Loading...
11-073 LSA Associates, Consultant Services, Apple Campus 2 Project AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR PREPARATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT. THIS AGREEMENT, for reference dated JULY 8, 2011 is by and between CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and LSA ASSOCIATES, INC , California corporation whose address is 2215 FIFTH STREET BERKELEY, CA 94710 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the Constitution and the statutes of the State of California and the Cupertino Municipal Code. B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Apple Campus 2 project. C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein. D. City and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for upon the terms and conditions herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall commence on JULY 8, 2011, and shall terminate on December, 2012, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED: Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this re Terence. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT: Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amount set forth in Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the treasury of the City, to be taken from the general fund. 4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Consultant and City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Agreement. 5. STANDARD OF CARE: Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City nor have any contractual relationship with City. 6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES: City and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is that of employer- independent contractor. The rnanner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civi service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from City to Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer- employee relationship from any fees due Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant. 6. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA): Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of his/her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Consultant. 7. NON - DISCRIMINATION: Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, a City employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee or subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 8. HOLD HARMLESS: Indemnification: Consultant shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to all services performed in connection with the Agreement, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against any of them, including any injury to or death of any person or damage to property or other liability of any nature, whether physical, emotional, consequential or otherwise, arising out, pertaining to, or related to the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or Consultant's employees, officers, officials, agents or independent contractors. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys' fees of counsel of City's choice, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. A. Claims for Professional Liability. Where the law establishes a standard of care for Consultant's professional services, and to the extent the Consultant breaches or fails to meet such established standard of care, or is alleged to have breached or failed to meet such standard of care, Consultant shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to all services performed in connection with the Agreement, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against any of them, including any injury to or death of any person or damage to property or other liability of any nature, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant or Consultant's employees, officers, officials, agents or independent contractors. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys' fees of counsel of City's choice, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. Consultant shall not be obligated under this Agreement to indemnify City to the extent that the damage is caused by the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of City, its agents or employees. B. Claims for Other Liability . Consultant shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to all services performed in connection with the Agreement indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against any of them. including any injury to or death of any person or damage to property or other liability of any nature, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or Consultant's employees, officers, officials, agents or independent contractors. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys' fees of counsel of City's choice, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. 9. INSURANCE: On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and E. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City of Cupertino by certified mail, Attention: City Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to City and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the City as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. A. COVERAGE: Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage: (1) Workers' Compensation: Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. (2) Liability: Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate - all other Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence $250,000 aggregate If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. (3) Automotive: Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence or Combined Single Limit: $:500,000 each occurrence (4) Professional Liability: Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the professional acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of at least $1,000,000. B. SUBROGATION WAIVER: Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he /she has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. C. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid. D. ADDITIONAL INSURED: City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy. E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Consultant. 10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the services required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of interest form if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain governmental decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the California Code of Regulations. 11. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS: Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to City by Consultant. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power of the corporation. 12. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL: Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and subcontractors whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement. 13. PERMITS AND LICENSES: Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. 14. REPORTS: A. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report", reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of City. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute appropriate documents to assign to City the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall become the property of City, and all publication rights are reserved to City. Consultant may retain a copy of any report furnished to the City pursuant to this Agreement. B. All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by City in execution or implementation of: (1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired; (2) Completion of the original :Project by others; (3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and/or (4) Other City projects as appropriate. C. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. D. All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on recycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original, which shall be single sided. E. No Report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization by Consultant without prior approval by City. 15. RECORDS: Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of City or its designees at all proper times, and gives City the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised by City's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City's supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant shall reimburse City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit. 16. NOTICES: All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino CA 95014 Attention: GARY CHAO All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTN: ADAM WEINSTEIN 2215 FIFTH STREET BERKELEY, CA 94710 17. TERMINATION: In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within the time specified after receipt by Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 18. COMPLIANCES: Consultant shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 19. CONFLICT OF LAW: This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.) Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 20. ADVERTISEMENT: Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from City to do otherwise. 21. WAIVER: A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 22. INTEGRATED CONTRACT: This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 22. INSERTED PROVISIONS: Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party. 23. CAPTIONS: The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed. CONSULTANT CITY OF CUPERTINO A Municipal Corporation LSA ASSOC E INC By By DAVID KNAPP Title 7$ r Title CITY MANAGER Date 7/17/1/ Date JULY 8, 2011 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By _ AARTI SHRIVASTAVA Title COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AP RO E ` 1 FORM: B 1 City Attorney ATTEST:, a mp' lar City Clerk EXHIBIT A PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR LSA June 28, 2011 RIVERSIDE L S / \ LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CARLSBAD IRVINE ROCKLIN 2215 FIFTH STREET 510.540.7331 TEL FORT COLLINS PALM SPRINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710 510.540.7344 FAX FRESNO POINT RICHMOND S. SAN FRANCISCO June 28, 2011 Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner City of Cupertino Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: Proposal to Prepare the Apple Campus 2 Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Mr. Ghosh: LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare an EIR for the Apple Campus 2 Project. The project is clearly of critical importance to Cupertino and the Bay Area, and we are excited to be involved at this early stage as the City seeks an environmental consulting team. In response to the City's Request for Proposals (RFP), LSA has developed an approach and work program that will meet the needs of the City and applicant for robust environmental review of the project. Some of the key strengths of the LSA team are: • CommitmentofLSA 'sseniormanagementteam. Judith Malamut, Principal -in- Charge and Adam Weinstein, Associate /Project Manager, will see the project through from beginning to end. We have extensive experience strategizing with our clients and identifying and evaluating the issues that will be critical to environmental review of this project. • Corporate campus experience. Judith and Adam have substantial experience evaluating corporate campus and large, institutional projects, and are adept at crafting project descriptions that call attention to the unique qualities of campuses and identifying issues specific to such projects that require particular attention. • Local Experience. Our team has in -depth knowledge of resource and planning issues in the Bay Area that comes from working on development projects and plans in Mountain View, Saratoga, San Jose, and on large research and development campuses in Foster City and Brisbane. We are familiar with the agencies and stakeholders who will be reviewing the EIR, and their expectations for the analysis. • Attention to deadlines and schedule. LSA frequently works with clients to develop aggressive schedules to accommodate deadlines as they may relate to project funding, land purchase options, timing of public hearings, or construction time frames. The City and project team will find that LSA is exceptionally responsive and will go the extra mile to meet the agreed -upon schedule. Our team — including subconsultants Fehr & Peers, Baseline Environmental Consulting, and Environmental Vision — has a proven ability to work collaboratively and communicate effectively with agencies, project applicants, design teams, technical consultants, attorneys, and diverse public audiences and to complete projects on time and within budget. As you will see from our qualifications, this is a team that has worked together for many years. We also are an innovative team that can recognize, assess and describe the positive environmental consequences of the Apple Campus 2 Project on sustainability and resource conservation while applying up -to -date scientific methods to determine and mitigate, where possible, significant adverse environmental effects. We believe that our environmental review experience and communication skills will help the City in your consideration of this interesting project. As is always the case with our proposed scope, budget and schedule, we are open to suggestions for refinement and economy. We hope to convey our enthusiasm for this project and our approach for accomplishing our work program at our interview on Thursday. See you then. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. t) 11414 ith H. Malamut, AICP Adam Weinstein, AICP Principal Associate /Project Manager PLANNING 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES I DESIGN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. TITLE PAGE 1 2. OVERVIEW /EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 A. PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION 3 B. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED APPROACH 3 C. TEAM EXPERIENCE 4 D. KEY STRENGTHS 5 3. WORK PLAN 7 A. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 7 B. PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM 8 C. TASKS AND DELIVERABLES 9 D. DECISION- MAKING FLOW CHART 32 E. SCHEDULE 35 F. PERSONNEL HOURS 35 4. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 37 A. ORGANIZATION 37 B. STAFFING /KEY PERSONNEL 37 C. MANAGEMENT APPROACH 41 D. POINT OF CONTACT 41 5. REFERENCES 43 A. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES 43 B. SUBCONSULTANT REFERENCES 47 C. CONTRACT AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 48 6. COST PROPOSAL 49 APPENDIX LSA Associates, Inc. Fehr & Peers Baseline Environmental Consulting Environmental Vision 0 \ PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal dos (6/28/2011) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO This page intentionally left blank. O:IPROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) 1. TITLE PAGE Subject: Apple Campus 2 Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Firm Name: LSA Associates, Inc. Local Address: 2215 Fifth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone Number: (510) 540 -7331 Contact Name: Adam Weinstein Email: adam.weinstein@lsa-assoc.com Date: June 27, 2011 • O:\PROPOSAL \11028•Apple Campus 2 EIR Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO This page intentionally left blank. OAPROPOSAL\l 102 8-Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) 2 2. OVERVIEW /EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION The purpose of the study effort described in this proposal is to conduct an environmental review of a proposal by Apple to develop a campus on a 175 -acre site in the City of Cupertino (City). The Apple Campus 2 Project (project) is designed to reflect the corporate values of Apple, which specializes in innovative consumer electronics, personal computing, and computer software, and is one of the largest companies in the world. The analysis, which would be conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is intended to comprehensively evaluate the environmental effects of the project by taking into account the unique characteristics of Apple and the activity patterns on its proposed campus. The end product of the environmental review effort would be a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that would be certified by the City Council. This proposal is organized according to the recommended outline in the Request for Proposals (RFP). LSA Associates, Inc.'s (LSA's) study effort for conducting i:he environmental review and preparing the EIR is discussed in detail in Section 3 of this proposal. Our study effort is organized to achieve the following objectives: • Comprehensive and customized environmental analysis of the proposed project, pursuant to CEQA; • Presentation of environmental information aboJt the project and its planning context such that the environmental implications of the project can be clearly understood by decision - makers and the public; and • Dedication of resources to elements of the analysis that are expected to be labor- intensive and warrant particular attention, including the project description; land use and planning context; transportation and circulation analysis; and response to comments process. B. