live oak Valley oak Cork oak Coast redwood Windmill palm Chinese tallow Water gum Xylosma Giant yucca Sawleaf zelkova

Page 3

(CONT.)

Pinus pinea

-

3

4

2

9

Pinus thunbergiana Pistacia chinensis Platanus x hispanica Prunus cerasifera Pyrus calleryana Quercus agrifolia Quercus lobata Quercus suber Sequoia sempervirens Trachycarpus fortunei Triadica sebifera Tristaniopsis laurina Xylosma congestum Yucca elephantipes Zelkova serrata

1 -

8 1 1 -

2 17 2 5 1 1 2 1 1 3

11 1 9 1 5 3 12 7 1 6 -

2 36 1 3 14 1 6 1 3 12 4 8 2 6 3

1

17

82

123

223

Total Chinese pistache was the most frequently occurring species in the project area. Thirty-six (36) Chinese pistache comprised 16% of the inventory. The trees grew mostly in the open turf areas around the lower pond. The pistache ranged in condition from poor (eight trees) to good (11 trees) with the majority (17 trees) in fair condition. Most of the trees had spreading crowns and signs of past branch and/or stem failures (Photo 1). Furthermore, the majority were mature in development: trunk diameters ranged from 6” to 34” with an average of 16”.

Photo 2 (left) – Crape myrtle #11 was in good condition with good structure.

Photo 1 (above) – Chinese pistache #197 had experienced a large stem failure.

Twenty-four (24) crape myrtles were included in the assessment. Relative to the other species assessed, the crape myrtles were in the best condition. All 24 trees were in good condition with good vigor and structure (Photo 2). Most of the crape

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

178

Tree Assessment Report, Sunnyvale Community Center Verde Design. January 2022

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Page 4

(CONT.)

myrtles were recently planted and still had their supportive stakes installed.

Sixteen (16) southern magnolias grew in irrigated turf areas around the project area.

Most were mature in development: trunk diameters ranged from 12” to 20” with an average of 16”. The magnolias were mostly in good condition (10 trees) with spreading, dense crowns. On the other hand, southern magnolia #169 was in poor condition with a severely thin crown with dieback. The remaining five southern magnolias were in fair condition with minor dieback, likely the result of water stress (Photo 3). Other magnolias had asymmetric crowns due to proximity to neighboring trees.

Photo 3 – Southern magnolia #158 was in fair condition with a thin crown with minor twig dieback.

Photo 4 – Callery pear #131 had multiple stems arising at 7’.

Fourteen (14) Callery pears were planted in the landscaped areas near existing buildings and along walking paths. Tree conditions ranged from good (9 trees) to fair (5 trees).

As is typical of the species, the Callery pears had either codominant stems or multiple stems arising from the same attachments along their respective trunks (Photo 4). This structure can sometimes result in weak attachments. Regardless, the trees overall had good vigor.

Thirteen (13) Japanese maples grew adjacent to existing buildings. The species, however, is tolerant of shady conditions and close proximity to buildings. The Japanese maples varied in condition from fair (eight trees) to good (five trees).

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 179

Tree Assessment Report, Sunnyvale Community Center Verde Design. January 2022

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Page 5

(CONT.)

Nine Italian stone pines grew in open spaces around the perimeter of the project area. The Italian stone pines were among the largest trees assessed. Italian stone pine #56, for instance, was the second largest tree in the project area with a trunk diameter of 56”. The trees had large, spreading crowns and heavy, sometimes over-extended limbs (Photo 5).

Due to their close proximity to one another, some Italian stone pines such as #4 developed suppressed, one-sided crowns. In addition, the stone pines had a history of branch and stem failures. To address these structural issues, the trees had been pruned to remove dead and damaged branches and stems. Stems were also reduced over roadways and walkways to reduce the likelihood of a failure impacting a target. As well intentioned as this pruning was, some of the resulting wounds were large and decayed.

Photo 5 – Many Italian stone pines had over-extended, heavy limbs.

The remaining 28 species comprised 49% of the inventory and were each represented by 12 of fewer individuals. The most noteworthy of these included: • coast live oak #35, the community center’s designated heritage oak (Photo 6). At 72” in diameter, this was the largest tree assessed. It was a stand-alone specimen tree growing in a roped-off area alongside the lower pond. It was in good condition with a spreading, dense crown.

• three coast redwoods located in the irrigated turf areas around the lower pond. All five were in good condition with typical form and vigorous crowns. The trunk diameters of these mature redwoods varied from 26” to 40”.

• seven mature Canary Island pines with trunk diameters ranging from 25” to 37”. The pines had upright, conical forms typical of the species. Three Canary Island pines were in fair condition and the remaining four were in good condition. Canary Island pines #196, 200, and 204 had heavy lateral limbs that should be pruned to reduce end weight.

• three white ironbark trees in fair condition. The white ironbarks grew in a grove at the western corner of the project area. All three were in fair condition with good vigor and large codominant branching structure with included bark. The presence of included bark between large codominant stems may result in a weakened attachments.

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

180

Tree Assessment Report, Sunnyvale Community Center Verde Design. January 2022

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Page 6

(CONT.)

Photo 6 – Coast live oak #35 was a significant feature of the landscape.

The City of Sunnyvale Tree Preservation Ordinance 2623-99, Chapter 19.94 defines any single-trunk tree with a trunk diameter of 12” or greater or any multi-trunked tree with a cumulative diameter of 36” or greater as a Significant Size Tree. By this definition, 110 of the 223 trees evaluated qualified as a Significant Size Tree and are protected. Protected status of individual trees is provided in the Tree Assessment Form.

Tree Risk Assessment

Tree risk assessment is the systematic process of evaluating the potential for a tree or one of its parts to fail and, in so doing, injure people or damage property. All trees have the potential to fail. The degree of risk will vary with the size of the tree, type and location of the defect, tree species and the nature of the target. The risk associated with each tree was assessed using the terminology and methods described in the Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment with a Level 2 Inspection.

Risk is an assessment of the combination of likelihood of a tree failure striking people or property, and the consequences of that failure. Risk is categorized in four ways: low, moderate, high and extreme. Trees rated as low may benefit from mitigation and monitoring.

Immediate action is not normally required. In contrast, a rating of extreme involves a tree in imminent danger of failing, where the likelihood impacting a target is high and the consequences would be severe. In general, the rating defines a priority for action.

As designated by the client on the Tree Occupancy Rates for Tre Hazard Assessment map, target occupancy was assessed as follows:    

Car on street Person in open landscaped areas Person on paved walking path/bench around pond Person on paved walking path/bench around buildings

Constant Occasional Frequent Frequent

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 181

Tree Assessment Report, Sunnyvale Community Center Verde Design. January 2022

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Page 7

(CONT.)

For the assessed trees, the parts most likely to fail were branch/palm frond (159 trees), stem (56), and whole tree (eight). The most common targets were people in the landscape area (119 trees), people on walkways/benches (85), and cars in streets or parking lots (19 trees).

Overall tree risk ratings were low. Nearly all of the larger trees had been pruned back from walkways and streets. In addition, the larger trees most likely to fail (such as the Italian stone pines with heavy, over-extended limbs and the Chinese pistache with histories of failures) would most likely impact targets in the open landscape areas where occupancy was low.

Low occupancy results in a low likelihood of a failure impacting a target and consequently, a lower risk rating.

Risk ratings were as follows: 

Extreme. No trees was identified as having extreme risk.



High. No trees were identified as having high risk.



Moderate. Two trees were identified as having moderate risk (trees #53 and 58).



