01-040 Planning Resource Associates~ ~ - (inn
ACCOUNT NO. CONTRACT AMOUNT $205,000.00
AGREE]VIENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this?/ day of// ~L , 20012 by and between the
CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation of California, herein er referred to as "CITY", and
Planning Resource Associates (PRA), a consulting firm with offices at 260 State Street, Los Altos,
California, 94022 , hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR";
WITNES SETH:
WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain services in conjunction with the General Plan review and
Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage CONTRACTOR to provide these services by reason of its
qualifications and experience for performing such services, and CONTRACTOR has offered to provide
the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS.
(a) The word "City" as used in this agreement shall mean and include all the territory lying
within the municipal boundaries of the City of Cupertino, California, as presently existing, plus all
territory which may be added thereto during the term of this agreement by annexation or otherwise.
(b) The term "City Manager" shall mean the ~3uly appointed City Manager of the City of
Cupertino, California, or his designated representative.
(c) The term "City Attorney" shall mean the duly appointed City Attorney of the City of
Cupertino, California, or his designated representative.
(d) The term "City Clerk" shall mean the duly appointed City Clerk of the City of Cupertino,
California, or her designated representative.
2. PROJECT COORDINATION.
(a) City. The City Manager shall be representative of CITY for all purposes under
this agreement. CIDDY WORDELL hereby is designated as the PROJECT MANAGER
for the City Manager, and shall supervise the progress; and execution of this agreement.
(b) Contractor. CONTRACTOR shall assign a single PROJECT DIRECTOR to
have overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this agreement for
CONTRACTOR. DONALD A. WOOLFE, hereby is designated as the PROJECT
DIRECTOR for CONTRACTOR. Should circumstances or conditions subsequent to the
execution of this agreement require a substitute PROJECT DIRECTOR for any reason, the
PROJECT DIRECTOR designee shall be subject to tree prior written acceptance and
approval of the PROJECT MANAGER.
3. DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR.
(a) Services to be Furnished. CONTRACTOR shall provide all specified services
as set forth below:
(1) See attached proposal (Exhibit A Scope of Services) to prepare
Environmental Impact Report, dated March 15, 2001 and amended March 28, 2001, and
April 27,2001.
(b) Laws to be Observed. CONTRACTOR shall:
(1) Procure all permits and licenses, ~~ay all charges and fees, and give all
notices which may be necessary and incident to the due and lawful prosecution of the
services to be performed by CONTRACTOR under this agreement;
(2) Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future federal, state, and
local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those engaged or
employed under this agreement, any materials used in Contractor's performance under this
agreement, or the conduct of the services under this agreement;
(3) At all times observe and comply with, and cause all of its subcontractors
and employees, if any, to observe and comply with, all of said laws, ordinances, regulations,
orders, and decrees mentioned above;
(4) Immediately report to the PROJECT MANAGER in writing any
discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to any plans, drawing, specifications, or provisions of
this agreement.
(c) Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other
material given to, or prepared or assembled by, CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if
any, under this agreement shall be the property of CITY and shall not be made available to
any individual or organization by CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without tl~e
prior written approval of the City Manager.
(d) Copies of Reports and Information. If CITY requests additional copies of
reports, drawings, specifications or any other material which CONTRACTOR is required to
furnish in limited quantities as part of the services under this agreement, CONTRACTOR
shall provide such additional copies as are requested and CITY shall compensate
CONTRACTOR for the costs of duplicating of such copies at CONTRACTOR'S cost.
(e) Final Report. CONTRACTOR shall provide CITY with reproducible camera-
ready copy of the final report required under this agreement upon final completion and
acceptance of the report by CITY.
(f) Qualifications of Contractor. CONTRACTOR represents that it is qualified to
furnish the services described under this agreement.
4. COMPENSATION. For the full performance of the services described herein by
CONTRACTOR, CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR thy: total sum not to exceed
$205,000.00 ,payable as follows:
• Fees billed on time and material basis
in accordance with fee and reimbursement schedule
submitted by PRA. Includes sub-consultants fees
5. DUTIES OF CITY. City shall provide coordinating services and available
background.
6. TERM. The services to be performed hereun~Jer commenced on April 12, 2001, and
shall be upon certification of adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report by the City
Council.
7. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION. The City Manger shall have the authority to
suspend this agreement, wholly or in part, for such period as he deems necessary due to
unfavorable conditions or to the failure on the part of the CONTRACTOR to perform any
provision of this agreement.
8. EXTENSION OF TERM. In the event that the services called for under this
agreement are not completed within the time specified above, the City Manager shall have
the option to extend the time for completion. This paragraph does not preclude the recovery
of damages for delay by either party.
9. SUSPENSION; TERMINATION.
(a) Right to Suspend or Terminate. Either party may suspend or terminate this
agreement for any reason by giving thirty (30) days' v~iritten notice. Upon receipt of such
notice, CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue his performance under this
agreement.