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED APPROACH In response to the City's RFP, LSA has developed an .approach and work program that is designed to achieve the following key objectives: • Collaborate with the City, Apple, and other consultants to define the project for CEQA purposes in a way that will provide flexibility to support the mix of desired uses and activity patterns. • Utilize LSA's experience preparing environmental documentation for large corporate campus projects (including those proposed by Pixar and Gilead Sciences) to customize the environmental review effort to address the unique use characteristics of campus projects. • Create an EIR that is accessible and relevant through thoughtful and concise writing, use of data -rich graphics, and three podcasts that would be available on the City's website. • Provide a rigorous, project -level analysis of the environmental effects of the development proposed as part of the project. O:\PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal.doc (528/2011) 3 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO • Complete an environmental review process that provides an appropriate level of outreach to the community and local agencies. • Provide a sustainability and energy analysis that weaves together disparate (but interlinked) environmental topics that will be of interest to the community, including green design, global climate change, and energy use, and draws attention to Apple's sustainability efforts. • Maximize the use of the City's plan, policy, and other informational resources. • Collaborate with the City and applicant team to provide a level of CEQA analysis that will provide flexibility to support the mix of uses and development intensity desired in the future, and to minimize the amount of supplemental review that may be necessary if and when the project design is refined. • Complete an EIR that: provides the appropriate amount of information and levels of analyses; is legally sound; and provides the public, agencies, the City's decision - makers, and Apple with a clear understanding of the potential environmental consequences of the project. C. TEAM EXPERIENCE LSA has assembled a project team to prepare the EIR for the Apple Campus 2 Project that provides the full range of required expertise. Our team consists of seasoned staff with substantial experience evaluating the environmental issues that will be critical to this EIR. We are supported by three subconsultants selected for their technical skills, knowledge of the area and issues, and ability to meet deadlines and budgets. Other members of the LSA team, and their areas of technical expertise, include: • Fehr & Peers: transportation and circulation • Baseline Environmental Consulting: geology, soils, and seismicity; hydrology and water quality; and hazards • Environmental Vision: peer review of visual simulations We have successfully collaborated with each of these subconsultants on past projects, some on literally dozens of assignments. The following list of projects demonstrates our joint experience with comparable projects. • Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan EIR for the City of Foster City (LSA prime consultant; key subconsultant participation from Baseline Environmental Consulting and Fehr & Peers) • Sierra Point Biotech Project EIR for the City of Brisbane (LSA prime consultant; keysubconsultant participation from Baseline Environmental Consulting and Environmental Vision) • California Maritime Academy CEQA Services for California State University (LSA prime consultant; key subconsultant participation from Baseline Environmental Consulting) • Pixar Headquarters Expansion Project CEQA for the City of Emeryville (LSA prime consultant; key subconsultant participation from Environmental Vision) • Our subconsultants have also applied their technical skills to projects of similar size and scope; the list below is representative of their experience. Summaries of this experience are included in the Appendix to this proposal. • Facebook's Menlo Park Campus Due Diligence, Menlo Park (Fehr & Peers) O:\PROPOSAL \11028 -Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposaldoc (6/28/20111 4 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO • Ariba Campus and Moffett Towers Campus Transportation Impact Analysis, Sunnyvale (Fehr & Peers) • Vallco Northwest Residential Transportation Impact Analysis, Cupertino (Fehr & Peers) • Cupertino Town Center, Phase I and GPA Transportation Impact Analysis (Fehr & Peers) • Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, Santa Clara (Baseline) • Bayview Waterfront EIR, San Francisco (Baseline) • Caltrans Doyle Drive Replacement Project, San Francisco (Baseline) • 301 Airport Boulevard Office Development, Burlingame (Environmental Vision) • Sierra Point Biotech Campus, Brisbane (Environmental Vision) D. KEY STRENGTHS We have compiled a team with the breadth and depth of experience needed to manage a project with the complexity of the Apple Campus 2 Project EIR. The following bullets summarize our key strengths: • Senior staff involvement. The LSA team will be directed and managed by Judith Malamut, Principal, and Adam Weinstein, Associate. Judith, with 24 years of experience, and Adam, with 10 years of experience, will oversee the project and technic:al analyses, coordinate with the project team, and ensure that all tasks are completed in an efficient, cost - effective, and timely manner. They have collaborated on numerous projects over the last 10 years and are committed to a harmonious process; quality, on -time products; and proactive project management. • Corporate campus experience. Because corporate campuses are often large, somewhat self - contained, and generate use patterns that are firm- specific, associated environmental review requires a customized approach. Judith and Adam have substantial experience evaluating corporate campus and large, institutional projects, and are adept at crafting project descriptions that call attention to the unique qualities of campuses and identifying issues specific to such projects that require particuiar attention. In preparing EIRs on corporate campus projects, LSA strives to maintain a balance between detailed environmental review, and the need to maintain flexibility for future development. • Contribution to project teams. Many of the projects on which LSA has worked in recent years have included project teams, typically comprising representatives of the local agency and its consultants, and the applicant team and its legal counsel, that have been formed to help ensure efficient processing and analysis of the project. We have served as an active participant on such teams for many of the more complex and controversial environmental review projects on which we have worked. We have a proven ability to identify issues early in the process and work diligently with the appropriate individuals to develop effective solutions. As a team member, we frequently serve as a liaison between City staff and members of the project development team and, where helpful, between individual agencies. Recent projects where we have served in such a role include: Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan EIR for the City of Foster City; Sierra Point Biotech Project EIR for the City of Brisbane; Livermore Municipal Airport Rezoning EIR for the City of Livermore; and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Expansion EIR for SFMOMA and the City /County of San Francisco. • Tenacious attention to deadlines and schedulle. LSA frequently works with clients to develop aggressive schedules to accommodate deadlines as they may relate to project funding, land purchase options, timing of public hearings, or construction time frames. Schedules may be condensed through early agreement on the project description, swift transmittal of needed data, and shortened review periods. City staff and the applicant team will find that LSA is exceptionally responsive and will go the OAPROPOSAL \11028 -Apple Campus 2 EIR \Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) 5 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO extra mile to achieve the agreed -upon schedule. We encourage you to contact our references regarding our commitment to schedule. • Expertise addressing global climate change and sustainability issues. LSA is adept at discussing issues of global climate change in the context of energy use and sustainability. We take a comprehen- sive and holistic approach to evaluating sustainability, and are knowledgeable of the connections among urban design, land use and transportation, geography, and local economies. Our experience makes us well - positioned to evaluate the sustainability implications of the project design and operation, and to highlight some of the sustainability initiatives that are being proposed by Apple. • Preparation of well written, defensible, and publicly accessible CEQA documents and practical planning reports. LSA produces legally sound CEQA documents that are also written in a manner that makes them easy to read and understandable to a diverse audience, including planners, designers, attorneys, decision - makers, interested members of the community, and local interest groups who review the documents. We also strive to provide adequate background information to help interested individuals and groups understand topics that do not always fall within the requirements of CEQA (e.g., socio- economic issues, policy consistency). Simple attributes such as clear formatting, a well- organized heading structure, and explicit descriptions of project impacts and mitigation measures make our documents more readable and useful. • Understanding of the City's and applicant's needs. Through our experience working with public agencies, we know that City staff (and members of the applicant team) may be stretched thin by the time and effort required to manage the planning and environmental review processes. Therefore, we have proposed a full scope of services required to complete the CEQA process. We will facilitate the document review process by providing compare versions of documents that show the explicit changes made between drafts (allowing the team to concentrate on text changes without having to reread the entire document). We also have experience assisting staff with the preparation of notices, staff reports and resolutions and can be available to help as needed. We believe that the ability of LSA staff to work independently of, but in close communication with, staff is one of our greatest assets. 0 \PROPOSAL \11028 -Apple Campus 2 EIRWpple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) 6 3. WORK PLAN A. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The proposed project is the development of Apple C:ampus 2, a new corporate campus on a 175 -acre site. The project is intended to create a physically - unifiec campus that consolidates employees in a single building, while meeting various sustainability objectives. Due to the size and central location of the proposed campus, and the nature of the development and transportation program, the project has the potential to result in long -term changes to the econ Dmy and land use pattern of Cupertino. The project site, which is located entirely in the City of Cupertino, is bounded by East Homestead Road on the north; North Tantau Avenue and adjacent properties to the east; Interstate 280 (1 -280) to the south; and North Wolfe Road to the west. The site is primarily occupied by office and research /development buildings, some of which were developed in the 1960s (including those associated with the Hewlett Packard Campus), and buildings that currently comprise Apple's Ridgeview Campus. The vision for the area outlined in the North Vallco Master Plan is a workplace district in which Apple is a major property owner and where there is a cluster of knowledge workers and convenient services for these workers. The proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and replacement with a four -story building comprising 2,800,000 square feet and ancillary buildings that would hold 13,000 Apple employees. Approximately 9,000 to 10,500 parking spaces would be developed on the site (excluding parking located east of North Tantau Avenue), including parking located in a basement level and surface parking. Because, as part of the project, numerous lower -rise buildings would be removed (and replaced with one larger building with sub -grade parking ancl several ancillary buildings), the amount of landscaped area on the site would increase by approximately 4,200,000 square feet. A major theme of the project design is the development of a unified campus, and to do so, Apple proposes to close a portion of Pruneridge Avenue to public use. The campus would contain its own central utility plant, which would include fuel cells, an electrical substation, back -up generators, pumps, and other equipment. The campus would be designed to exceed the sustainability requirements established by the Cupertino Green Building Ordinance and other green building standards, and would use passive design, energy efficiency /recovery systems, renewable power generation, and usage mechanisms to substantially reduce non - renewable energy use. In addition, Apple's existing Transportation Demand Management (TDIV) Program would be expanded to reduce the use of private motor vehicles and associated peak hour vehicle trips. The grading strategy for the project is intended to manage stormwater runoff to meet water quality requirements and locate buildings outside of the Calabazas Creek flood zone, and would require approxi- mately 1,500,000 cubic yards of excavation. Off -site changes that would occur as a result of the project would include the widening of Wolfe Road and the relocation of certain utilities. Several entitlements would be required, including General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments, and approval of a Development Agreement. O:\PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposaldoc (W28/2011) 7 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO B. PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM Effective project management is critical to the success of an environmental analysis, especially for complex projects. Due to the scale and complexity of this environmental review effort, the project will be managed by two senior -level project managers with tested experience managing large -scale project- and program - level EIRs. Judith Malamut, Principal -in- Charge, and Adam Weinstein, Associate/Project Manager, will undertake a variety of general project management tasks throughout the EIR preparation period. Judith will provide input on scope, budget, and scheduling of the project, and quality assurance for all work under- taken. She will review all subconsultant submittals and in -house prepared text, tables, and graphics before these materials are presented to the project team as administrative review documents. She will be available for consultation on CEQA procedural matters as well as application of the CEQA Guidelines to this project. Adam Weinstein will be in charge of day -to -day activities associated with the project. Project management tasks include regular client contact; contract negotiation and management; oversight of subconsultants and team members; schedule coordination; and development of products. Adam will provide the direction to all team members that will ensure an internally- consistent, coherent document. The qualifications of LSA's senior -level management team are described below. Adam Weinstein, AICP, will serve as Project Manager. Adam is a seasoned planner and project manager, with 10 years of experience conducting and overseeing program- and project -level environmental docu- mentation. Adam's experience has encompassed a wide array of public- and private sector projects, including research campuses, residential and infrastructure developments, and large -scale events. Adam is adept at managing multi - disciplinary teams and helping agencies navigate complex environmental review processes. He is currently managing the CEQA documentation for the expansion of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art — a project that has been characterized as the City's largest private project between now and 2016, when it is expected to open. Projects that Adam recently managed include the Gilead Corporate Campus Master Plan EIR for the City of Foster City and the Lower Arsenal Specific Plan EIR for the City of Benicia. Judith Malamut, AICP, Principal, will serve as Principal -in- Charge. Judith has 24 years of experience and her activities with LSA focus on project management for environmental review documents, policy planning, environmental analysis, and open space and recreation planning. Her experience with large and complex projects is particularly noteworthy. Her major projects at this time as Principal -in- Charge and Project Manager are the Mountain View General Plan Update EIR for the City of Mountain View and the Alameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan EIR/EIS for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. She managed the CEQA documentation for the Sierra Point Biotech Campus, a major research and development campus proposed for the Sierra Point peninsula in Brisbane. Judith's ability to guide clients through the environ- mental process and her thoughtful approach to problem - solving has resulted in multiple assignments from long -term clients, such the cities of Berkeley, Livermore, San Jose, Fairfield, Brisbane, and California State University. In addition to the work cited above, she has managed the CEQA documentation for subdivisions, master - planned communities, general plan amendments, and redevelopment/infill, commercial /retail and brownfields projects. Judith has been with LSA since 1997; Adam joined LSA in 2001. They have worked as a team for 10 years on numerous projects, including on -call environmental services for the City of Saratoga, the Livermore Municipal Airport Rezoning EIR for the City of Livermore, and the Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan IS /MND for the City of Richmond. O:WROPOSAL \7102 8-Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal.doc (828/2071) 8 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT R Y OF CUPERTINO C. TASKS AND DELIVERABLES This section outlines the LSA Team's approach and specific work program for completing an EIR for the Apple Campus 2 Project, in compliance with CEQA. f summary of the work program is provided in Table 1. TASK A. PROJECT INITIATION Table 1: ec Scope Wrk y The projt initiation task for the Apple Campus 2 T ASK A:"PR OJECTINITIATION of oSummar Project EIR will provide an opportunity for th LSA 1 Mart U "P Meeting team to collaborate and strategize with City staff Z. Site Vs1t/Field Surreys and the Apple consultant team to refine our 3. Data Gathering and Evaluation recommended approach and work progra m, as Base Map Preparation 5. " Notice of Preparation and Scoping Session appropriate, and assemble materials for e analysis 6... Project Description of the project. One of the key project initiation tasks 7; 5ignificance will be to define the proposed project for the 8. Work Program Refinement purpose of the CEQA analysis. There may be a need TASK B: PLANNING POLICYAN to allow for some flexibility in implementing developmethe nt aud in terms of use patterns i TASKC: SETTING,IMPACTSAND MITIGATION MEASURES use of auditorium for special events) or (includ activity ng 1. - "Land use . levels. To ensure this is accomplished, it the will be ity and 3. 2 Aesthetics important for LSA to work i C P opulati, Employment, and Hous Apple to determine the best closely way to w d efine and 4, Biological Resources analyze the project and the project alternatives. 5. Cultural Re 6. ' Geology, Seism and So Other key project initiation tasks will involve 7. Hydrology and Water Qua lity meeting wit City staff and Apple, conducting a 8. H azards and " Haze dour MatersJs ." field visit, gathering information, contacting ' L T ransportat #on an Circ responsible agencies, holding a public scoping 1 Noise 11. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainabi session and refining the work program. The project 12 A ir Qual description and significance criteria for the EIR will 13 P au IKServices and Uti also be prepared as part of project initiation TASK D: A LTERNATIVES ANALYSIS subtasks. 1. Start -Up Meeting TASK E: CUMULATIVE AND GR OWTH- INDU CING IMPACTS F: OTH CD LSA will meet with the project expectations regarding the tasks team to be to discu unde rtaken TASK TASK G: P rat Adm ' D EQA RA FTELR 1. F Administrative D r aft RATI EIR as part of the environmental documentation effort. 2. . Secon d Admini strativ e D raft EIR NS As part of these meetings, LSA will want to: 3. ck ft E • Gather relevant information d 4• Public Re chee view Dra Draft EIR that included in the project description and ata beyond TASK H : PREPARE FINAL EIR attached to the RFP and Steve Jobs' June 7, 1. Administrat Draft Final EIR 2011 PowerPoint presentation to the City 2. Screencheck Draft Final EIR Council. 3. F EIR Discuss the City's desired approach to involve TASK I: MITIGATION MONITORING AND • Apple during preparation an RE PORTING PROGRAM of the Administrative and Screenchecof the EIR d review k drafts of TASK) : the EIR. TASK K: " PUBLIC FIEARINGS AND MEETINGS TASK L. PROJECT MANAGEMENT O:\PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR \Apple Campus Pmposal.doc (6/28/2011) 9 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO • Discuss the options for defining the project to provide for future flexibility if and when the project design is refined. • Compile up -to -date data describing and illustrating other development planned in the City. • Discuss the overall environmental review schedule and associated milestones. 2. Site Visit /Field Survey As one of the initial steps, LSA will undertake a site visit with as many members of LSA's team as possible to observe and photograph the project site. LSA staff will identify existing conditions and study area features, and confirm information provided in previous studies. We encourage attendance by City staff and Apple at our initial site visit to allow for sharing of observations. 