Low. The remaining 221 trees were identified as having low risk.

Risk ratings for individual trees are found in the attached Tree Risk Ratings Form.

Management recommendations for improving overall tree condition and for reducing tree risk may also be found in the Tree Risk Ratings Form.

Suitability for Preservation

Trees that are preserved on sites were development or other improvements are planned, must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive construction impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability, and longevity. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors: 

Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than non-vigorous trees. An example of a tree with compromised ability to tolerate impacts is mayten #37 with crown dieback and signs of internal decay.



Structural integrity Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. An example of such a tree is Italian stone pine #56 with internal decay and weakly attached heavy limbs.



Species response There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. In our experience, London plane, Callery pear, coast live oak, raywood ash, crape myrtle, Canary Island pine, and coast redwood have good tolerance of construction impacts (if provided irrigation post-impact). In comparison, southern magnolia, Italian stone pine, and Chinese pistache are moderately tolerant.

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

182

Tree Assessment Report, Sunnyvale Community Center Verde Design. January 2022

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Page 8

(CONT.)



Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. An example of such a trees is coast live oak #35. Young trees such as the crape myrtles assessed are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change.



Species invasiveness Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.calipc.org/paf/) lists species identified as having been invasive. Sunnyvale is part of the Central West Floristic Province.

• Mayten and Callery pear are on the watch list.

• Purple-leaf plum is listed as having ‘Limited’ invasiveness. This species is invasive, but its ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level or there was not enough information to justify a higher score.

• Chinese tallow is rated as being ‘Moderately Invasive’. These species have substantial and apparent-but generally not severe-ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure.

Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition, and ability to safely coexist within the proposed development environment (Table 2).

We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation during development. We do not recommend retention of trees with poor suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.

Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation.

Sunnyvale Community Center, Sunnyvale CA High

Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. One hundred and eight (108) trees were rated as having a high suitability for preservation.

Moderate

Trees in fair health and/or possessing structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category. Eighty-one (81) trees were rated as having a moderate suitability for preservation.

Low

Trees in poor health or possessing significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Thirty-three (33) trees were rated as having a moderate suitability for preservation.

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 183

Tree Assessment Report, Sunnyvale Community Center Verde Design. January 2022

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Page 9

(CONT.)

Estimate of Value

The City of Sunnyvale requires that the value of all trees be established. To accomplish this, I used the standard methods found in Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th edition (published in 2018 by the International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign IL). In addition, I referred to Species Classification and Group Assignment (2004), a publication of the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. These two documents outline the methods employed in tree appraisal.

The reproduction cost of landscape trees is based upon four factors: size, condition, functional limitations, and external limitations. Size is measured as trunk diameter, normally 54" above grade. Condition reflects the health and structural integrity of the individual, as noted in the Tree Assessment (see Exhibits). Functional limitations consider the interaction of the tree with its planting site currently and for the foreseeable future.

Based on the information provided, I estimated the reproduction cost for individual trees ranged from $0 to $116,700, for a total of $969,930 for all trees (see Estimated Value Exhibit).

Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines

The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development as well as maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases.

Design recommendations 1. All plans affecting trees shall be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist regarding tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, demolition plans, grading and utility plans, landscape and irrigation plans.

2. For trees identified for preservation, designate a Tree Protection Zone in which no construction, grading and underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer will be located. The Tree Protection Zone should be the dripline in all directions or as designated by the Consulting Arborist where this is not possible.

3. No grading, excavation, construction, or storage of materials shall occur within that zone.

4. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the Tree Protection Zone.

5. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the Tree Protection Zone.

6. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root area. Therefore, foundations, footings and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement.

Pre-construction treatments and recommendations 1. The demolition contractor shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection.

2. Where possible, cap and abandon all existing underground utilities within the TPZ in place. Removal of utility boxes by hand is acceptable but no trenching should be performed within the TPZ in an effort to remove utilities, irrigation lines, etc.

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

184

Tree Assessment Report, Sunnyvale Community Center Verde Design. January 2022

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Page 10

(CONT.)

3. Where fencing is not an option, such as with trees along driveway and building, protect tree trunks from incidental damage by wrapping the trunks of trees adjacent to the demolition/construction to a height of 8’ with straw wattle and orange snow fencing to provide a visual cue and protection from incidental contact.

4. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown of dead branches 1” and larger in diameter and raise canopies as needed for construction activities. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2002) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). The Consulting Arborist will provide pruning specifications prior to site demolition. Branches extending into the work area that can remain following demolition shall be tied back and protected from damage.

5. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. Tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season to avoid scheduling delays.

Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests.

6. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) to remain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by construction contractors.

The qualified arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and understory to remain. Tree stumps shall be ground 12” below ground surface.

7. Apply and maintain 4-6” of wood chip mulch within the Tree Protection Zone.

Recommendations for tree protection during construction 1. Prior to beginning work, the contractors working in the vicinity of trees to be preserved are required to meet with the Consulting Arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures.

2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be preserved.

3. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.

4. Tree protection fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Consulting Arborist.

5. Prior to grading, pad preparation, excavation for foundations/footings/walls, trenching, trees may require root pruning outside the Tree Protection Zone by cutting all roots cleanly to the depth of the excavation. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root pruning equipment. The Consulting Arborist will identify where root pruning is required and monitor all root pruning activities.

6. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 185

Tree Assessment Report, Sunnyvale Community Center Verde Design. January 2022

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Page 11

(CONT.)

7. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the Tree Protection Zone.

8. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel.

Maintenance of impacted trees Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development.

As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Therefore, annual inspection for structural condition is recommended.

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting

Jillian Keller, Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester Certified Arborist and Utility Specialist #WE-12057A Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) jkeller@bartlett.com

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 186

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

(CONT.)

Exhibits Tree Assessment Form Tree Assessment Map Tree Risk Assessment Form and Management Recommendations Tree Estimated Value

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 187

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

188

(CONT.)

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

1 2 3

Water gum Crape myrtle Sawleaf zelkova

4 3 20

No No Yes

4 4 3

High High Moderate

Good young tree in raised planter.

Good young tree in landscape area Large spreading crown; large codominant stems at 7’; pruned back from adjacent tree.

Large spreading crown; large codominant stems at 4.5’; signs of past branch failure; slightly one sided crown; decay in large pruning wounds.

4

Italian stone pine

22,20

Yes

2

Low

5

Italian stone pine

42

Yes

3

Moderate

6

Italian stone pine

7

No

4

High

7

Italian stone pine

30,28

Yes

3

Moderate

8

Italian stone pine

25,23

Yes

4

High

One sided crown; signs of past branch failures; poor structure with crossing branches and heavy lateral limbs; large codominant stems arise at 4’ with included bark; good vigor.

9

Italian stone pine

2

No

2

Low

10

Sawleaf zelkova

19

Yes

3

Moderate

Planted too close to adjacent trees; severe trunk bow east beginning to correct; good vigor; good structure; poor form.

Multiple attachments arise at 7’; spreading crown; headed back from walkways and adjacent trees; good vigor; slightly one sided crown.

11

Sawleaf zelkova

17

Yes

3

Moderate

12

Southern magnolia

12

Yes

4

High

Large spreading crown; large codominant stems at 6’; enlarged base with girdling roots; heavy limbs.

Trunk bows east away from adjacent trees; good vigor; round dense crown; codominant at 6’.

One sided crown; signs of past branch failures; large codominant stems arise at 3’ with included bark; heavy overextended limb south; good vigor.