(b) Payment. Upon such suspension or termination, CONTRACTOR shall be paid
for all services actually rendered to CITY to the date of such suspension or termination;
provided, however, if this agreement is suspended or terminated for fault of
CONTRACTOR, CITY shall be obligated to compen~;ate CONTRACTOR only for that
portion of CONTRACTOR'S services which are of benefit to CITY.
(c) Return of Materials. Upon such suspension or termination, CONTRACTOR
shall turn over to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches,
drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by
CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, or givers to CONTRACTOR or its
subcontractors, if any, in connection with this agreement. Such materials shall become the
permanent property of CITY. CONTRACTOR, however, shall not be liable for CITY's use
of incomplete materials or for CITY's use of complete; documents if used for other than the
project contemplated by this agreement.
10. INSPECTION. CONTRACTOR shall furnish C[TY with every reasonable
opportunity for CITY to ascertain that the services of CONTRACTOR are being performed
in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this agreement. All work done and all
materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the PROJECT MANAGER'S inspection and
approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve CONTRACTOR of any of its
obligations to fulfill its agreement as prescribed.
11. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. Failure of (:ITY to agree with CONTRACTOR'S
independent findings, conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under this
agreement, on the basis of difference in matters of judgment shall not be construed as a
failure on the part of CONTRACTOR to meet the requirements of this agreement.
12. ASSIGNMENT; SUBCONTRACTORS; EI\~PLOYEES.
(a) Assignment. Both parties shall give their personal attention to the faithful
performance of this agreement and shall not assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of
this agreement or any right, title, or interest in or to the same or any part thereof without the
prior written consent of the other party, and then only subject to such terms and conditions
as the other party may require. A consent to one assignment shall not be deemed to be a
consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment without such approval shall be void
and, at the option of the other party, shall terminate this agreement and any I icense or
privilege granted herein. This agreement and any rote:rest herein shall not be assignable by
operation of law without the prior written consent of the other party.
(b) Subcontractors. It is agreed that this agreement is for the personal services of
Planning Resource Associates and cannot be performed by any other person or organization.
(c) Subcontractors; Employees. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for
employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of CONTRACTOR
hereunder. No subcontractor of CONTRACTOR will be recognized by CITY as such;
rather, all subcontractors are deemed to be employees of CONTRACTOR, and it agrees to
be responsible for their performance. CONTRACTOR shall give its personal attention to
the fulfillment of the provisions of this agreement by all of its employees and
subcontractors, if any, and shall keep the work under its control. If any employee or
subcontractor of CONTRACTOR fails or refuses to a~rry out the provisions of this
agreement or appears to be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, he
shall be discharged immediately from the work under this agreement on demand of the
PROJECT MANAGER.
13. NOTICES. All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage
prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows:
TO CITY: Office of the City Clerk
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 9501 ~~-0580
TO CONTRACTOR: Attention of the PRO.IECT
DIRECTOR at the address of
CONTRACTOR recited above.
14. INTEREST OF CONTRACTOR. CONTR~eCTOR covenants that it presently has
no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services hereunder.
CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the perforrance of this agreement, no
subcontractor or person having such an interest shall Ise employed. CONTRACTOR
certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this agreement is an
officer or employee of CITY. It is expressly agreed that, in the performance of the services
hereunder, CONTRACTOR shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not
an agent or employee of CITY.
15. INDEMNITY. CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless
CITY, its officers, agents, and employees of and from:
(a) Any and all damage to or destruction of the property of CITY, its officers,
agents, or employees occupied or used by or in the care, custody, or control of
CONTRACTOR, caused by any act or omission, negligent or otherwise, of CONTRACTOR
or any subcontractor under this agreement or of CON'TRACTOR'S or any subcontractor's
employees or agents.
(b) Any and all claims and demands which may be made against CITY, its officers,
agents, or employees by reason of any injury to or death of or damage suffered or sustained
by any employee or agent of CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor under this agreement,
however caused, excepting, however, any such claims and demands which are the result of
the sole negligence or willful misconduct of city, its officers, agents, or employees;
(c) Any and all penalties imposed or damages sought on account of the violation of
any law or regulation or of any term or condition of a~~y permit.
(d) The CONTRACTOR is not responsible for the accuracy of data from sources
other than his/her own or from conclusions reached a:; a result of utilizing information
supplied by third persons.
(e) The City agrees to provide legal defense to challenges to the adequacy and
completeness of the services provided. The CONTRf\CTOR shall assist the CITY in
responding to such challenges. If it is subsequently ruled by a court of jurisdiction that
errors of facts, procedures or scope have occurred and that these errors and/or omissions
were the result of the CONTRACTOR'S own work, then the CONTRACTOR shall be
responsible for providing whatever remedies that ma}' be required to make the analysis
adequate and complete.
16. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR certifies that it is aware of the
provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be
insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in
accordance with the provisions of that code, and it certifies that it will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of thf; work of this agreement.
17. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and
maintain in full force and effect throughout the entire term of this agreement the insurance
coverage of at least a "B" rating as determined in accordance with the insurance industry
standard, insuring not only CONTRACTOR, but also (with the exception of workers'
compensation and employer's liability insurance), CITY, its officers, agents, and employees,
and each of them with respect to activities and service, performed by CONTRACTOR for or
on behalf of CITY under the provisions of this agreement.
Certificates of such insurance, preferably on the forms provided by CITY, shall be
filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this agreement or, with CITY's approval,
within ten (10) days thereafter. Said certificates shall be subject to the approval of the City
Attorney and shall contain an endorsement stating that said insurance is primary coverage
and will not be canceled or altered by the insurer except after filing with the City Clerk thirty
(30) days' written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and that the City of Cupertino is
named as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance shall be kept on file at
all times during the term of this agreement with the City Clerk.
18. AGREEMENT BINDING. The terms, covenants, and conditions of this agreement
shall apply to, and shall bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assigns, and
subcontractors of both parties.
19. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term,
covenant, or condition of this agreement or any provision, ordinance, or law shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, ordinance, or law or of any
subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition,
ordinance, or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money
which may become due hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding
breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, or condition of this agreement
or of any applicable law or ordinance.
20. COSTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES. The prevailing party in any action brought to
enforce the terms of this agreement or arising out of this agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with such an action from the
other party.
21. NONDISCRIMINATION. No discrimination shall be made in the employment of
persons under this agreement because of the race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion or
sex of such person. If the value of this agreement is, or may be, Five Thousand Dollars
($5,000) or more, CONTRACTOR agrees to meet all requirements of the Cupertino
Municipal Code pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment and to complete and submit
the "Compliance Report-Nondiscrimination Provisions of City of Cupertino Contracts" on
the form furnished by CITY.
If CONTRACTOR is found in violation of the: nondiscrimination provisions of the
State of California Fair Employment Practices Act or similar provisions of federal law or
executive order in the performance of this agreement, it shall thereby be found in material
breach of this agreement. Thereupon, CITY shall have the power to cancel or suspend this
agreement, in whole or in part, or to deduct from the amount payable to CONTRACTOR the
sum of Twenty-five Dollars ($25) for each person for each calendar day during which said
person was discriminated against, as damages for said breach of contract, or both. Only a
finding of the State of California Fair Employment Practices Commission or the equivalent
federal agency or officer shall constitute evidence of a violation of contract under this
paragraph.
If CONTRACTOR is found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of this
agreement or the applicable affirmative action guidelines pertaining to this agreement,
CONTRACTOR shall be found in material breach of :his agreement. Thereupon, CITY shall
have the power to cancel or suspend this agreement, in whole or in part, or to deduct from
the amount payable to CONTRACTOR the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) for
each calendar day during which CONTRACTOR is found to have been in such
noncompliance as damages for said breach of contract, or both.
22. AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL UNDERSTANDINGS. This document
represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and CONTRACTOR and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. This
document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and
CONTRACTOR. All provisions of this agreement arcs expressly made conditions. This
agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State cif California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONTRACTOR have executed this agreement
the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVE AS TO FO
~~~
,,
City Attorney
~~~~ `~~
on ractor
CITE' OF CUPERTINO
O ~
Mayor
}~i--At,IK1NG R~Cv%pUIzGG ~S~_~iA~T£5
Name
0715 VA~t-~y 1lf~N
Address $~L.~C71`~T~ CA ~[Q~~
(~t'~,~`~3 - t ~ (Telephone
33 - 32 -- 75'£37
Social Security number _
or
Tax I.D. number
g/planning/contracts/gpr041301
EXHIBIT A
A PROPOSAL T~~ PREPARE
A TECHNICAL (UPDATE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
MARCH 15, 2001
PLANNING RESOUP:CE ASSOCIATES
Leon C. Pirofalo, AICP
260 State St.
Suite 105
Los Altos, CA 94022
(650 941-4975
LCP_Assoc @ worldnet.att.net
Donald A. Woolfe, AIA, AICP
1715 Valley View
Belmont, CA 94002
(650) 593-1118
FAX (650) 593-1119
Woolfe@home.com
Urban Planning & Design • Economic Analysis • Transportation Planning
March 15, 2001
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
10400 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Ms. Wordell:
Planning Research Associates (PRA) is pleased to submit the following proposal to prepare a
technical update and required environmental docurr~entation for the City of Cupertino's General
Plan. It is our belief that the comprehensive plannir.~g experience developed over many years by the
PRA senior professionals would be of great value tc- the Ciry in their efforts to evaluate current and
proposed General Plan policies, and development alternatives and to prepare specific technical
revisions. We also have extensive experience in the preparation of all environmental documents
required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
We wish to emphasize the uniqueness of our professional team in that we are a consortium of
senior level professionals, each having more than 3.i years experience in both public and private
sector planning. We have worked together on a wide variety of assignments including the
Environmental Impact Report and project evaluatio n for the Diocese Subdivision, the EIR for your
current General Plan and your Housing/Nexus Study.
We thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal and we trust that the attached proposal is
fully responsive to the needs of the City. If you require any additional information please do not
hesitate to contact me or Mr. Leon Pirofalo.
Very truly yours,
Donald a. Woolfe, AIA, AICP
1715 Valley View Avenue
Belmont, CA 94002
(650) 593-1118, Fax 593-1119
260 State Street, Suite 105
Los Altos, CA 94022
(650) 941-4975
PROPOSAL FOR
TECHNICAL UPDATE AND EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY
FOR
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN REVIEW
CITY OF CUPS;RTINO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPII~IENT DEPARTMENT
I. Overview Scope of Work
The City of Cupertino is commencing afifteen-month General Plan review
process. The current General Plan was adopted in 1993 and has received only
subsequent minor amendments. The principal thrust of the plan review is to
focus on areas of change within the City's environmental resource base and
public policy considerations.
The City is seeking qualified planning consultants who will assist the City in: 1)
the formulation and implementation of~ the review process, 2) the preparation of
technical plan amendments emanating from the review and, 3) the preparation
of appropriate environmental documents.
More specifically, the requested scope of work includes:
a) Confirmation that existing planning policies are relevant and are
consistent with current City Council objectives. Identify new or
amend existing policies as required.
b) Reevaluate three alternative devf;lopment allocation policies
provided by the City.
c) Anticipate the effects of major de-velopment proposals on land use.
d) Reevaluate the current transportation policies regarding levels of
service (LOS) and related issues. Review nexus between land use
alternatives and circulation system. Review Pedestrian
Transportation Plan, if adopted, and integrate into General Plan.
For this task we are assuming that the City will be responsible for
making projections of future traffic for all land use alternatives, data
collection, testing of LOS, and intersection analysis.We, (PRA} will
review results and integrate there into the General Plan and EIR.
e} Review the existing Housing ElE;ment and attendant policies for
compliance with State housing requirements.
f) Rewrite, reformat and update te<hnical and data sensitive plan
components,with the assistance of Staff, for the transportation,
environmental resource, public l:~ealth and safety elements. Provide new
or updated graphics as required. We understand that the City Staff will
be responsible for reviewing and. revising the Land Use/
Community Character Element.
g) Prepare an expanded Initial Stucly for the three General Plan
alternatives in accordance with ~~ections 15063 and 15070 et. seq. of
the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA);
include a detailed written documentation for those issues
determined to have potentially significant effects.
h) Prepare either Negative Declaration or focused Environmental
Impact Report, as required, in accordance with CEQA. Include
mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring program.
i) Provide responses to written comments regarding points raised in
environmental documents.
j) Make presentations to the Planning Commission and City Council
as appropriate.
II. Our Approach
Since its inception, Planning Resource Associates (PRA), in the capacity of
consultants to public agencies, most frc;quently acts as an extension of the
Planning Staff. We believe that close contact and coordination between the
City Staff and our consulting team is essential to the general plan review
process.
We believe that the most consequential element of the review process is the
analysis and testing of the City's planning and resource management goals and
objectives. The most significant questions many communities do not address
are: Do we have policies and standards in specific areas? What are the current
policies? Are they effective? How is their effectiveness measured? Do they
reflect current issues and demands? Are they easily understood by those who
use them? What is their "track record." with regard to enforcement? Are they
internally consistent? And do they, collectively, (as embodied in the General
Plan) represent a useful guide to applicants, staff, the Planning Commission and
City Council? Hence, we find that what is most often needed in the review
process is an initial .~glic„y audit.
Following the one or two scoping sessions we propose to begin with one, or
more, "brainstorming" sessions with t:ity Staff and others as appropriate.
Also, we propose, along with the brainstorming, one or two concurrent
educational sexrunars focusing on the purposes, limitations, and opportunities
provided by both the review process a:nd the resulting updated General Plan.
These seminars would be custom shaped for the City's Staff, Planning
Commission, and Council. We strongly believe that such an educational
component should be an inextricable part of any major general plan
preparation or revision effort.
The remainder of the work will be undertaken essentially in the conventional
method of producing written drafts of each amended element for review by
Staff prior to producing a completed a~~ministrative draft.
III Work Program/Costs by Task (See Scope of Work above)
(a) Policy AuditJScoping Meetings ............................................$b,500
(b) Reevaluate Development allocation policies ............. $8,000
(c) Assess Effects of Major Development ......................... $15,000
(d} Reevaluate Transportation Policies ............................... $5,000
(e) Inl~grate housing Element .................................................. . $2,500
(f) RewritelReformat Plan Elements ................................... $39,500
(g) Prepare Expanded Initial Study ................................... $10,000
(h) Prepare Neg. Dec. or Focused ETR ................................. $65,000 (EIR)
(i) Prepare Responses to Comments ., .................................. $6,500
(j) Presentations and Meetings...........,. ................................... $10,000
(k) Clerical Support ...............................,,..................................... $5,000
SubTotal.....$173,000
(See Section VII below for total cost of proposed services)
IV Our Consulting Team
Planning Resource Associates (PRA) expertise includes the full range of land
use, environmental review housing, circulation, urban design and infrastructure
planning and programming. We are a consortium of senior professionals
whose individual skills blend to provide both public and private sector clients
with a wide range of physical planning: and environmental evaluation skills
tailored to the specific demands of individual clients. Each project is under the
direction of a managing principal who is responsible for the effective execution
of the project. Depending on the nature of the work, a project team is formed
of selected senior level associates who provide relevant experience. The
Principals who will perform the work have been carefully selected to assure a
full and and comprehensive effort far the reevaluation and revisions of the
City's General Plan and the preparation of the required documents.