3. Data Gathering and Evaluation Existing data and analyses applicable to the proposed project will be collected and evaluated in order to gain an understanding of the available information that will be used as part of the environmental review. As part of this task we will request copies of the Phase I Report; the Arborist Report; Historic Resources Evalua- tion; Biological Resources Report; and other available technical reports. The LSA team will review these documents along with the Cupertino General Plan, North Vallco Master Plan and other City planning documents. In addition to City departments, LSA will also contact responsible or potentially affected agencies to identify issues of concern for the proposed project. These agencies may include: the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); the California Department of Fish and Game; and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). 4. Base Map Preparation A base map of the project site and vicinity for use in the EIR will be prepared by LSA using the best available map information available from the City, Apple, and other sources. The base map will be used to illustrate street and block layouts in the project site vicinity, the project site's relationship to surrounding areas and Calabazas Creek, surrounding land uses, General Plan and Zoning designations, and the Vallco Master Plan Area. The base map will be available for consultant and staff use during meetings and presentations. 5. Notice of Preparation and Scoping Session LSA will prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP) in accordance with the requirements of CEQA for distribution to the State Clearinghouse and all other appropriate recipients. A PDF copy of the NOP will also be submit- ting for posting on the City's website. The City will be responsible for distributing the NOP, although LSA can provide assistance on an as- needed basis. LSA will participate in one public scoping session. Judith and Adam will attend the session and describe the environmental review process, summarize key environmental issues, and outline the expected schedule for the EIR's preparation and the public's involvement in the environmental review process. Following the 30 -day comment period, ISA will review all comments received on the NOP and identify whether any changes to the scope of work are warranted. 6. Project Description Based on the project narrative provided in the RFP, Steve Jobs' June 7, 2011 PowerPoint presentation, and other information provided by the City and Apple, LSA will draft a project description that includes all elements necessary to comply with CEQA, including, but not limited to, the purpose, phasing and physical elements of the project. The project description will also include a map showing the location and bounda- OAPROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) 10 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO ries of the project site. In addition, the project description will include a discussion of the setting, back- ground, and objectives of the project. The project description will also describe the overall approval process for the project and identify all discretionary and anticipated subsequent approvals. All relevant agencies and reviewing bodies will also be identified. Crafting an appropriately detailed and illustrated project description is often the single most time -con- suming (as well as important) element of CEQA review for a large corporate campus. LSA will work closely with the City and Apple to ensure that the project description provides a level of detail appropriate for its objectives. A draft of the project description will be submitted to the City and Apple for review and acceptance before the LSA team begins conducting any impact analyses. 7. Significance Criteria LSA will prepare a draft set of significance criteria for review by the project team. The draft significance crite- ria will include proposed criteria for each topical issue to be addressed in the EIR. Early agreement regarding significance criteria will help to focus the setting information and the impact analyses provided in the EIR. 8. Work Program Refinement It may be necessary to refine the work program in accordance with information compiled in the subtasks listed above. Upon receipt and review of all of the comments on the NOP (and verbal comments made at the scoping session), LSA will work with the project . :eam to refine the scope of work, if necessary, to address any environmental issues that are not yet adequately addressed in this work program. If scope /budget modifications are needed, LSA will present the refined work program and budget for review and approval to the project team. TASK B. PLANNING POLICY ANALYSIS 1. Issues CEQA requires EIRs to include an analysis of potential policy conflicts only if these conflicts would result in physical environmental impacts. However, sometimes it is useful to include a policy analysis in an EIR to better understand the relationship of a project to current planning documents, even when no outright conflicts would occur. The need for a detailed policy analysis in a CEQA document is heightened in the context of a larger -scale project (such as the development of a corporate campus) because decision - makers will seek a broader understanding of the project's relationship with existing policy documents. In addition, the effects of the project may spill -over multi - jurisdictional borders (e.g., into Sunnyvale and Santa Clara). LSA has found that the approach of separating the discussion of a project's consistency with planning policies from the impact sections of an EIR is useful. This approach allows for a detailed discussion of policy issues, but in a context that clearly separates this analysis from that of the physical environmental impacts of the project. 2. Approach The planning policy analysis in this EIR will be custornized to evaluate planning documents that are relevant to the project site, Cupertino, and the region. The proposed project's relationship to each applicable policy will be described and potential conflicts will be identified. Recommendations to eliminate potential inconsistencies will be provided if warranted. The physical impacts associated with such policy conflicts will be addressed in the appropriate technical sections of the EIR (e.g., Transportation and Circulation, Air Quality, and Noise). O:\PROPOSAL\ 11028 -Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposaldoc (8/2812011) - 11 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO Documents that we expect will be included in the planning policy analysis are: the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Green Building Ordinance, Landscape Ordinance, North Vallco Master Plan, and regional and land use /transportation policy documents. Planning documents in nearby Sunnyvale and Santa Clara may also be reviewed. TASK C. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES The setting, impacts, and mitigation measures documentation for each of the issue areas described below will be incorporated into the EIR. This analysis will clearly describe the affected environment and the environmental consequences of implementation of the proposed project. The agreed -upon significance thresholds will be clearly stated within each section and will be used to determine impacts. Where relevant, impacts will be separately identified by their occurrence during either the construction or operations periods. A set of feasible mitigation measures (as well as the residual impacts or effects of each measure) will be identified. These mitigation measures can be developed in a way that permits them to be incorporated directly into the plans for the corporate campus. 1. Land Use a. Issues. The project site is currently developed with office and research /development uses, including buildings used by Hewlett- Packard. Commercial uses surround much of the site, but beyond these uses are residential neighborhoods. The Cupertino City Center is located south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, approximately 1,500 feet south of the project site. The proposed project would not change the land use within the project site, but would intensify existing uses by increasing the number of employees on -site and the square footage of office and research /development uses. Land use concerns associated with the project include the compatibility of proposed land uses with the residential neighborhoods around the site (including the Hamptons Apartments), the availability of adequate service uses in the vicinity to serve Apple employees, and connections between the project site and the City Center and other commercial areas. In addition, there is likely to be concern about potential changes in land use patterns that could result from the conveyance of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue to Apple (i.e., the creation of a "superbiock "). b. Approach. LSA will describe the land uses within and around the project site in the context of land use patterns in Cupertino and surrounding cities. The section will include an analysis of proposed land use intensity and building height with surrounding areas. The consistency of proposed land use patterns and urban design will be cross - referenced to the Planning Policy Analysis. The land use section will also evaluate the effects of conversion (to a private road) of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue on community integrity. Mitigation measures will be recommended if they are needed to address identified land use impacts. 2. Aesthetics a. Issues. The project site has a visual quality that is typical of corporate campuses in the Bay Area, with large landscaped surface parking lots, a mixture of single and multi -story office buildings, and landscaped areas. Implementation of the proposed project would alter the visual character of the site through the reconfiguration of built uses on the site (including the creation of one large office and research /development building that would contain the bulk of Apple employees), the partial closure of Pruneridge Avenue, and the development of landscape features on the site. O:\PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR\ Apple Campus Proposal doc (6/28/2011) 12 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO b. Approach. In preparing the visual quality sec :ion of the EIR, LSA will collaborate closely with the project sponsor team, which will prepare the visual simulations, and Environmental Vision (a subconsultant to LSA), which will peer review the visual simulations. These visual simulations will inform the text discussion of the project's potential impacts to visual quality. Subtasks that will be conducted as part of the aesthetics analysis will include the following: • Describe the area's existing visual character. LSA will describe the area's existing visual character using photographs and narrative, and will include views from and to the site, noting the site's visibility as seen from key public vantage points located within the vicinity. The visual attributes and patterns of the project site and its surroundings will be assessed. • Summarize relevant policies that pertain to visual quality. LSA will summarize policies, regulations, and guidelines regarding visual resources, including those in the North Vallco Master Plan. A summary of design measures proposed as part of the project will also be prepared. • Conduct data review. Environmental Vision and LSA will advise the project team on potential view- points to be used for the visual simulations. In addition, Environmental Vision will review existing data used for the visual simulations, using high - resolution image files, hard copy versions of the simulation photographs and rendered simulation images, i ,formation on the camera model and lens used to shoot simulation photographs, and a scaled map of the site plan showing the location of the simulation vantage points. • Conduct third party review of visual simulations. Environmental Vision will employ computer - assisted modeling techniques to assess whether the applicant - prepared visual simulations portray the location, scale, and general appearance of proposed project features with reasonable accuracy. Environmental Vision will also evaluate whether the simulations provide a reasonable illustration of proposed site modifications, including grading, paving, vegetation removal and new landscaping. Results of the third party review will identify if the simulation images are generally accurate or if they require revision. Review of simulations from up to five viewpoints is assumed for the purposes of this proposal. • Complete impact analysis. Based on the photos and simulations provided by the project sponsor (and the peer review conducted by Environmental Vi:sion), LSA will evaluate and describe potential visual impacts associated with the proposed project. The evaluation will address issues including project visibility from key public viewpoints, compatibility with the existing scale and architectural character of surrounding areas, potential view blockage, light and glare, and consistency with plans and policies regarding visual /urban design quality. Potentially significant impacts to visual quality will be identified and mitigation measures, such as alternative building siting, or landscape treatment, will be recommended. 3. Population, Employment, and Housing a. Issues. The population, employment, and housing analysis will provide information about the socioeconomic context of the project that may be helpful to decision - makers and the community, and will address job generation in the context of the available housing supply. The proposed project would add 3,500 employees to the project site, would likely generate additional spinoff jobs, and would increase employment in Cupertino and the region. This job growth could also indirectly increase population in the region. Specific development envisioned by the proposed project will also be taking place in the context of a number of other foreseeable population- and employment- generating projects. b. Approach. LSA will use a variety of data to analyze the effects of the project on population, employ- ment, and housing. Sources that will be used include: U.S. Census, California Department of Finance, the 0 : PROPOSAL \11028-Apple Campus 2 EIR\Appie Campus Proposal doc (6/28/2011) 13 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO population and employment projections and regional housing allocations of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the City's General Plan. Jobs that are expected to result from the project will be compared to expected local and regional growth. As part of the analysis, LSA will identify potential job /housing mismatches and discuss policies that pertain to the development of workforce housing. This analysis will take into account the current geographic distribution of the residences of Apple employees, if such data are available. 4. Biological Resources a. Issues. The project site is located in a dense urban area and is developed with buildings, parking lots, and associated landscaping. Although the site supports numerous native and ornamental trees, it likely provides limited habitat for native wildlife and plants except those species that are tolerant of human disturbance. Such disturbance - tolerant species are not typically special- status species or species for which impacts require mitigation. Nevertheless, there is potential for Calabazas Creek and its associated riparian corridor to support disturbance - tolerant special- status species such as birds and western pond turtles, but listed species such as California red - legged frogs and steelhead that are not known to occur in Calabazas Creek are not expected to occur in this urban setting. Proposed bridge crossings and a possible pedestrian trail may affect the creek and /or riparian vegetation and may be subject to the permitting requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Depart- ment of Fish and Game if the creek crossings or trail affect jurisdictional waters or wetlands, or the bed, bank, or riparian vegetation of the creek. The existing native and ornamental trees throughout the project site may support active bird nests that are protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and /or California Fish and Game Code. Many of the trees on the site may be protected by the City of Cupertino's tree ordinance. Impacts to trees will be assessed using information contained in the comprehensive Arborist Report that has been prepared for the site. The main building proposed for construction, with its extensive windows and adjacent landscaping, may pose a risk of bird strikes. Bird strikes against windows could cause mortality to both common and special- status birds that may eventually nest and forage on the new campus. Some of the older buildings on the project site that will be demolished or relocated (e.g., the Glendenning Barn) may support roosting bats. Roosts of special- status bat species, and maternity and other roosts of all bats are considered sensitive biological resources by the California Department of Fish and Game and may require mitigation if they are affected by the proposed project. LSA will consider these issues when conducting its site visit and impact analysis and will develop mitigation measures to reduce impacts, as warranted. b. Approach. LSA will conduct the following subtasks to identify existing biological resources and potential impacts that could result from development on the project site: • Conduct literature review. Prior to conducting fieldwork, LSA will search the California Natural Diversity Database and California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants for records of special- status plant and animal species in the vicinity of the site. LSA will review existing documents, including the Biological Resources Report and Arborist Report that were prepared for Apple, to identify sensitive resources on the site and areas to focus the field surveys. LSA will also draw upon its previous experience in the region (e.g., work on the Town of Los Gatos General Plan Update and EIR and City of Mountain View General Plan Update and EIR) when collecting information about existing biological resources. • Conduct field survey. An LSA biologist and arborist will conduct a reconnaissance -level biological survey of the site to identify and evaluate the current biological resources on and adjacent to the site. Observations made during the site visit will be used to assess potential impacts to biological resources resulting from the proposed project. We will map the habitats that occur on the site and note the 0 \ PROPOSAL \1103 &Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal .doc (6/28/2011) 14 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO location and approximate extent of wetlands and other waters on the site. A formal delineation of wetlands and other waters is not included in this scope of work, as it is assumed that a formal delinea- tion is not necessary to identify the potential impacts of the project. However, LSA has the expertise to conduct a formal delineation under a separate scope and budget, if requested. The arborist will make general notes on the trees that are present on -:site and verify that the condition of the trees is as described in the arborist's report. Plants and ar imals observed on the site during the site visit will be recorded and the potential for special- status plants or animals to occur on the site will be assessed. • Prepare biological resources analysis. LSA will identify and discuss: 1) existing vegetation types and wildlife habitat values; 2) special- status plant and animal species known to occur in the general site vicinity and their potential to occur on site; 3) sensitive habitat features that may support special- status species, nesting birds, and /or roosting bats; and 4) habitat features subject to agency jurisdiction (e.g., Calabazas Creek, wetlands and other waters of the United States). Sensitive habitat features and /or special- status observations will be depicted on a map. LSA will evaluate potential short- and long -term impacts to biological resources that could result from the proposed project. Impacts may result from project construction as well as ongoing operation, including adjacent land uses and increased lighting. The analysis will also include an assessment of potential impacts to the habitat values of Calabazas Creek. Mitigation measures to avoid potential impacts or to reduce impacts to a less- than - significant level, where feasible, will be identified. 