Codominant at 8’; spreading crown; headed back from walkways and adjacent trees; moderate vigor; slightly one sided crown; overhangs walkway and road.

Multiple attachments arise at 8’; buried root flare; dense round crown; minor twig dieback.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 189

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

190

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

13

Southern magnolia

16

Yes

4

High

14

Chinese pistache

19

Yes

4

High

15

Chinese pistache

13

Yes

4

High

16

Chinese pistache

33

Yes

4

High

17

Deodar cedar

18

Yes

4

High

18 19

Water gum Deodar cedar

6 8

No No

5 5

High High

20

Southern magnolia

15

Yes

3

Moderate

21

Southern magnolia

19

Yes

4

High

22

Southern magnolia

19

Yes

4

High

23

Southern magnolia

17

Yes

4

High

24

Southern magnolia

20

Yes

3

Moderate

25

Coast redwood

26

Yes

5

High

Multiple attachments arise at 5’; surface roots and girdling roots present; dense round crown.

Multiple attachments arise at 6’; spreading crown with good vigor; overhangs walkway and road; north side of base covered by foam.

Good upright form; codominant stems arise at 10’; crown growing into that of adjacent tree.

Multiple fused attachments arise at 6’; large spreading crown; crossing roots; good vigor; overextended limbs.

Good upright form and structure; good vigor; slightly crowded by adjacent tree.

Good young tree with good structure and vigor.

Good young tree with good upright form and vigor; buried root flare; low branching.

Multiple attachments arise at 8’; slightly one sided crown with minor twig dieback; surface roots present.

Multiple attachments arise at 7’; large spreading crown with minor twig dieback; surface roots present; overhangs walkway and road; good vigor.

Multiple attachments arise at 7’; large spreading crown with minor twig dieback; surface roots present; good vigor.

Multiple attachments arise at 7’; large spreading crown with minor twig dieback; surface roots present; good vigor.

Multiple attachments arise at 7’; slightly one sided crown with minor twig dieback; surface roots present; good vigor; pruned back from community center sign.

Good upright form and vigor.

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

26

Southern magnolia

15

Yes

3

Moderate

Multiple attachments arise at 8’; spreading crown with minor twig dieback; surface roots present; good vigor.

Uncorrected trunk bow east; girdling roots; central leader at top of crown grows horizontally.

Trunk lean south with girdling roots; codominant at 8’ with a narrow attachment; good vigor.

Good young tree in raised planter; multiple attachments arise at 5’.

Good young staked tree.

Codominant at 14’; spreading vigorous crown overhangs walkways; crossing branches; pruned back from road.

Good young tree; slight trunk bow south; good vigor; codominant at 8’.

Multiple attachments arise at 6’; upright form; epicormic growth; moderate vigor.

Multiple attachments arise at 6’; upright form; top of crown tipped back; epicormic growth; sunscald damage along trunk.

Multiple large stems arise at 20’; large spreading crown; in fenced off landscape area and is designated community center oak; large pruning wounds; good vigor; signs of decay in pruning wounds.

27

Deodar cedar

21

Yes

3

Moderate

28

Chinese pistache

15

Yes

2

Low

29

Water gum

6

No

4

High

30 31

Crape myrtle White ironbark

1 20

No Yes

5 3

High Moderate

32

Jacaranda

6

No

4

High

33

Purpleleaf plum

9

No

3

Moderate

34

Purpleleaf plum

8

No

3

Moderate

35

Coast live oak

72

Yes

4

High

36 37

Water gum Mayten

4 25

No Yes

4 2

High Low

Good young tree; codominant at 6’.

Moderate dieback in crown; spreading crown and weeping form; multiple attachments arise at 5’; signs of past failures; signs of decay in crown; poor structure; flat top.

38 39

Jacaranda Water gum

8 6

No No

4 5

High High

Good vigor and form; codominant at 7’.

Good young tree in raised planter; codominant at 6’; good vigor and structure.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 191

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

192

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

40

Chinese pistache

13

Yes

3

Moderate

Codominant at 7’ with narrow attachment; large spreading crown with good vigor.

Codominant stems arise at 12’ with included bark and a narrow attachment; spreading vigorous crown; pruned back from walkway and road; damaged buttress roots.

41

White ironbark

30

Yes

3

Moderate

42

Chinese pistache

17

Yes

2

Low

Girdling roots; large past branch failures covered in paint; codominant at 8’; spreading crown with good vigor; pruned back from community center sign.

43

Chinese pistache

13,10

Yes

3

Moderate

44

White ironbark

30

Yes

3

Moderate

Codominant at 4’; spreading crown; sunscald damage on tips of some branches; branches headed back.

Codominant stems arise at 35’ with included bark; spreading vigorous crown; crossing branches; large healed branch removal wounds; sinuous trunk.

45

Chinese pistache

11

No

3

Moderate

46

Chinese pistache

15

Yes

2

Moderate

47

Chinese pistache

15

Yes

3

Moderate

48

Chinese pistache

19

Yes

3

Moderate

49

Chinese pistache

9

No

4

High

50

Chinese pistache

13

Yes

2

Low

Codominant at 7’; spreading crown; branches headed back; good vigor; buried root flare.

Codominant at 7’; spreading slightly one sided crown near adjacent tree; branches headed back; good vigor; buried root flare; poor structure with dense crossing branches.

Multiple stems arise at 5.5’; spreading crown; branches headed back; good vigor; buried root flare.

Trunk learns west toward walkway; multiple attachments arise at 6’; spreading crown; branches headed back.

Good upright form and structure; codominant at 15’; good vigor; buried root flare.

Trunk leans east toward walkway without correction with girdling roots; codominant at 6’ with narrow attachment and included bark; covered root flare; slightly one sided crown.

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

51

Chinese pistache

34

Yes

4

High

Multiple fused attachments arise at 6’; large spreading crown with overextended limbs; branch tips headed back; buried root flare; good vigor.

52 53

Crape myrtle Chinese pistache

2 26

No Yes

5 3

High Low

Good young staked tree; codominant at 5.5’.

Multiple attachments arise at 8’; spreading vigorous crown; signs of past failures in crown; dead branches present in crown; crown growing into crowns of adjacent trees; decayed pruning wounds.

54

Water gum

4

No

3

High

55

Chinese pistache

22

Yes

2

Moderate

Good young tree along walkway; codominant at 6’; good vigor; trunk leans north towards walkway.

Codominant at 8’; spreading crown with crossing branches; decay and small cavities at base; signs of past branch failures.

56

Italian stone pine

56

Yes

2

Low

Large codominant stems at 8’ with narrow attachment and included bark; large spreading crown growing into crown of neighboring tree; heavy limbs; enlarged base with girdling roots; large decayed pruning wounds; good vigor; edge of crown overhangs roadway.

57

Italian stone pine

43

Yes

3

Moderate

Multiple attachments arise at 8’; spreading crown growing into crowns of adjacent trees; trunk bows east; heavy limbs; crossing branches; edge of crown over walkway.

58

Italian stone pine

49

Yes

3

Moderate

Multiple large stems arise at 8’; large spreading crown; heavy limbs; decayed stem removal wound near base; overhangs walkway and road.

59 60

Crape myrtle Japanese maple

1 2,1,1

No No

5 3

High Moderate

Good young staked tree; codominant at 5.5’.

Multiple attachments arise at 2.5’; spreading crown; 1’ long lower trunk damage; 6” long stem damage; buried root flare.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 193

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

194

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

61

Japanese maple

2,2

No

4

High

Codominant at 4’; typical form and structure; buried root flare; good vigor.