Each of our principals is a highly quali~~ed professional with thirty five, or
more, years of experience in the planniing field. (See attached Statements of
Qualification). Each of us have both public and private sector experience. We
all have been Planning Directors or ha~/e held comparable positions with public
agencies. Further, we perform virtually all of the professional work, while our
paraprofessionals provide necessary clf;rical, data collection and graphics
assistance. This means that the ~eople,,~ou interview and select are the pgople
who perform tie maeorit~of the actuaj~vq~
Finally, all of our principals have had excellent relations and results in working
with citizen's groups, committees, boards, councils and commissions.
For this project the proposed consulting team will be:
Donald Woolfe, AIA, AICP, Project Manager (General Plan/EIR)
Leon Pirofalo, AICP, Assistant Project Manager (General Plan/EIR)
Robert Harrison, Principal (C'irculation)
Alberto Morales, Associate (]environmental Documents)
William Cotton & Associates, (Earth Sciences-Sub Consultants)
Charles Salter Associates, (1\foise -Sub Consultants)
Phil Harris, RCE, (Civil Engineering, Flooding -Sub Consultants)
V References
Town of Woodside: David Rizk, Planning Director, (6S0) 8S 1 6790; Robert
Lanzone, Town Attorney, (6S0) S93 3117 (For Don Woolfe)
noun of San Mateo: Terry Burnes, Planning Administrator, (6S0) 363 4161
(For Don Woolfe)
C~ of Redwood City; Joel Patterson AICP, Engineering Manager (6S0) 780
7233,
Tom Passanisi, Principal Planner (6S0)~ 780 7236 (For Leon Pirofalo and
Alberto Morales).
Town of Hillsbo~ou~h: Maureen Morten, AICP, Town Planner (6S0) 37S 7416
(For Leon Pirofalo and Alberto Morale:s).
Cit~of Larks~r: Jan Vazquez, Planniing Director (41S) 927 S02S (For Robert
Harrison}
C~ of Sausalito: Charlotte Flynn, Planning Director (41S) 289 4131 (For
Robert Harrison).
VI Project Schedule
We have reviewed "Exhibit B", Tentative Project Schedule and we believe that
we are able to meet the proposed scheciule. We will be able to commence
work immediately after receiving authorization to proceed from the Ciry. .
VII TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
We have previously provided a cost brc;akdown by specific task; see item III
above. Requested cost components are: as follows:
Hourly Rates: Principals ......................................................................120.00/hr.
Associates .....................................................................85.00/hr
Sub Consultants ...............,...........................................N/A
(Note above rates are portal to portal)
Additional Compensation: Mileage ..................................................35/mile
Printing ..................................................At Cost
Total host: Shall not exceed $173,000. Of course, this total cost is
negotiable dependent on the magnitude of contribution by the City and other
factors. We recommend that the the final project cost be refined and
determined subsequent to one, or more:, scoping sessions.
We suggest and prefer a fixed fee arraligement. However, we are willing to
accept a "time and materials"with a not to exceed maximum contract.
Additional Meetings: Compensation for attending additional meetings beyond
those identified in the Work Program will be $1,200 per meeting.
Preparation of final EIR: Cost of prep<~ring a focused EIR for the General
Plan revisions will be: $65,000
Urban Planning & Design • Economic Analysis • Transportation Planning
March 28, 2001
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
10400 Torre Avenue
Cupertino CA 95014
Re: Addendum to Our Proposal of March 15 to Prepare a Technical Update and Environmental
Documents for the City of Cupertino's General Pl~~n.
Dear Ms Wordell:
In accordance with your request we are submitting herein, a revised and reformatted breakdown of
the proposed scope of work and attendant costs for your General Plan revision program. This
revision is in strict conformity to the tasks identifie~~ in Exhibit A of your Work Program, as
follows:
TASKS/COSTS
A. Prepare a technical and general update of the following General Plan elements:
1.Transportation ......................................................................... $15,000
(See Page 1, I(d) of original prop~~sal for detail)
2. Environmental Resources............ ........................................ $13,000
(Parks, Open Space, Air Quality)
3. Public Health and Safety ..........................................................$34.000
(Geotechnical, Fire, Flooding, Noise, Utilities, Hazardous
Waste, Solid Waste, Crime)
Subtotal........$62.000
B. Prepare Expanded Initial Study/ Focused! EIR:
1. Expanded Initial Study .............................................................$13,000
(For three Alternatives plus Final-See I(g) of original proposal)
(Include Mitigation Measures an<i Monitoring Program)
2. Focused EIR/ Inc Responses to C'omments ..............................$71.500
(See I (h) of original proposal)
Subtotal.........$84.500
C. Meetings and Presentations .................................................................$16,500
(Includes Policies Audit, Scoping, P,C., ~~ouncil Meetings,etc)
1715 Valley View Avenue
Belmont, CA 94002
(650) 593-1118, Fax 593-1119
260 State Street, Suite 105
Los Altos, CA 94022
(650) 941-4975
D. Administrative/ClericaUGraphics .........................................................10.000
Grand Total.......$173,000
If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me or Leon Pirofalo.