5. Cultural Resources a. Issues. The project site contains a portion of a stream, Calabazas Creek, suggesting that the site may be sensitive for the occurrence of prehistoric archaeological deposits. However, the site is not anticipated to contain historical architectural resources, besides the Glendenning Barn, due to the extensive modern development. The Glendenning Barn may qualify as a historical resource under CEQA Guidelines Section 21083.2; as such, its removal or modification may constitute a significant impact under CEQA. The surround- ing architectural context of the relocated barn is not anticipated to be an issue of concern in regard to potential impacts due to the preexisting corporate campus. (which has compromised the barn's historical setting). The previous extent of ground disturbance reduces, but does not negate, the likelihood that archaeological deposits, paleontological resources, and human remains could be encountered and disturbed by project- related construction activities, including the excavation required to allow for basement -level parking. b. Approach. Although the Glendenning Barn is being assessed for its historical significance, there are no indications that the remainder of the project site has undergone study for cultural resources. To address this potential lack of baseline environmental data, LSA will conduct a reconnaissance -level study for cultural resources. The study will include background research, including a records search at the Northwest Informa- tion Center; contact with interested parties, such as the Cupertino Historical Society and the Native Ameri- can Heritage Commission; and a field survey. Based on the baseline conditions data obtained as part of the background research and review of the historic resources evaluation, LSA will assess the potential for the project to result in significant impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains. Changes to the location of the Glendenning Barn will be assessed to determine if project impacts will reach a significant level. Following the impacts assessment, LSA will identify mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or ■Dffset the potential impacts, as feasible. 6. Geology, Seismicity, and Soils a. Issues. The project site is located within a seismically active area of northern California. The San Andreas Fault, west of the City, is the most significant regional fault, but the Monte Vista and Berrocal Faults, two thrust faults located closer to the project site, could also produce significant earthquakes during the 0\PROPOSAL \11028 -Apple Campus 2 EIR pi Campus ProposalAoc (6/28/2011) 15 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO projected lifespan of the project. A significant seismic event on one of the several active faults within the region may result in direct impacts (e.g., shaking - related damage to buildings and other improvements) and indirect impacts (e.g., earthquake- induced settlements or liquefaction) to the project. Soils at the project site are mapped as Valley Alluvium. The physical and engineering properties of Valley Alluvium would not likely be considered a significant constraint to development of the project, subject to standard geotechnical hazard considerations. b. Approach. Baseline, as a subconsultant to LSA, will prepare an analysis of potential impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity that may result from development of the project. The analysis will describe the existing regional and site - specific geologic setting; evaluate potential impacts in comparison to established significance criteria; and identify practical mitigation measures to reduce identified significant impacts, where appropriate. Baseline will conduct the following subtasks to evaluate geologic conditions within the project site: • Conduct a site reconnaissance. A reconnaissance to verify geologic and soils conditions and visually inspect conditions at the project site will be undertaken. • Describe geologic conditions. The regional and site - specific geologic and seismic conditions for the project site will be described based on review of available geotechnical reports and other technical reports for the project site. • Identify sources of regional earthquakes. Potential sources of regional earthquakes will be identified and expected levels of seismic shaking (and related potential for ground failure) at the project site will be described. • Describe soil conditions. Soil conditions (including erosion hazards and shrink -swell potential) at the project site on the basis of Natural Resource Conservation Service mapping and available geotechnical investigation for the project site will be described. • Describe local policies. Existing policies from the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan that address soils and geology will be described. • Describe seismic impacts. Potential seismic impacts, including ground rupture and seismic shaking, will be described. The maximum expected earthquake on nearby active faults will likely cause very strong to violent seismic shaking at the project site. • Describe geotechnical impacts. The details of the proposed project will be evaluated for compliance with local ordinances and requirements and standard geotechnical principles. Any potential impacts associated with soil instability will be described. • Recommend mitigation measures. Practical mitigation measures will be identified that would reduce or eliminate any identified potential impacts related to geologic, soils, or seismic conditions. 7. Hydrology and Water Quality a. Issues. A large portion of the project site is currently covered with impervious surfaces including buildings, surface parking lots, and roadways. The proposed project includes a significant reduction in the area of impervious surfaces, which should produce a net overall benefit to runoff volumes and water quality, but which could create localized impacts in certain areas of the project site. Calabazas Creek, which drains a 20- square -mile watershed, crosses the southeast corner of the project site. The 13.3 -mile creek connects the Santa Cruz Mountains to the Guadalupe Slough, which ultimately discharges to San Francisco Bay. Recent improvements to the creek, completed in 2007, have increased peak flow capacity. As a result, in 2010 parcels at and near the project site were removed from Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) O:\PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR \Apple Campus Proposal doc (6/28/2011) 16 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO mapped 100 -year flood hazard areas. However, the project site could potentially be affected by flooding as a result of failure of the Stevens Creek Dam, located southwest of the project site. Storm water quality control, and compliance with federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements is overseen by the City of Cupertino Environmental Services Division Stormwater Runoff Pollution Program, a member agency of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, and the project would be subject to the provisions of this program. b. Approach. Although the project is not likely to generate a greater volume of runoff at peak flow compared to the existing site, drainage patterns and associated water quality, including water quality in Calabazas Creek, Guadalupe Slough, and San Francisco Bay, may be altered. Baseline will conduct the following subtasks to evaluate the effects of project development on hydrology and water quality: • Describe hydrologic conditions. The regional and site - specific hydrologic and storm drainage conditions in the vicinity of the project site will be described. • Conduct a site reconnaissance. A reconnaissance will be conducted to verify drainage patterns and identify opportunity areas for construction of treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to improve runoff water quality from the site. • Describe existing water quality conditions. Based on existing information, the surface and groundwater quality in the vicinity of the site will be described. The description and analysis of groundwater quality will be coordinated with the hazardous materials analysis. • Describe requirements of existing storm water regulations. The regulatory framework for storm water quality, including federal, State, and local plans, Taws, and regulations, will be described. These will include local requirements, including the City Watercourse Protection Ordinance and measures from the General Plan related to storm water protection. • Evaluate changes in runoff volume. Construction of new buildings, roadways, and other improvements would change the amount and location of impervious areas, which would alter drainage patterns and runoff volumes at the site. This potential impact would be described qualitatively after consultation with the City's Environmental Services Division and review of available storm water control plans from the applicant team. • Describe potential degradation of water quallity. Discharge of urban pollutants (petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals associated with automobile use) from parking areas at the site may be considered a significant impact. Due to the site's connection to San Francisco Bay via Calabazas Creek, this runoff could adversely affect water quality and the ecological health of the Bay. Compliance with existing storm water quality regulations would be outlined as the minimum requirement for project mitigation of potential storm water quality impacts. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a. Issues. The Hewlett- Packard campus within the project site was historically subject to remediation under RWQCB oversight due to releases of solvents from electronics manufacturing and diesel from a leaking underground storage tank. When RWQCB oversight officially ended in October 2001 with the approval of Order 01 -114, concentrations of contam nants in soils and groundwater were generally below applicable risk standards. However, additional potential sources of contamination are located near the project site and remain under regulatory oversight. These include the National Priorities List (Superfund) site, Intersil, located adjacent to the eastern project site boundary, and the Cupertino Village Cleaners site, located near the northwest corner of the project site. Both of these sites released solvents to groundwater, O:\PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR \Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/2B2011) 17 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO and this contamination may have the potential to migrate via groundwater and soil gases and affect future construction workers and employees in project site buildings. Buildings on the site that would be demolished may also contain lead and /or asbestos. In addition, the fill underlying the project site could contain contaminants that could affect human or environmental health. b. Approach. Baseline will evaluate potential threats to public health and safety from hazardous materials and other hazards that could result from development of the proposed project. The analysis will rely partially on environmental investigation documents for the project site and nearby properties (including the Phase I Report prepared for the site). Baseline will conduct the following subtasks to evaluate potential impacts from hazards and hazardous materials within the project site: • Review available environmental investigations. Baseline will review available environmental investigations of the project site and immediate vicinity including available RWQCB files for Site Cleanup Orders 89 -112 and 96 -085, which governed historical remedial activities at the project site. Based on this information, Baseline will describe known and potential hazardous materials issues at and near the project site. • Describe the existing regulatory framework. The existing regulatory framework for public health and hazardous materials, particularly those regulations and programs that may apply to development of the project, will be described. • Describe emergency response and evacuation plans. Emergency response and evacuation plans in the project vicinity will be described, as well as existing programs and requirements for emergency response. • Describe existing local policies. Existing local policies and plans that address hazardous materials and other public health and safety concerns will be described, including the City of Cupertino Hazardous Materials and Toxic Gas Ordinances, the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan, and the North Vallco Master Plan. • Identify potential hazards associated with electronics research and development. Although much of the proposed project will be dedicated to office space, the project includes research and development facilities that could involve the use of metals, solvents, and other hazardous materials. Baseline will describe the types and quantities of hazardous materials typically used at similar facilities and highlight existing regulatory measures which address the safe use, storage, and disposal of these materials. • Assess impacts. Potential impacts will be evaluated for future construction workers, future occupants of the site, and other workers and residents in the project site vicinity. This analysis will include an evaluation of the potential for contaminants to be present in soil and groundwater at the project site which could be released during construction activities, as well as the potential health effects to project site workers associated with migration of contaminants from soil gas and groundwater to indoor air. The conveyance of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue will also be evaluated in the context of emergency evacuation. • Recommend mitigation measures. Practical mitigation measures will be identified, if warranted, to address any identified significant impacts. Mitigation will likely include implementation of construction - phase health and safety and risk management plans (for the protection of workers and the surrounding community), implementation of best management practices for hazardous materials storage during construction to minimize the potential for releases to occur, and compliance with local, State, and federal hazardous materials regulations during project operation. 0 \ PROPOSAL \11028-Apple Campus 2 E1R\Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) 18 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO 9. Transportation and Circulation a. Issues. The proposed project would generate traffic on local and regional roadways, and change the circulation pattern of the project site. Apple has unique travel characteristics based on its type of business, location, employee travel modes, and employee residence locations. Therefore using industry- standard rates for the trip generation analysis may not be appropriate. As part of the proposed project, a segment of Pruneridge Avenue between Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue would be conveyed to Apple. The EIR will include an evaluation of how the closure of this roadway to the public would affect access for the community and emergency vehicles. The project would also include an auditorium that could hold special events at the new campus. Although special events are not anticipated to occur on a regular basis, there may be concern regarding whether local roadways and internal transportation infrastructure on the site can accommodate the associated increase in traffic. In addition, a large amount of construction traffic would be generated by the project, which would require the removal of 1,500,000 cubic yards of soil. b. Approach. Fehr & Peers, as a subconsultant to LSA, will prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). LSA will use the TIA to prepare the Transportation and Circulation section of the EIR. This scope of work for the TIA, as described below, has been tailored to meet the requirements of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Since employees at the new campus will likely have a similar profile to those at the existing campus at 1 Infinite Loop and similar TDM options, Fehr & Peers proposes to use trip generation and trip distribution data from Apple's current campus, which will capture the effects of Apple's existing TDM Program and will more - accurately predict project trip generation and distribution patterns for the project. Fehr and Peers will conduct the following subtasks to prepare the TIA: • Conduct preliminary analyses and finalize scope of work (Subtask 1). Fehr & Peers will work closely with City staff to develop trip generation estimates for the proposed project. Fehr & Peers proposes to apply trip generation rates based on data collected at the existing campus with modifications to account for use differences at the new campus, if needed. Fehr & Peers will estimate the amount of traffic generated by the additional 500,000 square feet of building area and 3,500 employees, plus trips generated by any vacant or underutilized buildings on the campus site. The trip distribution pattern will be developed based on residence locations of current Apple employees and the locations of existing and planned residential areas. The vehicle trips will be added to the surrounding roadway system to determine the extent of the study area based on the VTA's ten trips per lane rule of thumb. The trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment estimates plus a refined list of analysis locations will be submitted to City staff for review. These estimates may be revised to address concerns raised. Fehr & Peers will revise the remaining tasks based on comments provided by City Staff. • Describe existing transportation setting (Subtask 2). The existing transportation network and transit services providing access to the site will be described. Current operations of the roadway system will be evaluated with level of service calculations incorporating data collected in Subtask 2a. • Collect data (Subtask 2a). This subtask will include the collection of various transportation- related data. Study Intersections Fehr & Peers will use recently - conducted counts (vehicle turning movement, pedestrian, and bicycle counts during the AM (6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.) and PM (4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) peak periods) to evaluate existing intersection operations. The preliminary list of study intersections is provided below: O:' ROPOSAL \11028-Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) 19 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO 1. Stevens Creek Boulevard /State Route (SR) 85 23. Tantau Avenue /Homestead Road Ramps (west) 24. Tantau Avenue /Pruneridge Avenue 2. Stevens Creek Boulevard /SR 85 Ramps (east) 25. Tantau AvenueNallco Parkway 3. Stevens Creek Boulevard /Stelling Road 26. Tantau Avenue /Stevens Creek Boulevard 4. De Anza Boulevard /Homestead Road 27. Lawrence Expressway Ramps /EI Camino Real 5. De Anza Boulevard /I -280 Ramps (north) (west) 6. De Anza Boulevard /I -280 Ramps (south) 28. Lawrence Expressway Ramps /EI Camino Real 7. De Anza Boulevard /Stevens Creek Road (east) 8. De Anza Boulevard /McClellan Road 29. Lawrence Expressway /Homestead Road 9. De Anza Boulevard /Bollinger Road 30. Lawrence Expressway /Pruneridge Avenue 10. De Anza Boulevard /SR 85 Ramps (north) 31. Stevens Creek Boulevard /1 -280 Ramps (west) 11. De Anza Boulevard /SR 85 Ramps (south) 32. Stevens Creek Boulevard /1 -280 Ramps (east) 12. Homestead Road /Blaney Road 33. Stevens Creek Boulevard /Lawrence Expressway 13. Wolfe Road /EI Camino Real Ramps (west) 14. Wolfe Road /Fremont Avenue 34. Stevens Creek Boulevard /Lawrence Expressway 15. Wolfe Road /Homestead Road Ramps (east) 16. Wolfe Road /Pruneridge Avenue 35. Lawrence Expressway /I -280 Southbound Ramps 17. Wolfe Road /I -280 Ramps (north) 36. Lawrence Expressway /Bollinger Road 18. Wolfe Road /1 -280 Ramps (south) 37. Saratoga Avenue /Stevens Creek Boulevard 19. Wolfe RoadNallco Parkway 38. Saratoga Avenue /SR 85 Ramps (north) 20. Wolfe Road /Stevens Creek Boulevard 39. Saratoga Avenue /SR 85 Ramps (south) 21. Miller Road /Bollinger Road 40. Stevens Creek Boulevard and San Tomas 22. Stevens Creek Boulevard /Finch Avenue Expressway The collection of existing intersection data will also include field visits to obtain lane configurations, and traffic signal timings /phasings. Observations of operational conditions (e.g., locations of congested areas, queuing, and lane imbalances) would be conducted as part of the intersection counts. Study Freeway Segments Fehr & Peers will analyze freeway segments to be selected in consultation with City staff. The preliminary list of study freeway segments is provided below: 1. 