Codominant at 4’; typical form and structure; buried root flare; good vigor.

Typical form and structure; multiple stems arise from base; good vigor; crown not raised for clearance.

Typical form and structure; multiple stems arise from base; good vigor; crown raised for clearance.

Typical form and structure; multiple stems arise from base; good vigor; crown raised for clearance.

Typical form and structure; multiple stems arise from base; good vigor; crown raised for clearance; roots visible.

Codominant at 6’; good upright form; planted too close to yuccas.

62

Japanese maple

1,1,1

No

4

High

63

Giant yucca

4,4,4,3

Yes

4

High

64

Giant yucca

5,5,4,4,3

Yes

5

High

65

Giant yucca

5,5,3,3,2

Yes

5

High

66

Giant yucca

5,5,3

Yes

5

High

67

Red maple

7

No

4

High

68

Giant yucca

7,4,3,3,2,2

Yes

4

High

69

Giant yucca

5,5,4,4,3

Yes

4

High

70

Chinese pistache

24

Yes

3

Moderate

71

Chinese pistache

22

Yes

2

Moderate

Multiple attachments arise at 8’ with narrow attachment and included bark; spreading crown; signs of past failures; dead branches present in crown; damaged and decayed surface roots; good vigor.

72 73

Cork oak Tulip tree

7 2

No No

3 5

Moderate High

Multiple attachments arise at 7’; small thin crown.

Good young staked tree; good structure and vigor.

Typical form and structure; multiple stems arise from base; good vigor; crown raised for clearance; roots visible.

Typical form and structure; multiple stems arise from base; good vigor; crown raised for clearance.

Codominant at 7’ and 8’ with included bark and narrow attachments; large spreading crown; decayed pruning wounds; buried root flare; signs of past branch failures; good vigor.

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

74

Chinese pistache

31

Yes

3

Moderate

Multiple stems arise at 7’ with narrow attachments and included bark; large spreading crown; buried root flare; crossing branches; signs of past failures in crown; edge of crown extends over walkway.

75

Southern magnolia

18

Yes

3

High

76 77 78

Coast redwood Water gum Valley oak

26 5 3

Yes No No

4 4 4

High High High

Multiple stems arise at 7’; large spreading crown with minor twig dieback; slightly thin crown.

Crossing roots present; vigorous full crown.

Good young tree; codominant at 5.5’.

Good young tree; rope looped around trunk to keep tree upright.

79

Southern magnolia

14

Yes

4

High

80

Xylosma

19

Yes

4

High

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Coast redwood

12 7 7 6 10 12 12 10 10 10 10 6 40

Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

High High High High High High High High High High High High High

Codominant at 8’; slightly thin base shaped crown with minor twig dieback; numerous surface roots, some crossing.

Multiple attachments arise at 7’ with included bark; good upright form; near building corner; overhangs walkway.

Good young palm; diameter measured at 4’.

Good young palm; diameter measured at 1’.

Good young palm.

Good young palm; diameter measured at 2’.

Good young palm; diameter measured at 3.5’.

Good young palm; diameter measured at 3.5’.

Good young palm; diameter measured at 3.5’.

Good young palm; diameter measured at 4’.

Good young palm; diameter measured at 3.5’.

Good young palm; diameter measured at 3.5’.

Good young palm; diameter measured at 3.5’.

Good young palm; diameter measured at 3.5’.

Good vigor and form.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 195

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

196

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

94 95 96

Water gum Valley oak Japanese black pine

6 2 1,1,1

No No No

5 3 3

High Moderate Moderate

97

Japanese black pine

1,1,1

No

3

Moderate

98 99

Crabapple Crabapple

1 1

No No

4 4

High High

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

Crabapple Crabapple Japanese maple Japanese maple Japanese maple Japanese maple Valley oak Valley oak Valley oak Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle

2 2 2 11,10,7 11,10 6,5,4,3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 4

No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No

4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5

Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate High High High High High High High High High High High

Good young tree; codominant at 8’.

Topped at 12’; thin crown with branches tipped back.

Bonsai’d ornamental shrub below 4’ in height; thin slightly discolored crown.

Bonsai’d ornamental shrub below5.5’ in height; thin slightly discolored crown.

Good young tree; central leader bows south.

Good young tree; central leader bows south; two 6” wounds along trunk.

Good young tree; in raised planter.

Good young tree; in raised planter.

Multiple attachments at 3'; minor dieback.

Codominant at base and 2'; full crown.

Codominant at base; full crown.

Multiple attachments at base; decay in upright stems.

Good young tree.

Good young tree.

Good young tree.

Good young tree.

Good young tree.

Good young tree.

Good young tree.

Good young tree.

Base of tree sweeps to south.

Good young tree.

Multiple attachments at 5'; good young tree.

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

117 118 119 120 121

Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle American hornbeam

3 4 3 4 12

No No No No Yes

5 5 5 5 4

High High High High High

Good young tree.

Good young tree.

Good young tree.

Good young tree.

Multiple attachments at 5'; full, dense crown; small wound at base.

Multiple attachments at 1'; full, dense crown.

122

American hornbeam

9

No

3

Moderate

123

American hornbeam

7

No

4

High

Multiple attachments at 4'; full, dense crown.

124 125

Crape myrtle American hornbeam

4 5

No No

5 4

High High

Good young tree.

Multiple attachments at 1'; full, dense crown.

126

American hornbeam

6

No

4

High

Multiple attachments at 1'; full, dense crown.

127

American hornbeam

7

No

4

High

Multiple attachments at 1'; full, dense crown.

128

American hornbeam

3

No

3

Moderate

129

American hornbeam

5

No

4

High

130 131

Lemon Callery pear

4 9

No No

3 4

Moderate Moderate

132 133

Callery pear Callery pear

10 8

No No

4 3

Moderate Moderate

Upright form; basal decay.

Multiple attachments at 4'; full, dense crown.

Multiple attachments at base; full, dense crown Multiple attachments at 7'; full, dense crown; planted in irrigated turf.

Multiple attachments at 7'; full, dense crown.

Codominant at 7'.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 197

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

198

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

134

Callery pear

10

No

3

Moderate

135

Callery pear

9

No

4

Moderate

136 137 138

Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear

7 8 8

No No No

4 4 4

Moderate Moderate Moderate

139

Callery pear

10

No

4

Moderate

140 141 142

Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear

7 7 13

No No Yes

4 4 3

High Moderate Moderate

143

Chinese pistache

16

Yes

3

Low

144

Chinese pistache

16

Yes

3

Low

145

Chinese pistache

17

Yes

3

Moderate

146

Purpleleaf plum

9

No

2

Low

Multiple attachments at 7'; full, dense crown; planted in irrigated turf; girdling root; surface roots.

Multiple attachments at 7'; full, dense crown; planted in irrigated turf; surface roots.

Codominant at 7'.

Multiple attachments at 7'; full, dense crown; surface roots.

Multiple attachments at 7'; full, dense crown; planted in irrigated turf; surface roots.

Multiple attachments at 7'; full, dense crown; planted in irrigated turf; surface roots.

Good young tree; surface roots.

Multiple attachments at 7'; surface roots.

Multiple attachments at 7' with narrow attachments; full, dense crown; planted in irrigated turf; surface roots.

Codominant at 6'; poor form and structure; history of branch failure; planted in irrigated turf.

Multiple attachments at 5'; leans south; no basal flare; full, dense crown; planted in irrigated turf.

Codominant at 6'; history of branch failure; full, dense crown; planted in irrigated turf.

Codominant at 2' with included bark; extensive sunburned trunk.