Very truly yours,
/~
Donald A Woolfe AIA, AICP
cc: Leon Pirofalo
Apr-30-O1 10:46A Robert L. Harrison 415 435 0118 P.Ol
Hobert , arrison
~~
Transportation RlannlnQ and Prol~et Mona~nNnt
MEMORANDUM
To: Ciddy Wordell
From: Bob Harrison
Date: April 27, 2001
Re: Use of the VTA Traffic Model
Z970Yista Dsl Mar Larn
Tiburon, CaiNomla 9~4Z0
~13I3S-2A71
FAX 408 777-3333
Page 1 of 3
This memo supplements the summary scope of work I sent to you by Email
on Apri124. Don Woolfe asked me to more fully explain the work tasks needed to
use the VTA Model for the General Plan update. I have also included a fee
proposal for the additional work by PRA.
Tasks 1 and 2. Land Use Data. I believe the work needed to develop the
land use data for the existing and three fu~:we year conditions is clear and I
understand that the City staffwill prepare this data. PRA will not perform the
work needed under this task.
I now have the county traffic zone map from the VTA. It appears that
there are 13 Cupertino zones including numbers: 214; 215; 21b; 217; 218; 219;
220(Part); 224; 225(Part); 226; 227; 228(Part); and 385(Part). It is my
understanding that the City will be able to generate the land use data for each zone
and for each partial zone. I assume that v~~here zones are split between
jurisdictions the data will be part Cupertino and part adjoining city.
Task 3. Network Data. >n this task the City needs to decide if the street
network used by the VTA is adequate. I understand that PRA will assist the City
to decide if additional network links should be added. For example, are there any
proposed streets that should be added to the future year runs of the VTA model?
believe we could accomplish most of this cask in a meeting with planning and
public works staff.
Task 4. Submit Land Use and Aletwork Data to the VTA.1 understand
that the City will do this.
Task 5. Analyze the Data from the Existing Condition Model Run.
In this task PRA will review the output from the VTA existing condition model
-and compare it to the actual traf£c counts available from the City. It is expected
that, for many of the City's intersections, the model will not be able to closely
replicate existing traffic flow at the level of detail needed to evaluate the operation
of intersections_ Recall that for every four leg intersection there are i 2 turning
movements. Each of the 12 turning movemments needs to be estimated accurately
in order that Level of Service (LOS) be properly calculated.
Apr-30-O1 10:47A Robert L. Harrison 415 435 0118 P.02
Memo to: Ciddy Wordell - Apri127, 2001
Re: Use of the VTA Model
Page 2
It is not unusual that a large county wide computer model is not able to
exactly replicate the detailed turning movements at some intersections. An
example of the operation of the model was submitted by Hexagon Transportation
Consultants in a proposal letter to Ray Chong dated December 21, 2000. On
Table 2.3 of that letter, the results of the consultants traffic model work in Milpitas
is described in terms of the modeled traffic data compazed to the observed traffic
counts. At the screenline level (several streets added together) the model estimate
was shown to be within no worse than 11°io from the traffic courn. Generally, plus
or minus 10% is considered an acceptable model result. However, at the
individual street level, the model was shown to be as much a SO% (or more) away
from replicating the traffic count data. I anticipate that the VTA model would
produce similar results in Cupertino. PRA would prepaze a summary of the model
output for the existing conditiion in Cupertiino similaz in format to that as shown in
Table 2.3 in the Hexagon proposal.
W1vIe not always directly useful to project traffic counts at the individual
intersection level, the model is a useful tool to develop traffic growth factors at
locations throughout the street network. These growth factors would be used to
analyze the future year model runs in Task 6.
Task 6. Analyze Future Year Model Runs. At locations where the
existing condiitiion model run was able to a~~curately replicate existing traffic
conditions, the future year traffic projections could be used duectly from the model
output. For all other locations, PRA would review each futwe year model run to
develop traffic growth factors on each street network link tested. These traffic
growth factors would then be applied to existing traffic counts to project the future
year turning movement traffic counts at in<lividual intersections.
Task 7. Calculate Existing and Future Year LOS. PRA would use the
existing traffic counts and the projected fu,twe year turning movement counts at
each study intersection to calculate intersection LOS. The VTA required
TRAFFiX sof~waze would be used for this task. I understand the City desires to
include 20 intersections in the General Plat analysis work.