1 -280, North of SR 85 2. 1 -280, SR 85 to DeAnza Boulevard 3. 1 -280, DeAnza Boulevard to Wolfe Road 4. 1 -280, Wolfe Road to Lawrence Expressway /Stevens Creek Boulevard 5. 1 -280, Lawrence Expressway /Stevens Creek Boulevard to Saratoga Avenue 6. 1 -280, South of Saratoga Avenue Existing freeway volumes, speeds, and densities will be obtained from the latest Santa Clara County CMP monitoring report. Transit Service Existing public bus ridership information (load factors) will be obtained for the bus routes providing access to the site from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Fehr & Peers will also summarize ridership information for the Caltrain stations serviced by Apple's shuttle system. O: 'ROPOSALU 1028 -Apple Campus 2 EIR'Apple Campus Proposal4oc (6/28/2011) 20 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO Bicycle Facilities The locations of bicycle facilities (bike paths, bike lades, and bike routes) in the study area will be obtained from the VTA and the City of Cupertino Bicycle Master Plans and field visits. Pedestrian Facilities The locations of pedestrian facilities (pedestrian paths, sidewalks, and pedestrian signals) will also be obtained from field visits. Apple TDM Measures The TDM measures currently provided by Apple, such as the shuttle system, will be described. • Evaluate existing intersection and freeway operations (Subtask 2b). The existing AM and PM peak - hour operations of the key intersections will be 'evaluated with level of service calculations. We will use the intersection level of service (LOS) method approved by the City of Cupertino and VTA, which is based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM) and uses Traffix analysis software. The results of the LOS analysis will be compared to the field observations made at the intersections. Existing freeway segment levels of service will be obtained from the latest Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP) monitoring report. • Review site plan, site access, and internal transportation circulation system (Subtask 3). A comprehensive and well- designed site plan with a multi -modal approach will enhance overall access and mobility, and minimize traffic congestion. Fehr & Peers will review the site access locations and internal circulation system regarding the connectivity and adequacy of the pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and vehicular networks. Fehr & Peers will estimate and assign vehicle volumes on the major internal roadways /circulation aisles, intersections, and parking garage driveways to ensure that the proposed internal roadway system can accommodate the projected vehicle demand. The access review will also consider the proposed security to be provided at the site /parking entrances. Fehr & Peers will also qualitatively review the overall on -site transportation network for design deficiencies (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) and inadequate emergency vehicles access. Fehr & Peers will compare the proposed parking supply to the proposed parking demand, based on parking data collected at the existing campus, to assess the adequacy of the number of provided spaces and the distribution of the spaces on the site. The evaluation will include parking for vehicles and for bicycles. • Conduct Transportation Impact Analysis (Subtask 4). Fehr & Peers will evaluate the impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding transportation system following the guidelines of the City of Cupertino and the VTA by evaluating the operations of the study intersections for a set of selected scenarios. The scenarios will be developed in concert with City staff and LSA. Scenarios selected for the purposes of this proposal are: Scenario 1 a: Existing Conditions — Existing volumes obtained from counts and existing lane configurations (results from Subtask 2b). Scenario 1b: Existing plus Project Conditions - Existing volumes plus traffic generated by the proposed project and roadway improvements that would be implemented as part of the project. O:\ PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIRWpple Campus Proposal.doc (628/2011) 21 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO Scenario 2a: Near -Term No Project Conditions - Traffic projections taking into account existing volumes, traffic generated by approved developments, and traffic generated by full occupancy of the buildings being removed as part of the project. Planned and fully- funded transportation improvements will be included. Scenario 2b: Near -Term plus Project Conditions - Near -term volumes plus net -added traffic generated by the proposed project. The transportation system will be the same as in Scenario 2a, plus project proposed roadway improvements. Scenario 3a: Cumulative No Project Conditions - Traffic projections that include existing traffic, traffic from approved developments and traffic from pending developments. The transportation system will be the same as in Scenario 2a. Scenario 3b: Cumulative plus Project Conditions - Cumulative No Project volumes plus traffic generated by the proposed project. The transportation system will be the same as in Scenario 2b. • Evaluate Existing plus Project Conditions (Subtask 4a). Project trip generation estimates, the distribution pattern, and assignments representing the amount of traffic added to the roadway system by the project will be compared to existing conditions developed in Subtask 1. Study intersection and freeway segment operations will be evaluated with respect to level of service calculations and estimates of the amount of added traffic on freeway segments. Intersection improvements to be provided by the project on Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue will be evaluated. • Evaluate Near -Term No Project and Near -Term plus Project Conditions (Subtask 4b). Near -Term No Project traffic projections will be developed by adding existing volumes plus traffic from approved developments, including occupancy of any vacant buildings on the campus site. The cities of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and San Jose will be contacted to obtain descriptions of their approved projects that may contribute traffic to the study intersections. Traffic projections from the developments will be obtained from their respective TIAs or estimated using state -of- the - practice techniques. Estimates of net -added project traffic developed in Subtask 1 plus traffic diversions and intersection improvements proposed as part of the project will be added to represent Near -Term plus Project Conditions. Study intersection operations will be evaluated with level of service calculations both with and without the net -added traffic and project improvements. Funded improvements will also be included in the calculations. (Freeway segment operations are not required under this scenario per VTA guidelines.) • Evaluate Cumulative No Project and Cumulative plus Project Conditions (Subtask 4c). Cumulative No Project traffic projections will be developed by adding traffic from pending developments to Near - term No Project volumes from Subtask 4b. The Cities of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and San Jose will be contacted to obtain descriptions of their pending developments. Traffic projections from the develop- ments will be obtained from their respective TIAs or estimated using the state of the practice tech- niques. Estimates of net -added project traffic developed in Subtask 1 and the traffic diversions will be added to represent Cumulative plus Project Conditions. Study intersection operations will be evaluated with level of service calculations both with and without the net -added traffic and project improve- ments. Funded improvements will be included in the calculations. (Analysis of freeway segment operations is not required under this scenario per VTA guidelines.) • Identify significant impacts and recommend mitigation measures (Subtask 5). Fehr & Peers will identify significant project transportation impacts based on City of Cupertino and VTA impact criteria. This assessment will address potential impacts to study intersections, freeway segments, transit service, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, and parking. If significant impacts are identified, Fehr & Peers will recommend feasible mitigation measures and enhancements to Apple's TDM Program to reduce the 0 \PROPOSAL \11028-Appte Campus 2 ER Apple Campus Proposal4oc (6282011) 22 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO number of vehicle trips. Feasible mitigation measures are those that can be constructed within the existing right -of -way or that require minimal right -of -way acquisition, such as intersection lane addi- tions and restriping. Modifications to intersection operations, including installation of traffic signals and changes to signal phasings and timings will also be considered. Fehr & Peers will identify bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements to minimize the need for widening intersections for vehicle use. Fehr & Peers could develop concept plans for mitigation measures that require physical improvements as an added service. Construction impacts (including those associated with site excavation) will be assessed and management measures to reduce construction traffic during peak traffic periods and to accommodate construction personnel parking will be provided. • Conduct neighborhood intrusion analysis (Subtask 6). Apple Campus 2 has the potential to add traffic to residential streets in adjacent communities: the area north of Homestead Avenue in Sunnyvale and on Pruneridge Avenue to the east in Santa Clara. Residents in Sunnyvale have in the past voiced concern that local roadways, such as Swallow, Quail and Peacock, were used to bypass the Homestead Avenue/Wolfe Road intersection. A recent Santa Clara Traffic Calming study was conducted to evaluate Hillsdale and De Soto as potential cut - through , outes to avoid the Pruneridge Avenue /Lawrence Expressway intersection. The amount of Apple traffic added to these areas and measures to reduce it will be addressed in theTlA.This analysis will also include an evaluation of circulation constraints associated with the vacation of Pruneridge Avenue, including impacts on bicycle and pedestrian circulation. • Evaluate alternatives (Subtask 7). Project alternatives will be evaluated by comparing their relative trip generation estimates. Fehr & Peers will also conduct trip generation estimates for project alternatives to be studied in the EIR and will use the Mixed Use Development (MXD) Trip Generation method for alternatives that include a mix of uses, such as housing and retail uses. The MXD Trip Generation method accounts for smart growth features that influence travel characteristics known as the "5D's" - Density, Diversity, Design, Destination accessibility, and Distance to transit. MXD was developed by Fehr & Peers and has been used for projects throughout the United States. It has been endorsed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). It is currently being considered by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as a proposed recommended practice for evaluating the trip generation of mixed -use developments. • Prepare VMT estimates for greenhouse gas analysis (Subtask 8). Fehr & Peers will prepare an estimate of the increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with the project for use in the modeling for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Fehr & Peers will discuss use of the VTA travel demand model with VTA staff and /or use data provided by Apple to determine the average trip lengths to and from the project site. If the VTA model can be used, VMT estimates will be prepared in 5- mile - per -hour speed bins. Fehr & Peers will also estimate off -model VMT reduction measures that are not calculated in the baseline VMT estimates. These reductions incorporate research on best management practices for VMT reduction presented in Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). • Prepare Transportation Impact Analysis Dociumentation (Subtask 9). Prior to completion of the Administrative Draft EIR, Fehr & Peers will document the findings in an Administrative Draft TIA, which will use text, graphics, and tables to describe the existing setting, analysis methods, analysis results, impacts of the proposed project, and corresponding mitigation measures. Fehr & Peers will incorporate comments into the Draft TIA report, which will be submitted for final review and minor editorial comments as part of the Second Administrative Draft EIR. Once the comments have been incorporated, Fehr & Peers will produce a Final TIA in hard copy, Word, and PDF format to the project team. This draft will be used to prepare the Transportation and Circulation section in the Public Review Draft EIR. 0: \PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal .doc (6/28/2011) 23 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO • Prepare Transportation and Circulation Section. LSA will use the Draft TIA to prepare the Transportation and Circulation section for submittal to the project team as part of the First Administrative Draft EIR. 10. Noise a. Issues. The noise environment of the project site is influenced by its proximity to 1 -280, local roadways, and the Mineta San Jose International Airport. Construction activities, including pile driving, could also result in short-term increases in noise and vibration levels. Sensitive residential uses in the vicinity of the project site, including the Hamptons Apartments, could be exposed to increased noise levels. Project - related traffic may also increase noise levels along local roadways, some of which extend through residential neighborhoods. b. Approach. A technical acoustical analysis will be prepared to assess the potential effects of the proposed project on the existing and future noise environments in the project site vicinity and to determine whether employees on the site would be exposed to unacceptable noise levels. The following subtasks will be undertaken as part of the noise analysis: • Describe the existing regulatory framework. Applicable State of California and City of Cupertino noise and land use compatibility criteria for the project area will be identified. Noise standards including General Plan noise policies and the Noise Ordinance will be discussed. • Document existing noise levels. Existing sources of noise in the vicinity of the project site, such as traffic on adjacent 1 -280, East Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, and Pruneridge Avenue will be identified. Existing noise - sensitive land uses in the project site vicinity, including the adjacent Hamptons Apartments, will also be identified using aerial images and a field reconnaissance. An ambient noise monitoring effort will be conducted to establish the existing noise environment for comparison to the City's noise /land use compatibility standards. Four short-term (15- minute) ambient noise measure- ments will be conducted within the project site to establish the existing noise environment. • Assess short-term construction impacts. Noise impacts from construction of the proposed project on adjacent land uses will be analyzed based on available project - specific construction information provided to LSA. Noise emission levels recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be used to ascertain the noise generated by specific types of construction equipment. The construction noise impact will be evaluated in terms of maximum levels (Lmax) and /or hourly equivalent continuous noise levels (L and their frequency of occurrence. The impact analysis will be based on the sensitivity of the area and the requirements of the Noise Ordinance. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures will be identified to address potential adverse construction- related short-term noise impacts on sensitive receptors. • Calculate project and cumulative vehicle impacts. Using the TIA prepared for the project, LSA will evaluate noise impacts from project- related and cumulative vehicular trips using the U.S. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA -RD -77 -108, December 1978). Model input data will include average daily traffic levels, day /night percentages of autos, medium and heavy trucks, vehicle speeds, ground attenuation factors, and roadway widths. Projections of the future Day -Night Average Noise Level (1- along selected roadway and highway segments, based on the TIA prepared for the project, will be provided in a table format to show the relationship between vehicle - related noise and distance from the roadway. Noise impacts from project- related traffic on both on -site and off -site sensitive land uses will be assessed. • Identify noise reduction measures. As warranted, LSA will identify practical measures to address significant project or cumulative noise impacts. Measures designed to reduce interior and exterior noise levels to meet applicable standards will be identified as necessary. Any measures required to reduce the 0 \PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Propasal.doc (6/28/2011) 24 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO project's short-term construction and /or long -term noise impacts to acceptable levels will also be identified. Both an evaluation of the potential measures and a discussion of their effectiveness will be provided. 11. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainability a. Issues. The proposed project would include numerous green design features, including the expansion of open space and increase in trees on the site, integration of energy - efficient and energy recovery systems, a design that allows buildings to be passively cooled and heated, and renewable energy systems. The proposed project is expected to exceed the sustainability standards established by the Cupertino Green Building Ordinance, California Green Building Standards, and the California Energy Efficiency Standards. In addition Apple would expand its existing TDM Program to reduce vehicle - related emissions and traffic congestion. These project features should be evaluated in the context of the project's generation of greenhouse gas emissions to call attention to Apple's sustainability measures, and help decision - makers have a more holistic understanding of the project's potential environmental impacts. Sustainability features of the project should also be evaluated against the objectives in the City's Environ- mental Resources /Sustainability Element of the General Plan. Global climate change, as a subset of sustainability concerns, is now a mandatory topic of CEQA analysis. Typically, an individual project does not generate sufficient greenhouse gas emissions to influence global climate change significantly on its own; therefore, the issue of global climate change is cumulative in nature. The proposed project, through construction and operational activities, would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would cumulatively contribute to global climate change (although these emissions would be at least partially offset with implementation of the project's sustainability features). On December 30, 2009, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines related to global climate change. These arnendments become effective on March 18, 2010, and state that a lead agency should make a good -faith effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project. Revisions to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines suggest that the project be evaluated in regard to the following questions: • Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? • Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The BAAQMD has adopted thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. For land use development projects (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities), the threshold of significance for GHG emissions is: 1) compliance with a qualified climate action plan or qualified general plan; 2) annual GHG emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year; or 3) annual GHG emissions less than 4.6 metric tons per service population (residents plus employees). b. Approach. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainability section of the EIR will discuss, from a multi - disciplinary perspective, the long -term use of resources associated with the project, and will include a technical analysis evaluating the impacts of project- related energy consumption and GHG emissions. LSA will also include a comparative analysis of the proposed project's sustainable development practices and business -as -usual practices. The EIR discussion of GHG emissions will highlight potential Apple Campus 2 features that may result in reduced vehicle travel, greater energy efficiency, reduced water demand, carbon sequestration, or other reductions in pollutants associated with global climate change. O:\PROPOSAL \11028-Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal doc (6/282011) 25 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO LSA will conduct the following subtasks as part of this analysis: • Review "best practice" energy and global climate change analyses. As the research and analytical methods underlying climate change issues continue to evolve at a very rapid pace, LSA will compile and summarize recent best approaches to this analysis. • Describe existing environmental setting. LSA will summarize up -to -date information related to global climate change, along with the climate /meteorological conditions in the project vicinity, and the State, regional, and local setting. • Describe the existing regulatory framework. The existing regulatory framework for global climate change will identify applicable federal, State, and City of Cupertino policies, regulations, and programs. • Assess project greenhouse gas emissions. LSA will provide a quantitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions associated with all relevant sources related to the project, including construction activities, new vehicle trips, energy consumption, water usage, and solid waste generation and disposal using the BAAQMD's Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM). Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data from the Fehr & Peers TIA will be used in the model. LSA will account for the project's on -site energy generation plant through adjustments in the BGM model. • Determine effect of climate change on the project. Local temperature could increase over time as a result of global climate change, with or without the proposed project. This increase in temperature could lead to other climate effects including, but not limited to, increased flooding due to sea level rise, and a reduction in snowpack with impacts on the available water supply. LSA will identify and discuss the effects of climate change on the project. • Identify mitigation measures. LSA will identify, where necessary, practical mitigation measures to address any significant project or cumulative impacts. Mitigation may include additional sustainable development practices and design measures such as TDM measures, site disturbance reduction measures, energy conservation measures and renewable energy sources, solid waste reduction measures, sustainable solid waste management practices, and water conservation and efficiency measures, over and above any already identified by the project applicant. LSA will provide a summary, to the extent information is available, of the expected percentage reduction of GHG emissions from the recommended mitigation measures and project features. 12. Air Quality a. Issues. Development activity associated with implementation of the Apple Campus 2 Project could increase pollutant concentrations in Cupertino through increased vehicle trips and construction. This increase could contribute to existing air pollution in the San Francisco air basin. Construction activities associated with project development, including building demolition, grading, and ground disturbance, could increase concentrations of particulate matter. Increased air pollution could affect compliance with existing air quality plans and adversely affect the health of sensitive receptors. b. Approach. Following the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines, LSA will identify existing air quality conditions and potential air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project by undertaking the following subtasks: • Describe the existing regulatory framework. The existing regulatory framework for air quality, including existing air quality laws and regulations and the roles of the local agencies, including the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the BAAQMD, and the City of Cupertino will be described. • Obtain and describe air quality monitoring data. Project setting meteorological and air quality data developed through the ARB and climatological and air quality profile data gathered by the BAAQMD will be utilized for the description of existing ambient air quality. The most recent published air quality OAPROPOSAL \11028 -Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal doc (6/28/20111 26 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO data from air quality monitoring stations in the vicinity of the project site for the past 3 years will be included to characterize existing air quality. In addition, regulatory documents, professional publications, and past LSA experience in the project area will supplement background information. • Assess project construction emissions. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate increased particulate emissions associated with grading, soil hauling and other construction actives on the project site. Construction equipment exhaust would also be a source of air pollution. LSA will calculate the regional construction emissions using the ARB's URBEMIS 2007 model. • Conduct construction health risk screening assessment. Based on the latest guidelines from the BAAQMD, LSA will determine the potential of the proposed construction activities to expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants. Per guidance in the BAAQMD's Construction Risk and Hazard Analysis screening document, LSA will prepare a write -up on the disclosure requirements for the analysis of toxic contaminants during the construction period. • Assess project operation - period impacts. The project would generate new vehicular trips within the region. Emissions associated with Tong -term operations from vehicle trips will be calculated with the URBEMIS 2007 model. In addition, emissions associated with the on -site low carbon Central Plant and other stationary sources will be quantified. • Determine the project's consistency with adopted plans. LSA will review adopted plans related to clean air and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the State of California, Bay Area, and City of Cupertino and determine the project's consistency with these plans. • Identify mitigation measures. LSA will identify practical mitigation measures to address any signifi- cant project or cumulative impacts. Mitigation measures designed to reduce the project's shop: -term construction and long -term air quality impacts will be identified. Mitigation measures established by the BAAQMD for dust suppression will be identified to reduce construction impacts. Both an evaluation of the potential mitigation measures and a discussion of their effectiveness will be provided. 13. Public Services and utilities a. Issues. The project site is already served by police, fire, park, and school services. It is also served by water, wastewater, solid waste disposal, and other utilities. The change in use and addition of approximately 3,500 new employees to the site would exert additional demands on service providers and utility infrastruc- ture. The net effect of this demand increase could result in fire department response times that exceed City standards, and a police officer per population ratio that does not meet City standards, in addition to the need for new water supply infrastructure and sewer infrastructure. The generation of new employees by the project could also indirectly increase the residential population of Cupertino and increase student enroll- ment at local schools. In addition, the conveyance of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue to Apple would require the abandonment or relocation of existing utility lines; other utility lines would need to be upgraded to serve project- related demand. b. Approach. Public services and utilities are provided in the project area by numerous organizations, including: Santa Clara County Fire Department; Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office, West Valley Division; Cupertino Union School District; Fremont Union High School District; San Jose Water Company /California Water Service; Cupertino Sanitary District; and Pacific Gas and Electric. The EIR will include a concise description of these organizations, their individual responsibilities, and existing service and utility con- straints. LSA will review the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan, as well as other background reports that may be available, and then contact each utility and service provider to determine if it has any concerns about providing service to increased employment levels within the project site. The assessment in the EIR will examine the demand for services generated by employment growth estimated to result from O:\PROPOSAL \11028-Apple Campus 2 E1R\Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) 27 • LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO implementation of the project, and the physical impacts of this demand on existing infrastructure. LSA will review the Water Supply Assessment prepared by the project sponsor to identify the impacts of the proposed project on water supply, and will evaluate the potential for the extension of recycled water infrastructure to the project site. TASK D. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The LSA team will identify and evaluate up to three alternatives to the proposed Apple Campus 2 Project, one of which will be the CEQA- required No Project alternative. The alternatives will be developed in con- sultation with the project team, and will be informed by the input received in the scoping session and in response to the NOP. The alternatives will also be based in part on the significant impacts of the project that are identified during the Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures phase of the Draft EIR process. According to the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives can be evaluated in less detail than the project. However, the alternatives analysis will include a quantitative analysis for the topics of transportation and circulation; noise (with a focus on trip generation); greenhouse gas emissions; and air quality. Alternatives can be a key issue of community concern. Therefore, the discussion will be of sufficient detail to evaluate the environmental benefits and drawbacks of each alternative. Based on this analysis, the environmentally superior alternative will be identified (as required by CEQA). TASK E. CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively significant. These impacts can result from the proposed project alone or together with other projects. The analysis of cumulative effects will address the potential impacts associated with the proposed project in conjunction with other off -site, permitted, under - construction, or probable future projects. Mitigation measures will be developed to mitigate the project's contribution to significant cumulative effects. The potential growth- inducing impacts of the proposed project will also be evaluated. CEQA considers a project to be growth- inducing if it would foster economic or population growth. Examples of projects that typically would have growth- inducing impacts include extensions or expansions of infrastructure beyond that needed to serve project - specific demand and development of industrial parks in undeveloped or sparsely developed areas. The proposed Apple Campus 2 Project would result in growth due to an increase in on -site employment, but this growth is not expected to be adverse because it would occur in an already - developed area. Potential impacts will be evaluated to adequately describe the nature of the project in relation to existing and proposed development. TASK F. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS LSA will prepare the appropriate conclusions to fulfill CEQA requirements by providing an assessment of several mandatory impact categories, including: • Unavoidable significant environmental impacts; • Significant irreversible environmental changes; and • Effects found not to be significant. O:\PROPOSAL \1102 8-Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal doc (6/28/2011) 28 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO Effects found not to be significant are anticipated tc include: • Agricultural and Forestry Resources • Mineral Resources LSA will discuss each of these topics. TASK G. PREPARE DRAFT EIR 1. First Administrative Draft EIR The information developed in Tasks A through F will be organized into the First Administrative Draft EIR. The EIR is expected to include the following component • Introduction • Executive Summary • Project Description • Planning Policy Analysis • Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Alternatives • Cumulative and Growth- Inducing Impacts • Other CEQA Considerations • List of Persons and Organizations Contacted • Bibliography • Technical Appendices (as needed) Ten (10) copies of the First Administrative Draft EIR will be submitted to the project team for review and comment. LSA can meet with or call staff, as necessary, to discuss comments on the Administrative Draft. 2. Second Administrative Draft EIR Based on a single set of consolidated and non - contradictory comments, LSA will amend the First Admin- istrative Draft EIR and prepare a Second Administrative Draft EIR for review by the project team. Table 3 shows the staff time assumed to be sufficient for this task. Ten (10) clean and ten (10) compare copies of the Second Administrative Draft EIR will be provided for review by the project team. 3. Screencheck Draft EIR Based on a single set of consolidated and non - contradictory comments, LSA will amend the Second Admin- istrative Draft EIR and prepare a Screencheck Draft for final review by the project team. Table 3 shows the staff time assumed to be sufficient for this task. Three (3) clean and three (3) compare copies of the Screencheck Draft EIR will be provided for review by the project team to verify that all requested changes have been made and all appendix materials, references, and final graphics are acceptable. O:\PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR \Apple Campus Proposal_doc (6/28/2011) 29 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO 4. Public Review Draft EIR Working from a single set of consolidated and non - contradictory comments, LSA will amend the Screen - check Draft EIR. Twenty -five (25) paper copies and seventy -five (75) CD copies of the Draft EIR will be distributed to responsible agencies, the public, and the State Clearinghouse. LSA will be responsible for distribution of the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse; the City will be responsible for distributing the Draft EIR to other parties, although LSA can assist as needed. Our budget includes time to prepare three short (10- minute) podcasts that would discuss specific environ- mental topics or methods of analysis, such as the conclusions of the TIA; how trip generation for the project was generated; Apple's sustainability measures in the context of the greenhouse gas emissions analysis; and the project's planning policy considerations. The podcasts would be tightly scripted, similar to a short presentation that a consultant would make in front of a Planning Commission or City Council, and could be made available on the City's website. We believe that podcasts would make some key aspects of the environmental analysis more digestible than they typically are in text form, generate good will for the environmental review effort as a whole, and allow for a better - informed public. TASK H. PREPARE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT LSA will prepare the Response to Comments Document on the project following the public review period. The Response to Comments Document, together with the Draft EIR, will comprise the Final EIR. 1. Administrative Draft Response to Comments Document The LSA team will formulate responses to each CEQA - related comment on the Draft EIR, including review period comments received from the public, organizations, and agencies, and will prepare a Response to Comments Document. An administrative draft of the Response to Comments Document will be provided together with: 1) a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR; 2) written comments received and minutes of any public hearing where verbal comments were received; 3) responses to environmental comments raised in the review process; and 4) any necessary text, table or figure changes to the Draft EIR. LSA will discuss the best approach to the responses document with the project team at a meeting or conference call following the close of the comment period. Our budget estimate in Table 3 shows the level of professional effort assumed for this task. Should an unexpectedly large volume of comments be submitted (e.g., a substantial package of comments by a law firm representing labor union interests), an adjustment in the budget to cover work beyond the assumed level may be required. Ten (10) copies of the Administrative Draft Response to Comments Document will be provided for review. 