147 148 149

Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Japanese maple

No No Yes

5 5 4

High High High

Good young tree.

Good young tree.

Multiple attachments at base; full, wide spreading crown.

150

Xylosma

4 5 3,3,3,3,2,2 ,2 3

No

3

Low

Topped under eve; poor structure.

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

Yes

5

High

Multiple attachments at base; full, dense crown.

No

4

High

Multiple attachments at 6'; full, dense crown; planted in irrigated turf.

Multiple attachments at 6'; full, dense crown; planted in irrigated turf.

Multiple attachments at 6'; full, dense crown; planted in irrigated turf.

Multiple attachments at 7'; planted in irrigated turf.

Multiple attachments at 8'; surface roots; minor twig dieback; planted in irrigated turf.

Multiple attachments at base; full, dense crown.

Multiple attachments at 5'; sunburned bark and branches; thin crown with dieback; planted in raised planter.

Codominant at 9'.

Multiple attachments at 6'; full, wide spreading crown; good form and structure.

Codominant at base; crown bows away from building; poor form.

151

Crape myrtle

152

Chinese pistache

7,6,6,6,5,5 ,5,4,3 7

153

Chinese pistache

6

No

4

High

154

Chinese pistache

7

No

4

High

155 156

Southern magnolia Southern magnolia

12 13

Yes Yes

4 4

High High

157 158

Saucer magnolia Southern magnolia

6,4,4 14

Yes Yes

4 3

Moderate Low

159 160

Valley oak Chinese pistache

4 9

No No

4 4

Moderate Low

161

Saucer magnolia

5,4

No

2

Low

162 163

Crabapple Chinese pistache

3 16

No Yes

3 3

Moderate Moderate

164 165 166 167

Crabapple Crabapple Tulip tree Crape myrtle

3 3 20 6

No No Yes No

3 4 3 4

Moderate High Low High

Lost central leader; trunk wounds.

Codominant at 7' with wide attachment; poor form; mulch piled at base.

Poor structure.

Good young tree.

Codominant at 10'; displacing walkway.

Codominant at 7'; planted in irrigated turf.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 199

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

200

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

168

Tulip tree

26

Yes

3

Low

169

Southern magnolia

13

Yes

2

Low

170

Callery pear

12

Yes

3

Moderate

171

Callery pear

14

Yes

3

Moderate

172 173

Crape myrtle African fern-pine

12,10,9,9 19,15

Yes Yes

4 3

High Low

174

African fern-pine

31

Yes

3

Low

175

African fern-pine

21,14

Yes

3

Low

176

Tulip tree

11

No

3

Low

177 178 179 180 181 182

Tulip tree Southern magnolia Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache

15 17 10 8 10 19

Yes Yes No No No Yes

4 4 4 3 4 3

Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate

183

Tulip tree

12

Yes

3

Moderate

184

Tulip tree

10

No

3

Moderate

Codominant at 9'; area of decay and bleeding from old failure on south facing stem; displacing walkway.

Multiple attachments at 6'; very thin crown with dieback; planted in raised planter.

Codominant at 7' with narrow attachment; full crown; mulch piled at base.

Multiple attachments at 7' with narrow attachment; mulch piled at base.

Multiple attachments at 1'; full, wide spreading crown.

Codominant at 3'; 2.5' from building edge; crown reduced along building; displacing concrete gutter.

Codominant at 4' and 6'; 3' from building edge; crown reduced along building; displacing concrete gutter.

Codominant at 3' and 7'; 2.5' from building edge; crown reduced along building; one sided; displacing concrete gutter.

Single upright stem; area of decay on doth side of stem at 8'; one sided.

Codominant high in crown; good upright form.

Multiple attachments at 6'; slightly thin; planted in irrigated turf.

Multiple attachments at 6'; full crown.

Multiple attachments at 6'; interior tree.

Multiple attachments at 6'; full crown.

Codominant at 5'; area of decay below attachment; wide spreading crown; mulch piled at base.

Codominant high in crown; bow in trunk at 8'; surface roots; planted in irrigated turf.

Bow in trunk at 9'; surface roots; planted in irrigated turf.

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

185

Tulip tree

13

Yes

3

Moderate

186

Tulip tree

23

Yes

3

Moderate

187

Chinese pistache

9

No

2

Low

188 189

Raywood ash Raywood ash

14 13

Yes Yes

3 3

Moderate Moderate

190

Raywood ash

13

Yes

3

Low

191

Raywood ash

8

No

2

Low

192

Raywood ash

11

No

3

Low

193

Japanese maple

8,7,7,5

Yes

3

Low

194 195

Raywood ash Chinese pistache

14 16

Yes Yes

3 3

Moderate Low

196 197

Canary Island pine Chinese pistache

37 13

Yes Yes

3 2

Moderate Low

198 199

Canary Island pine Chinese pistache

25 13

Yes Yes

4 3

High Low

200 201

Canary Island pine Canary Island pine

32,30 26

Yes Yes

3 4

Moderate High

Codominant high in crown with wide attachment; surface roots; planted in irrigated turf.

Heavy low lateral at 12' extends over driveway; surface roots; planted in irrigated turf.

Multiple attachments at 11' with decay in point of attachment ; poor structure.

Codominant at 6' with narrow attachment; mulch piled at base.

Codominant at 7' with included bark; crown extends over parking; mulch piled at base.

Multiple attachments at 6'; leaning and one sided to west; mulch piled at base.

Multiple attachments at 7'; branch dieback; mulch piled at base.

Codominant at 8'; leaning to south; no basal flare; mulch piled at base.

Multiple attachments at 1'; 2' from building; crown bows away from building; minor branch dieback.

Multiple attachments at 7'; branch dieback; mulch piled at base.

Codominant at 5'; twig and branch dieback; history of branch failure; mulch piled at base.

Corrected form; heavy lateral limbs; mulch piled at base.

Multiple attachments at 6'; large codominant stem failed leaving large wound.

Upright form; slight crook in upper crown; mulch piled at base.

Multiple attachments at 6'; history of branch failures; mulch piled at base.

Codominant at base; heavy lateral limbs.

Good upright form; slightly one sided.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 201

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

202

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

Suitability for Comments Preservation

25 28 28 18 3,2

Yes Yes Yes Yes No

3 4 4 3 2

Moderate High High Low Low

202 203 204 205 206

Canary Island pine Canary Island pine Canary Island pine Chinese tallow Chinese tallow

207 208

Chinese tallow Chinese tallow

1 12,9,5

No Yes

0 3

0 Low

209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217

Tulip tree London plane Bronze dracaena Japanese maple Japanese maple Bronze dracaena Japanese maple Japanese maple Saucer magnolia

14 10 2 2 3 3 2 2 4,4,4,3

Yes No No No No No No No Yes

3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4

Moderate High High Moderate Moderate High Moderate High Moderate

218 219

Chinese pistache Tulip tree

14 20

Yes Yes

3 3

Moderate Moderate

220

Southern magnolia

17

Yes

4

High

221 222

Crape myrtle Crape myrtle

5 10

No No

5 5

High High

Good upright form; thin upper crown.

Good upright form; slightly one sided.

Slightly corrected form; heavy low laterals.

Codominant at 5'; history of branch failures; branch dieback.

Codominant at base; decay on area of failed stem in base; little live crown.

Dead Multiple attachments at 2'; crown extends over building; small area of decay at base; branch dieback.

Multiple attachments at 11'; average form and vigor.

Good form; planted in 10' wide planter.

Crown lifted to 4'; typical form.