Task 8. Develop General Plaa Transportation Policies. In this task
PRA will use the results of the traffic anal}psis for each of the futwe year scenarios
to assist in the selection of the preferred land use alternative. In addition, the
transportation planning work as outlined in the Scope of Work previously
submitted by PRA would be completed under this task. The work of this task was
included in the previous work scope and b~zdget.
Apr-30-O1 10:47A Robert L. Harrison 415 435 0118 P_03
Memo to: Ciddy Wordell - Apri127, 2001
Re: Use of the VTA Model
Fet Prnposal
Page 3
The above Tasks 3, 5, 6 and 7 are ~NOrk by PRA in addition to the Scope of
Work previously submitted. The budget for the additional work is estimated as
follows:
Task 3 $ 1,000
includes one meeting with planning/public works staff.
Task 5 $ 6,000
Assume 20 intersections; AM and PM peak hour analysis;
3 northlsouth and 3 eastlwest screenlines.
Task b $ 15,000
Assume 3 future year alternatives; 20 intersections in each
alternative; AM and PM beak hour analysis.
Task 7 $ 10,000
Assume 1 existing and 3 ful:ure year alternatives; 20 intersections;
AM and PM peak hour analysis
Total Added Fee
The above fee is based on assuming; the output from the county traffic
model will need considerable review and a~3justments. If the model output is found
to closely replicate traffic flow at the inter:~ection turning movement level, the fee
for the PRA work would be less. It is proposed that this portion of the PRA work
be completed on an actual time expended Find costs of materials (T & M) basis
with the total fee not to exceed $ 32,000.
REQUEST FOF: PROPOSAL
TECHNICAL UPDATE AND I.XPANDED INITIAL STUDY
FOR
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN REVIEW
CITY OF CUPE:RTINO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMI.NT DEPARTMENT
February 1 4, 2001
~~; J
,.r~l.
G{TY (3f
CUPERTINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3236
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City is requesting proposals from qualified planning consultants to prepare
a Technical Update and an Expanded Initial Study for the Cupertino General Plan
Review.
Cupertino is embarking on afifteen-month General Plan Review. The current
General Plan was adopted in 1993 and hers had subsequent minor amendments.
The intent of the update is to focus on areas of change and build on existing
information. There are multiple needs far the update: confirm that existing
policies are consistent with City Council objectives; re-evaluate development
allocation policies; anticipate major land use changes due to development
proposals; rethink the transportation policies regarding Levels of Service, meet
the State housing requirements; and generally update the technical and date-
sensitive materials in the Plan.
CITY DESCRIPTION
The City of Cupertino is situated in :ianta Clara County in the south bay
metropolitan area of the San Francisco Bay Region, with a population of about
52,000 residents. Cupertino is serviced by Highways 280 and 85, Foothill
Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway, and major arterial streets including
Stevens Creek Boulevard, DeAnza Boulevard, and Wolfe Road. The City has a
mixture of land uses including re~~idential, commercial and industrial
developments and is primarily built out with minimal opportunity for
comprehensive large-scale development.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The following criteria are among those that will be used to evaluate the
submitted proposals:
1. Knowledge -The consultant's knowledge of current environmental
law and guidelines.
2. Content -The content and thoroughness of the proposal which
demonstrates the consultant's understanding of the tasks and
familiarity with the types of problems applicable to the project.
3. Methodology - A work program demonstrating a well-reasoned
approach to the resolution of issues.
4. Competence -The qualifications of~ personnel and subconsultants
who will be working on and coordinating the project. The City
reserves the right to select alternate K~ersonnel or subconsultants.
5. Experience -Consultant's team's experience in performing the type of
work requested.
6. Availability -Written guarantees that the proposed team will in fact be
assigned to the project.
7. Timin -The project schedule is rel~~tively tight; therefore the ability
to begin and complete the proposed work according to schedule is a
key criterion.
8. Fee -The cost of proposed services.
Subsequent to the selection of a successl=ul consultant, the City will prepare a
master contract agreement, reflecting thE~ terms and conditions of this RFP and
proposal, including the City's standard Liiability and Insurance requirements.
The City reserves the right to modify or reject any or all proposals.
The City may elect to stop work at any time in the contract and will pay for work
completed to that point on a time and m,~terials basis. All reports and
background documentation will become the property of the City of Cupertino.
WORK PROGRAM
The Work Program attached as Exhit~it A describes the contents of the
Technical Update and the Expanded Initi~~l Study.
SCHEDULE
The City has preliminarily targeted April 2002 as the completion date for
the review, including the final public hearing before the City Council. A
tentative schedule is attached as Exhibit D. Proposals should indicate an
ability to meet this schedule or instead rE~commend changes.
CONTENT OF PROPOSAL
The proposal submittal shall consist of tf~n (10) bound sets and one additional
unbound copy for duplication purposes. The proposal itself shall include:
A. Statement of general approach with specific response to each component of
the Work Program (Exhibit A).