2. Screencheck Response to Comments Document After review by the project team and the transmittal of one set of consolidated, non - contradictory com- ments, LSA will amend the Administrative Draft Responses to Comments Document and prepare a Screen - check version of the Response to Comments Document for final review by the project team. Three (3) clean and three (3) compare copies of the Screencheck Response to Comments Document will be provided for review by the project team. O:\ PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIRMpple Campus Proposal doc (6/2W2011) 30 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO 3. Final Response to Comments Document After incorporating final comments on the Screencheck Draft, LSA will prepare twenty -five (25) paper copies and seventy -five (75) CD copies of the Final Response to Comments Document for agency /public distribu- tion. LSA will be responsible for distributing the Final Response to Comments Document to all agencies that submitted comments on the Draft EIR. TASK I. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM LSA will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. We will identify responsibility for imple- menting and monitoring each mitigation measure, along with monitoring triggers and reporting frequency, subject to approval by City staff. Monitoring will be dovetailed with existing processes of project development and review. Where possible, mitigation measures will take the form of policies and standards that could be incorporated into the project plans to reduce adverse effects. Where this approach is successful, the plans themselves can become the monitoring mechanism. An administrative draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be submitted to City staff for review with the Screencheck Draft Response to Comments Document. The final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be included with the Final Response to Comments Document. TASK J. FINDINGS LSA will prepare the Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (if necessary). The Findings will include the following: a record of proceedings for the City's decision on the project; a summary description of the project; identification of potentially significant effects of the project which were deter- mined to be mitigated to a less- than - significant level; identification of significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less- than - significant level even though all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project; identification of the project's potential environmental effects that were determined not to be significant, and do not require mitigation; cumulative effects; feasibility of project alternatives; and the City's Statement of Overriding considerations (if significant unavoidable impacts are identified). TASK K. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS Judith Malamut, Principal -in- Charge, and Adam Weinstein, Project Manager, will be available to attend working sessions with the project team to gather information, review progress, arrive at a reasonable range of alternatives, review preliminary findings, discuss staff comments, and strategize on the environmental review process. The proposed cost estimate includes attendance by both Judith and Adam at the project initiation meeting and the scoping session as detailed under Task A. In addition, we have budgeted (under this task) for attendance at two Planning Commissicn hearings, two City Council hearings, and many conference calls. Additional meetings can be added to the scope as additional services. The scope of work also includes attendance by Fehr & Peers at four project team meetings (including a kick -off meeting) and four public hearings (two Planning Commission meetings and two City Council meetings). Fehr & Peers may also attend meetings with adjacent jurisdictions to discuss the study approach. O:\PROPOSAL \11028 -Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28!2011) 31 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO TASK L. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Judith and Adam will undertake a variety of general project management tasks throughout the EIR preparation period. Judith will provide input on the scope, budget, contract negotiations and management, and scheduling of the project, and will be responsible for the overall quality of all work undertaken. Judith and Adam will be available for consultation on CEQA procedural matters as well as application of the CEQA Guidelines to this project. We would suggest that a weekly or semi - weekly standing teleconference call be established. Attendees would be Judith and Adam (and select EIR team technical staff on an as- needed basis) as well as senior staff from the City and members of the applicant team. In the event that we all agree that any given week's call is unnecessary, it could be canceled the day before. But setting a day, time and frequency would avoid the effort required to set -up unscheduled calls. Adam will coordinate the day -to -day activities associated with the project. This will include regular client contact, oversight of subconsultants and team members, schedule coordination, and development of products. He will also provide direction to all team members that will ensure an internally- consistent, coherent document. Judith and Adam will review all subconsultant submittals and in -house prepared text, tables, and graphics before these materials are presented to the project team as interim draft review docu- ments. D. DECISION- MAKING FLOW CHART Figure 1 shows our proposed decision - making flow chart for the project, which is based on the following key principles: • The City Council is the ultimate decision - making body. • The environmental review is a collaborative process, thus the flow chart is not hierarchical. • On a day -to -day basis, LSA has found that decision - making can be most effective when there is an open line of communication between LSA, City staff, and the applicant team. • LSA has found that direct communication between the applicant team and the consultant allows for a more efficient process and enhances the quality of the environmental review document; however, City staff should have oversight over all direct communication between the applicant and consulting teams. • Adam Weinstein will be the direct point of contact for the City and applicant team. Judith Malamut will also serve as a primary contact. • City staff would be responsible for conveying public /agency /Planning Commission /City Council concerns and questions about the environmental review to LSA. • This flow chart is intended to be illustrative, and we fully expect that the team will make changes to the communication and decision - making process to respond to what will likely be a fluid and dynamic environmental review process. O:\ PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR \Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/282011) 32 v cc w v W ZS z 0 CS tz rh o -z� u ! LI : Q ix —. 7 N C 8 d C N : � C L n d LL O - a' 0 o a - N • c .rn L • Q 0 73 Q� � �ar Z 0 L U L V ct O L I i t c O . v) v v J LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO • This page intentionally left blank. • O:\PROPOSAL \11028 -Apple Campus 2 EIRWpple Campus Proposal.doc (6/282011) 34 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO E. SCHEDULE The work schedule for this scope of work, which is based on the schedule included with the RFP, is shown in Table 2. Our proposed schedule reduces the preparation time of key deliverables from that shown in the original schedule in order to provide a cushion for completion of the overall environmental review process within the expected timeframe. Our schedule shows that the EIR could be available for certification by the summer of 2012 (instead of autumn of 2012). Table 2: Proposed Schedule Responsible Time to Day of Milestone Party Complete Date Week Authorization to Proceed LSA -- July 8, 2011 Fri Notice of Preparation (NOP) Circulated LSA/City 6 weeks August 19, 2011 Fri Project Sponsor Technical Reports Submitted Apple 10 weeks October 28, 2011 Fri Final TIA Submitted LSA 1 week November 4, 2011 Fri Prepare First Administrative Draft EIR LSA 4 weeks December 2, 2011 Fri Review First Administrative Draft EIR City 4 weeks December 30, 2011 Fri Prepare Second Administrative Draft EIR LSA 3 weeks January 20, 2012 Fri Review Second Administrative Draft EIR City 4 weeks February 17, 2012 Fri Prepare Screencheck Draft EIR LSA 2 weeks January 13, 2012 Fri Review Screencheck Draft EIR City 2 weeks January 27, 2012 Fri Prepare and Reproduce Draft EIR LSA 1 week February 3, 2012 Fri Planning Commission Hearing on Draft EIR City /LSA 1 day TBD TBD Public Review Period — 45 days March 19, 2012 Mon Prepare Administrative Draft RTC Document LSA 4 weeks April 16, 2012 Mon Review Administrative Draft RTC Document City 4 weeks May 14, 2012 Mon Prepare Screencheck Draft RTC Document LSA 2 weeks May 28, 2012 Mon Review Screencheck Draft RTC Document City 1 week June 4, 2012 Mon Prepare and Reproduce RTC Document (and Final EIR) LSA 1 week May 21, 2012 Mon Begin Hearings to Consider Certification City 10 days (min.) May 31, 2012 Thu I F. PERSONNEL HOURS A breakdown of anticipated personnel hours per task is included on the Cost Chart (Table 3) in Section 6. LSA does not mark up subconsultant budgets. O:\PROPOSAL \11028 -Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal doc (6/282011) 35 • LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO • This page intentionally left blank. _ O:\PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposaldoc (6/28/2011) 36 4. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM A. ORGANIZATION As prime consultant, LSA will manage the contract, oversee the work of our subconsultants, be responsible for the accuracy and quality of all technical documentation, and represent the team at all meetings and public hearings. We will be responsible for producing the digital and paper copy versions of the EIR. The Team Organization chart (Figure 2) following this subsection shows our team members and their areas of technical responsibility. LSA's designated Project Manager, Adam Weinstein, will have total responsibility for maintaining effective working relationships with the City of Cupertino and all team members throughout the life of the contract. The Principal -in- Charge, Judith Malamut, and Project Manager will be available to strategize on approaches to the project, review the performance of all assigned personnel from time to time with the client, and will routinely call or e-mail to provide updates. We are proposing standing weekly or biweekly calls with the project team to review the status of the EIR, discuss data needs, and strategize on the environmental review process. LSA has a close working relationship with our subconsultants, with whom we have collaborated on literally dozens of past assignments. We maintain an open lire of communication with our subconsultants and technical staff, allowing the identification of issues requiring extra resource allocation early in the environ- mental review process. Every project is confronted with unexpected challenges, but our experienced staff and management program allows them to be addressed early and proactively in the environmental review process. B. STAFFING /KEY PERSONNEL Adam Weinstein, AICP will serve as the Project Manager, with strategic direction from Judith Malamut, AICP, who will serve as Principal -in- Charge. Judith and Adam have a comprehensive understanding of CEQA and the environmental review process. Over the last 10 years, they have served as the senior manage- ment team for many Bay Area EIRs and are adept at guiding complex projects through the review and approval process. Their qualifications are described i i more detail in Section 3 of this proposal. Resumes for all assigned personnel are presented in the appendix. As noted, Judith and Adam will be supported by a wealth of technical experts. Below, we summarize the qualifications of the key topical specialists. Amy Fischer, Associate, serves as a senior air quality, noise and greenhouse gas emissions analyst for CEQA/NEPA and planning documents. She has more than 10 years of experience in the environmental field and has participated in environmental analysis for many diverse projects in California. Her air quality analysis experience includes permitting with the air pollutior control districts throughout California, and other regulatory agencies. She regularly contributes to EIR sections dealing with global climate change and green- house gas emissions. The majority of Amy's projects conducted for LSA have been in accordance with the methodologies and assumptions recommended in the air quality impact assessment guidelines of the BAAQMD. She is thoroughly familiar with the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and adopted thresholds of O:\PROPOSAL \1102 8-Apple Campus 2 EIHWpple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) 37 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO significance. Amy has incorporated the methodologies for calculating greenhouse gas emissions into LSA's analyses and mitigation measures. Amy also conducts health risk assessments for both construction and project operations under these latest guidelines. Amy will direct the efforts of Phil Ault, LEED -AP, for the noise analysis. Tung -chen Chung, Ph.D., Director of LSA's Air and Noise Services, will perform principal -level technical review. Tim Lacy, Principal, will direct the biological analysis. With over 27 years of experience, he has managed numerous multi -year projects that entail a variety of biological resource disciplines (e.g., wildlife, botany, wetlands). He has extensive experience and technical expertise in the areas of endangered and threatened species, wetland and terrestrial ecology, natural resource management, and biological impact assessment and mitigation. Tim's responsibilities include development of study plans and budgets, report preparation, coordination between agency personnel and clients, supervision of field staff, implementation of survey methods and gathering of field data, analysis of data, and assessment of impacts and development of mitigation measures. He will oversee the efforts of Dan Sidle, Biologist, and Tim Milliken, Certified Arborist. Andrew Pulcheon, MCP, Associate, will coordinate the cultural resources review. With over 16 years of experience, he is a Registered Professional Archaeologist ( #11693); a Registered Professional Historian ( #581); and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners ( #21490). Andrew meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for prehistoric and historical archeology, and history. He is experienced in prepar- ing Memoranda of Agreement and Historic Property Treatment Plans, Section 106 and CEQA eligibility evaluations; NEPA analysis; Initial Studies; and project- and program -level Environmental Impact Reports in both urban and rural settings. He has conducted cultural resources identification, evaluation, and impacts assessment for numerous local governments in Santa Clara County, ranging from small -scale grading permits to archaeological excavation at prehistoric sites to EIRs for downtown strategy plans in large urban areas. Jane Bierstedt, PE, Principal, will serve as Principal -in- Charge of Fehr & Peers TIA. She was the Project Manager and Project Engineer for the Apple Headquarters TIA that was included in the certified EIR. She has over 25 years of experience and maintains an active role in projects varying from small neighborhood traffic calming studies to citywide General Plans. Jane counts site access and on -site circulation planning and design for campuses among her areas of expertise. Working with Jane on the Apple Campus 2 Project EIR will be Franziska Church, AICP, Senior Engineer /Planner, and Robert Eckols, PE, Senior Associate. Robert provides on -going traffic engineering and transportation planning services to Apple, Facebook, Google, Stanford University, and will act in a technical advisor role for the Apple Campus 2 EIR. BruceAbelli -Amen, PG, CHg, is a Principal and Senior Hydrogeologist at Baseline. He will be the Principal -in- Charge for issues related to geology, soils, seismicity; hydrology, and hazards. With over 20 years of experi- ence, Bruce manages major infrastructure EIRs for Baseline. He has analyzed technical issues, including those relating to hydrology and water quality, geology, soils, seismicity, and public health and safety, for over 200 environmental documents. He will work with Cheri Page, PG, and Todd Taylor, REA, to review pertinent reports and prepare the EIR sections. Marsha Gale, Principal of Environmental Vision, will be responsible for peer review of the visual simula- tions. She has 30 years of professional experience in the fields of environmental planning and design. With particular expertise in visual analysis, aesthetic design and project management, Marsha serves as principal in charge of project assignments and provides expert testimony before numerous decision- making bodies. Marsha has lectured internationally and taught at the University of California at Berkeley College of Environmental Design. O.'PROPOSAL \11028 -Apple Campus 2 EIRVlpple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28!2011) 38 x v C W v W 5 u l7 w 0 ` O r N Lll v ` v U c ETL w 0. a Y c CL S c C U > Q ° a Cl Q v v Z W J m w a CC V o Q � w a ▪ E U m Q I I j C 0 v C Z 0 O ',-n Q > a 3 0 C m O v r U v, E cc� U 0 C L V vWi W _ , c t O Z a s > W ? 6 ` m O °t = c Y U 7 W Q v .. U LLI J H J E j c 0 I co U to 4, a Y t o + Z �- c , — v, n 111 W m N W o. C a W c O W Q ,v y :. -- NJ ' V = Q et 0 l.7 ` ui i.. Q c £ c 0 ¢ " Y az Z Q - a - = c, E m LLi o Q 'u J v� .m Y Y '' E Q a Q O Q -� ca m o l7 l7 -' s ._ F- t Z N a s V c 3 y 3 O O LLI S' to fa V V Q V o - Z a - � W O O > ¢ V F° In W a ¢ Q x W v '+ V a � Z E " = • W O. m �, To ll V 1 Y c ty u - m 0 J E m m p- c) I Z a a U Z Z a ¢ a O 2 a, r N R. ¢ a C w U W O V t m Y v ¢ _ a Z U LL -' q Q u_ H Y a _U U J 4 ¢ O 7 C d a Q E v ., W H m c m 0 J O o L 3 u Z V c < '4'' O m N E m E O C!) m _I F� LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO C. MANAGEMENT APPROACH The primary service provided by the Berkeley office of LSA is the management and preparation of CEQA documents. Our track record in on -time, on- budget environmental documents is quantifiable. LSA employs a project manager- centered system for the management of projects, which puts the responsibility for coordinating and conducting projects in the hands of the individual project manager. The designated project manager has significant responsibility for project administration, and abundant support from planners and technical specialists assigned to the job. Our management approach is supplemented by our close and excellent working relationship with our subconsultants. Through years of collaboration on similar projects, the staff at Fehr & Peers, Baseline, and Environmental Vision are familiar with our expectations regarding products, schedules, and regular communications. We enjoy working together as a team. In the current economic climate, LSA is particularly sensitive to the need to keep projects on track and contain costs. Our management strategies for this EIR include the following: • Standing Weekly or Biweekly Conference Calls. Having a standing weekly or biweekly meeting at the same time and day of the week allows the team to discuss strategic issues at the same time without the extensive coordination and email exchanges required to plan a conference call when more than a few persons are involved. • Reasonably Aggressive Schedule. We have planned a reasonably aggressive work schedule that achieves efficiencies over the schedule included with the RFP. Our schedule is intended to keep the environmental review process moving at a brisk pace, because we know that a lengthy and drawn - out schedule has negative implications for project budgets. We will work closely with the project team to nail down a project description early in the process, because an evolving project description is often responsible for an inadequate project budget. • Video - Conferencing. We have successfully employed our state -of -the -art video - conferencing technology to allow for virtual face -to -face meetings with clients at a fraction of the cost of a physical meeting. We strongly encourage the use of our existing technology to save costs. D. POINT OF CONTACT LSA is pleased to offer a senior -level management team to the City of Cupertino. Judith and Adam will work together to accomplish the completion of the EIR. Either one can be contacted regarding any aspect of the project and decisions will be joint and consistent. As the City is requesting a single point of contact we have designated the Project Manager: Adam Weinstein, AICP, Associate LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510- 540 -7331 (office) 510 - 672 -5645 (cell) adam.weinstein@lsa-assoc.com O:\ PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/282011) 41 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO • This page intentionally left blank. 