Multiple attachments at 2'; growing under building eve.

Multiple attachments at 1'; growing under building eve.

Crown lifted to 4'; typical form.

Multiple attachments at 3'; growing under building eve.

Multiple attachments at 2'; good form and structure.

Multiple attachments at 1'; wide spreading crown; mulch piled at base.

Multiple attachments at 6'; wide spreading crown.

Codominant at 15' and 20' with included bark; trunk wound; area of bleeding on branch over walkway.

Multiple attachments at 5'; full crown; minor dieback; planted on raised planter.

Multiple attachments at 5'; good young tree.

Multiple attachments at 6'; good form and structure.

10 | ARBORIST REPORT

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Assessment Tree No. Species

223

Blue atlas cedar

(CONT.)

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Significant Tree Size?

Condition 1=poor 5=excellent

23

Yes

3

Suitability for Comments Preservation

Moderate

Multiple attachments at 9'; several branches removed; heavy low laterals; failed branch attachment on south facing stem.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 203

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Risk Rankings Tree No.

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Condition 0=dead 5=excell.

Tree part

Target

4

4

Branch

Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person in landscape area

1

Water gum

2

Crape myrtle

3

4

Branch

3

Sawleaf zelkova

20

3

Branch

4

204

Common name

Italian stone pine

(CONT.)

22,20

2

Branch

5

Italian stone pine

42

3

Branch

6

Italian stone pine

7

4

Whole tree

7

Italian stone pine

30,28

3

Stem

8

Italian stone pine

25,23

4

Branch

9

Italian stone pine

2

2

Whole tree

10

Sawleaf zelkova

19

3

Branch

11

Sawleaf zelkova

17

3

Branch

12

Southern magnolia

12

4

Branch

13 14

Southern magnolia Chinese pistache

16 19

4 4

Branch Branch

15

Chinese pistache

13

4

Branch

16 17 18

Chinese pistache Deodar cedar Water gum

33 18 6

4 4 5

Branch Branch Branch

19

Deodar cedar

8

5

Branch

20 21

Southern magnolia Southern magnolia

15 19

3 4

Branch Branch

22

Southern magnolia

19

4

Branch

23

Southern magnolia

17

4

Branch

24

Southern magnolia

20

3

Branch

25

Coast redwood

26

5

Branch

26 27 28 29

Southern magnolia Deodar cedar Chinese pistache Water gum

15 21 15 6

3 3 2 4

Branch Branch Whole tree Branch

30 31

Crape myrtle White ironbark

1 20

5 3

Branch Branch

32

Jacaranda

6

4

Branch

33

Purpleleaf plum

9

3

Branch

34

Purpleleaf plum

8

3

Branch

35

Coast live oak

72

4

Branch

36

Water gum

4

4

Branch

37

Mayten

25

2

Branch

38 39

Jacaranda Water gum

8 6

4 5

Branch Branch

40

Chinese pistache

13

3

Stem

41

White ironbark

30

3

Stem

Person in landscape area

Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area

Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person in landscape area area Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person on walkway Person on walkway Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person in landscape area

Risk Rating Likelihood Likelihood Failure Impact

Likelihood Failure and Impact

Consequences

Overall Risk Rating

Minor

Low

Improbable

Medium

Unlikely

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Probable

Low

Unlikely

Significant

Abatment

Low

Corrective pruning; crown clean and end weight reduction Corrective pruning; crown clean and end weight reduction

Probable

Low

Unlikely

Severe

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Severe

Low

Possible

Low

Unlikely

Severe

Low

Cable stems

Possible

Low

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Corrective pruning; crown clean and end weight reduction

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

More growing space

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Possible

Medium

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable Improbable

Low Medium

Unlikely Unlikely

Minor Significant

Low Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Possible Improbable Improbable

Low Low Medium

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Significant Minor Minor

Low Low Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable Improbable

Low Medium

Unlikely Unlikely

Minor Minor

Low Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable Improbable Possible Improbable

Low Medium Medium Medium

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Minor Significant Significant Minor

Low Low Low Low

Improbable Improbable

Low Medium

Unlikely Unlikely

Negligible Significant

Low Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Possible

Medium

Unlikely

Severe

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Possible

Low

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Improbable Improbable

Low Medium

Unlikely Unlikely

Minor Minor

Low Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Severe

Low

Possible

Low

Unlikely

Severe

Low

Prune back from walkway

Continued monitoring

Corrective pruning or removal.

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Risk Rankings Tree No.

Common name

42

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Condition 0=dead 5=excell.

Tree part

Chinese pistache

17

2

Branch

43

Chinese pistache

13,10

3

Branch

44

White ironbark

30

3

Branch

45

Chinese pistache

11

3

Branch

46

Chinese pistache

15

2

Branch

47 48

Chinese pistache Chinese pistache

15 19

3 3

Branch Whole tree

49 50

Chinese pistache Chinese pistache

9 13

4 2

Branch Whole tree

51

Chinese pistache

34

4

Branch

52

Crape myrtle

2

5

Branch

53 54

Chinese pistache Water gum

26 4

3 3

Branch Whole tree

55

Chinese pistache

22

2

Branch

56 57

Italian stone pine Italian stone pine

56 43

2 3

Stem Branch

58

Italian stone pine

49

3

Stem

59

Crape myrtle

60

Japanese maple

61

Japanese maple

2,2

4

Branch

62

Japanese maple

1,1,1

4

Branch

63

Giant yucca

4,4,4,3

4

Stem

64

Giant yucca

5,5,4,4,3

5

Stem

1

5

Branch

2,1,1

3

Branch

Target

65

Giant yucca

5,5,3,3,2

5

Stem

Giant yucca

5,5,3

5

Stem

67

Red maple

7

4

Branch

68

Giant yucca

7,4,3,3,2,2

4

Stem

69

Giant yucca

5,5,4,4,3

4

Stem

70

Chinese pistache

24

3

Branch

71 72

Chinese pistache Cork oak

22 7

2 3

Branch Branch

73

Tulip tree

2

5

Branch

74

Chinese pistache

31

3

Branch

75

Southern magnolia

18

3

Branch

76

Coast redwood

26

4

Branch

77

Water gum

5

4

Branch

78

Valley oak

3

4

Whole tree

79

Southern magnolia

14

4

Branch

Xylosma Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm

19 12 7 7 6 10 12

4 5 5 5 5 5 5

Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch

Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person on walkway Car on street Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person on walkway Person in landscape area

66

80 81 82 83 84 85 86

(CONT.)

Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area

Person on walkway Person on walkway Person on walkway Person on walkway Person on walkway Person on walkway Person on walkway

Risk Rating Likelihood Likelihood Failure Impact

Possible

Low

Likelihood Failure and Impact

Consequences

Overall Risk Rating

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Possible

Low

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable Possible

Low Medium

Unlikely Unlikely

Minor Significant

Low Low

Improbable Improbable

Low Medium

Unlikely Unlikely

Minor Severe

Low Low

Possible

Low

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Imminent Improbable

Low Medium

Somewhat likely Unlikely

Significant Significant

Moderate Low

Possible

Low

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Possible Possible

Low Medium

Unlikely Unlikely

Severe Significant

Low Low

Possible

High

Somewhat likely

Significant

Moderate

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Abatment

Continued monitoring.

Crown clean.

Structural pruning and crown clean Weight reduction; cabling.

Weight reduction Weight reduction; cabling.

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Possible

Low

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Crown clean.

Possible Improbable

Low Medium

Unlikely Unlikely

Significant Minor

Low Low

Crown clean.

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Possible

Medium

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Possible Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Significant Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Crown clean; prune back from walkway.