B. The consultant's recommendation of appropriate study methodology which
could require a modification of the W~~rk Program. Any modifications to the
Work Program should be delineated in the proposal.
C. A table of organization setting forth the project manager and key personnel.
Personnel may not be substituted without agreement from the City.
D. A statement of qualifications and experience for each individual expected to
perform responsible portions of the ~niork.
E. References, including persons, firms, agencies to verify the experience of the
consultant.
F. Work Schedule, including the earliest starting day.
G. A time and materials proposal of the total cost for each component of the
work program, including the followin~~:
2
1. Hourly rates charged for work ~~erformed by members of the team
(including subconsultants).
2. All costs for which the consult~int expects compensation and shall
include a "NOT TO EXCEED" figure for all work performed.
3. Costs for attending additional meetings beyond those outlined in the
work program.
4. Estimate for preparation of the Final EIR, if needed, including a
breakdown of estimated hours anti costs.
PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS
Responses to the RFP are due to Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, City of
Cupertino Community Development Department, 10400 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino, CA 95014 by March 5, 2001.
If you have any questions regarding this Request for Proposals, please
contact Ciddy Wordell at (408) 777-3236 or by email at
"cynthiawC~cupertino.orq".
This Request for Proposals is not a contract or a commitment of any kind
by the City of Cupertino and does not commit the City to award a
contract to any party or to pay any costs incurred in the submission of a
proposal. A/l proposals wil/become the ,c~roperty of the City of Cupertino.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A Work Program
Exhibit B Tentative Project Schedule
Growth Alternatives
General Plan Flow Chart
General Plan Schedule
Cupertino General Plan
3
EXHIBIT A
WORK PROGRAM
PURPOSE
To prepare:
1. A technical and general update of the technical elements of the current
General Plan.
The technical elements of the General Plan -- transportation, environmental
resource, public health and safety --- need updating. The consultant will
rewrite these elements, with assistance from Cupertino planning staff,
particularly on any amended policies. These elements need formatting
changes, e.g., creating a clear and logical sequence of goals, objectives,
policies and strategies. Any dated references need to be addressed, as do
any new requirements of State law. Suggested technical changes are
identified in the enclosed General Prin. The General Plan consultant should
include Cupertino's consulting geologist as asub-consultant. Updated or
new graphics will need to be provided, using digital impages for the most
part. Suggestions for improving the plan are welcome. The General Plan
should be prepared using Adobe Pagemaker 6.5, unless another program is
agreed upon by Cupertino.
2. An Expanded Initial Study in accordance with the requirements and
provisions of the California EnvironmF~ntal Quality Act.
The Expanded Initial Study will tie prepared for three General Plan
Alternatives: Existing General Plan Buildout, Existing General Plan Buildout
plus 5% growth and Existing General Plan Buildout plus 10% growth.
Residential growth alternatives will include the State requirements plus the
5% and 10% growth rates. The preliminary growth alternatives are enclosed.
The Expanded Initial Study will:
1. Identify and assess the environmmental effects of the three alternatives
and the final alternative
2. Propose mitigation measures far any significant effects identified
3. Determine if a focused EIR is nE~eded for any unmitigated significant
effects
4. Prepare a focused EIR if needed.
4
NUMBER OF COPIES
Final documents shall be submitted in a digital format and one reproducible
master copy in addition to hard co~~ies. The Draft Expanded Initial Study
shall have 25 copies. Since the technical updates will be incorporated into
the full General Plan revision, additional hard copies are not needed.
I. MEETING ATTENDANCE
The selected consultant may bE~ required to attend, make
presentations and answer questions at an agreed upon number of
meetings relating to the technical analysis and conclusions for the
expanded initial study. Staff anticip;~tes that the consultant may be
involved in a total of eight meetings as follows:
A. Suing Meeting -One to two meetings with date, time and
location and noticing to be arranged by the City of Cupertino.
B. Coordination Meetings -Approximately four meetings with City
staff for update and status report ~~f work products.
C. Planning Commission and City Council -Total of four (4)
meetings.
5
EXHIBIT 6
TENTATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE
TASK
• RFP's sent out
• Proposals due from Consultants
• Select consultant, finalize contract,
authorize work to begin
• Meet with staff to finalize scope of work
• Administrative Draft Technical Update to staff
• Administrative Draft Expanded Initial 'itudy
to staff (determination if EIR is needed)
• Draft Technical Update to City Council
DATE COMPLETED BY
• February 14, 2001
• March 7 , 2001
• March 21 , 2001
• March 26, 2001
• August 6, 2001
• August 6, 2001
• November, 2001
(as part of full General Plan Revision)
• Draft Expanded Initial Study to City Council November, 2001
(or Draft focused EIR if needed)
• Planning Commission hearings on General November, 2001 -
amendments and Initial Study/EIR January, 2002
• City Council hearings on General Plan January, 2002 -
amendments and Initial Study/EIR April 2002
G.~PLANN/NG/MISC/GENERAL PLAN REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
6