0:\PROPOSAL \11028-Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal.doc 1628/2011) 42 5. REFERENCES A. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES LSA is currently undertaking or has successfully completed numerous EIRs and provided the requisite supporting technical studies in the last five years for projects similar to the proposed Apple Campus 2 Project. Below, we list selected relevant experience for large -scale campus master plans, along with the key personnel who managed or worked on each project and the project reference. \ " Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan EIR for the City of Foster City. Gilead Sciences, a major ��.� � `' � tY ty J ,.1,. biopharmaceutical firm headquartered in Foster '' City, desires to double the square footage of its existing campus and improve pedestrian circula- . e, - tion. The proposed project would amend the Vintage Park General Development Plan to increase the allowed square footage of the 17- building Gilead campus from 629,154 square feet to a total of 1,200,480 square feet in 16 buildings. In addition, a public roadway segment would be privatized. LSA Arm- .- tt "" was selected to prepare a program -level EIR focusing on key environmental issues, including: the visual effects of campus expansion; land use compatibility issues; the jobs /housing balance in Foster City; ways to reduce traffic generated by Master Plan build out; and the Master Plan's impacts on global climate change. The site vicinity has a high to very high susceptibil- ity to liquefaction; and due to the proximity of the site to San Francisco Bay, the potential degradation of water quality from parking lot runoff is also a concern. LSA teamed with Baseline Environmental Consulting for the earth sciences issues; Fehr & Peers for analysis of traffic issues; and Andrew McNichol for visual simulations and an animated simulation. Andrew McNichol, under LSA's oversight, prepared a 2- minute animated simulation showing a continuous view of the project from the perspective of a drive- through vehicle and a pedestrian walking through the campus. This animated simulation, combined with static simulations of specific project viewpoints, enabled decision- makers and the public to better understand the visual implications of the Master Plan. LSA worked closely with City staff and outside counsel to prepare an EIR that comprehensively evaluates the potential effects of the Master Plan while reducing the need for subsequent environmental review as individual phases of the project are proposed. Adam Weinstein, .Project .Manager, David Clore; Principal -in- Charge; Andrew Pulcheon, Cultural Key Resources. Personnel Subconsultants: Baseline Environmental Consulting; Fehr & Peers;'fihngworth & Rodkin; Andrew McNichol Richard Marks, " Community Development Director, City of Faster City Reference 650 -286 -3225 rmarks @fostercity.org O: \PROPOSAL \1102 8-Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal doc (6/28/2011) 43 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO Sierra Point Biotech Project EIR for the City of Brisbane. LSA was selected by the City of Brisbane; t he applicant, Slough Estates International Inc.; and r the landowner, Sierra Point L.L.0 to prepare an EIR for r . a research and development biotech campus at Sierra u i Point. The 22.8-acre project site is located on a �t f . - peninsula of made land that juts into the San � :. Fr ancisco Bay, east of Highway 101. The applicant " proposes to develop the site with five buildings for research and development uses and a parking structure with ground -floor retail. The EIR considered a range of environmental impacts, including: land use and planning policy; population, employment and housing; transportation; air quality; noise; geology, soils and seismicity; hydrology and water quality; biological resources; hazards and hazardous materials; public services and recreation; utilities and infrastructure; and visual resources. The Sierra Point peninsula was created by filling of the Bay in the early 1960s, and a municipal landfill operated there until 1972. Construction on the landfill raises issues related to seismicity, water quality, hazards, and post - closure landfill development. As the project includes construction of a portion of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail and improvements to the shoreline, the project will require a permit from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Judith Malamut,.Project Manager; David Clore, Principal -in- Charge; Awry Fischer, Air Quality and Key Noise; Richard Nichols and Eric Lrchtwc Biology Personnel Subconsultants:Hexagon Transportation Planning, Baseline En rronrrtental Consultin Environmental Vision JohnSwiecki,CommunityDevelopm ni�reetor,Cityo ffnsbane Reference 415-508-2120 jswiiecki @ci.brisbane.ca us San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Ex ansion w 3A } 3 r b EIR for SFMOMA /City and County of San Francis The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, which features prominent works by 20" century artists such as Henri Matisse, Andy Warhol, and Ansel Adams, is one of the world's premier contemporary art museums. The museum is located in a prominent downtown San Francisco location - immediately adjacent to Yerba Buena Gardens - and is housed in a i ,:. building designed by the architect Mario Botta. 7 ,1,5 SFMOMA is proposing to expand its existing gallery, administrative and back -of -house support space, in " ` part to accommodate the renowned art collection of the Doris and Donald Fisher Foundation. SFMOMA retained LSA to conduct an environmental review of the expansion, which would also require the relocation of San Francisco Fire Station No. 1 from Howard Street to Folsom Street. LSA worked closely with City staff and the project sponsor to evaluate the effects of this complex project on historic resources, traffic patterns, shadow, wind, and other environmental issues. As part of the environmental review, LSA employed an Initial 44 O:\PROPOSAL \11028-Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 3011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PRO CITY OF CUPERTINO Study to focus the scope of the EIR, and used innovative organizational strategies to address all components of the project in a robust, legally - defensible document. Adam Weinstein'. P Manager; Shannon Allen and David Cl Princip ire - Charge Amy Key Fischer Air Qual . Phil A Noi Personnel 5uhcortsultarrt Luba C til n c Trans ortatron ' Joel Roos, Vice President, Development Pacific tiniorrtDevelop Company 415 - 929 -6708 jaelr @pudco.com Steve Vettel,.Attam a t Law, Farelia Braun +`1 Cart LLP References 415-954-44 svette l@fbrn com Mich ael.facinti , Envir Planner, M EA , City and Coun ofSan Francisco 415-575-9033 _ " m lc . haeLjacinto@sfgov.org Lower Arsen Me Uscifi Pa E for City of Benicia. al The ix Benicia d e Arsenal c which i was d 1911, was n the IR first the constructed between 1852 an military installation on the Pacific Coast. Since �'" decommissioning of the Arsenal in 1963, the area has � ,._ evolved to encompass a mixture of land uses, including artist lofts and craft studios, and historic i s � 1 'I i 1 11I structures an that hav analyzes been largely retained. LSA pre pared E IR th en vironmental effects of an .ms" innovative Specific Pl e th at utilized a form based -_� code. The plan would rehabilitate historic buildings and open space, add approximately 215,000 square feet of new mixed uses toc s, preserve important views. In response to community concern Ar , the enal EIR increase included pedestrian an evaluation of the pro and bike access, ject 's effects preser on energy global warming, and sustainability. LSA also recommended a variety of best practices - such as the restoration of wetlands, the use of photovoltaic cells, and the development of grey water reuse features - to further reduce the Specific an's environmental footprint. Key el Alain a n .5 s t e in , Person Protect iVlanager; David Clore<Pnncipr ! in-Chr rg; Arny F is c her, Air Quality,, ,Ph l n ul1; l JQise ;. rrrrew EC Puncheon, CuhuralResoun es, T!m tacycrnd 73ar Sidle, Biology Subronsultant: Ad At�liil "raffrc ; '.° �� , . Charlie Knox; CommunityDevelap Director., City of Reference 707 7 46 -4280 char c@c henidd us O:�PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR APP Ca m pu s Proposald (W28/2011) 45 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO } " om;" ',, ..- —,'— „s'.., _ . . California Maritime Academy Campus Environ- ' F. _ —_ — . � _ mental Services for California State University, �� Maritime Academy, Vallejo. CMA was founded in 1929 to train qualified personnel for the merchant marine, —„ , and now offers a wide variety of academic programs ranging from global trade and transportation to business administration. The Maritime Academy became a campus of the California State University system in 1995. The Master Plan process began in " 1999 to fulfill the CSU requirement that each campus .. ,...;..._ , 's - -" have a Master Plan to guide future development. The *-,, Master Plan, which was designed to accommodate a growing and diversifying student and staff popula- tion, in addition to an increasingly multi - disciplinary curriculum, encompasses both the existing 81.75 -acre campus and a 6 -acre acquisition parcel to the north of CMA. Development proposed in the Master Plan includes the construction of student dormitories on a hilltop overlooking San Pablo Bay, renovation of the Gymnasium to create a student support center, and implementation of an improved circulation plan that facilitates pedestrian access throughout the campus. CSU selected LSA to prepare the EIR on the Master Plan. Key issues analyzed by LSA include the potential presence of wetlands and Native American shell mounds on the project site, the possible environmental impacts of storm water runoff, and the effects of proposed development on residential neighborhoods that surround CMA. Following completion of the Master Plan EIR in 2002, LSA continued to work with CSU and CMA to provide CEQA documentation as needed for projects including student housing, simulation laboratories, dining hall, and a physical education /aquatic facility. The latter project is expected to be completed in 2011. For a decade, CMA has relied on LSA for knowledge of campus plans and facilities, CEQA strategy, and quick turn - around. Key Judith Malamut, Principal /Project Manager, Adam Weinstein, Assistant Project Manager; Theresa Personnel Bravo, Project Planner Subconsultant: Baseline Environmental Consulting Stephanie Giordano, Principal University Planner, California State University, Reference Office of the Chancellor 562 -951 -4103 sgiordano@calstate.edu : - Pixar Headquarters Expansion Project Initial " 114T Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City - of Em LSA prepared CEQA documentation in multiple phases for the relocation and expansion of Pixar, a computer animation company. The first 7 IS /MND included an analysis of the environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the construc- tion of two headquarters buildings and associated _ campus facilities on a site formerly occupied by Del ' ' M, Monte. A second IS /MND, published five years later, 07-7,!.---7"-- , -- , %R ICI In d Ill" evaluated the potential effects associated with -- ° °� additional property acquisition, demolition of a 0: \ PROPOSAL \11028-Apple Campus 2 EIR \Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) 46 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO potentially historic building, and development of an additional 387,550 square feet of studio and office space and a parking structure. Key issues considered in the CEQA process included: soil contamination; historic resources; visual resources; and traffic. The analysis also considered a General Plan Amendment. The CEQA process for the second phase of the project became a flashpoint for opposition by a community interest group. Through a collaborative process that emphasized frequent team communication, a free exchange of ideas, and close collaboration with Pixar counsel and City staff, LSA was able to prepare CEQA documentation that adequately addressed community and neighborhood concerns and was adopted by the City Council in May, 2004. Key Adam Weinstein, Project Manager (200 C'EQA; DawdfiJor� Prrt�rrpaff rolect Manayer f )998 Personnel CEQA) „ ma 5- i _ Charles Bryant AICP,, Director of Planning and Building, City of Emeryville Reference 510- 596- 436 7. cbryant@ci emeryville ca us B. SUBCONSULTANT REFERENCES 1. Fehr & Peers Jack Witthaus, Manager of Division of Transportation and Traffic, City of Sunnyvale 408 - 730 -7330 jwitthaus@ci.sunnyvale.ca.us Whitney McNair, Metropolitan Planning Group 650 - 938 -1111 wmcnair @mplanninggroup.com John Cherbone, Public Works Director, City of Saratoga 408 - 868 -1241 jcherbone@saratoga.ca.us 2. BASELINE Environmental Consulting Therese Brekke, CEQA Manager, Bayview Waterfront EIR, Lennar Urban 415 -344 -8853 therese.brekke @lennar.com Kitty Walker, AICP, Redevelopment Program Manager, City of Stockton 209- 937 -8811 kitty.walker@ci.stockton.ca.us Mr. Ray Boyer, District Branch Chief, Hazardous Waste Branch, Caltrans District 4 510 -286 -5668 ray_boyer@dot.ca.gov 47 O:\ PROPOSAL \11028•Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) - LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES JUNE 2011 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR CITY OF CUPERTINO C. CONTRACT AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS LSA reviewed the one -page consulting agreement teat was sent to us on May 4, 2011. We would suggest replacing the word "contractor" with "consultant "; otherwise no further changes are requested. However, from an e-mail from Gary Chao on June 17, 2011, WE understand that the consultant boilerplate will replace the agreement sent on May 4. As it has not been reviewed by LSA's administrative team, we respectfully reserve the right to comment on its provisions. LSA meets or exceeds the insurance requirements of the City of Cupertino. • 0 \PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/2a/2011) 48 EXHIBIT B 6. COST PROPOSAL For the scope of work set forth in this proposal and Chart 1: Generic Billing Rate Breakdown accomplished according to the schedule outlined in ($100 Rate) Section 3, the LSA team proposed a total budget not to exceed $368,571. A detailed breakdown of the budget is included in Table 3. Profit, $9 A generic billing rate breakdown for LSA staff (including overhead, salary, and profit) is shown in Chart 1. Salary, $35 Overhead, $56 Finance: 110 -2211 BS 14108 $370,000.00 O:\PROPOSAL \1102 &Apple Campus 2 EIR\Apple Campus Proposal.doc (6/28/2011) 49 O ..- r J I r f F. . - _ t W N N .� T _ S T W N r O p 00 .4 OA VI A W N ... S T S OO �1 Q. D A W N— O rntnm' .. .. H _ � ci ' dztot7v?cn - 7y Er B o a z _ _ v n o d I o, ° c y a— _ ° ° -. w x H g � y m — 7. D = o y °3 °-= H m — o 'Vq .: py E d - - = y G' w C . F. o 4 _ p � d w m v a o x m . rn _ _ i 1 0. p ' o i— w"g - o w o P m tt ; b an d - C H , a o - B w 0, — 0 0 o, rn cm 70 .. f " o �.- i 5 = - 1 _ _ w - f y cn 1 y y y o , y to v, O • O • O• e • O• C — O O O O C s ^ CI 0 0 ., i i i i - • '' ✓ -1 .. �., 'r G G b 1C` i1" 00 00 7C 00 A ' c) .1 to ^ b n - w a f • Principal (Malamut) 0 N O, 00 N O, N N O, IA N N N N 00 A. -A.N...-.A.A.A A J N NO NNW ▪ Project Manager 4. _ '^ (Weinstein) 00 Q a, o, O A A 00 A 001'0 , 00 O A — U O — A N W • Planner Park N 00 a. 00 O A O, O A 0A O 00 O N O T N N a. W 00 N W N (Park) Word Processing • (Cronan) ✓ 0 A A a, O, r ' W W N N N N A-- • N N N-- ■-■ N -- • Graphics /Production U. (Linder) m N A A O, 00 0 P O, o — A — N N N N N A o O A N A e N.0 a j m N a j 12 44 N t2 12 H rH. H H H tf A. H H H .. :: Project Management (and Non - H H H N W W O H H N W H H ▪ N J N J It II O Y.3 O i-1 J p p r N TO O 00 N . 00 N 1, O J a J technical Analysis) Subtotal 00 • 000 0 O O V 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00i 00 O O O 0 O T. Cultural Resources ° (Pulcheon) N A A 0 P co a, a, O N N Cultural Resources o 00 rn O 0 0 0 o co `d' O 00 a, u (Jones) Fn H H H H Cultural Resources Analysis ▪ H H A n 1.+ L+ 0 0 Subtotal J , H O H H 0 O 0 0 H N H H H H H H H H H H O H H H H O H J H H H H H N 0 VA - 0 O O O O P O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f • Biology Task Manager a o O 0 0 `^ (Lacy) 0o ao 0 as o. - i. Biologist l A O o N A 00 ° (Sidle) a, O 0 t co o Biologist o co o 0 o 0 o co co "" (Van der Leeden) • Arborist/Botanist A (Milliken) o o 00 o A A O O NW H H H . Biological Resources Analysis � J • 4 ,4,4,4,4, H O, H co J H H H H H H H H H co J H H H H A H H H H H W O Subtotal O o 0 0 0 o 0 C O 00000000000000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T. Principal 01 0 0 P 0 • (Chung) Cr, T N N N co O Associate W A ,4 e A A U (Fischer) 0 A 0100 0 0 o O I.N AA Specialist O N o O O " (AultBrugger) O O, NA O P o sA so) o N Air Quality, Noise, and 696949 H u, H H Greenhouse Gas Emissions O0 J T o V1 A o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° O o Analysis Subtotal - co. 5y �y H O 00 H fHI( ,HO 00 N W V O H , OH, 0 J pe T H 4, H V O H . T N W W Y b — H H N W H T W N LSA Total V V V O O O O o O p 0 N O O 00 O O 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 O O O GA V O O O O O PrincipaUSenior Hydrogeologist ? _ _ _. .. N A a A O A A (Abelli - Amen) .i - - - ., O O O t r } a � . 7rr L7 ',�H 7' T T w n, ? Fn r X v < m r T _ T ■ n� y .. o _ C21 n ro� y �� t7 _ — =� r °.v F y ' o rn R z O � '' R v Q E - d O r w V) o 6 o g9'- a ,•• o b i n° to t ; rn r r O� - < 1,. O _ O J ,, 0 ^ — w .. - R - i i • i m 5 X A , A. A . A , - R C Principal IN ai N (Malamut) J A O A - O ON oc ON Project Manager A w en b N N A '^ (Weinstein) A w ON 0 Oo N N A Co 0 Planner © o w e o oe a o N A u (Park) Word Processing 0 °., o o N o 0 N — o (Cronan) e A oo Graphics /Production e A N 5 " (Linder) to o O o o .. oo u at :: GA es o vi o t � , � ' " ,, Project Management (and Non- Y w r A A IN u ' " o 00 o 0 technical Analysis) Subtotal 0 o U o o U o O o o o V o IA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cultural Resources '" o o o 0 0 (Pulcheon) N Cultural Resources " (Jones) N N O O O O N A Oo `*- Cultural Resources Analysis IN CA VI ill9 V VI i A fn j H 4l 4) 41 p H O O Subtotal – O 8 O 8 O 8 co O O O O O O O O f 0 0 0 0 0 — j Biology Task Manager N U (Lacy) 0 O O , o O T N A Biologist e, (Sidle) co © O O O N A co Biologist 0 0 0 0 0 0 `" (Van der Leeden) Arborist/Botanist " (Milliken) P © O O O O 1 ;A _ vt w Biological Resources Analysis 0 4 rn ss y y w Subtotal 6. o .. vs vs ov9 � ' , ON 0 0 0 0 0 0 = o o O O o O o 0 0 - Principal 0 ON 0 0 0 0 0 (Chung) Associate .. o o o o r :, " INS `" (Fischer) A o 1 Specialist co 0 0 0 0 co eo `" (AultlBrugger) 41 I Air Quality, Noise, and I N N Greenhouse Gas Emissions IA IA 4r Hi EA lA 4) 0 0 o o o O A o o A IA 0 Analysis Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ :: v, 41 0 O o r r v o e LSA Total IA N K 41 re A OD n LA i+ 1:. O , .O , D p r N In J J re O� o o O O LT, O Vr O o O Principal/Senior vt Hydrogeologist ` a © o © O N N O (Abelli -Amen)