Monitor trunk lean.

Weight reduction; pruned back from walkway.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 205

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Risk Rankings Tree No.

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Condition 0=dead 5=excell.

Tree part

Target

87 88 89 90 91 92

Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm

12 10 10 10 10 6

5 5 5 5 5 5

Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch

93

Coast redwood

40

5

Branch

94

Water gum

6

5

Branch

95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

Valley oak Japanese black pine Japanese black pine Crabapple Crabapple Crabapple Crabapple Japanese maple Japanese maple Japanese maple Japanese maple Valley oak

2 1,1,1 1,1,1 1 1 2 2 2 11,10,7 11,10 6,5,4,3 2

3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4

Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Stem Stem Stem Stem

Person on walkway Person on walkway Person on walkway Person on walkway Person on walkway Person on walkway Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person in landscape area Person on walkway Person on walkway Person on walkway Person on walkway Landscape Landscape Landscape Entry way Entry way Entry way Landscape

107

Valley oak

2

4

Stem

Landscape

108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153

206

Common name

(CONT.)

Valley oak Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle American hornbeam American hornbeam American hornbeam Crape myrtle American hornbeam American hornbeam American hornbeam American hornbeam American hornbeam Lemon Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Purpleleaf plum Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Japanese maple Xylosma Crape myrtle Chinese pistache Chinese pistache

2 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 12 9 7 4 5 6 7 3 5 4 9 10 8 10 9 7 8 8 10 7 7 13 16 16 17 9 4 5 3,3,3,3,2,2,2 3 6,6,6,5,5,5,4 7 6

4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 5 5 4 3 5 4 4

Stem Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem Branch Branch Branch Stem Branch Stem Stem Whole tree Branch Stem Branch Branch Branch Branch Stem Branch Branch

Landscape Landscape Walkway Walkway Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape Walkway Landscape Landscape Landscape Walkway Walkway Walkway Walkway Landscape Walkway Walkway Walkway Walkway Walkway Landscape Walkway Driveway Driveway Walkway Walkway Driveway Driveway Walkway Walkway Driveway Driveway Walkway Landscape Landscape Landscape Bench Walkway Walkway Walkway Landscape Walkway Landscape Landscape

Risk Rating Likelihood Likelihood Failure Impact

Likelihood Failure and Impact

Consequences

Overall Risk Rating

Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Low Low Low Low Low Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable

Low

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Possible Possible Possible Improbable

Low Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Significant Significant Minor Negligible

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Improbable

Medium

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Possible Possible Possible Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Possible Possible Possible

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Significant Severe Severe Significant Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor Minor

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Abatment

Re-stake to stabilize tree root ball.

Re-stake to stabilize tree root ball and to avoid trunk damage and wounding.

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Tree Risk Rankings Tree No.

Common name

154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162

(CONT.)

Risk Rating Likelihood Likelihood Failure Impact

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Condition 0=dead 5=excell.

Tree part

Target

Chinese pistache Southern magnolia Southern magnolia Saucer magnolia Southern magnolia Valley oak Chinese pistache Saucer magnolia Crabapple

7 12 13 6,4,4 14 4 9 5,4 3

4 4 4 4 3 4 4 2 3

Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Stem Branch

Landscape Walkway Landscape Walkway Walkway Landscape Walkway Landscape Landscape

Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Improbable Possible Possible Improbable

163 164 165 166 167 168 169

Chinese pistache Crabapple Crabapple Tulip tree Crape myrtle Tulip tree Southern magnolia

16 3 3 20 6 26 13

3 3 4 3 4 3 2

Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch

Walkway Landscape Landscape Walkway Walkway Walkway Walkway

170

Callery pear

12

3

Branch

171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181

Callery pear Crape myrtle African fern-pine African fern-pine African fern-pine Tulip tree Tulip tree Southern magnolia Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache

14 12,10,9,9 19,15 31 21,14 11 15 17 10 8 10

3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4

182 183 184 185 186 187 188

Chinese pistache Tulip tree Tulip tree Tulip tree Tulip tree Chinese pistache Raywood ash

19 12 10 13 23 9 14

189

Raywood ash

190

Likelihood Failure and Impact

Consequences

Overall Risk Rating

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Possible Improbable Improbable Possible Improbable Possible Possible

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Severe Negligible Negligible Severe Negligible Severe Minor

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Walkway

Possible

Medium

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Stem Stem Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch

Walkway Walkway Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape Walkway Walkway Walkway Walkway Driveway

Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Severe Minor Significant Significant Significant Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

3 3 3 3 3 2 3

Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch

Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape Driveway Landscape Walkway

Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Significant Minor Minor Minor Significant Minor Minor

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

13

3

Branch

Parking

Possible

Medium

Unlikely

Minor

Low

Raywood ash

13

3

Branch

Landscape

Possible

Medium

Unlikely

Minor

Low

191

Raywood ash

8

2

Branch

Walkway

Possible

Medium

Unlikely

Minor

Low

192 193

Raywood ash Japanese maple

11 8,7,7,5

3 3

Branch Stem

Landscape Entry way

Possible Improbable

Medium Medium

Unlikely Unlikely

Minor Minor

Low Low

194

Raywood ash

14

3

Stem

Landscape

Possible

Medium

Unlikely

Significant

Low

195

Chinese pistache

16

3

Branch

Parking

Possible

Medium

Unlikely

Significant

Low

196

Canary Island pine

37

3

Branch

Landscape

Possible

Medium

Unlikely

Severe

Low

197

Chinese pistache

13

2

Branch

Landscape

Possible

Medium

Unlikely

Significant

Low

198

Canary Island pine

25

4

Branch

Landscape

Improbable

Medium

Unlikely

Significant

Low

199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216

Chinese pistache Canary Island pine Canary Island pine Canary Island pine Canary Island pine Canary Island pine Chinese tallow Chinese tallow Chinese tallow Chinese tallow Tulip tree London plane Bronze dracaena Japanese maple Japanese maple Bronze dracaena Japanese maple Japanese maple

13 32,30 26 25 28 28 18 3,2 1 12,9,5 14 10 2 2 3 3 2 2

3 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 0 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4

Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Dead Branch Stem Stem Stem Branch Branch Frond Stem Stem Frond Stem Stem

Walkway Landscape Entry way Landscape Bench Bench Driveway Landscape Landscape Building Walkway Parking Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape

Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Probable Possible Improbable Possible Possible Possible Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable Improbable

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Minor Severe Significant Significant Significant Significant Minor Negligible Negligible Minor Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Abatment

Remove stakes.

Pull mulch away from base.

Pull mulch away from base.

Pull mulch away from base.

Pull mulch away from base.

Pull mulch away from base.

Pull mulch away from base.

Pull mulch away from base.

Pull mulch away from base.

Pull mulch away from base.

Pull mulch away from base.

Pull mulch away from base.

Pull mulch away from base.

Pull mulch away from base.

Pull mulch away from base.

Remove dead tree.

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 207

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Tree Risk Rankings

208

Tree No.

Common name

217 218 219 220 221 222

Saucer magnolia Chinese pistache Tulip tree Southern magnolia Crape myrtle Crape myrtle

223

Blue atlas cedar

(CONT.)

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Risk Rating Likelihood Likelihood Failure Impact

Trunk Diameter (in.)

Condition 0=dead 5=excell.

Tree part

Target

4,4,4,3 14 20 17 5 10

4 3 3 4 5 5

Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem Stem

Walkway Walkway Walkway Walkway Landscape Walkway

Improbable Possible Possible Possible Improbable Improbable

23

3

Branch

Bench

Possible

Likelihood Failure and Impact

Consequences

Overall Risk Rating

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Negligible Minor Significant Minor Negligible Negligible

Low Low Low Low Low Low

Medium

Unlikely

Significant

Low

Abatment

Pull mulch away from base.

Branch weight reduction.

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Estimated Value Tree No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Species Water gum Crape myrtle Sawleaf zelkova Italian stone pine Italian stone pine Italian stone pine Italian stone pine Italian stone pine Italian stone pine Sawleaf zelkova Sawleaf zelkova Southern magnolia Southern magnolia Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Deodar cedar Water gum Deodar cedar Southern magnolia Southern magnolia Southern magnolia Southern magnolia Southern magnolia Coast redwood Southern magnolia Deodar cedar Chinese pistache Water gum Crape myrtle White ironbark Jacaranda Purpleleaf plum Purpleleaf plum Coast live oak Water gum Mayten Jacaranda Water gum

(CONT.)

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Trunk Diameter (in.)

4 3 20 22,20 42 7 30,28 25,23 2 19 17 12 16 19 13 33 18 6 8 15 19 19 17 20 26 15 21 15 6 1 20 6 9 8 72 4 25 8 6

Significant Tree Size?

No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No

Estimated Value $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

850 550 8,650 3,950 17,800 650 17,000 11,700 200 7,800 6,300 2,350 4,000 10,850 5,200 32,450 4,200 2,050 1,400 2,600 5,600 5,600 4,500 4,450 12,350 2,600 4,900 3,050 1,650 250 8,650 1,250 1,150 950 116,700 850 8,700 2,050 2,050

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 209

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Estimated Value Tree No. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 210

Species Chinese pistache White ironbark Chinese pistache Chinese pistache White ironbark Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Crape myrtle Chinese pistache Water gum Chinese pistache Italian stone pine Italian stone pine Italian stone pine Crape myrtle Japanese maple Japanese maple Japanese maple Giant yucca Giant yucca Giant yucca Giant yucca Red maple Giant yucca Giant yucca Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Cork oak Tulip tree Chinese pistache Southern magnolia Coast redwood Water gum Valley oak

(CONT.)

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Trunk Diameter (in.)

13 30 17 13,10 30 11 15 15 19 9 13 34 2 26 4 22 56 43 49 1 2,1,1 2,2 1,1,1 4,4,4,3 5,5,4,4,3 5,5,3,3,2 5,5,3 7 7,4,3,3,2,2 5,5,4,4,3 24 22 7 2 31 18 26 5 3

Significant Tree Size?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No

Estimated Value $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

3,750 19,200 3,850 5,850 19,200 2,750 3,050 4,950 7,800 2,550 2,300 34,450 400 14,500 650 6,300 16,300 16,000 20,750 250 250 350 200 600 1,050 1,050 1,050 850 1,100 850 12,350 6,300 1,350 250 20,500 3,650 9,650 1,200 450

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Estimated Value Tree No. 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

Species Southern magnolia Xylosma Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Windmill palm Coast redwood Water gum Valley oak Japanese black pine Japanese black pine Crabapple Crabapple Crabapple Crabapple Japanese maple Japanese maple Japanese maple Japanese maple Valley oak Valley oak Valley oak Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle

(CONT.)

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Trunk Diameter (in.)

14 19 12 7 7 6 10 12 12 10 10 10 10 6 40 6 2 1,1,1 1,1,1 1 1 2 2 2 11,10,7 11,10 6,5,4,3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3

Significant Tree Size?

Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No

Estimated Value $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

3,100 8,400 150 120 120 120 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 120 28,950 2,050 250 200 200 200 200 300 300 250 4,850 3,500 1,100 300 300 300 400 650 650 650 1,000 550 650 1,000 650

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 211

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Estimated Value Tree No. 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 212

Species Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Crape myrtle American hornbeam American hornbeam American hornbeam Crape myrtle American hornbeam American hornbeam American hornbeam American hornbeam American hornbeam Lemon Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Callery pear Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Purpleleaf plum Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Japanese maple Xylosma Crape myrtle Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Southern magnolia Southern magnolia

(CONT.)

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Trunk Significant Diameter Tree Size? (in.)

4 No 3 No 4 No 12 Yes 9 No 7 No 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 No 3 No 5 No 4 No 9 No 10 No 8 No 10 No 9 No 7 No 8 No 8 No 10 No 7 No 7 No 13 Yes 16 Yes 16 Yes 17 Yes 9 No 4 No 5 No 3,3,3,3,2,2,2 Yes 3 No 7,6,6,6,5,5,5,4,3 Yes 7 No 6 No 7 No 12 Yes 13 Yes

Estimated Value $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,000 650 1,000 5,650 2,400 2,050 1,000 1,150 1,550 2,050 400 1,150 450 1,550 1,850 950 1,400 1,550 1,000 1,250 1,250 1,850 1,000 1,000 2,200 5,600 5,600 6,300 750 1,000 1,500 550 250 4,650 1,600 1,250 1,600 2,350 2,700

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Estimated Value Tree No. 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195

Species Saucer magnolia Southern magnolia Valley oak Chinese pistache Saucer magnolia Crabapple Chinese pistache Crabapple Crabapple Tulip tree Crape myrtle Tulip tree Southern magnolia Callery pear Callery pear Crape myrtle African fern-pine African fern-pine African fern-pine Tulip tree Tulip tree Southern magnolia Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Chinese pistache Tulip tree Tulip tree Tulip tree Tulip tree Chinese pistache Raywood ash Raywood ash Raywood ash Raywood ash Raywood ash Japanese maple Raywood ash Chinese pistache

(CONT.)

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Trunk Diameter (in.)

6,4,4 14 4 9 5,4 3 16 3 3 20 6 26 13 12 14 12,10,9,9 19,15 31 21,14 11 15 17 10 8 10 19 12 10 13 23 9 14 13 13 8 11 8,7,7,5 14 16

Significant Tree Size?

Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Estimated Value $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,700 2,250 650 2,550 450 400 5,600 400 450 4,450 1,650 5,000 1,250 1,900 2,550 10,150 5,500 8,900 5,950 1,450 3,550 4,500 3,150 1,550 3,150 7,800 1,700 1,250 2,000 5,850 1,200 3,750 3,250 3,250 850 2,350 1,900 3,750 5,600

City of Sunnyvale Community Center Assessment | January 2022 | Verde Design 213

10 | ARBORIST REPORT Estimated Value Tree No. 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223

214

Species Canary Island pine Chinese pistache Canary Island pine Chinese pistache Canary Island pine Canary Island pine Canary Island pine Canary Island pine Canary Island pine Chinese tallow Chinese tallow Chinese tallow (Dead) Chinese tallow Tulip tree London plane Bronze dracaena Japanese maple Japanese maple Bronze dracaena Japanese maple Japanese maple Saucer magnolia Chinese pistache Tulip tree Southern magnolia Crape myrtle Crape myrtle Blue atlas cedar

(CONT.)

Sunnyvale Community Center Sunnyvale, CA January 2022

Trunk Diameter (in.)

37 13 25 13 32,30 26 25 28 28 18 3,2 1 12,9,5 14 10 2 2 3 3 2 2 4,4,4,3 14 20 17 5 10 23

Significant Tree Size?

Estimated Value

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

14,850 2,300 9,550 3,750 20,750 10,300 6,850 11,900 11,900 5,050 300 3,550 2,250 1,900 250 250 300 300 250 250 1,100 4,300 4,450 4,500 1,500 5,450 6,800

Total

$

969,930